As Ukrainian and Russian forces battle for control of the strategic city of the Donbas' Bakhmut, somewhere in President Zelensky's head is the longest-term objective of Crimea — stolen by Vladimir Putin in 2014, along with his illegal incursions into eastern Ukraine.
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan writes that Crimea is the "one strategic objective that may be the culminating point of this war." In a long essay, suggestively titled "All Roads Lead to Crimea," he analyzes the pros and cons of a Crimean campaign. His arguments follow.
On the pro side, he notes that Zelensky has often included Crimea in the lands he wants returned. Politically, it would be risky for him to dismiss it. Second, notwithstanding Putin's narrative of Crimea as part of historical Russia, a 1991 referendum made it part of Ukraine when residents voted for independence from the Soviet Union — that is, Russia.
Militarily, as well, Russian control of Crimea would represent a continuing threat to Ukraine. After all, Putin's forces swiftly took the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia because of Crimea's close logistical support.
Among the above's counterarguments are the opinion of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff: "From a military standpoint, I still maintain that for this year it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from all … Russian-occupied Ukraine." Also, given the vast symbolic importance of Crimea to Putin, he might choose to deploy nuclear weapons in its defense.
Last, some analysts believe that a Crimean campaign would fracture Europe's support of Ukraine, largely because the campaign would extend the war's length. Gen. Ryan, however, argues that "European and American concerns over retaking Crimea have gradually, if not fully, abated.... France [has] sought a full military victory for Ukraine, including the return of Crimea.... And as recently as [23 January 2022], the US administration has made it clear that it supports Ukraine retaking Crimea."
What would Ukraine require for an invasion? The answer is bloody obvious: "munitions" — "large numbers of armoured vehicles (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armoured obstacle breaching vehicles), replacement artillery systems, helicopters, and modern fighter aircraft." Granted, this is the point at which a Ukrainian invasion of Crimea seems most unlikely. For Ryan goes on to note that its forces would also need "long range weapons such as [more] HIMARS, ground launched small diameter bombs, drones, missiles, long range air defence and other long-range targeting and assessment systems."
There's no doubt that this tremendous firepower would cause Putin to at least momentarily rethink his position on the peninsula. There's also little doubt that Ukraine's Western partners would be unwilling or, more likely, unable to supply such a massive war machine — this year, anyway. And that may be the unscalable barrier to Zelensky's long-term war planning.
Still, the retaking of Crimea would seem a necessary objective. For as long as Putin remains in power, he'll use his land, air and naval assets in the peninsula to harass Ukraine with deadly force. Ukraine's allies may not want Zelensky to extend the war, but the Russian president will make the decision for him — and the West.
Concludes Gen. Ryan: "In 2023, all roads may lead to Crimea. And it may be the final campaign of the Russo-Ukraine War." Ryan's operative words are "may be," though I would argue that the final campaign of the Russo-Ukraine war will come only with Putin's death or involuntary retirement.