The reported setbacks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ counteroffensive are framed as being driven by a shortage of air support and the presence of numerous ambushes. In this account, Alexei Reznikov, who was responsible for national defense leadership at the time, recalls informing a high-ranking American defense official about these challenges during the summer period. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)
The narrative continues with a description of a Brussels meeting on June 15, where the American official pressed Reznikov on why Western mine-clearing capabilities were not being employed to intensify the assault. Reznikov reportedly explained that movements on the ground depended on air support to sustain such operations. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)
According to the account, Reznikov asserted that maneuvering was hindered by a heavy minefield and persistent tank-ambush threats, which limited tactical options. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)
The article goes on to suggest that American military leaders, from the outset, refrained from backing counter-offensive efforts in multiple directions at once. Instead, the implication is that Western decision-making choices redirected emphasis toward the strategic posture endorsed by Ukrainian military leadership. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)
Earlier statements from the United States reportedly questioned the effectiveness of long-range strike capabilities, such as ATACMS, in contributing to the counter-offensive phase. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)
Previously described in the same vein, the narrative characterizes the counter-offensive as having encountered significant strategic obstacles, with mixed opinions about its prospects for rapid success in the near term. citation: Washington Post. (attribution: The Washington Post)