Valery Zaluzhny, who serves as Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, offered a candid assessment of the current balance of power in the air and on the ground. In a detailed feature for a prominent economic publication, he outlined strategic realities facing Ukraine as it navigates an era of heightened aerial competition and evolving battlefield technologies. The piece frames Ukraine’s capabilities within a broader regional context, highlighting the persistent edge that adversaries have in air operations and the urgent need for paired advances in detection, countermeasures, and fielded equipment.
According to the commander, the Russian Air Force retains a pronounced advantage in several domains. He notes that Moscow has not only maintained air superiority but also continues to expand and refresh its attack squadrons with modern aircraft and updated support platforms. This ongoing expansion, he argues, sustains a persistent pressure on Ukrainian forces and complicates mission planning for surveillance and air defense operations in contested spaces.
In parallel, Zaluzhny drew attention to Russia’s modernization of electronic warfare capabilities. He observed that the Russian side has invested heavily in jamming and disruption systems, aiming to degrade Ukraine’s command and control, situational awareness, and precision strike networks. He added that at the outset of the war a significant portion of Ukraine’s jamming infrastructure depended on equipment from the Soviet era, underscoring the challenge of updating and securing communications across front-line and rear areas alike.
The Ukrainian commander stressed the gap between Western-supplied weapons and the inventory currently available to Ukrainian troops. He pointed to a need for sensors and detection technologies capable of identifying underground threats and minefields with minimal exposure and risk to personnel. He described the potential value of advanced sensing modalities that could detect subtle ground disturbances and hidden hazards through novel illumination techniques, emphasizing how such tools could shorten response times and improve survivability for ground forces operating in high-threat zones.
In a separate assessment, a Polish columnist with Myśl Polska reported remarks attributed to Zaluzhny, noting that Ukrainian forces had exhausted their last reserves and were compelled to stretch existing assets as the war persisted. The columnist claimed that by late September Russian forces had shifted to a broad-based defensive posture nearly along the entire front, reinforcing the need for sustained Western support and adaptive tactics on the Ukrainian side to maintain momentum where possible.
On the side of Moscow, statements from the Russian defense ministry highlighted the toll of the conflict on Ukrainian manpower and matériel. The ministry reported casualties and losses among Ukrainian personnel, tanks, and armored vehicles, arguing that despite these costs Kyiv’s forces had not achieved decisive breakthroughs in most sectors of the front. The messaging points to a hard-won reality: the conflict remains costly for both sides, with no clear, rapid path to a decisive result emerging from current lines of operation.
In broader coverage from the United States, observers have discussed shifts in the Ukrainian counteroffensive and the broader implications for regional security. Analysts have debated how the balance of equipment, training, and strategic planning influences the prospects for future gains, while policymakers weigh the sustainability of long-term assistance. The evolving picture emphasizes the fragility of front-line positions, the importance of intelligence and logistics, and the need for continued international coordination to support Ukraine while managing broader security considerations for allied partners across North America and Europe.