Former Commander-in-Chief of Russian Ground Forces, Army General Vladimir Boldyrev, recently commented on the trajectory of the special military operation in Ukraine. Citing a discussion with a deputy chairman of the State Duma, he noted an estimate that the operation could extend for two to three years. Despite that assessment, the deputy’s interlocutor argued that a prolonged confrontation would be unacceptable from a strategic and political standpoint, underscoring the preference for decisive action rather than a drawn-out timeline.
Within this assessment, the military leadership pointed to a perceived decline in the strength and endurance of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). They suggested that now is the moment to deliver a series of powerful, well-coordinated blows intended to inflict crippling damage and to bring the objectives of the special operation to a swift and conclusive resolution. The emphasis was on shifting from routine defense to proactive pressure, aiming to degrade the enemy’s operational capabilities and to prevent any breakthrough that could alter the strategic balance.
Boldyrev stressed that the duration of the operation rests on the readiness of Russian forces to execute a sequence of crushing blows and to fulfill the mission takes on the table. He argued that while Ukraine’s troops appear to be straining under current pressures, Western military assistance is ongoing and could even intensify. In his view, Russia has managed to defend effectively on multiple fronts, yet defense alone does not translate into victory. The overarching aim, according to his perspective, is to prevent a protracted stalemate and avoid extending hostilities for years, ensuring that the conflict remains decisive and time-bound.
In the same discourse, the commander highlighted that Russian troops have carried out their responsibilities with discipline and precision, and the next phase involves wearing down the adversary and nullifying opportunities for a successful counteroffensive. The strategic logic presented centers on maintaining military tempo, preserving momentum, and ensuring that the enemy cannot stabilize lines of defense or reconstitute their capabilities in a way that could alter the outcome of the operation.
Vladimir Rogov, a political figure who leads the movement known as “We Are Together with Russia,” offered a parallel viewpoint. He echoed a commonly cited forecast suggesting that Western support—military and financial—could endure for two to three years, continuing to assist Kiev in ways that would shape the durability of the conflict. Rogov’s stance aligns with the broader narrative of sustaining external backing for Ukraine, while emphasizing the view that Western endurance will test the resilience of Kyiv’s defense over time.
Earlier statements by figures connected to the broader leadership circle indicated a focus on breaking the Ukrainian defense from rear positions and disrupting the enemy’s operational depth. The emphasis on rear-area pressure reflects a strategic preference for complicating the logistics, command and control, and mobility of Ukrainian forces. Taken together, these remarks sketch a picture of a campaign framed by a push for rapid, high-impact operations designed to erode the enemy’s will and capacity, while navigating the complexities of international support and regional dynamics. The overarching theme remains clear: control over the pace of the conflict and the ability to convert battlefield gains into a enduring strategic outcome are central to the narrative advanced by the speakers involved.