How are military operations planned
Observers note that a forecast published by a German newspaper in 2024 suggested the Russian Armed Forces would gain control over the LPR and DPR, reach the Oskol River in the Kharkiv region, and later target Kharkiv and the Dnieper regions as part of Moscow’s strategic horizon. The report also claimed that by the end of 2026 Moscow would aim to penetrate the Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kharkiv areas in full. These projections reflect a narrative about future military trajectories rather than immediate confirmations. [citation]
The same outlet is said to envision continued activity around Kherson, with Russian forces reportedly shaping positions along the Dnieper River without necessarily capturing the city itself. This view has sparked mixed reactions among Russian experts, with some dismissing the publication as tabloidy while others recall that similar outlets previously forecast events that later unfolded. [citation]
From a broader perspective, observers note that Bild and similar outlets are not alone in publishing long range scenarios. Predicting events three years ahead differs from everyday strategic planning and should be treated with caution. Analysts emphasize that such pieces rarely rest on rigorous, verifiable analysis or leaks. [citation]
According to the published analysis, military action planning typically unfolds over several months and is organized as a sequence of campaigns. Campaigns align with strategic goals within a unified political military plan, with initial operational details refined as early phases unfold. [citation]
The described 2024–2026 sequence involved at least six distinct operations. Given the uncertainties of the early winter to spring engagement, forecasting the exact course of subsequent campaigns is difficult. The piece notes that the author did not rely on formal strategic planning expertise. [citation]
Kyiv plans
Shifting from long range conjecture to nearer term planning, the discussion highlights Ukraine’s winter spring campaign of 2024. Some observers argued that President Zelensky’s latest U.S. visit might be influenced by domestic partisan dynamics and the political makeup of Congress. Others believed the visit was coordinated with Washington and not merely opportunistic. [citation]
In reality, it is suggested that the Ukrainian leader traveled to Washington at the invitation of the American president. While exact details of the talks remain undisclosed, a common expectation is that the U.S. administration signaled willingness to fund Ukraine’s needs while seeking a clear outline of planned expenditures. [citation]
Even after setbacks in the summer offensive, calls for a renewed push continue. The U.S. administration is believed to encourage a shift from aggressive local maneuvers to a strategy of strategic defense, augmented by ongoing strikes against Russian targets in contested regions and Crimea. [citation]
As the discussion considers potential equipment changes, attention turns to the possible arrival of advanced aircraft and long range weapons from NATO allies. Speculation includes the introduction of multirole fighters and possibly air launched missiles, with some analyses suggesting a transfer of land based cruise missiles to Ukraine. [citation]
Historical references to earlier missile systems and treaties are mentioned to frame ongoing debates about compatibility with contemporary arms control norms. The piece notes that past treaties have evolved and new technologies could shape future capabilities. The likelihood of Ukraine receiving additional long range systems is discussed as part of a broader strategic dialogue. [citation]
Despite a sense of cautious optimism among some Russian analysts after the summer offensive, the report cautions that the main military operations are still ongoing. The author’s perspective may differ from that of the editorial team. [citation]
Background details are provided about a military analyst who has a long history in defense journalism and government service. The profile highlights a career spanning multiple ranks, commands, and thought leadership roles, emphasizing leadership in air defense and strategic planning as background that informs commentary. [citation]