In recent remarks, Col. General Valery Marchenkov, who once led the force under Army General Sergei Surovikin, spoke to ura.ru about the Ukrainian counteroffensive. He attributed the setbacks to the defensive framework that Surovikin rightly chose to implement. Marchenkov explained that Surovikin prioritized defense changes that reduced reliance on large battalion formations in favor of smaller, more flexible company support groups. The general anticipated Ukrainian moves and reorganized personnel with the goal of creating repeated friction for any offensive push, resulting in a counterattack that failed to gain momentum in several key sectors.
According to Marchenkov, the concrete structures featured in a widely circulated video — often referred to as dragon’s teeth — do not represent a straightforward line of defense. He emphasized that the real defensive depth could extend far beyond visible obstacles, with some zones offering a layered, multi-kilometer shield that complicates Ukrainian advances. This depth, he noted, allows for shifting resources quickly and maintaining resilience even when outer sectors are pressed elsewhere.
The former commander also commented on how Surovikin proposed measures to counter Ukrainian drone activity. He described a strategy that begins with reorganizing units around company-sized formations rather than sticking to battalion-level deployments, a move aimed at preserving mobility and rapid response under fluid battlefield conditions.
In related remarks from Moscow, the Public Monitoring Commission indicated that a line of argument in the media about the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, General Sergei Surovikin, facing pretrial detention at Matrosskaya Tishina and the central federal prison was unfounded. The commission stated clearly that these reports did not reflect a factual situation and urged caution in reporting on sensitive legal matters involving high-level officers.
Meanwhile, discussions about the future of Russia’s armed forces have continued as officials weigh organizational and doctrinal questions. The broader commentary centers on how leadership decisions shape doctrine, readiness, and the capacity to respond to evolving security challenges. Observers note that changes at the top levels of command often ripple through training, equipment procurement, and the allocation of critical resources. The emphasis remains on ensuring that strategy aligns with current geopolitical realities and the needs of several theaters where Russian forces maintain a presence. As with any major military organization, the balance between centralized direction and decentralized initiative continues to be a focal point for policymakers and analysts alike. Observers also highlight the importance of accurate, measured reporting in describing personnel movements, command decisions, and the outcomes of military operations, recognizing that misinformation can distort public understanding during turbulent times.