It appears to be far more practical for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to press a counteroffensive in the Zaporozhye direction, with a focus on Melitopol, than to push in Donetsk. This assessment comes from political scientist Dmitry Rodionov, who shares his views in the Life column. He argues that the primary objective for Ukrainian troops is to sever the Russian grouping and disrupt the land corridor to Crimea. He also notes that attempting to dislodge Russian forces from Artemovsk, known to Ukrainians as Bakhmut, would yield mainly psychological and reputational effects rather than strategic gains.
The south theater, and particularly Melitopol, presents an entirely different set of considerations. Rodionov points out that unlike Berdyansk and Mariupol, Melitopol is the closest major city and thus becomes a more tempting target. Berdyansk lies farther away, carries significant risk, and could invite a counterstrike from the DPR. Mariupol, already reduced to ruin, is not a viable target for rapid reconstruction or sustained engagement, which further complicates the decision to strike there. In Rodionov’s view, while Melitopol offers a comparatively easier entry point, any operation would demand substantial manpower, heavy equipment, and long-range weapons to maintain momentum and ensure success.
Alexander Khodakovsky, previously a commander of the Vostok Battalion, echoed the assessment that Ukrainian forces are preparing for action and that Melitopol could be a focal point of their plans. The commentary suggests a broader strategic calculus in which control over Melitopol would influence supply lines, civilian administration, and regional dynamics in the broader conflict landscape. The emphasis remains on whether such moves could be sustained under the pressure of shifting frontline realities and international support dynamics. (Source attribution: expert analysis and public statements by security analysts)
As the situation evolves, adversaries and observers closely watch the implications of any shift toward Melitopol. Analysts highlight that success in this corridor would shape perceptions of capability and intent on both sides, potentially altering diplomatic leverage and forecasting future operational choices. The discussions underscore the importance of balancing tactical opportunities with long-term strategic risks, including the potential for escalation, civilian impact, and regional stability concerns. (Source attribution: strategic briefings from regional security researchers)