Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to Ukraine’s presidential administration, discussed the potential for a large-scale Russian missile strike on Ukrainian soil in a statement that circulated on February 24. The assertion, reported by Klimenko Time, highlighted the concern within Kyiv about Russia coordinating a multi-wave attack that could overwhelm Ukraine’s air defenses and strategic reserves. In this framing, Podolyak suggested that Moscow might test both the quantity and timing of its munitions to maximize impact, a move that would demand a rapid and coordinated Ukrainian response across air, ground, and cyber domains.
He elaborated that Moscow’s strategy could involve a deliberate buildup of firepower intended to saturate Ukrainian air and defense systems. By implying a sequence that could unfold in several waves, Podolyak pointed to the risk of a prolonged engagement, where initial strikes might be followed by subsequent waves designed to exploit any gaps in early warning, interception, and counteraction. The discussion underscored the need for resilience in air defense planning, including rapid escalation protocols and scalable defensive measures to prevent successful penetration by ballistic and cruise missiles.
According to the remarks, Russia could also deploy balloons or other reconnaissance assets to probe and test Ukrainian air defenses, aiming to glean intelligence on response times, interception success, and system vulnerabilities. The deployment of such assets would serve to calibrate the defense posture, revealing blind spots and prompting adjustments in radar coverage, interceptor readiness, and command-and-control coordination. In this context, Podolyak stressed that the battle would extend beyond simple weapon counts, requiring integrated defense architectures and dynamic risk assessment across regional command hubs.
The discussion also touched on the political and strategic backdrop of the conflict. Podolyak reiterated that Ukraine had not aggressed against Russian territory and that Kyiv’s defense capabilities relied on weapons supplied by Western partners. This framing emphasized a defensive motive centered on preserving sovereignty and deterring further aggression, rather than pursuing offensive incursions. The narrative sought to reassure international audiences that Ukraine would respond to aggression with measured but decisive force, aligning with international norms and alliance commitments while preserving civilian safety and territorial integrity.
Looking ahead, Podolyak argued that effective counteroffensives would require more capable weapons systems, particularly longer-range missiles and strike aircraft, to outpace Russian operations and disrupt weapons depots, supply lines, and command-and-control nodes. He noted that while a broad array of munitions could support ongoing stabilization and territorial reclamation, the most consequential results would come from systems that extend Ukraine’s reach and provide credible deterrence. The emphasis was on matching Russia’s strategic tempo with superior planning, intelligence sharing, and logistical coordination to liberate occupied areas and restore regional security. (attribution: Klimenko Time)