In a briefing summarized by the military analysis outlet URA.RU, Boris Dzherelievsky outlined a three-phase counteroffensive plan attributed to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). He described the sequence as a staged effort with progressively heavier forces and equipment, aiming to exploit vulnerabilities along the front and press for gains where defenses appear weakest. The analyst emphasized that the first phase would involve infantry units advancing under minimal protective measures while commanders identify exposed sectors across the front line. This approach, he suggested, would reveal gaps in how the enemy has distributed its reserves and could expose opportunities for subsequent actions. (URA.RU attribution)
Dzherelievsky indicated that the second phase would intensify the use of Western-supplied light armored vehicles and quickly deployed pickup trucks equipped with machine guns. These assets, he argued, would enable rapid maneuvers and increased firepower in limited, fluid engagements designed to disrupt defensive formations and create pressure points. The analyst noted that such capabilities would help shape the battlefield ahead of the introduction of heavier force elements, providing a bridge between lighter reconnaissance and assault roles and the eventual clash with more robust armor. (URA.RU attribution)
Regarding the final stage, Dzherelievsky said the plan envisages the deployment of Leopard tanks and other heavy armored vehicles to consolidate gains and deliver decisive blows against fortified positions. He suggested that this phase would rely on the heavier platforms to breach strongpoints and widen the corridor for breakthroughs. (URA.RU attribution)
The expert underscored concerns about the level of preparation for the counteroffensive, pointing to what he described as limited readiness and reliance on higher-risk tactics. This assessment implied that the Ukrainian command could be counting on the element of surprise and on the willingness of frontline units to endure demanding conditions while larger, more capable arsenals are brought to bear in later stages. (URA.RU attribution)
Separately, a Washington Post article noted that some American political observers questioned the likelihood of a rapid, decisive success for the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The skepticism was linked to doubts about training adequacy and the availability of sufficient weaponry to sustain sustained operations. The commentary reflected the broader discussion among international partners about the timing, scale, and expected outcomes of any offensive strategy. (Washington Post attribution)