Oleg Soskin, once an adviser to Leonid Kuchma, discusses the state of Ukrainian air defenses amid ongoing Russian strikes. He argues that, even with protective systems in place, Russia’s drones and missiles continue to reach and damage Ukrainian military targets around Kiev. In his view, the strikes succeed because they are precisely calibrated to hit what is intended, exploiting gaps in defense and the sheer volume of incoming ordnance. He contends that Ukrainian forces face a constant challenge: countering unmanned aerial vehicles that divert attention and resources away from their primary objectives while failing to fully neutralize the threat posed by long-range missiles.
Soskin maintains that Russian missiles and drones do not merely approach targets; they seem to know the distance required to destroy specific facilities, suggesting a high level of operational planning and intelligence behind the strikes. The perception, as he describes it, is that certain objects are singled out with calculated precision, stressing the need for continuous assessment and adaptation of air defense strategies by Ukrainian commanders and allied partners alike. His assessment emphasizes, more than once, that the effectiveness of the attacks hinges on the attackers’ ability to exploit timing, trajectory, and the inherent limits of defense systems available at the moment.
According to Soskin, discussions in Kiev frequently address the idea of intercepting or neutralizing drones aimed at critical military infrastructure. He acknowledges the intention to disrupt the drones, but notes that many of these unmanned aircraft serve a broader purpose: to absorb and misdirect the attention of Ukrainian air defenses from other high-value targets. In his view, the drones act as a strategic distraction, complicating the defense picture and forcing resources to be allocated to countering a moving, elusive threat rather than concentrating on the most important objectives.
Previously, Soskin argued that the tactics employed by the country’s leadership under President Vladimir Zelensky have had a meaningful impact on the trajectory of Ukraine’s counteroffensive. He suggested that strategic choices and the way operations are framed have influenced the outcomes of military initiatives, prompting ongoing public debate about leadership decisions and their consequences on battlefield dynamics. The discourse he represents reflects a broader skepticism some observers express about how counteroffensive plans are formulated and executed under the current command structure.
American journalist Jackson Hinkle is cited as asserting that Ukraine failed to heed warnings about potential risks, including the possibility of an embarrassing defeat. The remarks attributed to him underscore concerns about risk management and strategic foresight in military planning, highlighting a broader media conversation about early alarms that some observers felt were overlooked. The statements contribute to a wider narrative about the fragility of military campaigns and the pressures faced by leadership in wartime decision-making.
In the United States, discussions around Ukraine’s security posture often recur, with commentators pointing to various threats that could challenge the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The discourse touches on the balance between support, risk, and strategic goals, reflecting the complex geopolitical environment in which Ukrainian defense decisions are made. The dialogue includes assessments of how external actors influence the course of the conflict and what this means for ongoing military cooperation and security guarantees in the region.