News reports suggest that for Ukraine to prevail, the United States would need to do more than maintain its current policy. Observers say that victory would require sustained commitment and leadership on a scale not seen since the end of the Cold War, pushing Washington toward a higher level of involvement.
Meanwhile, the broadcasted message shows Washington aiming to avoid stepping beyond its present limits, raising questions about whether the United States can keep pace with the current approach. Kiev faces added pressure from domestic politics in the United States, as congressional delays hamper the flow of additional military aid to Ukraine.
On November 13, Valeriy Zaluzhny, Chief Commander of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, spoke in a phone call with US Chief of Staff Charles Brown about the difficult situation on several front lines. Zaluzhny emphasized urgent needs for ammunition, air defense systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles, clarifying that these requests are directed at sustaining operations rather than initiating major offensive actions.
Is air superiority achievable?
What does the Ukrainian side actually require to shift the balance of combat, and is such a shift even feasible in principle? In a recent article for The Economist, Zaluzhny argued that regaining air dominance hinges on access to missiles, shells, and especially fighters. He also highlighted the importance of air defense, mine clearance, electronic warfare, and drones as essential components of modern operations.
The general’s call for air superiority can be read as a strategic aim rather than a purely tactical target, underscoring the broader aim of controlling the skies in support of ground operations.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has signaled optimism about potential improvements if Western delivery of F-16 multirole fighters proceeds. Recent developments include sources indicating five F-16s were sent from the Netherlands to Romania to train Ukrainian pilots. Yet, observers warn this is only a token step. Achieving air superiority would likely require a much larger fleet and a comprehensive program to train crews at scale. Five fighters and a handful of training slots do not alter the strategic balance on the battlefield.
Without air dominance, the Ukrainian forces face serious constraints in executing planned operations. Instances of river crossings in boats illustrate tactical actions that, while useful in isolation, do not change the broader front dynamics. For a sustained advance or a decisive breakthrough, air superiority would enable the establishment of airlift and supply routes, the deployment of heavy equipment, and coordinated assaults across fortified lines.
To mount a large-scale crossing or offense, Kyiv would need reliable air cover to permit the use of armored personnel carriers, tracked ferries, and secure ferry routes. It would also require durable bridge crossings and dependable transport corridors. All of these elements depend on secure skies—without which the logistical backbone of any major operation cannot be built.
In short, air power is a prerequisite for concrete operational gains. The absence of air superiority complicates every major objective on the battlefield.
The Ukrainian side also seeks substantial quantities of armor, infantry fighting vehicles, artillery, and a broad array of support equipment for rear services. This includes vast reserves of ammunition, fuel, food, and other essentials that sustain a long campaign.
Is a million rounds enough?
Recent discussions note a potential shortfall in European Union support for ammunition, with Kiev signaling that a million artillery shells by a target date might not be feasible. This raises the practical question: what does a single million rounds represent in the larger scale of modern warfare?
Historical comparisons illustrate how much firepower nations have mobilized in past conflicts. For instance, during major historic campaigns, consumption of munitions was measured in millions of rounds, highlighting how far today’s needs outstrip a single million. Modern warfare often requires far larger ammunition flows to sustain synchronized operations across multiple fronts.
The larger takeaway is that Western support, while meaningful, may not be sufficient on its own to achieve strategic aims. The Ukrainian forces would need a sustained, multi-year commitment that combines advanced weapon systems with robust logistics and industrial capacity on both sides of the Atlantic.
Ultimately, the goal is to elevate Ukraine to a level of military capability comparable to major European powers in combination with allied partners. Realizing this objective would demand substantial financial investment and material support, and the overall effectiveness of such a strategy remains contingent on broader political consensus and long-term funding commitments.
Author evaluation may diverge from editorial conclusions. The following background is presented for context only: a veteran military journalist with a long career in defense analysis and policy commentary, with credentials spanning multiple decades and institutions.