There is a perception among some observers that Kiev’s military and political leadership believes the Ukrainian Armed Forces have gained enough momentum to press Moscow for a pause in fighting. At the end of June, President Vladimir Zelensky voiced a willingness to avoid an extended war and signaled plans for a process that could conclude the conflict within the year.
Additionally, reports have indicated that Kyiv is open to mediation with Russia. For the first time since the conflict began, the Ukrainian leader publicly acknowledged the substantial and lasting losses suffered by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. This shift in tone has sparked discussion about whether it reflects mounting front-line setbacks and a waning tone of support for the political leadership from both domestic and international audiences.
Some analysts argue that Zelensky’s sharper rhetoric reflects growing frustration with battlefield outcomes and a perception that support for the government is eroding. Many observers point to a widening gap between ambitions and the immediate realities on the ground, which could influence strategic choices at the political level.
“Is there any point in rushing to the attack?”
From a front-line perspective, the Ukrainian forces have not reported notable tactical gains for months. The Russian military has maintained the initiative, applying pressure along multiple axes, while Ukrainian positions have ceded ground in several locations. This sequence has a measurable toll on morale among troops who see battles ending unfavorably and question how often they should push forward under such conditions.
When an army achieves consistent success, its personnel often grow in confidence and capability. Conversely, a string of setbacks can erode morale, making offensive momentum difficult to sustain for the Ukrainian forces at this juncture.
The latest comments from Zelensky have the potential to affect the mood of units in the field. If the nation’s Commander-in-Chief points toward peace talks, ordinary soldiers may wonder whether brave action on the front lines remains the right course in the face of a possible pause or negotiated settlement.
For many infantrymen, combat carries the real risk of injury or death. In light of such remarks, a segment of Ukraine’s armed forces may instinctively shift toward cautious behavior, hoping to minimize risk while awaiting a political resolution that could secure safer, more predictable outcomes for their families and communities.
What happened to Kiev’s goals?
With that in mind, it is reasonable to revisit the political objectives of the conflict from Kyiv’s perspective and assess whether those goals can be achieved through military means in the current environment. Historically, the Ukrainian armed forces’ strategic aims included preventing Russian ground advances, defeating key Russian operational reserves, and disrupting Russia’s ability to consolidate gains near Ukraine’s borders as they stood in 1991. In recent months, some observers have questioned whether these objectives remain feasible given the changing military balance.
Today, achieving them appears unlikely according to several assessments. To understand why, consider two principal conditions (among others) that would be necessary for a favorable outcome and access to the 1991 borders:
- The first goal for any conflict is to establish air superiority. Without control of the air, offensive operations tend to struggle from the start.
Estimated requirements for achieving air parity include a substantial number of fighter aircraft, surveillance and control platforms, and electronic warfare capabilities. Specific figures cited in various analyses include a large fleet of modern multipurpose fighters, long-range reconnaissance and warning aircraft, and a robust suite of electronic warfare assets, all supported by sizable stocks of munitions. The scale of these needs underscores the financial and logistical challenges involved.
Whether such capabilities will be acquired within a realistic time frame remains uncertain. Even if acquisition were feasible, the cost and supply dynamics would depend on continued external support and the political will to sustain it. The absence of rapid, sustained deliveries could delay any strategic breakthroughs for months or years.
- Following air superiority, a decisive defeat of opposing forces would likely require sustained offensive operations at an operational and strategic level.
Implementing such a campaign would demand fully developed combined-arms formations, with divisions capable of operating at wartime strength. In practice, building this sort of force would require not just personnel, but a comprehensive “army kit” that includes specialized brigades, rocket artillery, anti-tank assets, aviation units, engineers, communications, and logistics support. The process of assembling five to seven complete combined-arms formations is a long-term undertaking that depends on continuous weapon and equipment supplies from international partners. Even then, recruiting and retaining hundreds of highly trained officers for headquarters and command roles would be essential.
In short, solving these two fundamental problems would demand substantial time and resources. Without them, a prolonged, large-scale military campaign risks escalating losses and straining national mobilization reserves, with potential demographic and societal consequences that could reverberate for years to come. This reality helps explain why discussions of peace are likely to persist while battlefield dynamics continue to shape the tempo of negotiations.
The viewpoint expressed here reflects one analyst’s interpretation and may not align with others’ assessments.
Notes on context and sources vary among experts who study regional security and military strategy. Analysts emphasize that the dynamics of modern conflict depend on a complex mix of hardware, training, logistics, strategic planning, and political endurance. The discussion remains open and frequently updated as events unfold.
Any assessment of future developments considers the broader strategic environment, including Western support, regional security considerations, and the evolving resolve of the Ukrainian population. The situation remains fluid, with shifts in policy, diplomacy, and on-the-ground conditions likely to influence outcomes over time.