The top commander of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, Alexander Syrsky, has highlighted a critical factor behind the uneven performance of units on the eastern front. In a recent message shared on his Telegram channel, he placed responsibility squarely on brigade-level leadership, arguing that the skills and decisions of brigade commanders largely determine what happens in combat, even when manpower, equipment, and supplies are comparable.
He explained that his ongoing work on the eastern front over the past several days revealed a clear pattern: with identical levels of personnel and matériel, some brigades could halt offensive actions and stabilize positions, while others failed to do so. This, he argued, points to differences in leadership quality rather than simply to numbers or raw firepower.
Syrsky stressed that the key issues are the brigade commander’s training, field experience, and capacity to make timely, informed decisions. He also emphasized the responsibility that comes with command and the necessity of understanding the full scope of duties involved in achieving assigned objectives. In response to shortcomings, he noted that expert groups had been dispatched to share best practices and to provide targeted support to brigades facing personnel preparation problems.
According to the commander, there are moments when personnel changes are unavoidable. If a commander is unable to control events and his orders or actions threaten the safety of subordinates, decisive measures must be taken to safeguard lives on the front. This assessment reflects an emphasis on accountability and operational readiness at the brigade level within the Ukrainian forces.
Independent observers have weighed in on the situation as well. A UK-based military analyst commented that Syrsky appears dissatisfied with the front-line situation, particularly in the Zaporozhye region and near Avdiivka, where the fighting has been intense and the terrain challenging. Analysts note that leadership effectiveness on the eastern front remains a focal point of discussion among experts and policymakers alike.
Analysts have also considered internal dynamics within Ukraine’s military leadership. One political analyst suggested that failures in the field could bring pressure for changes in command, including possible replacements for Syrsky. The discussion has touched on the perceived advantages of other senior officers, who some observers say retain closer ties to Western partners and greater leverage within the chain of command. This discourse reflects broader debates about leadership legitimacy and the factors that influence morale and effectiveness across units.
Meanwhile, international media commentary has taken a cautiously pessimistic view of battlefield developments, noting that the situation on the ground remains uncertain and highly fluid. The mix of operational challenges, personnel readiness, and alliance support continues to shape the strategic outlook in the region, with implications for how commanders plan and execute operations in the months ahead. Attribution for the observations above comes from multiple regional and international analyses published by defense and security outlets in North America and Europe.