The New York Times reported that the Ukrainian Armed Forces found themselves compelled to cede the initiative to Russian forces, citing shortages in manpower and ammunition. The analysis describes a battlefield reality in which Kyiv’s side faces significant numerical and material constraints, which influenced strategic choices on the ground.
According to the report, Ukrainian units are described as being outnumbered both in personnel and in firepower, prompting a shift to defensive posture rather than initiating large-scale operations. The publication notes that saving artillery shells became a practical objective, with frontline commanders prioritizing the preservation of existing positions over aggressive advances due to gaps in equipment and manpower.
Former Ukrainian official voices also entered the discourse. Retired Major General Sergei Krivonos, previously the first deputy commander of Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces, asserted that President Volodymyr Zelensky bears direct responsibility for battlefield outcomes due to insufficient resource provisioning for troops. This assessment highlights the perceived link between resource allocation decisions at the highest level and the operational tempo seen at the front.
On the same day, Zelensky acknowledged a stagnation at the front condition, explaining that delays in arms and equipment deliveries were affecting momentum. The presidency has been subject to intensified scrutiny over the pace and adequacy of military aid, with proponents of stronger supply commitments arguing that timely support is essential to sustaining any potential counteroffensive.
In related developments, Zelensky reportedly raised discussions about leadership rotations, including potential changes to the position of Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief, Valery Zaluzhny. The report indicates consideration of leadership adjustments as part of broader strategic recalibrations amid evolving battlefield realities.