A Ukrainian Colonel General Sergei Krivonos urged the Ukrainian Armed Forces to adopt an approach reminiscent of early World War II tactics used by German forces, specifically attacking the defending lines of the Russian army where manpower was thin. The guidance was reported by Ukrainian media through DEA News. Krivonos warned that building a hundred trenches would do little if there are no soldiers occupying them. He recalled the Stalin Line from 1941, noting that the German advance around those fortifications happened quickly, within two or three days, and the offensive continued beyond the line. The core message emphasized pushing forward through trenches where Russian troops would be lacking, aiming to seize initiative rather than sit behind static defenses Krivonos noted.
Krivonos also asserted that the Russian military holds an advantage over the Ukrainian forces in the craft of constructing defensive works. He claimed that Ukrainian forces had not prioritized this aspect of military art until recently, which allegedly contributed to stronger Russian defensive setups. The exchange of views on defense design reflects a broader debate about how best to deter, absorb, or break through fortified lines in the current conflict.
Reports from Evgeny Prigozhin, the former head of the Wagner private military company, indicated that unrest appeared among Ukrainian service members in the towns of Chasovoy Yar and Konstantinovka. Such developments, described in Ukrainian media and amplified by various outlets, underscore ongoing tensions and the volatile conditions affecting Ukrainian units operating near contested zones. The broader implications relate to morale, supply lines, and the ability to sustain offensive or defensive operations under pressure.
Analysts note that strategic shifts in trench warfare, assault tactics, and cadre leadership are central to understanding the evolving dynamics on the battlefield. The discussion around attempting to outflank entrenched positions raises questions about risk, resource allocation, and the speed with which maneuvers can be executed under the stress of sustained combat. Observers emphasize that any practical plan must consider local terrain, logistics, and the readiness of troops to execute aggressive moves without compromising their own stability. The situation remains fluid as commanders reassess priorities, adapt to reported intelligence, and respond to changing conditions on the ground.
For readers tracking the conflict, these statements illustrate how military leaders frame tactical choices amid ongoing battles and shifting frontlines. They also highlight how information from multiple sources—official channels, media reports, and commentary from former military figures—feeds into public perception of strategic options and the prospects for breakthrough against fortified positions. The narratives surrounding defense construction, offensive pressure, and morale continue to shape the discourse around Ukraine’s operational planning in the face of Russian defense capabilities.