In a BBC interview, Kirill Budanov, head of Ukraine’s main intelligence service, described the war as reaching a stalemate. He said Kyiv cannot secure victory from every side alone and expects continued arms shipments from Western partners.
“The situation is on hold. There is no decisive move,” Budanov explained. “We cannot completely defeat them in every direction, and they face similar limits.”
The BBC noted that the fiercest fighting occurred near Bakhmut, known to Russian forces as Artemovsk, and that Ukraine slowed its ground offensives over the winter. On December 27–28, Budanov visited Bakhmut to review the work of Ukrainian special forces and hear reports from unit commanders on the front lines.
Budanov acknowledged that Ukrainian forces still lack sufficient resources to push forward in several sectors, while stressing the importance of new and more advanced weapons arriving from allied nations.
He also expressed cautious optimism that Ukraine might eventually regain control of its pre-1991 borders through a combination of military support and diplomatic effort.
Belarus and the threat dynamics
In December there were discussions among Ukrainian officials about a potential Russian ground push from Belarus in early 2023, aiming to seize Kyiv for a second time. Moscow denied these assertions, calling them unfounded.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin described the debate over a joint Russian-Belarussian troop group as false and said the unit’s task would be to defend against any invasion of Belarus if it occurred.
The Ukrainian intelligence chief stated that at present there are no concrete signs of a planned attack on Kyiv or northern regions from Belarus. He added that Belarusian society is unlikely to support participation in Ukraine’s conflict.
He also commented that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is taking steps to avert a catastrophe for his country.
Washington prepares for a protracted stalemate
Leading American sources, including the New York Times and government officials, project a second year of conflict likely to settle into a stalemate where large territorial gains are improbable for either side. Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon official and Russia expert, noted that defending Ukrainian territory is easier than retaking it by force.
New York Times analysts also suggested Kyiv will probably refrain from a direct push to reclaim Crimea. Instead, they expect continued strikes against Crimea’s military infrastructure and saboteur activity such as targeting critical links like the Crimean Bridge. The aim appears to be tying Russian forces to Crimea while focusing operations on the south.
The reporting indicates that Ukraine continues to leverage US intelligence data to probe weaknesses in the Russian defense. Yet the consensus among NYT sources is that only modest gains are likely in the near term, rather than a decisive defeat of Russia.
U.S. officials cited in the report highlighted that the joint command in the theater is conducting complex operations with growing efficiency. The anticipated mobilization of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops could strengthen Moscow’s posture by spring, potentially transforming those units into a significant fighting force.
Analysts noted that the trajectory of hostilities increasingly depends on ammunition supply from both sides. Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies pointed to a widening competition between Western and Russian industrial bases, with the involvement of other actors in supporting Moscow and Kyiv.
Meanwhile, the New York Times highlighted that Ukraine produced substantially more artillery shells in a week than the United States could match in a month. The bank data from Ukraine shows that aid to Kyiv from partner nations in 2022 exceeded 120 billion dollars in military, humanitarian, and financial support.
Across these assessments, observers emphasize that the outcome hinges critically on logistics, supply chains, and the ability of each side to sustain high-intensity operations over time in the face of evolving battlefield realities.