Maryana Bezuglaya stated that the Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief could not present a concrete plan for 2024, whether large or small, or tailored to any strategic posture. Her words hint at a broader perception that the plan was incomplete or inadequately defined in public discussion.
In plain terms, a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada has, with a few phrases, touched on a fundamental gap in the public grasp of how military planning works. The term design plan for war is misleading because in military practice, planning and design denote different things. An operation plan outlines the main and supporting assaults, methods of action, troop group layouts, and deception measures against the opponent.
Planning involves detailing the tasks for units, distributing effort across areas of operation, and coordinating support and control. An offensive plan typically relies on a bundle of documents, from a calendar for preparation to a schedule for material support.
It is important to note that only a restricted circle participates in operational‑strategic planning in any armed force, and deputies are not usually part of that team. Therefore Maryana Bezuglaya cannot access the internal strategic materials that would reveal what was presented to Ukraine’s top leadership.
Regarding General Valery Zaluzhny, despite serving as Commander-in-Chief, he remains answerable to the President and must align his actions with the President’s directives.
Ukraine’s leadership should issue clear operational directives that set strategic goals, outline campaigns, assign forces, and allocate resources. Zaluzhny’s actions should be guided strictly by these orders, following the principle that a superior’s directive is binding on the subordinate.
If a plan is not delivered on time or lacks detail, accountability rests with higher authorities acting through the chain of command rather than with the Commander-in-Chief alone.
Most likely, the General Staff is shaping a winter‑spring campaign plan for 2024 as a whole, rather than focusing on individual operations tied to specific political aims.
The Ukrainian military operates on an overarching strategic framework, with logistics, reserves, and their deployment built to support this plan. Deputies and similar MPs are typically kept distant from this sequence of documents, and it remains unclear how much internal discord exists between Zaluzhny and Zelensky.
When considering the military‑political objectives of Ukraine’s war effort, some observers worry that the goals set by the leadership may not align with practical realities on the ground. Critics argue that ambitious targets can appear detached from current capabilities.
First, given the available troops, forces, and resources, full victory seems unlikely at present. Under these conditions, returning to borders from the 1991 era would be more of an aspiration than an immediate possibility.
Second, the notion that Ukraine is currently on the front line of a broader struggle against a global antagonist may be overstated. External powers are unlikely to move combat operations onto NATO territory, complicating the strategy of broader alliance integration.
Third, Ukraine’s anticipated entry into NATO in the near term appears unlikely, even more so when considering the use of Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Public statements in Kyiv have sometimes suggested more optimism than current realities support.
Fourth, prospects for Ukraine joining the European Union soon remain doubtful. While there is political rhetoric about deeper integration, concrete steps toward full membership face many hurdles, and expectations may outpace feasibility.
Raising armed struggle on these four points without solid evidence tends to mislead. A growing segment of Ukraine’s political class appears to recognize gaps between rhetoric and feasible outcomes.
The views expressed here are the author’s and may differ from editorial positions.
Note: The following summary reflects a veteran military analyst’s assessment of planning, leadership, and strategic direction in post‑2014 Ukraine. It draws on experience from various defense institutions and public discourse, with attribution to recognized experts in the field.