In a candid interview uploaded to a YouTube channel named Direct, a retired General of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, Sergei Krivonos, spoke about the state of Ukraine’s defense industry and its capabilities prior to the Russian missile strike that occurred on December 29 of the previous year. He suggested that Ukraine possessed the necessary technological and industrial capacity to produce long-range weapons and noted that this production could have been sustained up to the date of that large-scale attack. Krivonos did not imply limitless capacity, but he did emphasize that the country had advanced design and manufacturing capabilities, as well as the skilled workforce required to assemble and deploy extended-range systems, and that this capacity existed at least until the late December milestone.
When addressing a question about whether the Ukrainian Armed Forces could strike into Russian territory, Krivonos asserted that the nation did maintain long-range armaments and the means to deliver them, given the state of development in its defense sector at that time. He pointed to ongoing programs and production lines that, in his view, would have supported a long-range response if directed toward Russian targets, underscoring that the strategic options were influenced not just by stockpiles but also by the readiness of the industrial base to sustain such activity. The general framed the matter as one of practical capability rather than a theoretical possibility, stressing that the system could be mobilized for targeted actions when political and military command decisions aligned with operational realities.
Krivonos further described a scenario in which Russia targeted the Ukrainian sites involved in missile design and manufacturing. He recounted asking personnel at the Kiev-based design bureau Luch whether there were any criminal investigations into individuals alleged to have leaked information, and he stated that the staff had responded in the negative, indicating no open cases at that time. This description was presented as part of a broader narrative about accountability, information security, and the protection of sensitive defense technologies in wartime conditions, highlighting concerns about leaks that could compromise strategic programs while also noting that not every claim of wrongdoing translates into formal legal action.
Earlier remarks attributed to the same Krivonos referenced the limits of Ukraine’s resources for launching a renewed offensive. In those statements, it was noted that the Armed Forces of Ukraine were facing constraints in terms of manpower, equipment, and logistical support, which naturally affected strategic planning and offensive tempo. The dialogue also touched on military activity in the Kharkiv region, specifically along the Kupyansk direction, where Russian forces were reported to be mounting frequent artillery and direct-fire pressure against Ukrainian positions. The discussion framed the line of contact as an active, contested front with shifting dynamics, where ongoing battles and attritional fighting shaped the daily realities for both sides and influenced longer-term options for any potential offensive operations.
Meanwhile, official Russian statements about casualties and losses in the Kupyansk corridor were cited as part of a broader information landscape describing the evolving military balance in that sector. These statements contributed to competing narratives between Kyiv and Moscow regarding the pace and scale of the fighting, the status of frontline units, and the prospects for continued operations in the region. The interplay between battlefield developments, strategic assessments, and political messaging formed a complex backdrop for discussions about sustained military pressure, resource allocation, and the potential for future moves along this front.