Ukraine faces a daunting spring counteroffensive amid scarce resources
Ukraine endured an initial struggle to obtain basic weapons and anti air defense systems, then fought to secure more advanced tanks and, later, vast ammunition stocks. In a war where a shot can ring out every second, everything in hand can vanish quickly. Today the challenge is even tougher. Kyiv aims to push back and reclaim land in the coming spring, but that plan demands a massive troop presence—roughly three times the size of the defending forces. There are lingering doubts about the availability of enough personnel. The West, which supplies most of the military equipment, is unlikely to provide large numbers of troops on the ground. Meanwhile, Russia has exploited months of stalemate by fortifying trenches and defensive positions in the country’s eastern regions.
Historically, the three to one rule has guided attack planning: the attacker needs a force roughly three times larger than the defender to have a viable chance of success. This rule remains flexible. Superior technology, intelligence on enemy movements, or missiles with greater reach can tilt the balance and reduce the required ratio.
The total size of Russian forces stationed in eastern Ukraine remains uncertain. At the war’s outset, estimates spoke of about 150,000 soldiers ready to launch the invasion. Since then, there have been numerous rounds of conscription and, unfortunately, tens of thousands of casualties. Still, the scale implies a substantial demand for Ukrainian troops to mount a successful counteroffensive.
Ukraine is modernizing its armed forces with Western arms, yet losses on the battlefield persist. The hope rests on deploying modern tank battalions supplied by Western partners: 14 British Challenger 2s, around 150 German Leopards, and approximately 30 American Abrams tanks have been cited. There are even talks about fighter jets, a topic that has moved from rumor to diplomatic discussion in some capitals. The lingering question remains: where will the soldiers come from to use these tools?
Ukrainian counterattack and leaked documents
In a recent large leak of Pentagon documents, U.S. military advisors warned that shortages of troops, ammunition, and weapons could push Kyiv’s counteroffensive off its planned trajectory. The plan had envisaged launching the spring operation to regain ground held by Russia.
One analyst noted that exact troop numbers are unclear, but there appears to be preparation for new operations involving several army units and tens of thousands of volunteers. A senior adviser to the EU External Action Service described Ukraine as reserving forces for an ambitious push, noting that a corps can represent two to five divisions and that the operation would require strategic leadership at the lieutenant general level. Ground realities, including delays in weapons shipments from partners, have taken a toll on experienced units and on newly mobilized formations that lack the same level of training.
The media has reported on the strain this places on Ukraine’s combat strength. A veteran observer pointed out that while Ukraine has a capable backbone, recent manning and supply gaps complicate the prospect of a rapid, large-scale offensive.
The medium term plan emphasizes faster training for soldiers. The European Union aims to train 30,000 Ukrainian troops this year, with Britain targeting another 20,000. Training focuses on building a steady flow of trained manpower, strengthening command structures, and elevating officers who have been detached from the front lines. This approach seeks to sustain Ukraine’s military endurance over time.
What would constitute victory for Ukraine?
There are no confirmed casualty figures. Some intelligence assessments put injuries and losses on both sides in tens or hundreds of thousands. Other Western estimates suggest similar ranges for both Ukrainian and Russian forces. The path to victory is not a simple disappearance of the opponent; it is about achieving strategic gains while avoiding a protracted stalemate that exhausts both sides. A hard, complete capitulation of Russia seems unlikely, given the scale of its forces and the political tenacity of its leadership.
The question remains what the ultimate goal looks like. A decisive, total defeat of Russia would be a long shot; the more realistic aim is to regain control over key territories and impose cost on Moscow to push negotiations. Even if Ukrainian forces reclaim some territories, the risk of future clashes remains as Russia rebuilds and regroups. In practice, a successful counterattack would hinge on swift, surprising strikes at multiple points that force Russia to rethink its positions and potentially withdraw from strategic footholds, including the peninsula of Crimea, to seek a more favorable balance of risk and compromise.
The Ukrainian government has begun tempering Western expectations about a sweeping spring counterattack. Foreign ministers and senior officials have urged restraint in predicting a final, decisive battle this season. A major concern highlighted in leaked documents is air defense deterioration. If Ukrainian air defense falters before May, Russia could gain air superiority and complicate large scale troop movements on the ground. Analysts note that Russia’s overall strategy has increasingly centered on wearing down Ukrainian forces rather than pursuing an immediate, decisive clash, while Russia also fortifies lines to raise the cost of any Ukrainian advance.
Experts warn that the magnitude of troops needed for a successful offensive remains enormous. The defense of long front lines and strategic fortifications will require substantial manpower. If Kyiv cannot secure reliable equipment and enough trained personnel, the chances of a wide, decisive breakthrough diminish. Still, analysts stress that even limited success could alter the strategic calculus and push Moscow toward negotiations rather than risk further escalation.
Overall, the situation remains fluid. The outcome depends on the balance of continued Western support, timely arms deliveries, and the resilience of Ukrainian forces under sustained pressure. The path forward will likely involve a combination of intensified training, improved logistics, and operational flexibility to seize opportunities as they arise, with the goal of restoring enough leverage to shape the war’s trajectory without exposing the country to unsustainable risk.
In the end, observers emphasize that the war’s trajectory will hinge on a mix of surprise actions, the pace of international assistance, and Ukraine’s ability to convert steady gains into a sustainable strategic advantage. The coming months will reveal whether a carefully managed, limited offensive can alter the broader balance of forces on the ground and push negotiations toward a more stable outcome.