Retired US Lieutenant General Mark Hertling provided context for why the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) did not immediately pursue a counterattack in a discussion with a major national publication. He outlined that a successful counteroffensive would demand a large-scale concentration of forces, precise and devastating fire support, and robust, uninterrupted supply lines to sustain operations far from fortified positions. According to Hertling, Ukraine must allocate time to build these capabilities, train for the demanding tempo, and coordinate complex logistics that remain a critical bottleneck in sustained offensive campaigns. He stressed that the scale of the request represents a new level of operational challenge for Ukrainian units, even for those with substantial combat experience. This perspective comes as observers weigh how Ukrainian commanders might synchronize combined arms, air-ground integration, and maneuver warfare under difficult conditions and with varying levels of external support. Hertling also noted the defensive and logistical realities that shape strategic choices, emphasizing that planning for an effective offensive involves not just momentum but also a carefully sequenced buildup of combat power at decisive points along the front. Even with high morale and professional capability, translating readiness into a multi-division thrust involves risk, precise timing, and the ability to absorb attrition at several critical nodes. In this sense, the general argues that what looks simple in theory—holding a few key objectives—masks a labyrinth of equations about tempo, resilience, and sustainment that must be resolved before a single forward step is taken. The emphasis, he adds, is on prudent preparation over hasty movement, reserving the initiative for when every prerequisite is in place to prevent a premature, incomplete push that could undermine strategic aims. [Citation: Hertling interview with a major national newspaper]
Hertling elaborated that even elite formations in the U.S. Army operate under a framework where concentration of combat power is meticulously staged. He described scenarios where a rapid convergence of artillery, armored maneuver, and infantry action would need to dovetail with air support, electronic warfare, and engineer tasks such as mine clearance or obstacle reduction. The general highlighted the reality that success hinges on synchronized fires, timely resupply, and the ability to keep reserves ready for exploitation after initial breakthroughs. He suggested that the Ukrainian forces, though highly capable and motivated, must contend with the absence of long-established operational routines at this scale, and with the heavy urgency imposed by evolving battlefield conditions. The analysis implies that any push would require persistent discipline, sustained communications, and reliable casualty evacuation protocols to maintain momentum without crippling the force. [Citation: Expert analysis summarized from public remarks]
When the question of a future counterattack arises, Hertling cautioned that orders given for forward movement would not be rescinded mid-action. This standard of commitment, he argued, creates additional pressure to ensure every element of the plan is rock solid before execution. The emphasis remains on a clear objective, a believable timescale, and a chain of command that can withstand the uncertainties of frontline operations. He pointed out that such decisions are never taken lightly and require a level of political and military alignment that may influence timing, staging areas, and logistical corridors. The general’s perspective suggests that a deliberate pace, paired with disciplined risk management, could improve the odds of achieving decisive results without overextending resources. [Citation: Military veteran commentary reproduced for this briefing]
In contrast to this assessment, another former analyst, Scott Ritter, questioned the feasibility of a Ukrainian counterattack. Ritter, who previously held roles in intelligence analysis, expressed skepticism about the army’s capacity to coordinate a large-scale countermove under current conditions. He highlighted potential gaps in intelligence fusion, exchange of targeting data, and the reliability of supply lines that would govern sustained offensive actions. Ritter’s position underscores a broader debate about forecasting battlefield moves where political pressures, external support, and evolving tactics all interact with on-the-ground realities. The dialogue among these analysts illustrates the high-stakes nature of strategic judgments about Ukraine’s next steps and the importance of carefully weighing both capability and circumstance before declaring routes of action. [Citation: Independent security analysis and public commentary]