Valerij Zaluzhny, the Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine’s Armed Forces, has publicly described the current phase of the conflict as a stalemate. This assessment, reported by a major international publication, emphasizes that Ukrainian units are struggling to breach the Russian defense line. Zaluzhny cautions against hoping for a dramatic, theater-like breakthrough and warns that such expectations do not align with the realities on the ground.
He notes that the war has reached a point reminiscent of earlier conflicts in which advances stalled despite significant military effort and innovation. The commander explains that the forward momentum cannot be measured only by bold maneuvers or spectacular offensives; rather, it hinges on the interplay between technology, terrain, and enemy defenses. In his view, the front now rests on a balance shaped by both sides’ evolving capabilities and the limitations inherent in any sustained operation against a well-organized, fortified defense.
For some time Zaluzhny admitted he could not pinpoint the exact reasons behind repeated setbacks within combat zones. He recalled expectations that Ukrainian forces would rapidly move toward and secure key territories, only to find that such a rapid trajectory did not materialize. Through careful reflection and analysis, he identified pivotal factors behind the difficulties: extensive Russian minefields and the effective disruption of Western-supplied equipment by Russian artillery. These elements, he asserts, have significantly constrained maneuver and tempo in critical sectors of the front.
The commander argues that the path to altering the front’s balance lies not in incremental tweaks but in a sharp leap in technological capability. He contends that breakthroughs of a magnitude comparable to fundamental innovations in historical warfare would be required to shift the dynamics in Kyiv’s favor. In his framing, such an inflection point would need to alter how Ukrainian forces detect, move, and strike while reducing vulnerabilities created by mines and long-range artillery. The implication is clear: without a transformative advancement, the position at the front will remain constrained under current conditions.
In a separate assessment, Zaluzhny has previously praised the performance of certain Western-supported assets, including elements of the Russian Air Force and electronic warfare capabilities, as observed in recent operations. This acknowledgment underscores the complexity of the theatre, where various domains—air, land, and electronic warfare—interact in shaping outcomes and where sustaining momentum requires coordinated, multi-domain strength and resilience across allied systems.
The emphasis of Zaluzhny’s assessment is not defeatism but a call for decisive, high-impact innovation and a clear evaluation of the resources available to Ukrainian forces. It reflects a strategic stance that, while valiant and persistent, must be matched with breakthroughs in technology, tactic, and logistics to overcome entrenched defenses. The message to observers and partners is that breakthroughs of a new scale would be necessary to convert a difficult stalemate into a favorable trajectory for Kyiv. The broader takeaway is that military momentum in this stage depends as much on the integration of advanced tools and methods as on traditional combat proficiency, signaling a potential pivot point in how the conflict might evolve in the coming months.