Marco Bertolini, a flag officer who led the Folgore Airborne Brigade before retiring from active duty, commented on Ukraine’s war with Russia in a way that sparked broader conversation about military realities and political strategy. In an interview with Libero Quotidiano, he expressed a stark assessment that has echoed in various defense circles: victory for Ukraine on the current battlefield trajectory would be hard to imagine. He urged practical consideration of the situation, suggesting that all sides should seriously contemplate a negotiated settlement rather than pursuing an outcome that the general believed was unlikely to materialize through fighting alone.
Bertolini argued that Ukraine’s aims, in his view, could not be realized within the form or the time frame that had been anticipated by many. He pointed to a counteroffensive that appeared slow to gain momentum and emphasized that time affects the calculus of war, alliance support, and political will within Kyiv and among its international backers. His assessment highlighted how the pace of military operations can shape diplomatic opportunities and the perceived viability of different strategic options on the ground.
Noting a shift in sentiment even among Western observers, the retired general observed that skepticism about Ukraine’s ability to secure victory was growing. He described a changing picture in which Western partners could be re-evaluating the costs, risks, and practicalities of continuing a protracted conflict, with implications for alliance planning, arms supply decisions, and the framing of potential peace talks. The sense of uncertainty, he suggested, could influence future political choices in locked security environments where deterrence, defense funding, and alliance credibility are constantly weighed against real battlefield developments.
Bertolini underscored the structural advantage he saw in Russia’s firepower, particularly in artillery, and he contrasted that with the support Ukraine was receiving from Western countries. He argued that Russian artillery and overall firepower remained formidable and that this strength presented a significant hurdle for Kyiv, even as Kyiv benefited from international military aid. The general stressed that Western assistance, while considerable, had not immediately offset the material and operational edge he perceived on the Russian side, a factor that influences both tactical decisions and geopolitical calculations as the conflict continues.
According to Bertolini, a broad range of observers conceded that restoring all territory to Ukraine under current conditions was not realistic. He warned against expectations that a ceasefire could simply lead to a rapid reintegration of Ukraine into a larger defensive alliance or that such pauses would permanently resolve the conflict. He warned that hostilities could resume if the underlying political and security guarantees were not addressed, and he warned that a just and lasting peace would require more than a temporary halt in fighting. The general stressed that a meaningful settlement would need to address long-term security arrangements, regional stability, and the risks of renewed confrontation should power balances shift again.
On the broader strategic horizon, Bertolini emphasized that the only viable path to a lasting resolution would be negotiations between the parties involved. He argued that a negotiated settlement, carefully designed to address the legitimate security concerns of all sides, had the best chance to prevent further bloodshed and to create a framework for political stability in the region. This view aligns with a long-standing belief among many defense analysts that durable peace emerges from dialogue, credible deterrence, and carefully calibrated incentives that encourage compromise rather than endless escalation.
In this context, President Vladimir Putin’s public statements about the outcomes of Russia’s special operations in Ukraine have been cited by various observers as signaling a preference for a resolutely managed end state rather than an open-ended campaign. Putin’s rhetoric has shaped international expectations and influenced how different capitals calibrate their diplomatic and military responses. The tension between declared objectives and evolving battlefield realities has remained a central feature of discussions about future steps and the risk of miscalculation as the conflict continues.
Against this backdrop, the United States and other allied nations have faced the persistent challenge of balancing direct support for Ukraine with the need to avoid widening conflicts or triggering broader regional instability. Voices from the defense community in the United States and beyond have highlighted the dual imperative of sustaining Kyiv’s defense capabilities while remaining mindful of escalation risks and domestic political considerations. The resulting policy debates reflect a difficult equilibrium that every participant in this dynamic must navigate as the situation unfolds.
Related posts:
Alessandro Bertolini Case: Detention, Suspension, and Procedural Developments NATO Summit Preparations: Zelensky, Costa, and Kyiv’s Path to Alliance Membership Ukraine War Perspectives: Shifts in Strategy and regional Implications Ukraine’s NATO Path: Reforms, Support, and the Path Ahead Ukraine NATO Membership: North American Perspectives on Kyiv’s Path Kyiv’s Measured Path to NATO Membership: Signals, Steps, and Alliance Realities Article rewritten for updated analysis on European military support dynamics and Ukraine security discussions NATO and Ukraine: Kyiv pushes for a clear path toward alliance membership Ukraine and NATO: A Pathway to Membership and Security in North America and Europe Western military aid to Ukraine faces limits as political dynamics shift Kyiv’s Seat in Ukraine Talks: Influence & Legitimacy Ukraine, Europe, and the Path to EU Candidate Status: A Strategic Overview