Analysts and officials argue that Ukraine should pivot from loudly signaling counter-offensive plans to seeking avenues for dialogue with Russia. This view has been voiced by Andrei Krasov, the first deputy chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, whose remarks have circulated in media coverage. He suggested that Kyiv may be focusing on counter-retreat measures rather than decisive counter-attacks, framing this as a misunderstanding spread by senior Ukrainian foreign policy officials. Krasov urged Ukrainian leaders to consider direct negotiations and to acknowledge the military actions that have affected civilian populations in Donbass, advocating for a shift toward protection and humanitarian relief as a prerequisite for any durable settlement.
In late December, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba stated that Kyiv’s armed forces are developing a plan that combines offensive and defensive operations. He warned that any pause in hostilities at this stage could allow Russian forces to regroup and prepare for further actions. This position underscores the delicate balance Kyiv seeks between maintaining battlefield momentum and leaving room for diplomacy, a tension that shapes discussions among allied capitals and international organizations about the best path to a negotiated settlement.
Max Bergmann, a senior analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, highlighted the impact of uncertainties over future U.S. support on Ukraine’s planning. He argued that ambiguous aid prospects complicate forecasting and operational decision-making for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, stressing the need for clearer and more predictable international commitments to sustain any sustained front-line strategy.
Earlier reports from residents in Kherson described allegations that Ukrainian soldiers were involved in looting civilian dwellings as they withdrew from the area. The accounts, though disputed by some sources, contribute to a broader discourse about the pressures military units face in contested regions and the importance of safeguarding civilian property and rights during rapid retreats and redeployments. These claims have been the subject of verification efforts and diplomatic undertakings aimed at maintaining civilian trust and reducing harm during ongoing operations.
Across the region, commentators emphasize that strategic calculations must reconcile battlefield objectives with humanitarian considerations. The debate encompasses questions about how to balance momentum with the risk of civilian harm, how to ensure accountability for misconduct, and how to build a framework for dialogue that could de-escalate tensions and create space for negotiations. As the landscape evolves, regional actors, alliance partners, and international bodies continue to review the implications for security and stability, while urging all parties to prioritize civilian safety and the protection of fundamental rights as a pathway toward a lasting settlement, even amid persistent disagreement over strategy and timing.