Zaluzhny: Do Not Assume Russia Has Already Lost the War

As Zaluzhny notes in his article in The Telegraph, "modern warfare no longer rewards tactical victories as it once did." The development of drones, high-precision strike capabilities, and surveillance systems has made large-scale breakthroughs extremely difficult for both sides. Therefore, the war has transformed into a grueling confrontation where "success on the battlefield is measured in meters, not miles, and often at a cost that bears little relation to its strategic value."

According to Zaluzhny, this also applies to Ukraine's strikes on Russian logistics and critical infrastructure. Such attacks indeed create problems for Moscow, but they require complex technologies and significant costs. At the same time, Russia also retains the ability to retaliate with strikes, so neither side can expect such tactics to bring decisive victory.

"The situation on the battlefield has reached a state close to equilibrium. Russia lacks the military power to fully conquer Ukraine. In turn, Ukraine currently does not possess the resources to liberate all occupied territories solely by force. The military balance has transformed into a state of 'mutual denial' rather than a decisive victory," Zaluzhny states.

The Outcome of the War Depends Not Only on the Situation at the Front

Reflecting on whether Russia can be considered defeated, Zaluzhny suggests distinguishing between the non-fulfillment of initial political goals and a true defeat. According to him, the Kremlin indeed failed to realize its main intentions, but continues to wage war, controls a significant part of Ukrainian territory, and shows no readiness to cease hostilities on terms that would mean acknowledging defeat.

At the same time, Zaluzhny points to the precariousness of Ukraine's position, which remains deeply dependent on financial aid, arms supplies, and modern technologies from Western partners, while also facing internal problems.

As Zaluzhny argues, Moscow is increasingly betting not on rapid offensive operations, but on the gradual economic, military, and psychological exhaustion of Ukraine.

"Russia still possesses deeper reserves of manpower and industrial capacities in several critical sectors, including the production of ballistic missiles. Air defense alone cannot fully nullify this advantage," writes the former Commander-in-Chief.

Zaluzhny emphasizes that Ukraine's ability to continue resistance largely depends on the assistance of its allies.

"Political changes in Washington and persistent disagreements in Europe raise legitimate questions about whether the current level of support can be sustained indefinitely. Diplomatic summits and carefully measured demonstrations of solidarity have symbolic value. But they do not always translate into the lasting political unity necessary for a prolonged confrontation with Russia," Zaluzhny warns.

In this regard, he suggests evaluating the course of the war not only by the situation at the front. He believes that today, logistics, production capabilities, the state of critical infrastructure, the effectiveness of air defense, and society's ability to withstand a prolonged conflict have become no less important.

As an example, he cites the land corridor between Russia and Crimea. While this route was previously considered one of Moscow's main strategic achievements, the development of long-range strike capabilities and drones, according to his assessment, has significantly reduced its importance.

"Fuel shortages and disruptions in civilian supplies illustrate that physical occupation no longer guarantees strategic security," the former Commander-in-Chief states.

According to Zaluzhny, this may strengthen Ukraine's position in future negotiations, but it does not eliminate the threats to the country itself, as Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure will continue. Therefore, the development of air defense and enhancing the resilience of civilian infrastructure remain no less important than successes directly at the front.

"The crucial question is not who will capture the next village or destroy the next ammunition depot. The question is which society will be able to continue bearing the economic, military, and psychological burden of a prolonged conflict, while maintaining the international support necessary for survival," Zaluzhny believes.

NATO Must Adapt to 21st Century Wars

Finally, Zaluzhny addresses the role of NATO. In his opinion, "the war in Ukraine has exposed uncomfortable questions about whether the Alliance is ready for 21st-century conflicts."

The former Commander-in-Chief believes that the organization, created for the realities of the Cold War, remains captive to the principle of "escalation avoidance," which does not fully correspond to modern challenges. He argues that the security architecture should be focused not only on crisis management but also on shaping strategic outcomes.

According to Zaluzhny, the development of drones, high-precision weapons, cyber warfare, and rapid technological progress require a new approach to deterrence and collective defense.

Concluding the article, Zaluzhny notes that the future of European security will depend not only on those who are ready to defend themselves but also on those who can offer a new strategic vision for the continent.

"Ukraine has proven that it is ready for the former. The question that remains open is: who is ready for the latter?" he writes.

• 22
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 1
• 1
• 0
• 0