Thank you for this. As a former US Marine who has stayed on the ground since Day One of the full-scale invasion, I am grateful for your sober, rational critique and even more so for being more than just a critic by offering solutions. We who have stayed all know the realities with the military and society. Improvement comes from introspection and can only be undertaken by Ukrainians. It's the old Biblical mantra of "pull the plank out of your own eye" first" and your assessment and suggestions are the best I have seen so far. Stay Strong. Many of us still stand here with you and will continue to do so as long as insight like yours is put in the public sphere. My wife and I spoke the other day about another Biblical story concerning Lot where God asked him to find 50 righteous people worth saving. We spoke about all the righteous Ukrainians we know and how it is worth staying for them when we could just as easily leave. No, we are not God nor do we consider ourselves superior but just drew upon the analogy. Ukraine might be a Charlie Foxtrot but it is now our Charlies Foxtrot and that's why we love her, Mother Ukraine. Stay righteous brother. Semper Fidelis.
Wow thank you for your service John-it is great to hear support such as yours. Your comments and the comments of the writer are timely and hope that these options can be looked at seriously.
All comments are absolutely correct. However, why do we only have the assignment for the Ukrainians? It took USA 9 months to send 30 abrams tanks. It took 2 years to send F-16. It took more than 2.5 years to allow the use ATACAMS on the aggressor's soil. Most of the promised equipment in 2023 was delivered after the failure, not before it. The supplied equipment comes without the proper protection from the drones. (Radio electronic warfare). There have been 15 rounds of sanctions, however russia still sells the oil on the western market. We can keep the list on and on. Why don't we have some assignments for the partners as well? How come USA can shoot down rockets over Israel but cannot do it over Ukraine? The same applies to Poland, Romania. Of course we are VERY grateful for all the help provided by the partners, but if we hear a valid criticism from the partners we have to express our concerns as well. The partnership is mutual!
Thank you for the comments-great analysis. When countries become like individuals and left to their own devices it’s a slog when they have not been tested. Ukraine is in the midst of a great transformation and as I read your comments it seems like a good marketing campaign would be helpful…it may be silly on my part but finding ways to keep everyone motivated and focused can be helpful. I know that Ukraine has the elements of success and I pray that you come through this. Slava Ukraine and prayers to you all!
As I recall, demobilisation after a fixed time produced mixed results for the US in WW2. The main problem was that frontline units lost their most veterans soldiers more quickly, which led to higher casualties among their replacements. For what it's worth, a report of the time suggested more frequent leaves and rotations instead, so the veteran soldiers would return.
What an exceptional, clear sighted and honest analysis. Thank you. As for those who wonder if such changes can be achieved in wartime, such changes can ONLY be achieved in wartime. In peace, there is simply neither the perceived need or urgency to implement radical military reform. The British Army, despite its quality and military history underwent tremendous reforms during WW2, especially in the selection of officers best suited to modern warfare. Let’s hope that your analysis is read and understood by the people who can make the necessary changes.
Excellent ideas, but from my great distance in the United States, I don’t see how Ukraine can be in a desperate situation and have the breathing room to undertake the changes.
A ceasefire on the present line of control would provide the needed breathing room.
But the Russian government would have to agree, and their public statements have rejected a temporary truce.
The issue with any "ceasefire" agreement is that it must be enforceable, otherwise, it risks becoming as ineffective as the Minsk accords, which failed to prevent the full-scale invasion. Without enforcement mechanisms, such agreements amount to little more than symbolic gesture, since violations carry no real consequences. For instance, sanctions failed to deter Russia in 2022, thus it's unclear what might serve as an effective deterrent in 2025.
The bigger concern is that a so-called "breather" could prove far more damaging to Ukraine in the long run. Beyond the immediate need to hold elections in an already politically divisive environment, something often overlooked by outside observers, there’s little reason to believe that military aid would continue at current levels. It’s far too easy for external backers to declare the war effectively ‘over’ and scale down support, deeming it unnecessary.
Additionally, such a pause could lead to the gradual easing of sanctions on Russia, enabling it to rebuild more quickly, leveraging its larger resources and industrial base, which is also bolstered by North Korean and to a some degree Chinese production capacity. Leaving Ukraine as a grey buffer zone, under constant threat of renewed Russian aggression, risks triggering another wave of refugees and further hollowing out the country when the martial law will be lifted. This isn't a theoretic problem, but a real issue which is discussed inside of the society. In short, a "breather" without meaningful guarantees or lasting solutions is not as good as it might seem.
Agree with all your points about the problems with a ceasefire. The needed changes outlined in your article would need at a minimum a new political leadership in Kiev ( ? spelling? ). The existing leadership appears to be pretty locked into plodding down the same path as the last year.
How would new leadership occur ?
Elections during active military operations would be hard. Who could run, who could vote, how would they vote, and who would do the counting.
NATO can no doubt engineer a change, but how much would that destabilize the consensus of the Ukraine citizens actually living in Ukraine.
It's hard to trust to Western analyses when they have been so consistently wrong. This one, and the copious use of "decades of mismanagement" are really quite off the mark. Secondly, the analysis routinely makes reference to events at the start of the war.
This is the wrong way to look at it: the present conflict is just a continuance of the Donbas War. What we thought were symptoms of poor training/poor resourcing were in fact Russian and Ukrainian units who already knew their craft better than us. What Western analysts have continually ignored is that these are reforms and adaptations from 2017. The Ukrainian or Russian Armies were hardly atrophying at this time.
This narrative of a continuum of bad leadership over the past decades uninterrupted by evolution seems to reflect the report's complete amnesia when it comes to the war in 2014 - 2022 - uring which the Ukrainian Army not only visibly improved but also began "Westernising".
This blame of the Ukrainians when the Americans are really responsible for many of their woes, reeks of Trumpist revisionism.
Furthermore, the analyses presents often conflicting or unreasonable solutions; for example attempting to mobilise more infantry but stop raising new brigades; or that the solutions to Ukrainian soldiers problems are to engage in the failed maneuver warfare paradigms familiar to American commentators.
Ukraine cannot afford to stop recruiting, fighting or equipping its army as it sees fit. The nature of the current battlefield is that units must be assigned when they are needed. We don't always get the opportunity to create these perfect units in war - in fact it is fairly rare the longer a war goes on.
"For example, if four company commanders are competing for a single battalion commander position, only the most capable officer should be promoted. Those who repeatedly fail to advance after a few attempts should be retired from service, making way for better candidates."
This reeks of American complacency. This might seem relatively straightforward in American culture but in reality it doesn't make much sense. The most capable company commander may not be the most capable battalion commander. Soldiers who go AWOL are not necessarily deserters or bad soldiers; We met one man who was only 1 of 3 to fight in the entire the Kokoda Campaign - he rather candidly and bashfully admitted that he kept getting demoted for going AWOL - he would just stay out drinking and partying longer than he was intended to. One would not survive that campaign by being a poor soldier - rather literally one of the most impressive feats of soldiering in history.
This analyses would do well to recognise that its narrative of decades of mismanagement completely ignores reforms and adaptations adopted by the Ukrainians under Western advisors during the Donbas War. It's patently obvious that parts of the Ukrainian Army have adapted to the present war long before we ever understood what they were doing.
PHEW! The remedies you describe would take a dictator to put in place. He'd have the power to hire and fire and promote. Roosevelt and General Marshall did that for the U.S. Army when WW II started. All but two generals were put out to pasture and young blood brought up. Is there anyone like Marshall amongst the Ukrainians>
I have a different idea. I think this idea is better because it doesn't require changing the structure of the Ukrainian army or replacing the Chief of Staff. You need to build a wide road between Pokrovsk and the Romanian border, say up to the Siret border crossing. I understand that you have a problem in Ukraine with road construction, but in this matter I am willing to help myself. I have the appropriate professional knowledge. After the road is ready, place vodka bottles along its entire length. Say one meter between each bottle. That's really not difficult anymore. Now the work is over. You can send your soldiers home. The Russian army will reach the road, see all the vodka bottles and immediately start moving quickly from bottle to bottle until it reaches the Romanian border. As soon as NATO forces see that the Russians are close to their major bases in Romania, they will suddenly realize that they need to fight. There is no reason for more Ukrainian soldiers to die."
Great write up. Even if ukraine wanted to fully do all this I am not confident tbey could in war. Maybe some elements can be used to get some key edge needed. Its a shame Tokmak didnt work. I felt it would have been pivotal.
Thank you for this. As a former US Marine who has stayed on the ground since Day One of the full-scale invasion, I am grateful for your sober, rational critique and even more so for being more than just a critic by offering solutions. We who have stayed all know the realities with the military and society. Improvement comes from introspection and can only be undertaken by Ukrainians. It's the old Biblical mantra of "pull the plank out of your own eye" first" and your assessment and suggestions are the best I have seen so far. Stay Strong. Many of us still stand here with you and will continue to do so as long as insight like yours is put in the public sphere. My wife and I spoke the other day about another Biblical story concerning Lot where God asked him to find 50 righteous people worth saving. We spoke about all the righteous Ukrainians we know and how it is worth staying for them when we could just as easily leave. No, we are not God nor do we consider ourselves superior but just drew upon the analogy. Ukraine might be a Charlie Foxtrot but it is now our Charlies Foxtrot and that's why we love her, Mother Ukraine. Stay righteous brother. Semper Fidelis.
Wow thank you for your service John-it is great to hear support such as yours. Your comments and the comments of the writer are timely and hope that these options can be looked at seriously.
Thank you for the realistic, no-nonsence analysis. We need more voices like yours and to have them amplified and heard.
Ukrainian translation is available here
https://texty.org.ua/articles/114196/chomu-ukrayina-vtrachaye-pozyciyi-hlybokyj-analiz-vijskovyh-problem-u-2025-roci/
Thank you
Clear, concise, detailed, evidence based conclusions. Excellent report, as always 👍
All comments are absolutely correct. However, why do we only have the assignment for the Ukrainians? It took USA 9 months to send 30 abrams tanks. It took 2 years to send F-16. It took more than 2.5 years to allow the use ATACAMS on the aggressor's soil. Most of the promised equipment in 2023 was delivered after the failure, not before it. The supplied equipment comes without the proper protection from the drones. (Radio electronic warfare). There have been 15 rounds of sanctions, however russia still sells the oil on the western market. We can keep the list on and on. Why don't we have some assignments for the partners as well? How come USA can shoot down rockets over Israel but cannot do it over Ukraine? The same applies to Poland, Romania. Of course we are VERY grateful for all the help provided by the partners, but if we hear a valid criticism from the partners we have to express our concerns as well. The partnership is mutual!
Thank you for the comments-great analysis. When countries become like individuals and left to their own devices it’s a slog when they have not been tested. Ukraine is in the midst of a great transformation and as I read your comments it seems like a good marketing campaign would be helpful…it may be silly on my part but finding ways to keep everyone motivated and focused can be helpful. I know that Ukraine has the elements of success and I pray that you come through this. Slava Ukraine and prayers to you all!
As I recall, demobilisation after a fixed time produced mixed results for the US in WW2. The main problem was that frontline units lost their most veterans soldiers more quickly, which led to higher casualties among their replacements. For what it's worth, a report of the time suggested more frequent leaves and rotations instead, so the veteran soldiers would return.
AFAIK russians on contract can’t go home when the contract is expired. I might be wrong but to my knowledge nobody leaves, unless as 200 or 300.
That's not what the text says
What an exceptional, clear sighted and honest analysis. Thank you. As for those who wonder if such changes can be achieved in wartime, such changes can ONLY be achieved in wartime. In peace, there is simply neither the perceived need or urgency to implement radical military reform. The British Army, despite its quality and military history underwent tremendous reforms during WW2, especially in the selection of officers best suited to modern warfare. Let’s hope that your analysis is read and understood by the people who can make the necessary changes.
Excellent ideas, but from my great distance in the United States, I don’t see how Ukraine can be in a desperate situation and have the breathing room to undertake the changes.
A ceasefire on the present line of control would provide the needed breathing room.
But the Russian government would have to agree, and their public statements have rejected a temporary truce.
Thank you for your comment.
The issue with any "ceasefire" agreement is that it must be enforceable, otherwise, it risks becoming as ineffective as the Minsk accords, which failed to prevent the full-scale invasion. Without enforcement mechanisms, such agreements amount to little more than symbolic gesture, since violations carry no real consequences. For instance, sanctions failed to deter Russia in 2022, thus it's unclear what might serve as an effective deterrent in 2025.
The bigger concern is that a so-called "breather" could prove far more damaging to Ukraine in the long run. Beyond the immediate need to hold elections in an already politically divisive environment, something often overlooked by outside observers, there’s little reason to believe that military aid would continue at current levels. It’s far too easy for external backers to declare the war effectively ‘over’ and scale down support, deeming it unnecessary.
Additionally, such a pause could lead to the gradual easing of sanctions on Russia, enabling it to rebuild more quickly, leveraging its larger resources and industrial base, which is also bolstered by North Korean and to a some degree Chinese production capacity. Leaving Ukraine as a grey buffer zone, under constant threat of renewed Russian aggression, risks triggering another wave of refugees and further hollowing out the country when the martial law will be lifted. This isn't a theoretic problem, but a real issue which is discussed inside of the society. In short, a "breather" without meaningful guarantees or lasting solutions is not as good as it might seem.
Agree with all your points about the problems with a ceasefire. The needed changes outlined in your article would need at a minimum a new political leadership in Kiev ( ? spelling? ). The existing leadership appears to be pretty locked into plodding down the same path as the last year.
How would new leadership occur ?
Elections during active military operations would be hard. Who could run, who could vote, how would they vote, and who would do the counting.
NATO can no doubt engineer a change, but how much would that destabilize the consensus of the Ukraine citizens actually living in Ukraine.
It's hard to trust to Western analyses when they have been so consistently wrong. This one, and the copious use of "decades of mismanagement" are really quite off the mark. Secondly, the analysis routinely makes reference to events at the start of the war.
This is the wrong way to look at it: the present conflict is just a continuance of the Donbas War. What we thought were symptoms of poor training/poor resourcing were in fact Russian and Ukrainian units who already knew their craft better than us. What Western analysts have continually ignored is that these are reforms and adaptations from 2017. The Ukrainian or Russian Armies were hardly atrophying at this time.
This narrative of a continuum of bad leadership over the past decades uninterrupted by evolution seems to reflect the report's complete amnesia when it comes to the war in 2014 - 2022 - uring which the Ukrainian Army not only visibly improved but also began "Westernising".
This blame of the Ukrainians when the Americans are really responsible for many of their woes, reeks of Trumpist revisionism.
Furthermore, the analyses presents often conflicting or unreasonable solutions; for example attempting to mobilise more infantry but stop raising new brigades; or that the solutions to Ukrainian soldiers problems are to engage in the failed maneuver warfare paradigms familiar to American commentators.
Ukraine cannot afford to stop recruiting, fighting or equipping its army as it sees fit. The nature of the current battlefield is that units must be assigned when they are needed. We don't always get the opportunity to create these perfect units in war - in fact it is fairly rare the longer a war goes on.
"For example, if four company commanders are competing for a single battalion commander position, only the most capable officer should be promoted. Those who repeatedly fail to advance after a few attempts should be retired from service, making way for better candidates."
This reeks of American complacency. This might seem relatively straightforward in American culture but in reality it doesn't make much sense. The most capable company commander may not be the most capable battalion commander. Soldiers who go AWOL are not necessarily deserters or bad soldiers; We met one man who was only 1 of 3 to fight in the entire the Kokoda Campaign - he rather candidly and bashfully admitted that he kept getting demoted for going AWOL - he would just stay out drinking and partying longer than he was intended to. One would not survive that campaign by being a poor soldier - rather literally one of the most impressive feats of soldiering in history.
This analyses would do well to recognise that its narrative of decades of mismanagement completely ignores reforms and adaptations adopted by the Ukrainians under Western advisors during the Donbas War. It's patently obvious that parts of the Ukrainian Army have adapted to the present war long before we ever understood what they were doing.
PHEW! The remedies you describe would take a dictator to put in place. He'd have the power to hire and fire and promote. Roosevelt and General Marshall did that for the U.S. Army when WW II started. All but two generals were put out to pasture and young blood brought up. Is there anyone like Marshall amongst the Ukrainians>
What makes Syrsky a soviet style leader? It’s not that I disagree, I just don’t have enough information to support this opinion.
Thank you.
I have a different idea. I think this idea is better because it doesn't require changing the structure of the Ukrainian army or replacing the Chief of Staff. You need to build a wide road between Pokrovsk and the Romanian border, say up to the Siret border crossing. I understand that you have a problem in Ukraine with road construction, but in this matter I am willing to help myself. I have the appropriate professional knowledge. After the road is ready, place vodka bottles along its entire length. Say one meter between each bottle. That's really not difficult anymore. Now the work is over. You can send your soldiers home. The Russian army will reach the road, see all the vodka bottles and immediately start moving quickly from bottle to bottle until it reaches the Romanian border. As soon as NATO forces see that the Russians are close to their major bases in Romania, they will suddenly realize that they need to fight. There is no reason for more Ukrainian soldiers to die."
Great write up. Even if ukraine wanted to fully do all this I am not confident tbey could in war. Maybe some elements can be used to get some key edge needed. Its a shame Tokmak didnt work. I felt it would have been pivotal.