In the recent weeks, Ukraine’s military strategy has notably transformed. Transitioning from a maneuver warfare approach that prioritizes rapid, dynamic movements, Ukrainian forces have now opted for a more measured approach, incrementally advancing in small infantry groups, while targeting key supply hubs and depots. This tactical modification, which seems to be an effective response to artillery and minefield threats, closely echoes the methods used during the successful Kherson offensive.

The decision of Ukraine’s leadership to adopt this change is admirable. They’ve risen to the difficult challenge posed by the conflict, which includes obstacles like dense minefields and the need for precision strikes over raw firepower. They’ve shown exceptional adaptability, shifting their focus from large-scale, potentially exposed maneuvers to more localized operations. Remember, everyone including the enemy can see what’s happening on the front line, so it’s nearly impossible to build up forces without the enemy noticing. With the recent donation of Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICMs) and a push for F-16s, alongside a call for additional anti-aircraft assets, Ukraine may need to bring their anti-aircraft equipment closer to the frontline to counter enemy helicopters and aircraft which will assist in covering tracks of large build up since enemy won’t have as good intel as it has now. This is why the enemy is targeting cities, to get Ukraine to devote resources away from the front. This adjustment could pave the way for a return to maneuver-based operations.

It’s also essential to comprehend that Western military doctrines, such as those used by NATO, may not seamlessly apply here. An illustration of this was when during an interview of a Ukrainian soldier training in Germany was told asking his instructors what do they do when they encounter a minefield, their response is to simply bypass it. Minefields, despite being a basic warfare tool, have substantially complicated the terrain, hindering the success of larger, maneuver-oriented operations that are typically characteristic of NATO-style warfare.

This ongoing conflict underscores the reality that modern warfare isn’t purely about technological superiority or overwhelming firepower. Factors on the ground, like geographical constraints and an adversary’s tactical choices, can shape the selection of the most effective strategy. In this light, Ukraine’s transition to more deliberate, careful infantry operations and targeting logistics hubs is a strategic answer to these conditions.

The situation vividly demonstrates the necessity for flexibility and adaptability in military strategies, a lesson with relevance beyond this conflict. Ukraine’s leadership and their forces have displayed an innovative and adaptable approach which fully deserves our support and admiration. I hope that NATO sees the value of having Ukraine as a partner and a member, as they are the most trained and experienced “Allied” nation.

Having said that, I think one option to explore is for Ukraine to make a thunder run into Belgorod and Kursk. This will expand the front further, forcing the enemy to move their forces to prevent more territory from being captured. I know this may not be what the western partners would have wanted, but if Ukraine is to achieve success with less bloodshed. Either Ukraine needs full support or opening of “another front”.

Slava Ukraini

Also, not trying to spread enemy prop, so I can delete this.