In recent weeks, there has been a noticeable decline in the activity of russian forces on the front. Both experts and Ukrainian military officials report this trend. Some attribute it to stabilization due to russian exhaustion and manpower shortages, while others see it as a temporary pause before another offensive push.
Against the backdrop of these conflicting yet somewhat encouraging developments, U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to suspend military aid to Ukraine.
Military expert Serhiy Hrabsky, in an interview with OstroV, explained why russian activity on the front has decreased and what consequences the halt in American aid might have.
– Can we say that the situation on the front has stabilized?
– It’s too early to say that. The situation stabilizes when the enemy stops advancing. As of now, the russians continue to move forward. So, we can say that due to extreme pressure, the enemy has reduced its combat activity. We are not seeing the same level of activity that we did, to put it mildly, six months ago. But that doesn’t mean they have completely ceased hostilities. They are still capable of making some advances.
– In your opinion, what does the decline in russian activity indicate? Is it a lack of resources or preparation for a new offensive?
– It should be noted that the russians launched a massive offensive operation in late October 2023. I don’t know of any army in the world that could conduct continuous offensive operations while sustaining such huge losses. Their gains have been minimal over such an extended period. So, claiming that this is preparation for something bigger is quite difficult. Their personnel and equipment losses mean that even if they wanted to allocate additional forces for other tasks, today it seems they are forced to sacrifice manpower just to continue fighting in certain sectors of the front. That is precisely what they are doing now. However, are they preparing for something? Without a doubt, the russians have not abandoned their plans to advance—they have made that very clear. So, strategically, they are considering further offensive operations, for which they need preparation.
– Which sector of the front is currently the most intense?
– As of today, the most challenging situation is in the southwestern part of the Donetsk oblast. The enemy is attempting to achieve an operational objective as part of a strategic goal—to capture the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and establish total control over them. At present, the enemy is working toward reaching the Pokrovsk-Kostiantynivka-Chasiv Yar line.
Determining which area is more difficult and which is less so can only be done based on basic statistics regarding the number of clashes that have taken place. Indeed, the situation around Pokrovsk is severe, but it has been so for a long time. However, that does not mean that, for example, the situation northwest of Velyka Novosilka will not become even more intense tomorrow.
Therefore, we can say that the most difficult situation is along the entire Donetsk front, and it is impossible to rank specific areas by severity. There are certain strategic threats. For instance, we are closely monitoring everything happening in the Kupiansk area, as the situation there looks quite concerning.
Tomorrow, the situation may change, and new challenges may arise, for example, in the Kupiansk direction. That is why the situation remains difficult in these areas, though in other parts of the front, it is relatively stable.
– Has the situation around Velyka Novosilka stabilized?
– The situation around Velyka Novosilka remains extremely difficult. The enemy has broken through the center, advancing through Burlatske and Pryvilne, pushing further toward Shevchenko. They are attempting to break through to Dniproenerhiya, and although the Armed Forces of Ukraine are fighting desperately along the river, unfortunately, they are struggling to hold certain sections of the riverbank due to the river turning southward.
This threatens to cut off the road from Kurakhove to the village of Pokrovske in the Dnipropetrovsk oblast. A breakthrough could lead to serious problems, forcing a withdrawal from this area and the loss of a large territory. Then, instead of talking about Dachne, which is east of Konstiantynopil, we will be hoping to hold on to Dachne, which is located between Zaporizhzhia and Zelenyi Kut. But no one can guarantee that fortifications there are ready for the AFU to hold. For example, I am not convinced of this. This situation is referred to as the enemy reaching operational freedom.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that we are moving out of the densely built-up urban areas of Donbas. In these open fields, maneuvering is difficult. It is one thing to fight the enemy in an area where we have been fortifying our defenses for years and know the terrain well, but if the russians break out into operational freedom with air support—where they have superiority—and employ large numbers of tanks, which they can deploy, they may be able to advance much farther.
– Right now, there is a high probability that aid from the United States will be halted. In your opinion, how critical will this be for the front?
– Recently, we have been receiving aid that was reserved and contracted by the previous administration, with funds allocated by Congress rather than the president of the United States, ensuring that relevant enterprises continued their work. If all of this stops now, it will result in the United States being categorized as an unreliable partner. If aid is halted, the U.S. will face a boomerang effect, as they will still have to pay their workers and decide what to do with the military equipment already in production. This isn’t just a lunch at the White House where the leftovers were given to the staff after Zelensky left early.
If the United States demonstrates its inability to fulfill its contractual obligations in this way, many questions arise. There are such things as business interests. Even President Trump himself has said that he is willing to sell American weapons for money. Do you really believe that the United States is ready to halt all production and reject money under the current conditions? Sorry, but I don’t really believe that.
Can the aid program be stopped? Yes, it can. And it can become extremely difficult—you can’t even imagine how difficult. If we stop receiving up-to-date intelligence, it means the effectiveness of both our weapons and American weapons will decrease. If the Americans disable the navigation control systems for HIMARS and ATACMS, we will experience a serious reduction in the effectiveness of these weapons.
If the Americans stop supplying spare parts for the equipment we have already received, a significant portion of which is deployed on the front line, it will be a serious challenge for us. We simply won’t have time to adapt and reconfigure everything for the European market. There are problems, but understanding them does not mean panicking and shouting that all is lost. Instead, we must do everything possible to anticipate what may happen and prevent it.
– But surely we can look for alternatives within the country or in Europe?
– We can look for alternatives within the country, in Europe, and we can develop cooperation with South Korea since we are on the same side of the barricade with them. There are also opportunities to be found in Japan. We need to work actively with South America as well because, in certain countries, the hatred for Bolsheviks and communists—whom russia represents—is extraordinarily strong. And we are not doing enough to turn this hatred into concrete achievements, particularly in increasing military support.
Our capabilities are no longer what they were three years ago. Moreover, our unique businessmen have found ways to bypass Ukrainian restrictions. As you know, the production of military-related goods in Ukraine is under state control. And even if the state cannot purchase the required volumes, it does not allow us to sell them abroad. But our businessmen have started developing this business in Europe.
Thus, they promote and generate income to expand production, making Ukraine more competitive. Therefore, for the development of Ukrainian enterprises, our government needs to work on easing the tax burden in the countries where our people are building businesses. This is extremely important. We see the results almost every night, including on russian territory.
I have personally visited such a unique enterprise, I know how they work there, and I am simply in awe of what we can offer the world. Our task is to do everything possible to make working conditions for such enterprises even more comfortable.
– Recently, there has been a lot of talk about a possible ceasefire. What is your opinion on this matter?
– I am highly critical of this topic. In my opinion, there is a complete misunderstanding of what these assumptions are based on—that someone might stop the fire.
We do not have enough strength to force russia to cease fire today. Let me quote Churchill, who said: "There is no point in negotiating with a tiger when your head is in its mouth". To put it in simple terms, this means that any discussions about easing the situation or lifting sanctions would be a disaster for Europe. We are wasting energy on this instead of focusing on important matters and mobilizing society for readiness for a long, exhausting war.
France and the United Kingdom have not been hit by anything yet, so it is their duty to talk about peace. But we must think critically and understand that any cessation of hostilities under the current conditions means catastrophe for Ukraine and Europe.
Russia desperately needs any kind of pause, and they are praying for it. Let me give a simple example: russia produces 140-160 missiles per month—this is their maximum—and they are using them up as fast as they come off the production line. There hasn’t been a massive missile strike on Ukraine for a long time because russia is depleting its stockpile. This is not only about missile production but also about the availability of appropriate launch platforms. No country in the world has ever built strategic bombers designed to last for 50 years. According to Cold War doctrine, the mission of a strategic bomber was to load up with nuclear-armed missiles, take off, launch them, and heroically perish in a single flight. No one ever built a kamikaze aircraft meant to return and operate for 50 years. That is simply impossible.
This is why the russians desperately need any break—a month, two, or three. In a month, they can train 25-30 thousand soldiers, while in that same time, we eliminate 45-50 thousand enemy troops. So, no matter how hard it is for us, any pause for the russians in today’s situation means doom for Europe. A three-month pause would allow them to calmly deploy a 100,000-strong force and send it against us or the Baltic states. And then, this could escalate into a European or even a global conflict.
Given this scenario, where is the logic in talking about a ceasefire when the enemy dreams of nothing else? The russians are experiencing exhaustion in both manpower and resources. They are already unable to conduct large-scale offensive operations, which is precisely why we started this conversation by discussing only certain sectors of the front where russian forces show some activity.
But if they are given a breather and you calculate how much they can accomplish in 2-3 months, you will go gray from the sheer scale of the threats that will arise. And these threats will be created by our own hands—or by the hands of politicians who fail to grasp the consequences of what is happening.
By Vladyslav Bulatchik, OstroV