Ukraine Has a Plan for Victory. Its Allies Don’t.
As of the final days of October 2025, the conflict in Ukraine has entered a brutal new phase, defined by the grinding calculus of attrition and a widening strategic disconnect between Kyiv’s focused defensive plan and the wavering, fragmented political will of its Western backers. While Ukrainian forces continue to innovate on the ground and execute deep strikes aimed at crippling the aggressor’s economic backbone, the coalition that has sustained this defense appears increasingly prone to policy oscillation and short-term calculations. The central, defining tension of this moment is encapsulated by the reality: Ukraine has a coherent, albeit high-cost, strategy for survival and eventual victory; its allies, particularly the United States and key European states, lack a unified, long-term commitment to see that victory realized.
The Battlefield Reality: A War of Attrition and Infrastructure
The character of the fighting has fundamentally shifted toward long-range exchanges, reflecting the current military stalemate across the established front lines in the east. Both sides have recognized the difficulty of achieving significant territorial breakthroughs without incurring unsustainable losses, leading to a strategic focus on degrading the opponent’s rear areas and industrial capacity. This is a war where proximity is less relevant than reach, and where the logistical and industrial rear lines have become the primary target.
Escalation in Long-Range Engagement and Countermeasures
The operational focus for 2025 has been defined by long-range strikes. Ukrainian forces have continued to execute deep, impactful strikes against Russian oil refining capacity and military logistics hubs, utilizing their advanced unmanned systems to bring the economic cost of the war home to the aggressor’s populace and industry. Independent analysis suggested by late August 2025 that these successful raids disrupted between 17 to 20% of Russia’s oil refining capacity, leading to localized fuel shortages and rationing within Russia.
In direct response, the adversary has dramatically increased the scale and frequency of its own aerial assaults against Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure. The volume of incoming Russian missiles and drones reached record levels over the summer and autumn of 2025. In the seven days between October 5 and October 12, 2025, Russia reportedly launched more than 3,000 drones against Ukraine. Furthermore, Russian forces are now employing long-range strikes with modified glide bombs, forcing them to operate aircraft farther from the frontline, often beyond the range of existing Ukrainian air defense systems. This mutual targeting represents a deliberate, if brutal, strategy by both combatants to erode the opponent’s domestic support for the war effort and test the limits of resilience, particularly as Ukraine prepares for what is predicted to be a very severe winter.
The Criticality of Air and Cyber Domain Superiority
The operational success of the Ukrainian defense through the winter hinges directly on its ability to manage the air domain. The sheer volume of incoming Russian saturation attacks—drones, missiles, and glide bombs—necessitates an overwhelming density of counter-measures, an expenditure rate that strains even the most robust supply chains. This creates a continuous technological race: Ukraine must field systems capable of intercepting massed saturation attacks, while simultaneously developing and deploying its own offensive drone capabilities to maintain the pressure deep within Russian-held territory and rear areas.
The cyber domain has also become a critical, less visible front, with constant low-level conflict occurring across digital networks to disrupt command and control, intelligence gathering, and critical infrastructure operations on both sides. The theory of Ukrainian victory requires achieving a decisive advantage in these less kinetic, but equally vital, domains to offset the adversary’s numerical superiority in manpower and conventional artillery. The success of Ukraine’s offensive drone evolution, which has seen notable successes against targets within Russia, is key to this necessary technological offset.
Adaptations in Defensive Fortification and Resilience
The ‘defend’ part of Kyiv’s ongoing plan is a testament to on-the-ground tactical innovation, driven by lessons learned from painful advances by Russian forces, such as in the Dobropillya tactical area in August 2025. Beyond simply procuring more interceptors, Ukrainian engineers and military planners are redesigning defensive architecture itself. This includes hardening fixed national assets, such as major power stations, through physical reinforcement and layered, multi-domain defenses that integrate electronic warfare, air defense, and physical barriers.
The focus has shifted toward creating decentralized, redundant systems that are difficult to neutralize with a single, high-value strike. The investment in novel, resilient infrastructure—like energy production spread across dozens of square kilometers rather than concentrated in a few power stations—is a direct reflection of learning from past vulnerabilities. This adaptability in physical and systemic defense is crucial; it represents a planned response to the predictable, massed aggression expected during the colder months. However, the destruction of energy infrastructure remains a severe threat, with reports indicating that approximately 60% of Ukraine’s natural gas production capacity has been damaged, straining the national budget for winter imports.
The Geopolitical Maze: Shifting Western Political Will
While Ukraine fights with a plan, the foundation of its support structure—the unity and consistency of its Western allies—is fracturing under political transition and internal economic pressures. The core problem is that the allies’ strategy appears to be oriented toward containment or a managed ceasefire, rather than the decisive victory Kyiv requires for long-term security.
Apprehensions Regarding American Policy Shifts
The political landscape in the United States, under the new Trump administration, has introduced significant uncertainty into the calculus of the conflict, creating palpable apprehension in Kyiv and allied capitals regarding long-term commitment. The administration’s focus appears to be on brokering a swift, potentially imperfect, settlement, a goal that risks overriding the comprehensive strategy required for a genuine Ukrainian victory.
The effectiveness of the entire Western support structure is heavily weighted by the unwavering nature of American military and logistical backing, making any perceived shift a major strategic destabilizer. Indeed, reports indicated a formal pause in U.S. military aid in March 2025, intended to pressure President Zelenskyy toward peace talks, though supplies appeared to resume following a subsequent review in July 2025. Even as aid resumed, it was noted that the administration would not pay for new assistance packages, directing European allies to fund them instead. Furthermore, the USURIF (U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund), though established in April 2025, seems more geared toward critical minerals investment than immediate security needs, underscoring a pivot in Washington’s priorities away from direct, unconditional security support. The lack of a newly approved, major US funding pipeline for 2026 is a critical near-term concern.
European Hesitation and the Challenge of Burden Sharing
Europe, having assumed a greater share of the financial responsibility following shifts in US focus, is now wrestling with its own internal contradictions regarding burden sharing. While nations like the UK and France have taken concrete steps towards institutionalizing support, others remain hampered by national economic concerns and a desire to shift primary funding responsibility back to the US.
The debate over using frozen Russian assets is symptomatic of this hesitation. While the EU has considered utilizing profits from nearly €200 billion of frozen Russian assets to fund commitments, key states have balked. Specifically, Belgium, where a large portion of the assets is held, has reportedly stalled the deal due to fears over immediate domestic costs and perceived legal risk, prioritizing national economic stability over a unified European security outcome. This fragmentation means that even when collective decisions are reached, implementation is slow, leaving Ukraine in a precarious financial state, with its solvency potentially expiring by the end of the first quarter of 2026 if funds are not secured.
The Debate Over Security Guarantees Beyond Current Aid
A critical element of any sustained victory plan is the establishment of ironclad security guarantees that function as a credible deterrent after any cessation of active hostilities. Discussions surrounding future arrangements, including robust defense coalitions and forward-deployed peacekeepers, are ongoing, but stall on the specifics: commitment thresholds, the nature of intervention, and the linkage to long-term NATO aspirations.
For Kyiv, these guarantees are the ultimate prize that validates their sacrifice; for allies, they represent a potentially limitless commitment of personnel and materiel, making political consensus exceedingly difficult to forge. While bilateral security agreements signed in 2024 pledged support for Ukraine’s future NATO accession, the current administration in Washington has shown disinclination to provide unqualified military support now, preferring European countries to purchase American equipment on Ukraine’s behalf. The lack of a finalized, binding security architecture leaves Ukraine unsure if its current fight is merely delaying the next confrontation rather than securing a lasting peace.
Moscow’s Calculated Posture: A Contrasting Strategic Blueprint
In stark contrast to the strategic uncertainty among Kyiv’s supporters, the aggressor appears to operate with a clear, albeit ruthlessly executed, plan for victory, which is primarily focused on achieving its maximalist political aims through attrition.
Russia’s Objectives and Sustained Mobilization Efforts
Russia’s strategy is inherently one of endurance, betting that the political will of the coalition will break before Russia’s state capacity is sufficiently crippled by sanctions or military losses. This is evidenced by their continued willingness to absorb immense personnel and material costs, as indicated by ongoing conscription decrees to replenish force levels. The objective is not necessarily rapid territorial conquest, but the systematic degradation of Ukraine’s military capability and the erosion of the domestic will of both Ukraine and its supporters to continue the fight indefinitely.
Despite the strategic commitment, there are signs of strain; Russian regional authorities have reportedly begun reducing one-time recruitment payments, which supports analyses that Russia may be preparing for compulsory recruitment of reservists to counter mounting economic strain and manpower costs. On the ground, while Moscow claims successful encirclements, independent analysis suggests Russian forces are only making minimal, grinding advances at disproportionately high casualty rates, particularly around the key fortified cities in Donetsk Oblast like Pokrovsk.
The Information Warfare Component of the Russian Strategy
A key, often underestimated, element of Moscow’s blueprint is its sustained and sophisticated cognitive warfare effort. This campaign is explicitly designed to foster an internal narrative of relentless Russian advance and inevitable success, aimed both at its own population to justify continued sacrifice and at the international sphere to sow doubt and division among allies.
The goal is to obscure the reality of high casualty rates and marginal territorial gains by projecting an aura of unstoppable momentum. This narrative warfare is intended to create external pressure points—encouraging calls for a negotiated settlement based on the current lines of contact, thereby rewarding aggression with territorial concessions without the aggressor having to achieve a true military breakthrough. The Kremlin has notably engaged in rhetorical brinkmanship, threatening a “stunning response” to the potential provision of long-range Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv, further amplifying its narrative of military prowess. This psychological campaign is intrinsically linked to the political maneuvering in Western capitals, where the uncertainty over US support is exploited to maximum effect.
The Looming Horizon: Implications of the Current Trajectory
The failure of the allies to align on a decisive victory strategy pushes the conflict inexorably toward a protracted war of grinding attrition, a scenario that benefits Moscow’s strategic patience but catastrophically strains Kyiv and its backers.
The Risk of Protracted Conflict and Escalation Thresholds
This trajectory maximizes the costs for Ukraine, whose economy and society are already under catastrophic strain. A war without a clear exit strategy for the supporters, where the defender is constantly fighting for the next month’s financing rather than a definitive end state, is a recipe for exhaustion and eventual collapse under the weight of its own unsustainability. The danger is that a prolonged conflict increases the chance of inadvertent or calculated escalations that move beyond the current parameters of engagement, particularly concerning critical infrastructure or the vicinity of nuclear facilities, as evidenced by the repeated disconnection of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant from the grid in September 2025.
The Diplomatic Stalemate and Negotiation Readiness
The battlefield situation directly feeds the diplomatic impasse. The aggressor’s entrenched maximalist demands—including territorial concessions and the end of Western military support—remain fundamentally incompatible with Ukraine’s core security objectives. While there are ongoing efforts to work toward a ceasefire plan, these initiatives often appear reactive to immediate military situations or focused on temporary pauses rather than a lasting resolution that satisfies Kyiv’s need for guaranteed future security. The lack of an allied *victory* plan means that Ukraine enters any future negotiation not from a position of strength derived from unified, long-term backing, but from a position of immediate resource scarcity, potentially conceding leverage prematurely.
Realigning for Resilience: Necessary Steps for Allied Cohesion
To bridge the dangerous gap between Ukraine’s operational plan and the coalition’s present political reality, a radical realignment of commitment structure is necessary. This institutional pivot must occur across finance and industry to assure Kyiv of support that mirrors the singularity of its own national defense effort.
Reassessing Commitments and Long-Term Financial Architecture
The current reliance on intermittent aid packages must cease. A transparent, multi-year financial compact must be established, assuring Kyiv of continuous, predictable liquidity until victory is secured. The political hurdles surrounding frozen Russian assets must be overcome with decisive action, prioritizing the strategic imperative of state survival over nuanced legal risk assessment, perhaps by creating an internationally backed risk-sharing mechanism supported by key financial actors such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands who are already committed to financing US-made equipment. This financial clarity is the essential precondition for any successful military or diplomatic endeavor moving into 2026.
Enhancing Military Industrial Base Integration for Future Needs
The defensive and offensive needs of the coming year necessitate a deeper, more integrated relationship between Ukrainian operational requirements and the allied defense industrial base. This goes beyond simply transferring existing stockpiles; it requires coordinated production scaling, joint development programs for next-generation systems—particularly in the drone and electronic warfare sectors—and the establishment of forward maintenance and repair hubs within secure allied territories.
By treating the Ukrainian defense industry as an integrated, albeit forward-deployed, component of the wider Western military-industrial complex, the long-term sustainability of support can be assured, transforming the current reliance on discrete shipments into a seamless, institutionalized flow of necessary materiel and innovation. This institutional shift represents the only credible path to developing a collective plan that matches the singular focus and operational clarity of the defending nation, moving the allied posture from one of precarious support to one of shared, decisive victory.