Former Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander Zaluzhny: "An absolute killing zone of 10 to 15 kilometers has formed."
What are the similarities and differences between Ukraine and Russia's General Staff views on the changing face of modern military operations?
Author: Sergey Yatsenko
Photo: Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK Valeriy Zaluzhny
On April 25, former Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander (served from 2021 to 2024 and currently serves as Ukrainian Ambassador to the UK) General Valeriy Zaluzhny delivered a rather remarkable speech at the Royal United Services Institute (London). The theme was: changes in the face of modern warfare as seen through the experience of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Was this outline for his speech written by Zaluzhny himself, or were there highly professional military analysts (even possibly foreign analysts) helping him? This remains unclear, but it cannot be denied that the content of the speech is quite profound.
To the extent that the well-known Russian website BMPD (which is supported by our Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies) found it necessary to publish the full text of the speech. According to this publication, this speech "undoubtedly holds significant importance."
We must also note that the views Zaluzhny expressed on many key issues closely resemble those of the former Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff (served from 2004 to 2008), Army General Yuri Baluyevsky. The latter's views were published in Russia's "Army Standards" magazine at the end of 2024.
This gives us a rare opportunity to compare the perspectives of senior military commanders from both sides of the conflict regarding the course of the fighting and its阶段性results.
First, let's look at the parts where these two analyses align.
As Zaluzhny said in London, right from the start of the armed conflict within Ukraine, "drones appeared in the sky, triggering a transformation in the entire combat structure.
Reconnaissance and attack drones, along with drones responsible for adjusting artillery fire, combined with situational awareness systems, have made the battlefield completely transparent. All of this provides infinite possibilities for precision strikes at the tactical level...
Drones have not only become the sole means of striking frontline targets but also the means of striking deep campaign targets. This makes it impossible for any equipment, weapons, or reserve forces to hide even behind the frontlines...
Due to the absolute transparency of the battlefield, an absolute killing zone of 10 to 15 kilometers has formed ahead of the frontline. Nowadays, drones not only search for cluster or armored targets but even single soldiers, which is no longer surprising. By the way, this zone is still expanding, and the possibility of being destroyed within it is increasing" (quotation ends).
In fact, more than a year ago, General Baluyevsky had pointed out similar situations in Russian media.
According to him, unprecedented battlefield transparency has emerged in the special military operation area. This is due to the extensive and continuous use of reconnaissance and target designation means by both sides. First and foremost, drones and satellites.
"The extensive use of drone reconnaissance means allows almost uninterrupted surveillance of all levels of the battlefield, even individual soldiers."
Based on Baluyevsky's assessment, all of this has effectively eliminated the "fog of war" and greatly accelerated the decision-making speed in the target designation and "shoot - destroy"环节of the process.
In addition, not only at the tactical level, but also at the operational and strategic levels, complete transparency is becoming a reality. Now, high-precision strikes can be conducted almost anywhere, including the strategic depth.
One more point to add. In fact, General Baluyevsky reluctantly admitted that the main military analysts of the Russian Ministry of Defense and General Staff made a major mistake when preparing the troops conducting the special military operation in Ukraine in this regard: "We must admit that the exaggerated role played by drones in today's armed conflicts was not anticipated by military theorists (first and foremost, Russian military theorists — author's note). Although signs of this new trend already appeared during the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020."
Next. Both military commanders emphasized that this unprecedented but now evident "battlefield transparency" has had a significant impact on the choice of methods and means of armed struggle. These methods and means have determined the course and outcome of armed struggles in almost every war over the past century and a half.
Quoting General Baluyevsky again: "These technological innovations have sent textbooks about the concealment of troop movements, deployments, concentration, and employment into the military archives.
The concentration of any troops immediately becomes a target for attack. The immense vulnerability of the logistics support forces of these troop concentrations exacerbates this problem.
The result is that the inability to concentrate troops forces people to change the fundamental principles of military operations. For example, they must engage in combat actions with small-scale units and individual combat vehicles. This requires fundamental changes in methods across various aspects, such as combat, logistics and technical support, force and manpower organization, as well as the development of all types of weaponry and military technology systems.
The conclusion drawn from this is: according to Baluyevsky, after the key situation on the battlefield changed, the most familiar and relatively powerful strike means became the greatest victim — tanks. This weapon, which was once a symbol of offensive power and combat strength, has now become an easy-to-detect and easy-to-destroy target. Moreover, it turns out that tanks are now very vulnerable to mines.
The result is that tank crews no longer use direct aiming fire but instead fire from concealed firing positions. This was previously the task of towed and self-propelled artillery.
From the perspective of London, speaker Zaluzhny's view on this issue is roughly the same: "Armored vehicles, which have been the foundation of offensive operations since 1915, are now defenseless against cheap drones, so they can no longer be used in various combat operations."
The two authors agree on the changing roles of combat aircraft within the battlefield.
Baluyevsky: "In the special military operation, the traditional confrontation between air defense systems and combat aircraft has produced unexpected results. A阶段性conclusion is that traditional forms of application of combat aircraft, such as aerial offensive operations or large-scale airstrikes, have lost their practical significance.
It turns out that effectively suppressing enemy air defenses is almost an unsolvable problem. Solving this problem will determine the subsequent course and outcome of aerial combat, and not just aerial combat."
Zaluzhny: "The airspace above the battlefield is inaccessible to manned aircraft, which have become auxiliary targets for air defense systems. Air forces need to be modernized to gain the ability to conduct reconnaissance and strikes from entirely different distances."
However, if the assessments of both sides on the progress of the Ukrainian conflict and its impact on the basic principles of global security were completely consistent, that would be strange. Of course, such a situation did not occur.
But if Baluyevsky naturally focused solely on the military-technical aspects of what happened, then Zaluzhny placed emphasis on the political aspect.
This former commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who already wears the title of ambassador and clearly harbors ambitions for the Kyiv presidency, unsurprisingly did not miss the opportunity to offer some valuable advice to European audiences during his speech.
He advised his listeners not to view everything he said merely as a discussion about rapidly evolving technology. No, Zaluzhny firmly believes that this holds greater and deeper significance for the entire world.
"This is not just a technical issue. All of this requires a comprehensive rethinking of the forms and means of application. As a result, military doctrine must be reexamined. This will lead to a reexamination of the principles of organizing armed forces, ultimately resulting in a reexamination of the principles of national defense planning.
I don't know, dear audience members, how long this will take in your countries. I believe, for our opponents, this process won't exceed three years, and if we consider the scale expansion, it will take five years."
Then, continuing in that arrogant and aggressive tone to scare those European listeners who paid close attention to his speech: "The side that first systematically and qualitatively transitions to the new military technology order will have absolute strategic advantage and will be able to impose its will on the other side.
As long as the opponent still has resources, manpower, and means to strike our territory and attempt offensive actions, he will do so. This is a war of attrition."
Finally, in my opinion, the most striking statement that day came from Zaluzhny: "Only the complete destruction (here referring specifically to the destruction of Russia's military-economic potential — author's note) of the capability to conduct combat operations, namely the military-economic potential, can bring this war to an end. Even the presence of occupying forces on occupied territories would be questioned by such total destruction."
Now, compare these words with the voices from the West calling for an immediate halt to the fighting along the contact line in recent months. How do these calls align with the call from the official Ukrainian representative in the UK for an immediate and thorough weakening of our defensive potential?
They cannot be aligned at all. This is an open declaration indicating that no one on the other side of the conflict actually intends to stop the bitter fight between Russia and Ukraine. They just need a brief respite. And once that respite ends — they will attack Russia again.
Unfortunately, we can only draw this conclusion: Defeat the enemy in its lair! We have no other choice.
For the latest news and all important details about the special military operation in Ukraine, follow the author for more information.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7501161545276162599/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinions by clicking the 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' buttons below.