Cascade of Strategic Blunders Brings Ukraine to the Brink of a Major Defeat in Pokrovsk — and Possibly Beyond by LtGen (ret) Konstantinos Loukopoulos
After a cumulative series of disastrous strategic and operational errors, Ukraine now faces in the Pokrovsk sector a potentially decisive defeat—one that may reshape the broader dynamics of the war. Following more than sixteen months of relentless offensive operations, and despite sustaining heavy losses, Russian forces have succeeded in trapping Ukrainian defenders within the fortified urban pocket of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad in the Donetsk region. Substantial Russian contingents have already entered most of these cities. A similar pattern is unfolding in Lyman and Siversk, as well as further north in Kupiansk and Sumy.
Once the key defensive positions collapsed and continued resistance no longer held any military value, the logical course would have been a tactical withdrawal—allowing Ukrainian forces to disengage under minimal pressure and regroup elsewhere. Yet the High Command, evidently under political instruction, forbade such a move. Consequently, an estimated 4,500 troops are now encircled, suffering daily destruction, capture, or—according to Russian sources—surrendering in order to survive.
Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief, General Oleksandr Syrskyi—himself of Russian origin—lacked the reserves both to reinforce this critical front and to organize a breakout. Maintaining a doomed garrison where the battle has already been lost is a monumental mistake. Similar politically driven decisions were made earlier in Mariupol, Bakhmut, and Avdiivka, with catastrophic results. President Zelensky and his chief of staff Andriy Yermak now face mounting criticism for sacrificing exhausted soldiers simply to persuade the West—particularly Washington—that Ukraine is still holding firm and exhausting Russian strength.
How Ukraine Reached This Point
After successfully repelling the initial phase of Russia’s invasion, Kyiv displayed political rigidity and a failure of strategic imagination, refusing to recalibrate its war aims. Combined with Western mismanagement—despite immense aid, without which Ukraine would not exist today—and the persistence of unrealistic “victory narratives” envisioning the full recovery of 1991 borders, this has driven the country into a grinding war of attrition that Russia has proven structurally better able to sustain.
The offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson in 2022 marked the high point of Ukraine’s operational capability. At that time, Ukraine held the initiative, morale was high, Western military support was overwhelming, and Russian logistics were overstretched. In hindsight, had Kyiv used that advantageous position to negotiate—accepting limited territorial concessions in exchange for lasting sovereignty and Western integration—it might have emerged as a stable, Western-aligned state with credible security guarantees. Even former U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley publicly voiced this assessment.
The real turning point came with the disastrous failure of the much-touted Ukrainian counteroffensive of summer 2023. Its collapse was total, and Ukraine has never truly recovered. Since then, the situation has deteriorated steadily, as the country struggles to replace enormous losses in personnel and Western-supplied equipment. Devoid of real offensive capacity—despite optimistic Western media coverage and hollow European rhetoric—Ukraine now fights not for victory but merely to slow Russia’s slow, steady territorial gains, clinging to the illusion that Moscow will eventually tire and negotiate. In a desperate and strategically unsound move, Kyiv squandered its remaining offensive capability in the Kursk operation—what many analysts described as a “reckless gamble”—even if the Russians needed nearly a year to retake the area.
The Significance of Pokrovsk’s Fall
Politically, the loss of Pokrovsk allows President Vladimir Putin to more easily convince U.S. President Donald Trump (not that he needs much persuading) of the “inevitability of Russian victory” and the futility of continued Western aid, as noted by Mykola Bielieskov of Ukraine’s National Institute for Strategic Studies. Conversely, President Zelensky will no longer be able to argue that greater Western support could reverse the tide. Revealingly, during their recent meeting at the White House, Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán reportedly agreed that only a miracle could deliver Ukraine a victory.
Western governments will now find it increasingly difficult to convince their publics that unending support for Ukraine can still alter the outcome. The fall of Pokrovsk will deal a serious blow to Ukrainian morale just as winter begins—and as Russian strikes on the country’s energy infrastructure resume. Following recent aerial bombardments, Kyiv, Kharkiv, and other cities were plunged into darkness. Meanwhile, Russian morale is reinforced; most Russians continue to believe they are fighting not Ukraine but NATO and a hostile West.
The Pokrovsk–Myrnohrad pocket holds undeniable strategic value. It anchors Ukraine’s entire defensive system in Donetsk—an interconnected chain of industrial cities stretching from Sloviansk to Kostyantynivka—and serves as a vital transport and logistics hub. Its capture paves the way for a Russian advance toward Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. If Moscow seizes these cities, it will control the final 10% of Donetsk Oblast, roughly 5,000 square kilometers—the very objective Putin has reportedly set as the price for any ceasefire. Moreover, control of Pokrovsk could open new axes of advance toward Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia to the west and southwest.
Had Ukrainian forces managed to withdraw in time and establish new defensive lines further back, this could have been regarded as a major defeat—but not necessarily a decisive turning point. Under current conditions, however, such an argument cannot stand. The fall of Pokrovsk may well prove a pivotal event—one that, combined with other setbacks, could bring Ukraine to the brink of collapse unless a ceasefire is reached soon, as both Zelensky and his Western partners now desperately seek.
A War of Attrition
Russia’s war strategy prioritizes the systematic reduction of the enemy’s capacity to fight. Ukrainian troops continue to display courage and resilience—but they are exhausted. Many units are manned at less than 50% strength. Some 150,000 men are reportedly evading conscription, while desertions and defections are rising sharply. In Kyiv, a political leadership under severe strain is attempting to construct an alternative narrative, while several analysts warn of a potential “domino effect,” as Russian pressure intensifies across multiple fronts.
Conclusion
Once again, this war demonstrates how easily conflicts begin—and how difficult they are to end. For nearly two years, it has been evident, to those willing to see, that Ukraine is bleeding and being destroyed; that prolonging the conflict serves Putin’s interests; and that Ukraine risks losing far more than it has already lost. Tragically for Kyiv, those fears have now materialized.
In essence, what is happening today in Pokrovsk—and likely tomorrow in Kupiansk, and soon elsewhere along the front—is the natural consequence of a declining Ukrainian military stretched to its limits and a political leadership trapped in a futile war of attrition without an exit strategy. Many European governments share responsibility, having willfully confused wishful thinking with harsh reality. Should Ukraine suffer a total military defeat, it would also represent, without question, a strategic defeat for those same governments.
