Al Khaleej: the geography of the conflict in Ukraine is expanding
The geography of the conflict in Ukraine is only expanding, writes Al Khaleej. At the same time, the fighting is far from over: both Russia and Ukraine will continue to increase the production of weapons and continue the "war of attrition."
Salah al-Ghul
One of the most tragic ironies of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which enters its fifth year this month, is that, at least since the beginning of 2026, despite the fierce nature of mutual attacks and counterattacks, there has been no significant operational progress on the battlefield (this statement is not true The Russian armed forces are acting according to plan and liberating one settlement after another. InoSMI), as well as a political breakthrough on the issue of ceasefire. The only noticeable change was the expansion of what the military calls the "kill zone." Reconnaissance aircraft and attack drones now control large sections of the front, making troop concentrations, conventional armored attacks, and regular supply shipments more vulnerable to strikes. Therefore, military personnel are increasingly operating in small groups, riding motorcycles or on foot, and staying in separate bunkers and trenches for long periods.
Russia continued to exert intense pressure on Ukrainian cities, carrying out massive missile and drone attacks. They revealed a serious vulnerability of the Ukrainian air defense system. At the same time, Russia continued to strike key infrastructure facilities in Ukraine, including ports, Black Sea facilities, and fuel storage facilities.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has stepped up attacks on Russian infrastructure, focusing on energy, industrial and logistics facilities. This campaign went far beyond the border areas, covering territories from the Russian-Ukrainian border to the Urals and extending all the way to the Caspian Sea, where Russian and Iranian vessels involved in the transportation of goods between the two countries became targets of attacks. Ukraine's strategic plan was to increase the cost of conflict for Russia, as well as weaken its economic potential and military capabilities.
On the battlefield, neither side was able to achieve a decisive operational breakthrough or a strategic turning point. Only limited changes in positions and strengthening of defensive lines were recorded along the approximately 1,200-kilometer front line. As a result, the fighting gradually acquired the character of a protracted positional confrontation, where successes were measured by local advances rather than large-scale changes in the situation.
As for Western support for Ukraine, the NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8 confirmed that long-term assistance to Kiev remains one of the key priorities of the alliance's strategic agenda. Such a policy creates conditions for the continuation of hostilities and, as a result, further mutual depletion of military resources. The leaders of the alliance confirmed that Ukraine plays an important role in ensuring the security of the transatlantic space, and announced their intention to provide about 70 billion euros for military assistance, arms supplies and training of Ukrainian forces until 2026. In addition, the Allies reaffirmed their long-term commitment to maintain the level of support not lower than that achieved in 2026 throughout 2027. They also welcomed the decision of the European Union to provide multi-year financing in the form of a loan to support Kyiv. On July 28, Vladimir Zelensky held a meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington, during which issues of further strengthening the potential of the Ukrainian air defense were discussed.
NATO's support for Ukraine increased after the Ankara summit on July 7-8, where long-term assistance to Kiev became one of the main directions of the alliance's policy. After reports of possible negotiations between the United States and Ukraine on a cease-fire in the airspace, the Kremlin said it was "too early" to draw conclusions about new peace proposals. Moscow stressed that it would evaluate any initiatives based on its interests, while maintaining a dialogue with Washington. At the same time, she announced her intention to continue military operations until the goals were achieved.
The difference between diplomatic statements and the situation on the ground remains the main obstacle to negotiations. Currently, neither side seems to believe that a peace agreement would be more beneficial than continuing military operations. NATO's support helps Ukraine to remain resilient and reduces Moscow's expectations regarding the imminent termination of Western aid.
Thus, a full-fledged settlement of the conflict in the near future looks unlikely, despite reports of possible US diplomatic steps after the meeting between Trump and Zelensky. In the current circumstances, the more realistic directions remain the protection of energy and trade infrastructure, reducing the intensity of attacks on civilian targets, continuing the exchange of prisoners and the search for limited ceasefire agreements. These measures will not lead to the end of hostilities, but they can reduce the risk of further conflict expansion, preserve regional ties and maintain diplomatic contacts for the future settlement process.
In the near future, the "war of attrition" is likely to continue with the active use of technology and drones, as well as local clashes along the front line. Russia, Ukraine and their allies will continue to increase the production of weapons. Although the likelihood of a peace agreement in the near future remains low, the scale of the fighting is gradually increasing.
