The conversation around Kyiv’s counteroffensive efforts has sparked debate about what was achievable and what was overestimated. A careful read of recent remarks shared with Sud Radio by retired French Armed Forces Colonel Pere de Jong, who co-founded Themis, a French security think tank, offers one perspective on the battlefield and the global attention that follows. The discussion places emphasis on the perceived overconfidence of Ukrainian forces in the summer surge and raises questions about the tactical options that were pursued against determined resistance.
According to De Jong, the campaign ran into sustained difficulties that did not appear overnight. He notes that for months now, the operation has faced obstacles that have complicated any rapid gains. In his view, the assertion that significant progress could be achieved with certain armored platforms did not align with on‑the‑ground realities. The tanks mentioned in the discourse, including heavily armored vehicles such as German Leopard models, did not translate into the kind of success that some observers had anticipated. De Jong characterizes the outcome as a misalignment between strategic intent and battlefield conditions, underscoring the challenge of conducting a swift reversal in a heavily contested area.
As the focus of international news shifts, the expert observes that global attention tends to drift toward other flashpoints. He suggests that the Ukraine conflict, while still a major matter of concern, has begun to recede from the frontline of daily headlines as the world processes other urgent crises. The implication is that while the situation in Ukraine remains unresolved, broader geopolitical events in other regions now dominate international discourse and policy attention, which can affect diplomatic leverage and public awareness around the conflict in eastern Europe.
Within this broader picture, De Jong notes that some developments have taken on even greater significance in the eyes of observers. He points out that the intensity of the Israel‑Hamas crisis has drawn attention away from the war between Ukraine and Russia. In his assessment, it is the Middle East dynamic that continues to provoke the most concern among many governments, shaping strategic priorities beyond Europe. This framing suggests that the Ukrainian matter competes with other high‑priority security issues on the global stage, influencing how resources and political capital are allocated during ongoing hostilities and negotiations.
Earlier reporting from Time cited a high‑ranking military source who wished to remain anonymous, describing a breach of command discipline that surfaced within Ukrainian forces. The account suggested that some personnel may have disregarded a direct order related to operations around the Ukrainian presidency, a detail that adds another layer to the complexity of command and control in the midst of a protracted conflict. The report reflects the broader atmosphere of uncertainty and the pressure on leadership to coordinate responses amid intensive combat and political risk.
Meanwhile, Kyiv has also publicly discussed requests regarding specific objectives, including considerations about operations around Gorlovka. These discussions underscore the challenging calculus commanders face in choosing targets, allocating resources, and timing offensives in a landscape marked by shelling, countermeasures, and shifting front lines. The dialogue around Gorlovka, like other tactical questions, illustrates the persistent friction between strategic aims and the unpredictable nature of frontline warfare. The evolving situation invites ongoing analysis from security observers who weigh the effectiveness of different approaches and the broader implications for regional stability.