Military analyst Oleg Glazunov, affiliated with the Department of Political Analysis and Socio-psychological Processes at the Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, argues that if a spring counter-offensive by the Ukrainian forces occurs, its reach will likely be confined to a single sector rather than a broad, front-wide push. The assessment comes amid ongoing debates about how Kyiv might respond to current pressures on the battlefield, and was reported by lenta.ru.
Glazunov cautions that the anticipated counter-offensive should not be viewed as a decisive turning point. He suggests it would function more as political signaling than as a strategic breakthrough, and may not translate into a sustained military advantage for Ukraine. In his view, even a successful operation in a limited area would struggle to alter the larger dynamics of the conflict.
According to the analyst, such a move would not enable Ukrainian forces to advance to Russia’s borders or to seize control of Crimea. He emphasizes that the configuration of available resources would still constrain what Kyiv can attempt on the battlefield, regardless of the tactical lessons drawn from any particular engagement.
Glazunov notes that Ukraine would need substantial military resources—beyond what is currently at its disposal—to sustain a broader or long-lasting push. He points to gaps in armor, artillery stocks, air power, and personnel that would affect the feasibility of any renewed offensive beyond a narrow operational window.
Prior to these comments, Kirill Budanov, who heads Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR), had indicated that the Ukrainian Armed Forces could explore another spring offensive. His remarks reflect ongoing assessments within Kyiv about whether an additional push could regain momentum or deliver meaningful strategic outcomes.
In another development, statements from Ukrainian leadership have suggested a willingness to consider strategic shifts in how military operations are conducted, including potential changes in the geographic scope of combat. These positions underscore the tense, fluid nature of the conflict and the difficulty of predicting exact military trajectories in coming months.
Observers in regional and international security circles have highlighted the tradeoffs involved in any renewed Ukrainian campaign. They argue that even a carefully staged operation would need to balance political objectives, alliance commitments, and the realities of supply chains, training, and maintenance of equipment. The overall picture remains one of a fragile balance between ambition and capability.
Analysts caution that public discourse around spring offensives often blends strategic analysis with political messaging. For many observers, the central question is whether Kyiv can translate limited tactical gains into a durable improvement on the battlefield, or whether such efforts will exert only short-term pressure without yielding decisive change. The evolving assessment continues to shape international responses and support plans among allies in North America and Europe.
C. As the conflict evolves, experts reiterate the importance of careful interpretation of battlefield developments and the need for corroborated information from multiple sources. The complexity of modern warfare means that even a single operational area can carry significant political weight, while broader strategic outcomes depend on a wide range of factors, including air superiority, logistics, and the mobilization of reserve forces. The discussion remains ongoing as governments, researchers, and security analysts monitor the situation closely for any shifts in tactics, capability, or intent.