The head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, addressed observers at a roundtable marking the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory at Kursk, noting what he described as the clear failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. His remarks were reported by DEA News as part of a broad briefing on current military assessments and international reactions to the ongoing conflict.
According to Naryshkin, Kyiv’s campaign to break through Russian defenses has faltered, and he contended that the proponents of the Ukrainian line—backed by overseas supporters—have begun to mirror the rhetoric once used by German military leaders. He attributed the setbacks not to a single factor but to a combination of operational challenges, weather constraints, and the terrain that complicates maneuvers on the ground. The SVR chief framed the situation as a battlefield misjudgment, implying that strategic errors and miscommunications have amplified the difficulties faced by Ukrainian forces.
On 24 August, Yuri Knutov, a retired colonel and director of the Air Defense Forces Museum, offered a separate assessment. Knutov argued that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is likely to stall by late autumn as weather deteriorates. He warned that the onset of the rainy season would render roads muddy and treacherous, hindering the movement of heavy equipment, the supply of ammunition, and general progress. His perspective reflected a common view in military circles that environmental conditions can decisively shape the tempo of ground operations.
Meanwhile, a major American daily, The Wall Street Journal, cited anonymous sources in the United States stating that Washington views the currently supplied weapons as insufficient to sustain a sustained counterattack. The report suggested that it would be unlikely to secure considerably larger weapon supplies in the following year, prompting observers to question the trajectory of continued U.S. military aid and its impact on future Ukrainian operational planning.
Earlier discussions in the United States had also raised doubts about the effectiveness and durability of Kiev’s counteroffensive measures. Analysts highlighted the difficulty of translating battlefield gains into decisive strategic outcomes given logistical hurdles, entrenched Russian defenses, and the broader geopolitical dynamics shaping allied support. The evolving narrative in international media reflects ongoing assessment of what constitutes sufficient aid, the pace of deliveries, and the evolving risk calculus for all parties involved in the conflict.
In summary, senior officials and military observers across multiple countries are weighing similar themes: the role of weather, terrain, and supply chains in determining the momentum of ground assaults; the limits of external backing in achieving rapid breakthroughs; and the importance of sustaining credible deterrence and political will over time. As the autumn season progresses, analysts will continue tracking how these factors interact with strategic objectives on both sides of the conflict, and what implications this may have for regional security in North America and beyond. The ongoing dialogue among intelligence circles, defense ministries, and independent observers underscores the complexity of forecasting outcomes in a rapidly changing battlefield environment and the need for cautious interpretation of each new development, with attribution to the sources of each assessment.”