This page collects the Critical Threats Project (CTP) and the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) updates on the invasion of Ukraine. In late February 2022, CTP and ISW began publishing daily synthetic products covering key events related to renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. These Ukraine Conflict Updates replaced the “Indicators and Thresholds for Russian Military Operations in Ukraine and/or Belarus,” which we maintained from November 12, 2021, through February 17, 2022.

This list also includes prominent warning alerts that CTP and ISW launched outside the crisis update structure. These products addressed critical inflection points as they occurred.

Follow the Critical Threats Project on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook.

• Maps on Assessed Control of Terrain in Ukraine and Main Russian Maneuver Axes
• Recent Updates
• February 2022 - July 2023 Updates
• Related Reads

Maps on Assessed Control of Terrain in Ukraine and Main Russian Maneuver Axes

This interactive map complements the static daily control-of-terrain maps that CTP and ISW produce with high-fidelity and, where possible, street level assessments of the war in Ukraine.

Click here to access the archive of interactive time-lapse maps of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These maps complement the static control-of-terrain maps that produced daily by showing a dynamic frontline.

The Critical Threats Project and the Institute for the Study of War are publishing a summary of the methodology of our map for those who would like to learn more about the tradecraft for mapping conventional military operations from the open source.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Previous versions of these static maps are available in our past publications. 

Recent Updates

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 6, 2026 

Ukrainian forces continued their long range strike campaign against Russian military and energy infrastructure overnight on January 5 to 6. The Ukrainian General Staff reported on January 6 that Ukrainian forces struck the 100th Arsenal of the Russian Main Missile and Artillery Directorate (GRAU) near Neya, Kostroma Oblast.[1] Sources within Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) told Ukrainian media outlets that the strike caused secondary explosions of ammunition.[2] The sources added that the arsenal supplied ammunition depots in the Russian Central and Moscow military districts. Geolocated footage published on January 6 shows a smoke plume near the arsenal.[3] Kostroma Oblast Governor Sergei Sitnikov claimed on January 6 that falling drone fragments started a fire at an unspecified military base in Neysky Raion, and announced the opening of an evacuation point for residents of southern Neya.[4] The Ukrainian General Staff reported on January 6 that Ukrainian forces also struck the Gerkon Plus oil depot near Streletskie Khutora, Usmansky Okrug, Lipetsk Oblast, starting a fire.[5] Sources within the SBU told Ukrainian media outlets that the depot supplies oil to Tambov, Voronezh, and Lipetsk oblasts.[6] Geolocated footage published on January 6 shows a fire at the depot.[7] Lipetsk Oblast Governor Igor Artamonov claimed on January 6 that falling drone fragments started a fire at an unspecified industrial facility in Usmansky Okrug.[8]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with leaders of states in the Coalition of the Willing in Paris on January 6 to discuss possible security guarantees for post-war Ukraine. The Coalition of the Willing issued a statement reiterating that ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty and lasting security will be an "integral" part of a future peace agreement.[9] The coalition stated that it is ready to commit to politically and legally binding guarantees that will activate upon the start of a ceasefire. The guarantees will include a US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism; the long-term military assistance and armament of Ukraine; a multinational force to support deterrence measures in the air, at sea, and on land; binding commitments to support Ukraine in the event of renewed Russian aggression, including the use of military capabilities, intelligence and logistics support, diplomatic initiatives, and the implementation of additional sanctions on Russia; and deepening long-term defense cooperation with Ukraine, including joint training and defense industrial production. Kremlin officials have repeatedly labelled such Western security guarantees for Ukraine, particularly the deployment of foreign troops, as "unacceptable" to Russia.[10]

A German military document reportedly describes how Russia is using covert attacks against German infrastructure to prepare for a potential Russia-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) war in the future, in line with ISW's ongoing assessments. Western outlets reported in late December 2025 and early January 2026 that a German military document states that Russia is intensifying its covert attacks on key German infrastructure, likely as possible preparation for a wider conflict.[11] The document reportedly also frames Russian cyber operations and influence campaigns as preparation for a military confrontation. The document further notes that Germany expects Russia to target German energy and defense infrastructure early, given Germany's role as a NATO hub for moving and sustaining forces and forecasts that Russia will see Germany as a priority target for long range missile strikes, armed drones, and special forces after an open armed attack on NATO's eastern flank. The document presents an assessment that Russia will develop these capabilities and "strategic options" by 2029 at the latest, even if Russia's war against Ukraine continues unchanged. ISW continues to assess that Russia would likely be able to pose a significant threat to NATO earlier than many Western estimates, particularly in the event of a future ceasefire in Ukraine that would free up Russian forces and allow Russia to rearm and reconstitute.[12] Russian covert attacks against German infrastructure are likely a line of effort within Russia’s "Phase Zero" campaign—the informational and psychological condition-setting phase—to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[13]

Key Takeaways:

• Ukrainian forces continued their long range strike campaign against Russian military and energy infrastructure overnight on January 5 to 6.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with leaders of states in the Coalition of the Willing in Paris on January 6 to discuss possible security guarantees for post-war Ukraine.
• A German military document reportedly describes how Russia is using covert attacks against German infrastructure to prepare for a potential Russia-NATO war in the future, in line with ISW's ongoing assessments.
• Russian forces recently advanced in the Siversk and Hulyaipole directions.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 5, 2026 

Russia is modifying its Shahed long-range strike drones to target Ukrainian aircraft as part of a wider effort to innovate and maximize long-range drone capabilities. Ukrainian electronic and radio warfare expert Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov published images and footage on January 4 showing a downed Shahed drone equipped with a man-portable air defense system (MANPADS), likely a Verba MANPADS, operating as a remotely launched short range air defense system. Beskrestnov reported that Russian forces fielded the modified drones for the first time overnight on January 3 to 4.[1] The footage indicates that Russia mounted the Verba MANPADS on the top of the drone and mounted an antenna for remote control on the wing stabilizer. Beskrestnov stated that Russian forces also modified the Shahed with a camera and a radio modem, allowing the drone operator to control the drone as it flies. The MANPADS are positioned to fire in front of the drone as it flies, indicating that Russian forces likely intend to use this adaptation to target Ukrainian fighter jets and helicopters operating as part of Ukraine's air defense umbrella. Verba MANPADS have an operational range of roughly six kilometers and a maximum altitude of trajectory of about 4.5 kilometers when fired from the ground.[2] Russian forces have continuously innovated modifications to Shahed drones throughout the war to maximize capabilities and damage potential. Previous modifications have allowed Russian forces to target mobile components of the Ukrainian air defense umbrella, including Ukrainian mobile target groups on the ground and aircraft in the air.[3] Russian forces previously equipped Shahed drones with other air-to-air weapons as part of the effort to degrade Ukrainian air defenses.[4]

Ukrainian and Russian forces have been engaged in an offense-defense race since 2022 to develop new technology, as Russian forces have escalated their long-range strike campaign and Ukrainian forces have responded by innovating new air defense measures to combat the strikes.[5] Ukrainian drones have developed interceptor drones capable of downing Russian drones.[6] The MANPADS on the Shahed drones are front-facing, leaving the drones vulnerable to Ukrainian interceptor drones that approach Russian drones from behind. Russia’s continued efforts to degrade Ukrainian air defenses through constant innovation and adaptation underscore the need for a flexible, well-rounded, and well-provisioned Ukrainian air defense umbrella, including an arsenal of interceptor drones.

Russian forces struck a hospital in Kyiv City and an American-owned enterprise in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast during missile and long-range drone strikes overnight on January 4 to 5. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched nine Iskander-M ballistic missiles/S-300 air defense missiles from Bryansk and Voronezh oblasts and 165 Shahed, Gerbera, and other types of long-range strike drones from Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Kursk and Oryol cities, and Shatalovo, Smolensk Oblast.[7] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 137 drones and that 26 Russian drones struck 10 locations. Geolocated footage published on January 5 shows the Medikom Medical Center burning in Kyiv City following a Russian drone strike.[8] Ukrainian officials reported that the Russian strike against the medical center in Kyiv City killed at least one patient and injured at least three others, and that there were about 70 patients at the facility at the time of the strike.[9] Additional geolocated footage published on January 5 shows a drone strike and explosion at an American-owned vegetable oil enterprise in Dnipro City, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.[10] Dnipropetrovsk Oblast officials corroborated reports of a strike against the enterprise and reported that the strike spilled 300 metric tons of vegetable oil.[11] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces also struck energy infrastructure in Kharkiv and Kyiv oblasts.[12]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced further personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and security services on January 5. Zelensky signed a decree on January 5 appointing Major General Yevheniy Khmara, head of the Alpha Special Operations Center of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), as acting head of the SBU.[13] SBU Head Lieutenant General Vasyl Malyuk announced his resignation on January 5 but stated that he will remain in the SBU to direct asymmetric operations.[14] Zelensky stated on January 5 that he and Malyuk discussed potential candidates to head the SBU permanently.[15]

European authorities are investigating deliberate damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea for the second time since December 31. Lithuanian National Crisis Management Center Head Vilmantas Vitkauskas stated on January 5 that Lithuanian and Latvian authorities are investigating deliberate damage to an undersea optics cable in the Baltic Sea that occurred on the evening of January 2.[16] Vitkauskas stated that authorities are currently investigating an unspecified ship and its crew, currently docked in the port of Liepaja, but did not name the ship or its affiliation or attribute the damage to a specific actor. Finnish and Estonian authorities reported damage to an undersea communications cable between Estonia and Finland due to deliberate cutting on December 31 and detained the crew of the Fitburg, a ship carrying sanctioned Russian steel products from St. Petersburg, under suspicion of cutting the cables, but have not yet attributed a specific actor to the incident.[17] The December 31 and January 2 undersea cable incidents come against the backdrop of Russia’s intensifying “Phase Zero” campaign to destabilize Europe, undermine NATO’s cohesion, and set the political, informational, and psychological conditions for a potential future Russian war against NATO.[18]

Key Takeaways:

• Russia is modifying its Shahed long-range strike drones to target Ukrainian aircraft as part of a wider effort to innovate and maximize long-range drone capabilities.
• Russian forces struck a hospital in Kyiv City and an American-owned enterprise in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast during missile and long-range drone strikes overnight on January 4 to 5.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced further personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and security services on January 5.
• European authorities are investigating deliberate damage to undersea cables in the Baltic Sea for the second time since December 31.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kupyansk direction. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 4, 2026 

Russian officials continue to respond to the US military operation in Venezuela, but the response from senior Kremlin decisionmakers remains relatively muted. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Belarusian Foreign Minister Mikhail Ryzhenkov discussed the US operation in Venezuela during a phone call on January 3 and issued a joint, boilerplate condemnation of US actions and called for the United States to return Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife to Venezuela.[i] Russian Security Council Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev heavily criticized the US military operation in a comment to Kremlin newswire TASS, accusing US President Donald Trump of violating international laws and expressing Russia's support for Maduro.[ii] Medvedev also used the US operation to seize Maduro in order to threaten German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.[iii] Russian State Duma deputies also criticized the US operation, claiming that the United States rejects the sovereignty of states in the Western Hemisphere and aims to establish control over Venezuelan oil reserves.[iv] The Kremlin's response to the US operation in Venezuela has been boilerplate thus far.[v] The Kremlin will likely have to balance its responses between maintaining its credibility as a partner to other states with its continued efforts to cater to the Trump administration.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Ukrainian State Border Guard Service First Deputy Head Major General Valeriy Vavrynyuk as acting head of the State Border Guard Service on January 4.[vi]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian officials continue to respond to the US military operation in Venezuela, but the response from senior Kremlin decisionmakers remains relatively muted.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Ukrainian State Border Guard Service First Deputy Head Major General Valeriy Vavrynyuk as acting head of the State Border Guard Service on January 4.
• Ukrainian forces advanced near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 3, 2025 

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a boilerplate response condemning the US military operation against Venezuela on January 3. The Russian MFA condemned the US operation and reaffirmed Russia's support for the Venezuelan leadership's policies to protect Venezuelan national interests.[1] The MFA called for the United States and Venezuela to find a resolution through dialogue and stated that Russia is prepared to assist in these efforts. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke on January 3 with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and reiterated the MFA's statements during the call.[2] The Russian MFA denied a January 3 report from Reuters claiming that Rodriguez is in Russia.[3] Russian milbloggers responded to the US operation in Venezuela, including by criticizing the Venezuelan military as weak and unprepared and highlighting Russia's missile stockpiles and nuclear deterrence capabilities in comparison.[4]

Ukraine met with national security advisors from its Western allies and partners in Kyiv on January 3. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on January 3 that he met with the national security advisors of member states of the Coalition of the Willing and representatives of the European Council, European Commission, and NATO.[5] Zelensky reported that the officials discussed a framework peace plan, security guarantees, and the reconstruction and economic recovery of Ukraine. First Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya stated that Ukraine presented the main documents from the ongoing peace negotiations to the national security advisors ahead of the January 6 meeting of leaders of the Coalition of the Willing states in Paris.[6]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced further personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and military. Zelensky reported on January 2 that he proposed current Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov to take the position of minister of defense.[7] Zelensky noted that Fedorov can implement his experience in facilitating Ukraine’s “Drone Line” project (which aims to integrate drone and ground operations in the Ukrainian military) and digitalizing state services and processes in the defense sector. Zelensky proposed to appoint current Ukrainian Defense Minister Denys Shmyhal as the new minister of energy and first deputy prime minister.[8] Zelensky additionally announced that he will appoint First Deputy Foreign Minister Serhiy Kyslytsya as the first deputy head of the Office of the President and noted that Kyslytsya will continue to work in the Ukrainian negotiating delegation.[9] Zelensky further reported that he is considering new candidates to head the military administrations in Vinnytsia, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava, Ternopil, and Chernihiv oblasts.[10]

Key Takeaways:

•       The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a boilerplate response condemning the US military operation against Venezuela on January 3.
•             Ukraine met with national security advisors from its Western allies and partners in Kyiv on January 3.
•             Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced further personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and military.
•       Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kupyansk direction. Russian forces recently advanced in northern Kharkiv Oblast and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, January 2, 2026 

Russian officials accused Ukraine of conducting a strike against a hotel and cafe in occupied Khorly, Kherson Oblast, that reportedly killed at least 28 people and injured at least 50, and called for the intensification of Russia's war efforts, including its campaign of strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.[i] Russian occupation authorities claimed that about 100 people had gathered at the cafe and hotel for New Year celebrations when three Ukrainian drones struck the cafe and hotel minutes apart just after midnight on January 1, causing a fire that trapped people inside the building.[ii] Occupation authorities and Russian sources claimed that five Ukrainian drones continued to fly overhead following the strike, preventing first responders from immediately responding.[iii] Russian and occupation officials claimed that there were no military personnel at the cafe and hotel at the time of the strike or military targets nearby and accused Ukraine of deliberately targeting civilians.[iv] Former Russian space agency Roscosmos head and Zaporizhia Oblast occupation senator Dmitry Rogozin claimed that soldiers and medics of the 4th company of the BARS-Sarmat Special Purpose Center military were in Khorly at the time of the strike and provided assistance, however.[v] Occupation authorities claimed that at least one of the drones had a payload of 10 to 20 kilograms of trinitrotoluene (TNT) and later claimed that at least one drone had an incendiary warhead that caused a massive fire.[vi] Kherson Oblast occupation head Vladimir Saldo briefed Russian President Vladimir Putin on the strike and its aftermath on January 1.[vii] Russian authorities and media published images showing fragments of a drone that allegedly struck the cafe and hotel.[viii] Geolocated footage published on January 1 shows a fire at the cafe and hotel, and Russian authorities published additional images showing widespread destruction at the site of the fire.[ix]

Ukraine rejected Russian claims that it targeted civilians in occupied Khorly. Ukrainian General Staff Spokesperson Captain Dmytro Lykhovyi responded to the Russian claims on January 1, stating that Russian political and military leadership is spreading disinformation and false statements.[x] Lykhovyi stated that the Ukrainian General Staff published an "exhaustive" list of strikes that Ukrainian forces conducted against areas in Russia and occupied Ukraine overnight on December 31 to January 1, and this list did not include any strikes against occupied Kherson Oblast.[xi] An anonymous source in Ukraine's defense forces told AFP in response to a question about the Khorly strike on January 2 that Ukraine did conduct a strike but that Ukrainian forces targeted a military gathering that had been closed to civilians.[xii] A local Crimea-based Telegram account reported on January 1 that Russian soldiers, their families, and local occupation officials were at the hotel and cafe at the time of the strike.[xiii] The available footage of the fire is sufficient for ISW to assess that there was very likely a strike that significantly damaged the cafe and hotel in occupied Khorly, though ISW is not prepared to assess the intended target of the strike. ISW has observed no statements or evidence to assess that the strike was a Russian false flag operation.

The strike against occupied Khorly reportedly killed Russian occupation officials. Russian authorities have published the names of 12 people killed at the hotel and cafe as of this report, and at least three are tied to the Russian occupation administration.[xiv] BBC's Russia service reported on January 2 that Sergei Bogan, who died in the strike, is the former head of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) in occupied Kalanchak, Kherson Oblast (a larger settlement about 16 kilometers north of Khorly) and that his wife is a current member of the Nova Kakhovka occupation administration.[xv] It is currently unclear if Bogan's wife was also at the Khorly cafe and hotel at the time of the strike. The BBC reported that the strike also killed Mikhail Voloshko, the head of the Kalanchak occupation administration's information technology department, and Iryna Dyagileva, who previously served as an occupation election commissioner in occupied Crimea and has since run for office in the occupation government.[xvi] The strike also killed Makhmud Admisayev, who reportedly frequently travelled between Russia and occupied Crimea with a school official of occupied Havrylivka, Kherson Oblast.[xvii] The strike also killed the owner of the cafe and hotel, who reportedly began collaborating with Russian occupation officials in 2023.[xviii] Available information about the remainder of the identified victims is limited as of this report.

Russian officials seized on the Khorly strike to call for the intensification of Russia's years-long intensive strike campaign against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. Russian officials responded to the Khorly strike on January 1 and 2 around a few common themes: that the strike only strengthens Russia's commitment to rapidly achieving its war goals, which include unseating the Ukrainian government and that Ukraine would use a potential ceasefire to plan more strikes.[xix] Russian officials called on Russia to strike Ukrainian critical infrastructure in response, absurdly claiming that Russia has been abstaining from such strikes and never hits civilian objects.[xx] Russia has been conducting a long-range strike campaign that purposefully targets Ukrainian civilian and energy infrastructure and disproportionately impacts civilians throughout the war and has intensified these strikes in recent months.[xxi] Russian forces launched over 54,000 long-range drones and over 1,900 missiles against Ukraine just in 2025 and adapted these weapons to inflict maximum damage, which has increased damage against civilian areas and civilian casualties.[xxii] The Kremlin may secondarily intend to use the Khorly strike as justification for its continued lack of engagement in the peace process.

Ukraine warned that Russia is likely preparing a false flag operation that will inflict significant casualties to disrupt ongoing peace negotiations. The Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service (SZRU) reported on January 1 that the Kremlin is preparing large scale false flag attacks, likely on the eve of or during Orthodox Christmas (January 6 and 7), at a religious building or other symbolic location in Russia or occupied Ukraine to disrupt US-led peace negotiations.[xxiii] The SZRU reported that the Kremlin has been spreading new false claims to prepare Russians and foreign audiences for further escalation, following the alleged attempt to strike on Putin's residence on the night of December 28 to 29. The SZRU noted that Russia will likely conduct the attack from a frontline location and plans to use fragments of Western-made drones as manufactured evidence of Ukraine's supposed involvement.

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues to present alleged evidence to support its claim that Ukrainian drone strikes targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29 but this evidence remains unpersuasive. The Russian MoD published footage on January 1 showing Russian General Staff’s Main Directorate (GRU) Head Admiral Igor Kostyukov handing over supposed route data and a flight controller of a drone that allegedly targeted Putin's residence to the US military attaché at the US Embassy in Russia.[xxiv] Kostyukov claimed that Russia decoded the alleged Ukrainian drone's data, "unequivocally" confirming that Ukraine targeted Putin's residence.[xxv] The circumstances of the alleged December 28 to 29 strike continue not to conform to the pattern of observed evidence that typically follows Ukrainian deep strikes, and the Kremlin's continued claims and presentations of alleged evidence continue not to account for these discrepancies.[xxvi]

Ukraine announced on January 1 that it received and deployed two more Patriot air defense systems to protect Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure following recent agreements with Germany.[xxvii] Patriot air defense systems remain Ukraine’s only air defense systems capable of reliably downing Russian ballistic missiles. ISW continues to assess that a denser Ukrainian air defense umbrella, including additional Patriot systems, would degrade Russia’s ability to conduct successful long-range strikes.[xxviii]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced several personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and military on January 2. Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov stated that he has accepted Zelensky's offer to head the Office of the Ukrainian President.[xxix] Zelensky stated that Ukrainian Foreign Intelligence Service (SZR) Head Oleh Ivashchenko would replace Budanov as the GUR head.[xxx] Zelensky also announced that Serhiy Deineko is stepping down from his position as head of Ukraine’s State Border Service but will continue to work within the Ministry of Internal Affairs.[xxxi] Zelensky stated that Ukrainian Internal Affairs Minister Ihor Klymenko will propose candidates to replace Deinenko.

Finnish and Estonian authorities reported damage to an undersea communications cable between Estonia and Finland that may be due to deliberate cutting on December 31.[xxxii] Estonian authorities reported that the damage site is located within the Estonian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and that a cargo vessel had been travelling in the area at the time the damage occurred.[xxxiii] Finnish Border Guards located and intercepted the Fitburg cargo ship and have since arrested at least two crewmembers and interviewed the remainder under suspicion of deliberately damaging the undersea cable.[xxxiv] Albros Shipping & Trading, a Turkish company based in Istanbul, manages the Fitburg, which was traveling from St. Petersburg, Russia, to Haifa, Israel, under the flag of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines when Finnish authorities intercepted it.[xxxv] Finnish authorities reported that the Fitburg was carrying illegal Russian steel products.[xxxvi] Estonian Central Criminal Police Chief Leho Lauri reported on January 1 that Estonia and Finland will form an international investigations team in response to the December 31 cable event.[xxxvii] Finnish authorities have not officially attributed the damage to any specific actor. The December 31 cable incident comes against the backdrop of Russia's intensifying “Phase Zero” campaign to destabilize Europe, undermine North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s cohesion, and set the political, informational, and psychological conditions for a potential future Russian war against NATO.[xxxviii]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian officials accused Ukraine of conducting a strike against a hotel and cafe in occupied Khorly, Kherson Oblast, that reportedly killed at least 28 people and injured at least 50, and called for the intensification of Russia's war efforts, including its campaign of strikes against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.
• Ukraine rejected Russian claims that it targeted civilians in occupied Khorly.
• The strike against occupied Khorly killed Russian occupation officials.
• Russian officials seized on the Khorly strike to call for the intensification of Russia's years-long intensive strike campaign against Ukrainian critical infrastructure.
• Ukraine warned that Russia is likely preparing a false flag operation that will inflict significant casualties to disrupt ongoing peace negotiations.
• The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) continues to present alleged evidence to support its claim that Ukrainian drone strikes targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29, but this evidence remains unpersuasive.
• Ukraine announced on January 1 that it received and deployed two more Patriot air defense systems to protect Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure following recent agreements with Germany.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced several personnel changes within the Ukrainian government and military on January 2.
• Finnish and Estonian authorities reported damage to an undersea communications cable between Estonia and Finland that may be due to deliberate cutting on December 31.
• Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 31, 2025 

Russian forces increased their average rate of advance in 2025 due to a new operational template supported by technological adaptations and a shift in assault tactics. ISW observed evidence to assess that Russian forces seized 4,831 square kilometers in Ukraine and regained roughly 473 square kilometers that Ukrainian forces had taken in Kursk Oblast in 2025. Russian gains in Ukraine amounted to 0.8 percent of Ukraine's territory. Russian forces had seized 3,604 square kilometers in Ukraine in 2024. Data from the Ukrainian General Staff shows that Russian forces suffered 416,570 casualties throughout 2025, for an average of 78 casualties per square kilometer seized in Ukraine and Kursk Oblast. The average daily Russian rate of advance in 2025 was 13.24 square kilometers per day — higher than the daily average of 9.87 square kilometers per day in 2024. The Russian rate of advance has not been consistent throughout 2025, however. The Russian rate of advance was highest in November at 20.99 square kilometers per day, but this high came after one of the slowest months in 2025 — 8.8 square kilometers per day in October - and subsequently slowed to 15 square kilometers per day in December.

Russian forces began employing a new operational template that relies on a prolonged battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign, tactical interdiction efforts, infiltration missions, and mass small group assaults that enabled the Russian advances in the Pokrovsk, Oleksandrivka, and Hulyaipole directions that occurred in Fall 2025.[1] Russian forces began achieving some BAI effects by using UAVs to interdict Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) in early Spring 2025.[2] The Russian military began to proliferate its elite drone operators of the Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies — the elements that have been largely responsible for successes in Russia’s operational BAI efforts — across the frontline in April and May 2025.[3]

Russian technological adaptations have also supported Russia’s BAI campaign. Russian forces have scaled the production of fiber optic UAVs that are more resistant to Ukrainian electronic warfare (EW) interference and have increased the range of their fiber optic UAVs from roughly seven kilometers in early Spring 2025 to around 20 kilometers in Summer 2025.[4] Russian forces also introduced “mothership” drones that can carry and extend the range of first-person view (FPVs) drones and significantly increase the reach of Russian drone strikes in the near rear.[5] Recent Russian technological adaptations have further extended the range of Russian fiber-optic drones to between 50 and 60 kilometers.[6] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi noted on December 30 that Russia’s concentration of fiber optic drones with ranges of more than 20 kilometers in the Siversk direction enabled Russia’s seizure of Siversk.[7] Russian forces’ use of fiber optic drones has also improved their ability to interdict Ukrainian GLOCs in forested areas, such as the Serebryanske forest area, where radio-controlled drones struggle to operate.[8]

Russian forces changed their tactical-level assault methods as well, moving away from highly attritional infantry-led assaults in June 2025 to infiltration tactics (and flag raisings) to make (and falsely claim) gains across the front.[9] This shift in tactics has enabled a more rapid rate of Russian advance in 2025, but Russian forces continue to suffer high casualty rates for gains that remain small.[10]

The Russian military command largely prioritized efforts to seize the remainder of Donetsk Oblast and establish a buffer zone in northern Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts in 2025 but failed to accomplish these goals. Ukrainian Presidential Office Deputy Head Colonel Pavlo Palisa stated on June 5 that Russia intended to seize and occupy the full extent of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts by September 1, 2025, and to create a buffer zone along the northern Ukrainian-Russian border by the end of 2025 — both of which tasks Russian forces failed to complete.[11] Russian forces prioritized efforts to seize Pokrovsk, advance in western Donetsk Oblast, and push into southeastern Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in 2025. Russian forces advanced into Pokrovsk in September 2025 and have seized 67.63 percent of the town as of December 2025.[12] Russian forces seized Velyka Novosilka in late January 2025, intensified efforts toward Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole, and began making notable advances towards the towns in November 2025.[13] Russian forces began operating within Hulyaipole in early December 2025.[14]  Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups infiltrated toward Dobropillya in August 2025, but the Russian military command was unable to reinforce the penetration and turn tactical-level advances into an operational-level breakthrough, and Ukrainian forces subsequently retook roughly 70 square kilometers of the penetration.[15] Russian forces also continued attempts to envelop Ukraine’s Fortress Belt from the northeast and southwest. Intensified Russian offensive operations northeast of Slovyansk resulted in Russian advances into Lyman (roughly 15 kilometers from Slovyansk) and the likely seizure of Siversk (roughly 30 kilometers from Slovyansk) in December 2025.[16] Russian forces continued efforts to envelop the Fortress Belt from the southwest and completed the seizure of Toretsk by August 1, 2025, having taken 14 months to advance about 6.4 miles from the southeastern outskirts of Toretsk to the northwestern outskirts of Toretsk, and began efforts to seize Kostyantynivka in October 2025.[17]

Russian forces completed efforts to push Ukrainian forces out of Kursk Oblast in March 2025 and launched a largely unsuccessful offensive operation in northern Sumy Oblast aimed at creating a “buffer zone.”[18] Russian forces also continued efforts to establish a buffer zone along the international border in northern Kharkiv Oblast and opened an offensive toward Velykyi Burluk in July 2025, but this sector of the frontline remained largely dormant until December 2025.[19] The Russian military command intensified efforts to seize Kupyansk in Summer 2025 but failed to complete the seizure of the town, despite the Kremlin’s claims, and Ukrainian forces retook most of Kupyansk in December 2025.[20]

The orientation of Ukrainian defenses and fortified areas hindered Russian advances in select areas in 2025. Russian forces made their most rapid advances in 2025 in the Velyka Novosilka and Hulyaipole directions near the Donetsk-Dnipropetrovsk-Zaporizhia Oblast administrative border, an area characterized by small settlements and open fields. Russian forces initially intensified offensive operations toward Hulyaipole from the south and southeast in May 2025 but failed to make tactically significant advances by mid-July 2025 due to Ukraine's extensive defensive line oriented against attacks from the south.[21] Recent Russian advances toward Hulyaipole have come from the northeast and east, bypassing these south-facing defenses. Ukraine's south-facing defensive lines continue to constrain Russian forces elsewhere in Zaporizhia Oblast, however. Ukrainian defenses in the Orikhiv direction, also oriented to defend against attacks from the south, have largely constrained Russian advances toward Orikhiv and Zaporizhzhia City. The Russian military command indicated on December 29 that it intends to join the Russian efforts in the Orikhiv and Hulyaipole directions in order to advance on Zaporizhzhia City, likely intending to bypass Ukrainian defenses south of Orikhiv by moving westward from the Hulyaipole direction.[22] Russian forces have also spent 18 months fighting to seize the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad area — a heavily fortified Ukrainian area. The success of Ukraine's defensive lines in constraining Russian advances underscores the importance of Ukraine's heavily fortified Fortress Belt in defending against Russian advances in Donetsk Oblast.

The relatively faster Russian advances in 2025 were still constrained to footpace and often took advantage of poor weather conditions that hinder Ukrainian drone operations — conditions that will not last indefinitely. Russian forces have been leveraging rain, fog, and snow, which all constrain Ukrainian reconnaissance and strike drone operations, to conduct attacks according to their new offensive template. Russian forces fought more effectively in 2025 than in 2024, but have still not restored maneuver to the battlefield and are advancing slowly. Russian casualties remain disproportionately high relative to the territory gained, and it is unclear whether Russia will be able to sustain this tempo of operations in the medium- to long-term.

Ukrainian forces appear to be undertaking their own BAI campaign that will likely parallel that of Russia. Ukrainian forces have noticeably increased their mid-range strikes against Russian energy military assets throughout December 2025 and appear to have significantly escalated such strikes on December 30 to 31.[23] Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) Commander Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi reported on December 31 that USF elements struck several Russian energy and military objects at or near operational depths (25 to 100 kilometers) in occupied Donetsk, Luhansk, and Zaporizhia oblasts and Crimea.[24] Brovdi stated that Ukrainian forces struck a Russian oil depot in occupied Rovenky, Luhansk Oblast (roughly 124 kilometers from the frontline), and geolocated footage shows the strike and fire at the depot.[25] Brovdi reported that Ukrainian forces also struck positions of the Russian Rubikon-D Spetsnaz unit (Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies), 74th Motorized Rifle Brigade (41st Combined Arms Army [CAA], Central Military District [CMD]), and 589th Motorized Rifle Regiment (27th Motorized Rifle Division, 2nd CAA, CMD) near Selydove, Donetsk Oblast (roughly 20 kilometers from the frontline); substations in occupied Melitopol and Molochansk, Zaporizhia Oblast (50 kilometers and 35 kilometers from the frontline, respectively); and the base of the Russian 92nd River Boat Brigade and an ST-68 radar station near Olenivka, Crimea.[26] The Ukrainian General Staff noted that the Olenivka strike occurred overnight on December 30 to 31 and reported that Ukrainian forces also struck Russian ammunition depots near Blizhnye and Siatel, Donetsk Oblast (roughly 74 kilometers and 90 kilometers behind the frontline, respectively).[27] Russian sources and occupation officials indicated that Ukrainian forces likely conducted the Rovenky oil depot and Melitopol and Molochansk substation strikes on the night of December 30 to 31.[28] Ukrainian forces likely seek to use these mid-range strikes to counter recent Russian advances. This Ukrainian BAI campaign is still in its early stages, so the immediate effects on Russian offensive operations are still unclear.

Russian forces launched over 54,000 long-range drones and over 1,900 missiles against Ukraine in 2025. The sizes of Russia's overnight strike packages have grown significantly throughout 2025. Prior to 2025, Russian forces launched their largest strike package against Ukraine on the night of November 16 to 17, 2024, with 210 drones and missiles.[29] Russian forces in 2025 have launched 52 strike packages containing 210 or more projectiles.[30] Russian forces launched their largest-ever strike package on September 6 to 7, 2025, containing 810 drones and 13 missiles.[31] Russian forces have launched a total of 18 strike packages that each contain over 500 projectiles in 2025.[32] The Russian defense industrial base's (DIB) ramped-up production in 2025 has allowed Russia to produce and launch missiles and drones at such high numbers and frequencies.[33] Russian strikes during Fall and Winter 2025 have largely targeted Ukraine's energy grid with devastating effects.[34] Russian forces have also significantly increased their strikes against Ukrainian railway infrastructure to impede Ukrainian logistics.[35] Russian forces have used a series of technological adaptations to their missiles and drones to achieve these effects in 2025, including integrated cameras and radio control capabilities on Russian Shahed-type drones that have allowed Russian forces to strike moving targets such as locomotives.[36] Russia has also leaned on its partners and allies to increase production, importing critical components from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and relying on North Korea for KN-23 missiles and labor to work at Russia's Shahed-producing factory in the Republic of Tatarstan.[37]

The Kremlin is presenting alleged evidence to support its claim that Ukrainian drone strikes targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29, but the alleged evidence continues to be unpersuasive. Major General Alexander Romanenko, chief of the Anti-Aircraft Missile Troops of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS), gave a briefing on December 31 about the alleged Ukrainian drone strike against Putin's residence.[38] Romanenko repeated many of the claims from the Russian Ministry of Defense's (MoD) December 29 report, including the claim that Russian forces downed 91 total Ukrainian drones targeting Putin's residence over Novgorod, Bryansk, and Smolensk oblasts.[39] The Russian MoD first issued a report about downed Ukrainian drones on the morning of December 29 and subsequently updated that report later in the day, likely to correct some of the discrepancies that did not conform to Kremlin claims about the alleged Ukrainian strike.[40] The Russian MoD is likely leveraging Romanenko as a high-ranking commander to try to bring credibility to the Kremlin's claims.

The Russian MoD posted a map on December 31 of the alleged flight paths of the Ukrainian drones.[41] The map appears to show dozens of drones flying over or near Smolensk City, east of the Russian-Belarusian border. ISW had not observed reports of Russian forces downing drones over Smolensk Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29, and it is unlikely that Russian air defenses would have engaged these drones over a major city with nearby military infrastructure. It is also unclear how the Russian MoD would have been able to confirm that drones flying over Bryansk Oblast were targeting Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast, as drones could have been targeting many other areas in various directions from Bryansk. ISW did not observe reports or evidence of Russian forces downing drones over Bryansk Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29 in any event. The absence of such evidence is not in itself proof that there were no Ukrainian drone overflights in these areas, but it is part of a pattern of silence that is unusual when Ukraine conducts strikes deep into Russia.

The Russian MoD posted footage on December 31 showing a Russian servicemember next to a drone that Russian forces allegedly downed while it was flying toward Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29.[42] The servicemember in the footage claimed that the drone was targeting a "protected facility" in Valdai Raion, Novgorod Oblast.[43] The servicemember highlighted the technical characteristics of the drone and claimed that the drone's high-explosive warhead is designed to destroy "personnel or civilian targets." The footage offers no distinguishing features to confirm the location or timing of filming. The Russian MoD's footage of the alleged drone wreckage comes after Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told journalists on December 30 that he does not think there "should be any evidence" of the strike, but that questions about any downed drone debris as possible evidence are a matter for the Russian military.[44] ISW continues to note that strikes such as the one Russia is claiming Ukrainian forces conducted on December 28-29 typically generate the rapid publication of various sorts of evidence of the strike, such as footage, statements from Russian authorities about Russian air defense activity, and reports from local sources and media about the strike and damages.[45] The circumstances of the alleged December 28-29 strike continue do not conform to the pattern of observed evidence that typically follows Ukrainian deep strikes. Kremlin statements and presentations of alleged evidence do not account for these discrepancies. ISW is aware of reports that US intelligence officials have confirmed that Putin's residence was not the target of Ukrainian strikes, but has no ability to confirm those reports.[46]

Russian President Vladimir Putin officially named 2026 the Year of the Unity of the Peoples of Russia in his annual New Year's Eve address. Putin described Russians as “together one large family” and appealed to “traditions, faith and memory” as unifying characteristics.[47] Putin emphasized that the Russian people are united ”in [their] selfless and devoted love” for Russia and in their support of Russia's war effort. ISW continues to note that Putin’s narratives about Russia as a multiethnic and multireligious state whose people come together under a united love for the Russian Federation are at odds with the xenophobic views of the Russian ultranationalist community — one of Putin’s core constituencies with ardent supporters of the war effort that advocates for a Russia centered on the ethnic Russian identity and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).[48] Putin notably continues to lean into a concept of civic nationalism more consistent with the Soviet ideal than with the Christian nationalism of Russian ultranationalists and emphasized on December 19 that the Year of the Unity of the Peoples of Russia in 2026 carries special significance in wartime.[49]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces increased their average rate of advance in 2025 due to a new operational template supported by technological adaptations and a shift in assault tactics.
• The Russian military command largely prioritized efforts to seize the remainder of Donetsk Oblast and establish a buffer zone in northern Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts in 2025 but failed to accomplish these goals.
• The orientation of Ukrainian defenses and fortified areas helped to hinder Russian advances in select areas in 2025.
• Ukrainian forces appear to be undertaking their own BAI campaign that will likely parallel that of Russia.
• Russian forces launched over 54,000 long-range drones and over 1,900 missiles against Ukraine in 2025.
• The Kremlin is presenting alleged evidence to support its claim that Ukrainian drone strikes targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29, but the alleged evidence continues to be unpersuasive.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin officially named 2026 the Year of the Unity of the Peoples of Russia in his annual New Year's Eve address.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in western Zaporizhzhia Oblast. Russian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 30, 2025 

The Kremlin continues to offer no evidence to support its claims that Ukrainian drones targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence on the night of December 28 to 29 and even rejected the notion that it should provide evidence. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 30 that he does not think there "should be any evidence" of a massive Ukrainian drone strike targeting Putin's residence, likely referring to his residence in Valdai, Novgorod Oblast.[1] Peskov responded to a follow-up question about whether the drone strike left any debris that could be evidence, stating that he "cannot say" and that this question is a matter for the Russian military.

The Kremlin appears to be trying to correct some of the discrepancies in its previous claims about the alleged December 28-29 strikes. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) initially claimed on the morning of December 29 that Russian forces downed 41 drones over Novgorod Oblast on the night of December 28 to 29, fewer than half the number that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed targeted Putin's residence in the oblast on the same night.[2] Several Russian and Western sources noted the discrepancy between Lavrov's claim and the MoD's claim at the time.[3] The Russian MoD issued an updated situational report (SITREP) on the evening of December 29, claiming that Russian forces downed 91 total drones that were targeting Putin's residence, including 41 drones over Novgorod Oblast itself and 41 drones over Bryansk Oblast and one over Smolensk Oblast that the MoD claimed had been flying toward Novgorod Oblast.[4] Valdai is roughly 210 kilometers from the Smolensk Oblast border and roughly 435 kilometers from the Bryansk Oblast border. Bryansk and Smolensk oblasts each contain legitimate military and defense industrial targets that Ukraine plausibly could have targeted on the night of December 28 to 29, and Ukraine has struck objects in Bryansk and Smolensk oblasts before.[5] Any instance of Ukrainian drones flying in Bryansk and Smolensk oblast airspace thus does not dispositively mean the drones were heading towards Novgorod Oblast. Moreover, ISW observed no reports or evidence that Russian forces downed Ukrainian drones over Bryansk or Smolensk oblasts on the night of December 28 to 29 in any event.

ISW has still not observed any of the footage or reporting that typically follows Ukrainian deep strikes to corroborate the Kremlin's claims of Ukrainian strikes threatening Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast.[6] Russian and Western sources continue to report counter-indicators to a Ukrainian deep strike targeting Novgorod Oblast. Russian opposition and insider sources reported that residents of Valdai and the surrounding areas did not hear or observe sounds of drones operating or air defenses activating, both of which the residents reported they usually hear, even during previous Ukrainian strikes far from Valdai itself.[7] Le Monde reported on December 30 that a source close to French President Emmanuel Macron stated that there is "no solid evidence" to corroborate Russian claims about the strike against Putin's personal residence, even after French authorities cross-checked information with its partners.[8]

Kremlin officials are using the alleged Ukrainian strike against Novgorod Oblast to justify Russia's continued insistence that both Ukraine and the West capitulate to Russia's original demands from 2021 and 2022. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that the Kremlin will "harden" its negotiating position following the alleged Ukrainian strike but would not disclose this new stance publicly.[9] Peskov stated that Russia is not withdrawing from the negotiation process but will continue dialogue primarily with the United States.[10] Several Russian State Duma deputies echoed Peskov's statements, with one deputy calling for Russia to present a US-Russian peace plan to Ukraine as a fait accompli and another adding that Russia can "only" negotiate Ukraine's capitulation now.[11] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov used a December 30 interview with Russian state media outlet Russia Today (RT) to reiterate Russia's original war demands that Russian President Vladimir Putin laid out when launching the full-scale invasion in 2022, namely demands for Ukraine's neutrality, demilitarization (reductions in the Ukrainian military such that Ukraine cannot defend itself), and denazification (the replacement of the current Ukrainian government with a pro-Russian puppet government).[12] Lavrov repeated demands that Ukraine and the West recognize Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Lavrov stated that Russia is "convinced" that the ultimatums that Russia submitted to the United States and Europe in December 2021 can serve as a "starting point" for peace talks. Many of the original Russian demands that Lavrov repeated go against the last publicly available version of the US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan.[13] ISW assessed on December 29 that the Kremlin may intend to use the alleged Ukrainian strike against Putin's residence to justify its rejection of any peace proposals that come out of recent bilateral US-Ukrainian and multilateral US-Ukrainian-European talks.[14] Kremlin statements about Russia's 2021 ultimatums, which would have amounted to the destruction of the NATO alliance and required an overhaul of Europe’s security architecture, continue to signal that Russia's goals in the war are not confined to Ukraine and that a peace deal that does not address Russian demands of NATO and the West outside of Ukraine will not satisfy Russia.[15]

Russian forces continue to increase the range of their drones to strike deeper into Ukraine, underscoring Ukraine’s urgent requirements for traditional air defense systems. The Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies published geolocated footage on December 29 showing Russian forces conducting a drone strike against a Ukrainian Mi-24 helicopter at a forward base northeast of Bilyky, Poltava Oblast (150 kilometers from the Russia–Ukraine border) and an An-26 transport aircraft at the Mykolaiv International Airport (60 kilometers from the Russian-occupied Kinburn Spit).[16] An OSINT analyst reported that satellite imagery has shown the An-26 parked at the airport since 2022, indicating that it is a retired airframe.[17] Ukrainian electronic and radio warfare expert Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov assessed that Russian forces conducted the strikes with Molniya drones guided through Starlink, rather than through mobile networks, and stated that Russian forces either used sabotage and reconnaissance groups to launch the drones from a closer position or mothership drones to extend the drones’ range.[18] A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces installed LTE modems on the Molniya drones to extend their range.[19] The recent long-range drone strikes exploit Ukraine’s scarcity of air defense systems, underscoring Ukraine’s urgent need for point-defense air defense systems to down drones, as electronic warfare (EW) systems are likely insufficient to defend Ukraine's critical infrastructure from such a geographically pervasive threat.

The Kremlin is moving forward with efforts to mobilize active reservists compulsorily, likely to eventually deploy reservists to combat in Ukraine as Russia continues to suffer a disproportionately high casualty rate compared to its territorial gains. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on December 30 to authorize the deployment of active reservists to special training camps to ensure the protection of critical facilities starting in 2026.[20] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi stated that Russia fulfilled its 2025 plan to recruit 406,000 personnel but that Russian losses amounted to 410,000 or more personnel.[21] ISW has observed evidence indicating a Russian presence (either through assaults or infiltration missions) in 4,899.75 kilometers in 2025 – indicating that Russian forces have sustained at least 83 casualties per square kilometer. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to mobilize reservists for likely deployment to Ukraine in the future further indicate that Russia is facing compounding pressure to sustain its force generation requirements through the legacy system that uses high financial incentives to recruit volunteers due to a lack of volunteers, a lack of resources to fund the payouts, or both.[22] The Kremlin’s efforts to deploy reservists to Ukraine are a domestically risky policy threatening to break the Kremlin’s ongoing social contract with the population, and the Kremlin would likely not pursue this force generation method unless necessary.

Russian President Vladimir Putin officially enacted into law on December 29 the 2026 conscription decree which will transition Russia’s conscription cycle away from biannual spring and fall conscription cycles to a single year-round conscription cycle.[23] Russia historically holds a conscription cycle in the spring and fall every year, where conscripts serve 12 months of mandatory military duty outside the active combat zone in Ukraine.[24] Russian military recruiters under this system conduct the administrative processing for each conscription cycle during three-month periods in the spring and fall. The new decree that Putin signed officially transitions administrative processes for conscription to a year-round process, keeping Russian military recruiters active year-round. This reform will allow Russia to augment its military administrative capacity and enable Moscow to call up a larger volume of conscripts with more flexibility at any point during the year.[25] Putin’s December 29 decree specifies that Russia will call up 261,000 people for mandatory conscript military service throughout 2026, and the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported that Russia called up 135,000 personnel for its Fall 2025 conscription cycle, indicating that Russia intends to call up roughly the same number of conscripts in 2026 as it has in 2025.[26] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) clarified on December 29 that Russia will still dispatch conscripts twice a year even as administrative processes necessary for running and staffing recruitment offices will occur year-round.[27] Putin also signed a law in April 2025 that simplified conscription procedures for military-aged men who were selected for semi-annual conscription but did not dispatch for compulsory military service -- significantly reducing bureaucratic hurdles and allowing Russian authorities to process called-up conscript candidates more quickly.[28] These decrees are part of the Kremlin’s ongoing efforts to mitigate bureaucratic bottlenecks that complicate Russia’s force generation efforts during large-scale mandatory call-ups. Changes to Russia’s personnel processing system are likely intended to support ongoing efforts to increase the size of the Russian military and allow Russia to mobilize forces faster and more efficiently during both a protracted war in Ukraine and a possible future war against NATO, though the Kremlin is not mobilizing conscripts for war.

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin continues to offer no evidence to support its claims that Ukrainian drones targeted Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence on the night of December 28 to 29 and even rejected the notion that it should provide evidence.
• Kremlin officials are using the alleged Ukrainian strike against Novgorod Oblast to justify Russia's continued insistence that both Ukraine and the West capitulate to Russia's original demands from 2021 and 2022.
• Russian forces continue to increase the range of their drones to strike deeper into Ukraine, underscoring Ukraine’s urgent requirements for traditional air defense systems.
• The Kremlin is moving forward with efforts to mobilize active reservists compulsorily, likely to eventually deploy reservists to combat in Ukraine as Russia continues to suffer a disproportionately high casualty rate compared to its territorial gains.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin officially enacted into law on December 29 the 2026 conscription decree which will transition Russia’s conscription cycle away from biannual spring and fall conscription cycles to a single year-round conscription cycle.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and Kupyansk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 29, 2025 

The Kremlin accused Ukraine of conducting a long-range drone strike targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast on December 29. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Ukrainian forces launched 91 long-range drones against Putin's residence overnight on December 28 to 29 in Novgorod Oblast, likely referring to the residence in Valdai, Novgorod Oblast.[i] Lavrov claimed that Russian forces downed the drones and that the strike caused no damage. Lavrov condemned this alleged strike and stated that Russia will "revise" its negotiating position due to the strike. US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had a phone call on December 29, and Russian Presidential Aide Yuri Ushakov stated that Putin informed Trump about the claimed strike and told him that Russia will "reconsider" its position on peace agreements.[ii] The United States has not published a readout of the December 29 Trump-Putin call as of this writing, though US officials — including Trump — confirmed the call occurred and that Putin made claims to Trump about the alleged strike.[iii]  

The circumstances of this alleged strike do not conform to the pattern of observed evidence when Ukrainian forces conduct strikes into Russia. Confirmed Ukrainian strikes in Russia typically generate evidence observable in open sources. Such evidence includes footage, often geolocated, of air defense operations, explosions, fires, or smoke plumes near targeted objects; statements from local and regional Russian authorities, usually downplaying successful Ukrainian strikes as "debris" from downed drones; and reports from local sources and media of fire or damage to such objects. ISW has not observed any such footage nor local or regional reporting about Ukrainian strikes near Putin's residence to corroborate Lavrov’s claim. Lavrov's claim of downing 89 Ukrainian drones over Novgorod Oblast is also inconsistent with the Russian Ministry of Defense's (MoD's) claim that Russian forces downed 47 Ukrainian drones over the oblast overnight on December 28 to 29, further undermining the claim. Ukrainian forces previously struck numerous military targets in Novgorod Oblast, which produced evidence.[iv] The Kremlin has offered no evidence to support its claim that Ukrainian forces targeted Putin’s residence on December 29.

Russian opposition outlet Sota published an investigation into the alleged strike on December 29, reporting that Valdai residents did not hear air defenses operating overnight, even though Russian air defenses would have had to operate to down up to 91 Ukrainian drones.[v] Sota reported that drones launched from Ukraine's northern border would have to cross into heavily protected Russian airspace, including multiple installations of Strategic Missile Forces facilities, air defense units, military aviation, and other assets that would either be under heavy air defense protection or themselves act as the Russian air defense umbrella. Sota concluded that Ukraine would have been able to strike Putin's residence in Valdai through a "miracle" or deliberate Russian military negligence. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)'s Russia service reported in August 2025 that Russia increased the number of air defense systems defending Valdai from two to 12 from 2022 to August 2025.[vi]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuted the alleged strike against Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast and warned that Russia will use this claim to justify strikes against Kyiv City and Ukrainian government buildings.[vii] Russia has already targeted Ukrainian government buildings in previous long-range strikes, including Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers building in Kyiv City in September 2025.[viii] Lavrov stated that Russia has determined the targets and timing for retaliatory strikes against Ukraine but did not provide further specifics.[ix] Russia has already intensified its long-range strike campaign against Ukraine in recent months, however, specifically targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure ahead of Winter 2025-2026.[x] Russia has notably intensified strikes against Ukraine around negotiations multiple times since the Trump administration began pursuing peace efforts in Winter 2025, including most recently overnight on December 26 to 27, ahead of Zelensky's talks with Trump in Florida on December 28.[xi] Russian overnight long-range strike packages purposefully target Ukrainian civilian infrastructure and disproportionately impact civilians.[xii]

The Kremlin may intend to use this claimed strike to justify its rejection of any peace proposals that come out of recent bilateral US-Ukrainian and multilateral US-Ukrainian-European talks.[xiii] Ushakov's readout of the December 29 Trump-Putin call criticized the US-Ukrainian framework, likely referring to the 20-point peace proposal, as "still leav[ing] room" for Ukraine to "avoid" unspecified obligations and rejected the notion of a ceasefire.[xiv] Since the Trump administration began peace efforts in January-February 2025, the Kremlin has sought to delay and prolong peace negotiations in order to continue its war undisturbed, prevent the U.S. from imposing measures intended to pressure Russia into meaningful negotiations, and even to extract concessions about bilateral US-Russian relations.[xv]

Russian President Vladimir Putin and high-ranking Russian military commanders held another meeting to aggrandize tactical details and create the false impression that the front lines across Ukraine are on the verge of collapse. Putin met with the leadership of the Russian General Staff and grouping of forces commanders on December 29 — following a string of performative, publicized meetings between Putin and his commanders in recent weeks, including the most recent meeting on December 27.[xvi] Putin, Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov, and the groupings of forces commanders made a series of exaggerated claims about Russian successes across the battlefield, all of which rely on exaggerated quantitative data intended to obfuscate the relatively slow rate of Russian advances. Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces seized over 700 square kilometers and 32 settlements in Ukraine in December 2025 and 6,640 square kilometers and 334 settlements in total in 2025. ISW has observed evidence indicating a Russian presence (either through assaults or infiltration missions) in 480 square kilometers, and that Russian forces seized or completely infiltrated 23 settlements in December 2025. ISW has also observed evidence indicating a Russian presence in 4,952 square kilometers and seized or completely infiltrated 245 settlements in all of 2025. Russian Northern Grouping of Forces Commander Colonel General Yevgeny Nikiforov claimed that Russian forces seized 940 square kilometers in Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts in 2025. ISW has observed evidence to assess a Russian presence in 639 square kilometers in Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts during 2025. Nikiforov notably claimed that Russian forces have advanced to within 20 kilometers of Sumy City in 2025 — an implicit acknowledgement that Russian forces have advanced under seven kilometers deep in the area, given that Sumy City is located roughly 27 kilometers from the Sumy Oblast northern international border where Russian forces hold the deepest positions.

Putin and senior Russian military officials continued to heavily aggrandize Russian operations near Kupyansk despite all available evidence indicating that Ukrainian forces have liberated much of the town and surrounding area.[xvii] Russian Western Grouping of Forces Commander Colonel General Sergei Kuzovlev claimed that Russian forces will complete the encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Kupyansk in January to February 2026, which is incredibly slow compared to how long Russian officials have been making claims about nearly completing the seizure of Kupyansk.[xviii] Gerasimov notably claimed that Russian forces encircled Ukrainian forces in Kupyansk as of October 26 and had seized Kupyansk as of November 20.[xix] A Russian milblogger reporting on the Western Grouping of Forces claimed on December 21 that the Russian military command had set the deadline to seize Kurylivka and Pishchane (both southeast of Kupyansk) by January 1, 2026.[xx]

Gerasimov and the other Russian commanders claimed that Russian forces seized Dibrova (northwest of Siversk), Drobysheve (northwest of Lyman), and Lukyanivske (northwest of Orikhiv) as of December 29. ISW has not observed geolocated evidence to assess any Russian presence in Dibrova or Drobysheve as of December 29, or that Russian forces completed the seizure of Lukyanivske. Russian Southern Grouping of Forces Commander Lieutenant General Sergei Medvedev claimed on December 29 that Russian forces have seized 40 to 45 percent of Kostyantynivka — contradicting Gerasimov’s December 27 claim that Russian forces seized over half of the buildings in Kostyantynivka.[xxi] ISW has observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have operated in five percent of Kostyantynivka. Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces control over half of Lyman, Donetsk Oblast though ISW has observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have operated in only six percent of Lyman. Dnepr Grouping of Forces Commander Colonel General Mikhail Teplinsky claimed that Russian forces advanced within 15 kilometers of Zaporizhzhia City, and ISW has observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have advanced within 20 kilometers of Zaporizhzhia City. The Kremlin is intensifying its efforts to portray the front line as imminently collapsing across the theater and claim that Russian forces are capable of imminently threatening Ukraine’s Fortress Belt. Available evidence continues to indicate that the front line is not collapsing, and Russian forces would require at least two to three years to seize all of Ukraine’s Fortress Belt.[xxii]

Pro-war Russian ultranationalist milbloggers are publicly acknowledging that the Russian military command’s claims are exaggerated. A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger questioned Gerasimov’s claim that Ukrainian forces are not conducting counteroffensive operations, likely referring to ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks that have pushed Russian forces back from most of Kupyansk.[xxiii] The milblogger also noted that available evidence does not support Gerasimov and Teplinsky’s claim that Russian forces are operating within Orikhiv, Zaporizhia Oblast, as Russian forces are only on the “southern approaches” of the town. The milblogger added that such high-profile meetings underscore the Kremlin’s intention to continue the war rather than agree to a ceasefire that freezes the front line. Other Russian milbloggers also continue to contradict the Russian MoD’s portrayal of the situation in Kupyansk, and one milblogger criticized the Russian military command as being a "witness to a lie" and acknowledged that Ukrainian forces have encircled Russian forces operating within the town.[xxiv]

Russian forces continue to commit war crimes in the Hulyaipole and Pokrovsk directions. The Ukrainian General Prosecutor’s Office reported on December 29 that Russian forces executed two Ukrainian prisoners of war (POWs) in Shakhove, Donetsk Oblast (east of Dobropillya) on December 27 after disarming the POWs and forcing them to partially undress.[xxv] A source reportedly affiliated with Ukrainian military intelligence reported on December 28 that Russian forces also executed three Ukrainian POWs south of Hulyaipole, Zaporizhia Oblast on December 20.[xxvi] Ukraine’s “I Want to Live” initiative reported on December 29 that on December 20 two Russian servicemembers of the 1st Assault Battalion of the Russian 30th Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd Combined Arms Army [CAA], Central Military District [CMD]) broke into a house in Pokrovsk where civilians were sheltering, shot and killed seven civilians and injured another, and then set the building on fire.[xxvii] Ukraine’s “I Want to Live” initiative reported that another servicemember of the Russian 30th Motorized Rifle Brigade (2nd CAA) tortured and killed a civilian in Pokrovsk and raped his wife in Pokrovsk on December 22.[xxviii] ISW observed an increase in Russian war crimes in the Hulyaipole and Pokrovsk directions since late October and November 2025, as Russian forces have intensified offensive operations in these directions and advanced into the towns.[xxix] ISW continues to assess that the Russian military command is endorsing and sometimes ordering war crimes on the battlefield and that Russia is torturing and abusing Ukrainian civilian prisoners as part of the wider military modus operandi.[xxx]

Several dozen Belarusian smuggling balloons illegally entered Polish airspace, and Polish aircraft intercepted a Russian reconnaissance aircraft near the international border overnight on December 24 to December 25.[xxxi] Polish authorities reported on December 25 that Polish fighter jets intercepted, identified, and subsequently escorted a Russian reconnaissance aircraft flying over the Baltic Sea near Polish airspace overnight on December 24 to 25.[xxxii]  A source in Polish law enforcement told Polish outlet RMF24 that 59 balloons violated Polish airspace and that authorities found four downed balloons in Podlaskie Voivodeship in northeastern Poland and three in Lubelskie Voivodeship in eastern Poland.[xxxiii] The balloons carried illegal cigarettes and Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking equipment. Polish authorities told RMF24 that the balloon violations may have been testing the response of Polish air surveillance systems.[xxxiv] Belarusian balloons frequently violated Lithuanian airspace throughout October and November 2025, often forcing airports to temporarily cease operations.[xxxv] SW continues to assess that Russia is intensifying its covert and overt attacks against Europe and that Russia has entered "Phase Zero" — the informational and psychological condition-setting phase — to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[xxxvi] ISW continues to assess that Russia has de facto annexed and that Belarusian incursions into NATO airspace are very likely part of Russia's broader Phase Zero effort.[xxxvii]

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin accused Ukraine of conducting a long-range drone strike targeting Russian President Vladimir Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast on December 29.
• The circumstances of this alleged strike do not conform to the pattern of observed evidence when Ukrainian forces conduct strikes into Russia.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuted the alleged strike against Putin's residence in Novgorod Oblast and warned that Russia will use this claim to justify strikes against Kyiv City and Ukrainian government buildings.
• The Kremlin may intend to use this claimed strike to justify its rejection of any peace proposals that come out of recent bilateral US-Ukrainian and multilateral US-Ukrainian-European talks.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin and high-ranking Russian military commanders held another meeting to aggrandize tactical details and create the false impression that the front lines across Ukraine are on the verge of collapse.
• Pro-war Russian ultranationalist milbloggers are publicly acknowledging that the Russian military command’s claims are exaggerated.
• Russian forces continue to commit war crimes in the Hulyaipole and Pokrovsk directions.
• Several dozen Belarusian smuggling balloons illegally entered Polish airspace, and Polish aircraft intercepted a Russian reconnaissance aircraft near the international border overnight on December 24 to December 25.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Siversk, Oleksandrivka, and Hulyaipole. Russian forces recently advanced in western Zaporizhia Oblast, in the Dobropillya tactical area, and near Pokrovsk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 28, 2025 

US and Ukrainian delegations met in Florida on December 28 to discuss the latest US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan and other documents related to a potential peace settlement. US Donald Trump stated that he and Zelensky spoke to European, NATO, and EU leaders after the US-Ukrainian meeting.[1] Trump stated that a few issues remain unresolved, including territorial issues related to Donbas and a possible ceasefire to allow Ukraine to hold a referendum on a future peace agreement. Trump stated that the meeting discussed the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) at length and that Ukraine and Russia are working together to open the plant. Zelensky stated that the parties have almost agreed on the 20-point peace plan and on a document between the United States, Ukraine, and Europe on security guarantees for Ukraine. Zelensky stated that the parties have "100 percent" finalized another document between Ukraine and the United States on security guarantees. Zelensky noted that discussions continue about a plan to ensure Ukraine's post-war economic prosperity. Zelensky stated that Ukrainian and European delegations will meet in the coming weeks to continue discussions, and Trump stated that Ukrainian, American, and Russian working groups will meet in January 2026. Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 28 before his meeting with Zelensky, and Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov reported that Trump and Putin also discussed the working groups, one of which will focus on security issues, while another will focus on economic issues.[2]

Recent Kremlin statements are at odds with several of the positions that Trump presented as the basis for ending the war. The Kremlin has repeatedly rejected European-led security guarantees for Ukraine.[3] Kremlin officials have also called for any future peace agreement to address Russia's demands that NATO cease expansion and roll back its borders.[4] Ushakov reported that Putin used his call with Trump to make "very detailed arguments" about the importance of adhering to the agreements the United States and Russia allegedly made at the August 2025 Alaska Summit.[5] Kremlin officials have claimed that the Alaska Summit agreed to principles based on Putin’s June 2024 speech to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), in which Putin demanded the capitulation to Russia’s original war demands of both Ukraine and NATO.[6] Putin also referenced his 2024 MFA speech during a meeting with Russian military commanders on December 27.[7] ISW continues to assess that Kremlin statements demonstrate that Russia’s goals in Ukraine exceed territorial demands such as the seizure of Donetsk Oblast and that a peace deal that does not address Russian demands of NATO and the West outside of Ukraine will not satisfy Russia, nor lead to a lasting peace that can normalize Russian-European or US-Russian relations.[8]

 Russian President Vladimir Putin and high-ranking Russian military commanders continue to aggrandize tactical details to create the false impression that Ukrainian defenses across the frontline are on the verge of collapse. Putin met on December 27 with the leadership of the Russian General Staff and grouping of forces (GoFs) commanders - the latest in a string of performative, publicized meetings between Putin and his commanders in recent weeks.[9] The Kremlin likely timed the meeting to fall on the eve of the December 28 meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Florida in order to influence the US-Ukrainian meeting. Putin, Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov, and the GoF commanders made a series of likely exaggerated claims about Russian successes across the battlefield. Russian Central GoF Commander Colonel General Valery Solodchuk claimed that Russian forces seized Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk), Rodynske (north of Pokrovsk), and Vilne (east of Dobropillya), and Eastern GoF Commander Colonel General Andrei Ivanaev claimed that Russian forces seized Hulyaipole. Gerasimov briefly mentioned Kupyansk during his report to Putin, claiming that the Russian Western GoF is eliminating the Ukrainian forces blocked on the east (left) bank of the Oskil River in Kupyansk. Gerasimov likely limited his remarks about the Western GoF given the widespread backlash the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has received in recent days from Russian milbloggers concerning the exaggerations and lies the MoD has platformed about the alleged seizure of Kupyansk and Ukrainian successes to liberate a significant portion of the town.[10]

Gerasimov reported to Putin that Russian forces will continue to conduct combat missions to seize all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts.[11] ISW assesses that Russian forces have advanced at an average rate of 14.4 square kilometers per day in 2025, meaning it would take Russian forces until April 1, 2029 (1,190 days) to seize the rest of the four oblasts should the current tempo persist. This calculation, however, does not take into account the many obstacles Russian forces would face along the way, such as crossing the Dnipro River, overcoming other water features throughout the oblasts, and seizing the major cities of Zaporizhzhia City (with a pre-war population of about 710,000 people) and Kherson City (with a pre-war population of about 280,000). Russian advances are not likely to be linear, and it will likely take Russian forces longer than 1,190 days to seize all four oblasts.

Putin and the commanders continue to falsely portray future Russian efforts to seize the Fortress Belt in Donetsk Oblast as a quick and easy endeavor. The Fortress Belt consists of four heavily fortified major population centers - Kostyantynivka, Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Slovyansk - that make up the backbone of Ukraine's defense in Donetsk Oblast.[12] Gerasimov claimed that Russian forces control more than half of the buildings within Kostyantynivka and are "rapidly" advancing toward Slovyansk following the recent seizure of Siversk.[13] Solodchuk claimed that Russian forces seized Sofiivka, which Solodchuk called an "important" settlement and "key" for further Russian offensive operations northward toward the Fortress Belt cities. ISW has only observed evidence indicating a Russian presence (either through infiltration missions or assaults) in five percent of Kostyantynivka. Putin and the commanders are presenting claimed subtactical- or tactical-level Russian successes, such as the seizure of the small settlement of Sofiivka, as having operational- or even strategic-level significance. Ukraine's Fortress Belt is much larger and more populous than any of the settlements or towns Russian forces have seized in recent years, and Russian forces have shown no ability to rapidly envelop, penetrate, or otherwise seize cities of this size since 2022. ISW assessed in late November 2025 that Russian forces would finalize the seizure of the remainder of Donetsk Oblast only in August 2027, assuming Russian forces will be able to maintain their rate of advance at that time.[14]

ISW has observed recent open-source evidence to assess that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence in Rodynske and that Russian forces have operated within less than half of Myrnohrad. Geolocated footage published on December 28 shows Ukrainian forces operating in northern Rodynske, indicating that Ukrainian forces maintain the ability to operate in the settlement.[15] Geolocated footage published on December 27 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced in northern Myrnohrad.[16] Additional geolocated footage published on December 27 shows Russian forces raising flags at multiple locations in northern Myrnohrad and central Rodynske during what ISW assesses were Russian infiltration missions that did not change control of terrain or the forward edge of battle area (FEBA).[17] ISW has only observed evidence indicating a Russian presence (either through infiltration missions or assaults) within only 49 percent of Myrnohrad. The Ukrainian General Staff on December 27 refuted the Russian claims of the seizure of Myrnohrad and noted that Russian forces have yet to seize Pokrovsk – even as Russian forces have notably been fighting within Pokrovsk itself for almost 150 days.[18] The Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces also reported on December 28 that Ukrainian forces maintain positions within northern Pokrovsk.[19]

ISW has only observed open-source evidence to assess that Russian forces have operated in roughly 55 percent of Hulyaipole. Geolocated footage published on December 27 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced in northern, central, southern, and southeastern Hulyaipole.[20] Additional geolocated footage published on December 27 shows Russian servicemembers raising flags at multiple locations in western and southwestern Hulyaipole during what ISW assesses were Russian infiltration missions.[21] The Ukrainian General Staff and Ukraine’s Southern Defense Forces refuted on December 27 the Russian claims of the seizure of Hulyaipole and stated that Ukrainian forces continue defensive operations within the town, though the situation is “difficult.”[22] The Southern Defense Forces acknowledged that Russian forces control part of the town but reported that Ukrainian forces continue to hold a significant part of Hulyaipole.[23] The Southern Defense Forces reported that Russian forces possess significant numerical superiority in personnel and equipment in Hulyaipole – in line with ISW’s ongoing assessment that Russian forces are able to make gains when they concentrate forces on a specific sector, but often at the expense of other areas.[24]

Russia appears to be increasing the sophistication of its cognitive warfare effort that uses flag raisings to achieve informational impacts. Geolocated footage published on December 27 and 28 shows small groups of two to three Russian servicemembers raising flags throughout Myrnohrad and Hulyaipole, and the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) published the footage to coincide with the Russian military commanders' reports to Putin that Russian forces had seized the settlements.[25] These flag raising videos are notably more complex and higher-production edited montages of several clips and Russian forces scattered throughout numerous locations in both Myrnohrad and Hulyaipole. Previous flag raising videos, in contrast, were shorter one-off videos in one or a few locations throughout a settlement. The increased sophistication and use of montage videos to assert territorial gains suggests that the Kremlin is engaging in a coordinated campaign to support the higher Russian military command’s informational efforts. The Kremlin in Fall 2025 began relying on footage showing small groups of Russian infiltrators raising flags in order to claim broad advances or seizures as part of an informational effort to portray Russian successes as more expansive than the battlefield reality.[26] ISW assessed at the time that the Kremlin was trying to exploit mapping methodologies that have become widespread throughout the war, including from open-source intelligence (OSINT) sources.[27] Russia is likely increasing the level of sophistication of its flag-raising videos as it has since become clear that a flag raising does not necessarily signify control. Russian forces notably engaged in similar flag raising tactics throughout Kupyansk to support the Russian MoD’s false claim that Russian forces had seized the town.[28] These flag raisings aim to support Putin’s aggrandized claims of Russian advances and the false narrative that Ukrainian defenses are collapsing across the theater.

Putin's meeting with military commanders platformed on-the-ground tactical commanders in an effort to lend credence to the Russian military command's aggrandized claims. The meeting prominently featured reports from frontline company and brigade commanders purportedly calling in from the field near Myrnohrad and Hulyaipole.[29] The commanders described Russian offensive operations over the past months in both sectors of the front in granular detail, essentially describing how Russian forces advanced roughly three kilometers toward Myrnohrad over four months and roughly seven kilometers toward Hulyaipole over 23 days. One brigade commander near Myrnohrad reported on Russian advances as minutely as “up to one kilometer” over the course of 24 days in September. Russian milbloggers have long complained about the widespread practice of false reports in the entire Russian chain of command and exaggerated advances, and false claims about the alleged seizure of Kupyansk recently reignited these milblogger complaints.[30] The inclusion of lower-echelon commanders in the December 27 meeting among Russian General Staff leaders and Russian Grouping of Forces commanders likely aims to bring credibility to Putin’s and other high-ranking senior Russian military officials' exaggerated claims of sweeping Russian advances.[31]

Putin and Russian military commanders continue to discuss the need to form "buffer zones" in areas of Ukraine outside of the four oblasts Russia illegally annexed in 2022. Putin stated that Russian forces’ efforts to establish a buffer zone in the border areas of the Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts and in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast are proceeding at a "good pace."[32] Solodchuk noted that Russian offensive operations in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast aim to implement Putin's instructions to create a buffer zone to protect occupied Donetsk Oblast. Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov similarly claimed at the December 17 Russian MoD board meeting that the alleged seizure of Kupyansk was part of Russian efforts to expand the buffer zone in Kharkiv Oblast to reduce the threat of shelling against northern areas of occupied Luhansk Oblast.[33] Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts are not any of the regions that Russia illegally annexed, and recent peace negotiations have not discussed ceding this territory to Russia but have rather called for Russia to withdraw from these territories.[34]

ISW has not observed evidence of commensurate offensive activity in northern Ukraine to support Putin’s claim that Russian offensive operations in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts are advancing at a "good pace." Russian forces recently conducted limited cross-border attacks across a broad part of previously dormant areas in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts on December 20 and 21, but these attacks have since stalled, supporting ISW's assessment at the time that Russia was conducting the assaults as part of a cognitive warfare effort to convince the West that the frontlines in Ukraine are collapsing.[35] Russian activity in other areas of northern Sumy Oblast has been low, with the Ukrainian General Staff consistently reporting only a small number of Russian attacks in the area.[36] Russian forces have slightly increased their activity in the Vovchansk direction in recent weeks, but Russian forces have only advanced about nine kilometers deep from the Russian border since beginning the offensive in northern Kharkiv Oblast in May 2024.[37] Ukrainian forces have also retaken significant swaths of land in Kupyansk, significantly slowing Russian efforts to create a buffer zone in Kharkiv Oblast.[38]

Key Takeaways:

• US and Ukrainian delegations met in Florida on December 28 to discuss the latest US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan and other documents related to a potential peace settlement.
• Recent Kremlin statements are at odds with several of the positions that Trump presented as the basis for ending the war.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin and high-ranking Russian military commanders continue to aggrandize tactical details to create the false impression that Ukrainian defenses across the frontline are on the verge of collapse.
• Putin and the commanders continue to falsely portray future Russian efforts to seize the Fortress Belt in Donetsk Oblast as a quick and easy endeavor.
• ISW has observed recent open-source evidence to assess that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence in Rodynske and that Russian forces have operated within less than half of Myrnohrad.
• ISW has only observed open-source evidence to assess that Russian forces have operated in roughly 55 percent of Hulyaipole.
• Russia appears to be increasing the sophistication of its cognitive warfare effort that uses flag raisings to achieve informational impacts.
• Putin's meeting with military commanders platformed on-the-ground tactical commanders in an effort to lend credence to the Russian military command's aggrandized claims.
• Putin and Russian military commanders continue to discuss the need to form "buffer zones" in areas of Ukraine outside of the four oblasts Russia illegally annexed in 2022.
• Russian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 27, 2025 

Russian forces are currently unable to build out a strategic reserve and will therefore likely be constrained to grinding, slow advances at their current rate and scale in the coming year. Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Lieutenant General Kyrylo Budanov told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne on December 27 that Russia had fulfilled its plan to recruit 403,000 people in 2025 on December 3 and will surpass its set goal by the end of the year.[1] Budanov stated that Russia can continue recruitment for a “long time” given its population and financial resources and has plans to increase its mobilization to 409,000 people in 2026. ISW has previously assessed that the Kremlin is setting conditions for involuntary partial reserve call-ups to sustain its military manpower and possibly to try to establish a strategic reserve in the face of its continuing high casualty rate in Ukraine.[2] ISW's assessments have focused on challenges Russian recruiters appear to face in attracting voluntary recruits at costs the Kremlin is willing to pay, an issue that Budanov did not address in this interview. Budanov stated that Russia has not yet developed a strategic reserve to its desired capabilities as it “constantly” activates its operational reserve to support ongoing combat operations in Ukraine.[3] Russian forces currently maintain a rate of incoming personnel sufficient to replace losses but have been unable to build large enough reserves to be able to flood a sector of the front without redeploying personnel from other areas. The requirement to draw reserves from some sectors of the line to focus on operationally significant undertakings often leaves Russia’s flanks undermanned in ways that create vulnerabilities, sometimes allowing Ukrainian forces to counterattack and retake land. Ukrainian forces were recently able to retake land north of Hulyaipole during Russia’s push into central Hulyaipole, and Ukraine liberated a significant portion of the Russian penetration in the Dobropillya direction (northwest of Pokrovsk) during Russia’s offensive on Pokrovsk in early November.[4] The Ukrainian liberation of much of Kupyansk also benefited from the concentration of Russian forces elsewhere on the line and the lack of ready Russian operational reserves in the area. Russian forces are currently unable to open a new front and cannot expand recent limited cross-border attacks in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts.[5] Constraints on Russia's available military manpower, in contrast with its overall numerical superiority in population, are a severe constraint on Russian operations and will likely remain so in the coming year.

Russian forces are therefore unlikely to dramatically change the pace and scale of Russian advances along the frontlines in 2026 if support for Ukraine continues at current levels. The grinding nature of Russian advances incurs high casualty rates, and Russian forces need incoming personnel to replenish losses in active sectors of the frontlines to maintain a slow but steady rate of advance. Russian President Vladimir Putin has continued to claim that Russian forces are advancing all along the line, which is untrue, and to intimate that Russian forces can increase the scale and speed of their advances at any moment of his choosing.[6] ISW forecasts that Russian forces will continue fighting at their current scale and rate of advance. Russian forces are constrained in the scale and rate of their advances not only by the lack of mobilized military personnel but also because the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has optimized Russian forces for positional warfare instead of focusing on restoring maneuver warfare.[7] Russian forces cannot currently conduct maneuver warfare at the scale necessary for rapid, operational-level advances. Russian forces are currently unable to address any of the factors complicating its ability to conduct rapid advances or significantly increase its current rate of advance.

Russian forces conducted another large-scale combined missile and drone strike against Ukrainian critical infrastructure overnight on December 26 and 27, primarily targeting Kyiv City and Kyiv Oblast. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 519 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other strike drones, of which about 300 were Shahed-type drones, from the directions of Kursk and Oryol cities; Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Shatalovo, Smolensk Oblast; and occupied Hvardiivske, Crimea.[8] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces also launched 10 Iskander-M ballistic/Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from Ryazan and Bryansk oblasts; seven Iskander-K/Kalibr cruise missiles from Rostov Oblast and the Black Sea; 21 Kh-101 cruise missiles from the airspace over Vologda Oblast; and two Kh-22 cruise missiles from the airspace over the Black Sea.[9] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 474 drones, six Iskander-M/Kinzhal missiles, four Iskander-K/Kalibr cruise missiles, and 19 Kh-101 cruise missiles as of 1300 local time. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that 10 Russian missiles and 25 drones struck 30 locations; that debris fell at 16 locations; that one missile did not reach its target; and that Ukrainian forces are clarifying information that 15 drones were "locally lost" (likely referring to Ukrainian electronic warfare [EW] interference). Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials stated that Russian strikes primarily targeted energy and civilian infrastructure in Kyiv City and Kyiv Oblast.[10] Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko reported that Russian strikes left nearly 600,000 Kyiv City and Kyiv Oblast residents without power, and Ukrainian state electricity transmission operator Ukrenergo reported that Russian strikes caused power outages in Kyiv and Chernihiv oblasts.[11] Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz reported that Russian forces targeted Naftogaz's thermal power plant (TPP) and gas production facilities with Shahed drones.[12] Kyiv City officials reported that the strikes damaged residential and civilian infrastructure in seven raions of the city, killed one person, and injured 32.[13] Ukrainian officials also reported that Russian forces targeted industrial and residential infrastructure in Kyiv Oblast, resulting in one person being trapped under rubble of a destroyed building in Vyshhorod and one death in Bila Tserkva.[14] Cherkasy Oblast officials reported that Ukrainian forces shot down six missiles and 21 drones over the region and that Russian forces damaged at least 123 buildings in Uman, of which nine were completely destroyed.[15] The Odesa Oblast Military Administration reported that Russian forces struck industrial and port infrastructure in the region, damaging equipment for grain transport.[16]

A high-ranking Kremlin official explicitly stated that Russia will not deviate from its war demands "one bit."[17]  Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on December 26 that Russia will not retreat from its positions, goals, and objectives and emphasized that the Russian leadership has affirmed this position "every day." Zakharova noted that current US-Russian talks reflect the understandings that the Kremlin claims were reached at the Alaska Summit in August 2025. Zakharova also specifically called US-Russian discussions "contacts," stating that "some call it a negotiation process" but "others call it contacts," supporting ISW's previous assessment that the Kremlin sees its "offers" as ultimata and does not see itself participating in an actual negotiations process.[18] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky stated on December 26 that several provisions in the publicly available US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan are "a priori unacceptable" and called on the United States to adhere to the “spirit of Anchorage” in order to achieve real progress to end the war.[19] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 26 to CNN that Ukraine ceding the rest of Donetsk Oblast to Russia “could contribute significantly” to a peace deal  — implying that such a Ukrainian concession would not be sufficient for Russia to end its war and effectively rejecting the key point of the  20-point peace plan on freezing the current frontline.[20] No public agreements emerged from the Alaska Summit and US President Donald Trump stated at the time that the parties had not reached a deal.[21] Russian officials subsequently claimed that the Alaska Summit agreed to principles based on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s June 2024 speech to the Russian MFA, in which Putin demanded the capitulation to Russia’s original war demands of both Ukraine and NATO before the start of negotiations.[22]

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) is intensifying its efforts to cover up recent Russian failures in Kupyansk amid ongoing widespread criticism from Russian milbloggers. The Russian MoD suddenly resumed its publication of detailed situational reports about the Kupyansk direction on December 27 after facing extensive milblogger criticism about Russian military commanders' and Kremlin officials' exaggerations and lies about Russian advances in Kupyansk.[23] The Russian MoD posted footage and statements on December 27 from company commanders of the Russian 1427th, 1468th, and 1843rd motorized rifle regiments (all three of the 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) claiming that elements of the 6th CAA control Kupyansk and that Russian forces are operating in central and northeastern Kupyansk.[24] A Russian military journalist and retired colonel, who frequently contributes to Russian state media reporting on the war, recently observed that Russian state media had decreased its coverage of the Kupyansk direction after Ukrainian successes in the area, even though the Russian MoD had been providing daily, detailed accounts about Kupyansk in late November 2025.[25] The Russian MoD likely leveraged lower ranking commanders in the December 27 reports to try to restore the MoD's credibility within the Russian information space. The Kremlin is also likely trying to leverage Russian State Duma deputies, who are avidly denying Ukrainian advances, to mitigate the backlash over Kupyansk with the general Russian public. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik accused Ukraine on December 27 of faking Ukrainian control in Kupyansk, for example.[26] The Russian MoD, Kremlin officials, and Russian state media appear to be engaged in a whole-of-government effort to cover up battlefield failures in Kupyansk and to address widespread milblogger and ultranationalists' criticism of the Kremlin's false reports.

There is ample evidence to indicate that Ukrainian forces have liberated most of Kupyansk, however. Geolocated footage published on December 16, 20, and 26 indicates that Ukrainian forces recently advanced along the P-07 Kupyansk-Shevchenkove highway and the P-79 Kupyansk-Chuhuiv highway in central Kupyansk.[27] ISW has observed ample geolocated footage in recent weeks indicating Ukrainian advances near and within Kupyansk — in line with statements from Ukrainian officials about Ukrainian successes in the area.[28] Russian milbloggers, including some who have traditionally been hesitant to criticize the Russian MoD, have engaged in an unusual discourse acknowledging Ukraine's successes and aggressively blaming the MoD for lying about Russian advances.[29] Select Russian milbloggers have tried to downplay or write off Ukrainian successes in the Kupyansk direction, which other milbloggers stated was "manipulative" and diverting attention away from the main problem at hand — the systemic culture of lying in the Russian military.[30] The Russian MoD is likely now doubling down on its efforts to cover up its failures in Kupyansk in order to not weaken Russia's position in the ongoing peace talks with the United States. The scale of available open-source evidence of Ukrainian advances in the Kupyansk direction, coupled with the uncharacteristically high number of corroborating reports from Russian sources who do not typically discuss Ukrainian battlefield successes, seriously undermine the Kremlin's cognitive warfare effort that aims to paint a Russian military victory as inevitable and Ukrainian defenses on the verge of collapse.
 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with Western partners ahead of his December 28 meeting with US President Donald Trump in Florida. Zelensky told journalists on December 27 that he will stop in Canada on December 27 to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.[31] Zelensky stated that European leaders will join his meeting with Carney virtually to discuss the details of the peace plan documents Zelensky will discuss with Trump.

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces are currently unable to build out a strategic reserve and will therefore likely be constrained to grinding, slow advances at their current rate and scale in the coming year.
• Russian forces conducted another large-scale combined missile and drone strike against Ukrainian critical infrastructure overnight on December 26 and 27, primarily targeting Kyiv City and Kyiv Oblast.
• A high-ranking Kremlin official explicitly stated that Russia will not deviate from its war demands "one bit."
• The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) is intensifying its efforts to cover up recent Russian failures in Kupyansk amid ongoing widespread criticism from Russian milbloggers.
• There is ample evidence to indicate that Ukrainian forces have liberated most of Kupyansk, however.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with Western partners ahead of his December 28 meeting with US President Donald Trump in Florida.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk. Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 26, 2025 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated that the Kremlin will not sign any peace agreements to end the war in Ukraine "right now." Ryabkov stated in a December 24 interview with Russian newswire Interfax that reports about imminent progress in peace negotiations to end the war in Ukraine should not be interpreted as a sign that Russia is ready to sign any "packages of documents right now."[1] Ryabkov similarly stated in an interview on Russian state television on December 26 that it is inappropriate to set specific dates for a peace settlement and that there is "no point" in establishing any deadlines to sign a peace agreement.[2] Ryabkov rejected the 20-point peace plan, which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shared on December 24 after talks with the United States and Europe, claiming that it "differs radically" from the points Russia has been working on with the United States in recent weeks.[3] Ryabkov also attempted to frame Ukrainian and European contributions to the draft peace plan as an impediment to peace efforts and reiterated Russia's commitment to continuing its war until the accomplishment of the Kremlin's goals.[4] The Kremlin's stated objectives for its war in Ukraine include the destruction of the Ukrainian military, capitulation of the Ukrainian government, and the undermining of Ukraine's sovereignty.[5] Kremlin officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have been effectively rejecting key points of the 28-point peace plan and signaling that the plan would not serve as the final agreement.[6]

Ryabkov and other Kremlin officials are trying to exploit the lack of clarity about the outcome of the US-Russian Alaska Summit in August 2025 to claim that the summit achieved a joint US-Russian understanding and agreement to end the war in Ukraine — contrary to US accounts of the summit. Ryabkov stated in the December 24 interview that the framework that Russia and the United States allegedly formed during the Alaska Summit "has no alternative" and that the United States and Russia were able to agree and formalize a framework "generally acceptable" to Russia in the "Anchorage agreement."[7] Ryabkov stated in the December 26 interview that the alleged framework from Alaska is "fundamental" and "imperative" for Russia and that Russia cannot "go beyond" the boundaries of this framework when considering a peace agreement.[8] Ryabkov added that any peace deal outside of the alleged Alaska framework risks not only the formalization of an "unstable agreement" but also the possibility that the parties will not reach any agreement.[9] The Russian Foreign Ministry (MFA) similarly claimed in its December 26 report on key foreign policy outcomes in 2025 that the United States and Russia reached an "understanding" in Alaska that could form the framework for addressing the "root causes" of Russia's war in Ukraine, which the MFA defined as NATO expansion and the claimed discrimination of Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine.[10] Putin reportedly stated at the December 25 Russian State Council meeting that he is ready to make the "concessions" he offered during the Alaska Summit - possibly referring to Putin's reported willingness at the summit to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine that include the People's Republic of China (PRC) or Russia as a guarantor.[11] No public agreements were issued after the Alaska Summit, but Lavrov subsequently claimed that the parties agreed to principles based on Putin's June 2024 speech to the Russian MFA, in which Putin demanded the Ukraine and the West capitulate to Russia's original war demands before the start of negotiations.[12] US President Donald Trump notably stated at the press conference following the Alaska Summit, however, that the meeting had been “productive” but that the US and Russian delegations reached “no deal.”[13] The Kremlin's continued insistence that any future agreement adhere to Russia's demands is a dismissal of Trump's renewed peace efforts in recent weeks.

Ryabkov demanded that any peace agreement must completely address the ultimatums that Russia issued to the West in late 2021, demonstrating how Russia is demanding a radical restructuring of the security architecture in all of Europe. Ryabkov responded on December 24 to a question on whether the peace agreement in Ukraine would satisfy Russia's 2021 ultimatums to the United States and NATO. Russia demanded "security guarantees" from NATO in late 2021 that would have amounted to the destruction of the NATO alliance and required an overhaul of Europe’s security architecture.[14] The Kremlin also demanded in January 2022 (as part of the extended negotiations on the initial 2021 suite of demands) that NATO roll back to its 1997 borders.[15] Ryabkov responded to the interview question that Russia started its war in Ukraine as a "forceful resolution" of Russia's "national security challenges," implying that Russia launched its war because the United States and NATO did not meet Russia’s demands of NATO about NATO itself, Russia’s demands concerning Ukraine notwithstanding. Ryabkov noted that Lavrov again recently mentioned the 2021 ultimatums on December 11 in an effort to convey that Russia must resolve the underlying issues that prompted Russia to issue the 2021 ultimatums in the first place- a statement indicating that Russia likely will not be satisfied with any peace agreement that pertains to only Ukraine and that also does not weaken or destroy NATO.[16] The terms of Russia's 2021 ultimatums notably contradict provisions of every iteration of the 28-point peace plan as Russia continues to insist on a rollback of NATO forces already present in eastern Europe, rather than just freezing further NATO expansion as provided in the 28-point plan.[17] The most recent publicly available 20-point plan also included no mention of either NATO expansion or Ukraine's possible membership in the alliance, although these provisions may be present in the unpublished documents that accompanied the 20-point plan.[18] Ryabkov effectively signaled that a peace deal that does not address Russian demands of NATO and the West outside of Ukraine will not satisfy Russia nor lead to a lasting peace that can normalize Russian-European or US-Russian relations. Russia's goals in Ukraine, therefore, exceed territorial demands such as the seizure of Donetsk Oblast or other objectives that concern only Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with US President Donald Trump on December 28 to continue talks to finalize the US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan. Zelensky stated on December 25 that he and members of the Ukrainian negotiating team spoke on the phone with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner.[19] Zelensky stated on December 26 that the 20-point peace plan is 90 percent ready.[20] Zelensky stated that he will meet with Trump on December 28, and Axios reported that Ukrainian official sources stated that the meeting is likely to happen at Mar-a-Lago.[21] Zelensky noted that he is in constant contact with European leaders, who will join the December 28 meeting virtually. Zelensky stated that he and Trump will discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, territorial issues, and Ukraine's post-war reconstruction.[22] Zelensky reported that Ukrainian parliamentary groups are discussing how Ukraine can hold a referendum for the Ukrainian people to decide on "sensitive issues" in a future peace plan.[23] Zelensky noted that the 20-point plan calls for such a referendum and that this was a US initiative. Axios stated that a senior US official stated that Russia has agreed that a temporary ceasefire to allow Ukraine to hold a referendum is necessary.[24] The source reportedly stated that Ukraine is seeking a 60-day ceasefire, but that Russia may demand a shorter ceasefire. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 26 that Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov spoke on the phone with US representatives following lead Russian negotiator and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev's recent meetings with the United States in Miami.[25]

Ukrainian forces continue to make tactical gains in Kupyansk, and Russian milbloggers are increasingly acknowledging Ukrainian successes. Geolocated footage published on December 24 shows Russian forces striking Ukrainian forces in central Kupyansk, indicating that Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the area.[26] Russian milbloggers acknowledged that Ukrainian forces have advanced in central, western, northwestern, and southern Kupyansk, and one milblogger stated that Russian forces do not maintain positions in central Kupyansk.[27] A milblogger active in Russian crowdfunding efforts stated that Russian forces maintain positions in northeastern Kupyansk but that Ukrainian forces are active in the remaining urban areas.[28] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger acknowledged that Ukrainian forces are operating throughout almost all of Kupyansk and retain control over Kupyansk-Vuzlovyi (south of Kupyansk).[29] Russian milbloggers reported that Ukrainian forces advanced near Zapadne and maintain positions southeast of Holubivka (both north of Kupyansk).[30] One milblogger acknowledged that Russian forces have lost control over Kindrashivka, Radkivka (both northwest of Kupyansk), and Myrove (west of Kupyansk).[31] A Russian milblogger stated that recent Ukrainian advances in eastern Kupyansk have made the situation for Russian forces on the west (right) bank of the Oskil River "hopeless" as this was the last area through which Russian forces could supply units on the right bank.[32] The milblogger reported that Russian forces therefore had to immediately abandon a significant portion of their positions on the right bank

Russian milbloggers continued to blame Russia's deteriorating situation in Kupyansk on the widespread Russian practice of sending false reports up the chain of command.[33] A Russian milblogger assessed that the Russian military command will need to redeploy additional forces to the Kupyansk sector and adjust their plans to reflect the actual situation – not the "reported situation" - in order to stabilize the area.[34] The milblogger assessed that a rapid turnaround in Russia's favor is unlikely, however. Another Russian milblogger stated that Russia's problems with false reports about Kupyansk have been accumulating since Summer 2025 when the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Russian forces had semi-encircled Kupyansk and seized a number of settlements to the west.[35] The milblogger stated that Russian forces never established solid and sustainable control over Radkivka, Myrove, and Sobolivka (all northwest and west of Kupyansk), however, and that Ukrainian forces were able to exploit these weak points. The milblogger added that Russian forces only controlled slightly more than half of Kupyansk when the Russian MoD announced the seizure of the town in late November 2025. The Russian milblogger active in crowdfunding efforts amplified footage of a Russian soldier commenting on Kupyansk, stating that you cannot surrender something you have not completely captured.[36]

Some Russian milbloggers, however, downplayed Ukrainian successes in the area, and the situation in Kupyansk is dividing the milblogger community. Some Russian milbloggers reacted to the deteriorating situation by stating that enemy counteroffensive operations are a "natural process" in war.[37] One milblogger claimed that Russia will "of course" experience "unpleasant" events on the front, but that this will not change the war's final outcome.[38] Another milblogger claimed that Russian defenses in the town are still holding despite other sources' claims to the contrary.[39] One milblogger minimized widespread reports of Ukrainian successes, claiming that most of Kupyansk is a contested "gray zone" covered by the fog of war.[40] The milblogger claimed that Russia "has not lost" Kupyansk but is engaged in fighting that is extremely difficult given the "geographical complexity" of the area. Another Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces' chances of stabilizing the situation is currently "out of the question" but that Russian forces should work to recapture lost positions later.[41] The milblogger claimed that Russia "needs" to seize Kupyansk as the frontline may freeze under a future peace settlement, and it is not guaranteed that there will be post-war territorial swaps. The milblogger's fear of losing the town if the front freezes along the current lines is noteworthy as it demonstrates the way the Kremlin has not socialized Russian society, particularly the milblogger community, to the idea of possible Russian territorial losses.[42]

The scale of Russian milblogger complaints about Kupyansk, including from milbloggers whom the Kremlin has largely coopted in recent years, demonstrates the scale and egregiousness of the Russian military command's lies about Kupyansk. Russian President Vladimir Putin held multiple public meetings with Russian military commanders in late November and December 2025 that flaunted the claimed seizure of Kupyansk.[43] Putin awarded Western Grouping of Forces Commander Colonel General Sergei Kuzovlev the Hero of Russia award on December 9, likely for commanding the operation to seize Kupyansk.[44] Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov claimed in October 2025 that Russian forces encircled 18 Ukrainian battalions in Kupyansk.[45] These public spectacles were part of the wider Kremlin effort to present claimed Russian advances as alleged evidence of the inevitability of a Russian victory in Ukraine. This Kremlin cognitive warfare effort aims to influence the ongoing negotiations by pushing Ukraine and the West to give in to Russia's demands by arguing that Russian forces are on the verge of a breakthrough while Ukrainian forces are on the verge of collapse. A Russian milblogger and former Storm-Z instructor even noted that the false reports about Kupyansk "fit seamlessly" into media narratives that Russian forces are "confidently" maintaining the initiative and are inflicting "vastly superior" losses on Ukrainian forces.[46] Another milblogger assessed that Russian commanders' reports to Putin about Russia's control of Kupyansk were likely part of a plan to enter the next round of negotiations "on the back of strong news."[47]

The situation in Kupyansk highlights how Kremlin claims that Russian forces can take all of Donetsk Oblast quickly are not true. Putin and Russian military commanders' claimed advances are not only purposely exaggerated for informational effects, but Russian military leaders are routinely receiving false reports from the ground about battlefield successes – as Russian milbloggers have long noted.[48] Assessments about Kremlin claims about the quick tempo or relative ease of future Russian advances must take into account the pervasiveness of the culture of lying, both internally within the military and externally in public statements. ISW continues to assess that it will take Russian forces at least another two-to-three years to seize the remainder of Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk Oblast.[49]

The situation in the Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole directions continues to show how Russian forces are able to make gains when they concentrate forces on a specific sector, but often at the expense of other areas. A Ukrainian regiment operating in the Oleksandrivka direction reported on December 25 that Ukrainian forces liberated five settlements southeast of Oleksandrivka - Orestopil, Novoselivka, Sosnivka, Khoroshe, and Vorone – during an operation that lasted over 100 days (since at least mid-September).[50] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger acknowledged on December 22 that Ukrainian forces had advanced on the outskirts of Orestopil on a previous date.[51] The Ukrainian counterattacks as part of this activity have likely blunted the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces' attempts to cross the Vovcha River in the area for the time being.

Geolocated footage published on December 26 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced in central Hulyaipole.[52] Russian forces reportedly recently seized the headquarters of a Ukrainian battalion in central Hulyaipole.[53] Ukrainian reporting suggests that Russian forces took advantage of Ukrainian tactical mistakes to make this advance within Hulyaipole, similar to how Russian forces exploited tactical Ukrainian errors during a rotation near Ocheretyne in the Avdiivka direction in April 2025 to narrowly penetrate Ukrainian defenses.[54] Recent Russian advances in Hulyaipole are also likely due to Russia's numerical superiority in the area. Russian forces have concentrated two Russian combined arms armies (CAA) – the 35th and 5th CAAs (both of the Eastern Military District [EMD]) – and the 11th Air Force and Air Defense Army (Russian Aerospace Forces [VKS] and EMD) to the Hulyaipole area.[55] The prioritization of forces to the effort to seize Hulyaipole, however, likely left other nearby areas, such as the Orestopil-Novoselivka-Khoroshe-Vorone-Sosnivka area, roughly 30 kilometers north of Hulyaipole, vulnerable to Ukrainian counterattacks. Russian forces have shown that they can advance - although still at a foot pace and at high costs - when they concentrate high quantities of personnel and equipment on a certain sector. ISW assessed that Russian forces achieved a tactical breakthrough northeast and east of Hulyaipole in mid-November 2025 in part by concentrating and accumulating over several months a force grouping comparable in size to the one operating in the Pokrovsk-Dobropillya direction against relatively smaller Ukrainian forces.[56] Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets noted on December 13 that Russian forces are increasingly struggling to conduct simultaneous offensive operations in the 5th CAA's area of responsibility (AOR) east and northeast of Hulyaipole and in the AOR of the 36th CAA (EMD) in the Oleksandrivka direction.[57] Mashovets assessed that the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces will need to regroup or receive troops and materiel reinforcements from other operational directions in order to continue offensive operations in the Hulyaipole direction. Russian President Vladimir Putin and high-ranking Russian military officials continue to claim that Russian forces are continuously making advances along the entire frontline, but Russian failures to protect the flanks while focusing on Hulyaipole belies Russia’s actual ability to do so.[58] Russian efforts to start the battle for the Fortress Belt — Ukraine’s main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014 — will likely further stretch Russian resources, and Russia will likely need to concentrate even more forces and deprioritize other sectors to try to seize the rest of Donetsk Oblast.[59]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian forces are using Belarusian territory to intensify Russian drone strikes against railway infrastructure in western Ukraine.[60] Zelensky stated on December 26 that Russian forces are using Belarusian territory to bypass Ukrainian drone interception systems and credited the increase in Russian Shahed drone strikes against western Ukraine to Russia's exploitation of Belarusian territory and technical means to enable Russia to launch these strikes. Zelensky noted the December 26 Russian drone strikes against the Kovel railway station in Volyn Oblast (64 kilometers south of the Belarusian border), which reportedly damaged Lviv Railway's locomotive and a freight wagon and shattered windows at a locomotive depot workshop.[61] Russian forces recently targeted a freight train near Korosten, Zhytomyr Oblast (roughly 50 kilometers south of the Belarusian border), derailing the freight train and a passenger train.[62] Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces used Geran (Shahed) drones with artificial intelligence capabilities to strike the freight train, and Ukrainian electronic and radio warfare expert Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov assessed on December 23 that a Russian drone operator likely located in Belarus (roughly 80 kilometers from the derailed train) used a first-person view (FPV) Shahed drone with online controls to strike the moving train.[63] ISW previously observed Russian forces pursuing locomotives in Chernihiv and Sumy oblasts with Shahed and Geran drones that have integrated cameras and radio control capabilities.[64] ISW assessed on December 22 that Russian forces either launched the drones in the Zhytomyr Oblast strike from Belarus or were using a new Russian capability.[65] Russia has de facto annexed Belarus and has used Belarus as a sanctuary from which to conduct strikes and launch its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.[66] Russia will likely continue to develop its military capabilities in Belarus to support its military operations in Ukraine and set conditions to use Belarus for any future military contingency with NATO.

Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov appears to be trying to replicate the Ukrainian model with the Russian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF). BBC Russia reported on December 26 that sources in the Russian drone industry confirmed multiple Russian milblogger reports that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) appointed Lieutenant Colonel Yuri Vaganov as the commander of the USF.[67] Vaganov sold plumbing fixtures before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and began delivering humanitarian aid to residents in occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in 2022. Vaganov became one of the main suppliers of first-person view (FPV) drones to the Russian military, having based his production on the Sudoplatov Battalion volunteer group. The Sudoplatov Battalion produces drones and trains drone operators, eventually becoming an official drone supplier of the Russian MoD.[68] BBC Russia noted that an award ceremony in October 2025 introduced Vaganov as an advisor to the Russian deputy defense minister for armaments. Ukrainian USF Commander Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi was similarly a businessman with experience in construction, industry, and agriculture before the full-scale invasion.[69] Belousov, who previously served as the Russian Minister of Economic Development, also did not have military experience before becoming the defense minister.[70] Belousov is likely bringing in people with business backgrounds who can apply their skills to the Russian military's efforts to scale up drone production and procurement.

The Russian military command continues efforts to integrate new drone units into the Russian military. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced on December 25 that it formed a new regiment within the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF).[71] The Russian MoD claimed that the regiment began training to counter unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and operate unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) at a training ground in the Moscow Military District (MMD). The MoD published footage of a servicemember of the new regiment with an MMD patch, indicating that the new regiment is directly subordinated to the MMD and is intended to operate as a Grouping of Forces-level unit, similar to the 7th Unmanned Systems Regiment that is reportedly under the operational control of the Southern Grouping of Forces.[72] A Russian milblogger recently claimed that the Russian 18th CAA (SMD) is also forming a new separate drone battalion based in occupied Kherson Oblast.[73] ISW previously observed that the 3rd Separate Drofa Drone Battalion and the Hyperion Unmanned Systems Battalion are directly subordinated to CAAs.[74]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated that the Kremlin will not sign any peace agreements to end the war in Ukraine "right now."
• Ryabkov and other Kremlin officials are trying to exploit the lack of clarity about the outcome of the US-Russian Alaska Summit in August 2025 to claim that the summit achieved a joint US-Russian understanding and agreement to end the war in Ukraine — contrary to US accounts of the summit.
• Ryabkov demanded that any peace agreement must completely address the ultimatums that Russia issued to the West in late 2021, demonstrating how Russia is demanding a radical restructuring of the security architecture in all of Europe.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet with US President Donald Trump on December 28 to continue talks to finalize the US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan.
• Ukrainian forces continue to make tactical gains in Kupyansk, and Russian milbloggers are increasingly acknowledging Ukrainian successes.
• Russian milbloggers continued to blame Russia's deteriorating situation in Kupyansk on the widespread Russian practice of sending false reports up the chain of command.
• The scale of Russian milblogger complaints about Kupyansk, including from milbloggers whom the Kremlin has largely coopted in recent years, demonstrates the scale and egregiousness of the Russian military command's lies about Kupyansk.
• The situation in the Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole directions continues to show how Russian forces are able to make gains when they concentrate forces on a specific sector, but often at the expense of other areas.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian forces are using Belarusian territory to intensify Russian drone strikes against railway infrastructure in western Ukraine.
• Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov appears to be trying to replicate the Ukrainian model with the Russian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF).
• The Russian military command continues efforts to integrate new drone units into the Russian military.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk and Oleksandrivka, and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area, western Zaporizhia Oblast, and near Siversk and Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 24, 2025 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released the latest US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan on December 23, which the United States will reportedly present to Russia.[1] The 20-point plan appears to summarize the US-Ukrainian-European proposals, and Zelensky stated that there are three additional, unpublished documents: a US-Ukrainian-European document outlining security guarantees for Ukraine; a US-Ukrainian document about the US military's role in security guarantees that includes a detailed plan of action and response mechanisms in the event of renewed Russian aggression; and a US-Ukrainian document called the "Roadmap for Ukraine's Prosperity" outlining Ukraine's post-war recovery and economic development.[2] The 20-point plan appears to include points that the United States, Ukraine, and Europe have largely agreed upon, but Zelensky noted that some points, including issues related to control over the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and mechanisms to create a demilitarized zone or "free economic zone" in Donetsk Oblast, remain unresolved and still under discussion.[3]

The 20-point plan differs from the November 2025 28-point plan in significant ways. The 28-point plan called for Ukraine to withdraw from the remainder of unoccupied Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), for the creation of a demilitarized zone in Donbas that would be internationally recognized as de facto Russian territory, and for the war to freeze along the current frontline in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts.[4] The 28-point plan also capped the Ukrainian military during peacetime at 600,000 personnel and called for Ukraine to abandon its efforts to seek NATO membership. The 20-point plan, in contrast, calls for the war to freeze in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts along the frontline as of the date of the agreement's signing; caps Ukraine's peacetime military at 800,000; and does not mention Ukraine's possible NATO membership.[5] References to Ukrainian NATO membership may be in the other unpublished documents, however.

The Kremlin will need to compromise on demands it has long insisted on, including many that are incompatible not only with the latest 20-point peace plan but also with the initial 28-point plan. US Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker stated on December 23 on Fox News that "the ball is currently in [Russia's] court" to respond to the four documents that emerged from the recent US-Ukrainian-European talks.[6] Whitaker noted that the high casualties that Russian forces have been taking in exchange for "very small" gains on the battlefield have not been pushing the Kremlin to try to end the war. The Kremlin has already signaled that it is not interested in accepting Ukrainian or European counterproposals to any peace agreement, with Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov stating on December 21 (before the publication of the 20-point plan) that he is “certain” that the proposals that Ukrainian and European delegations made during their talks with the US delegation in Miami would be “rather unconstructive” and not “improve” the then proposed settlement agreement.[7] The Kremlin has repeatedly made demands that are incompatible with many proposals in the 20-point plan and shown that it is not interested in a resolution based on compromises, like the ones the latest document seems to embody. Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined as recently as December 19 his commitment to the demands he laid out in his June 2024 speech to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA): Ukraine’s complete withdrawal from all of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts; Ukraine's abandonment of its NATO membership aspirations and commitment to neutrality; Ukraine's demilitarization (the Russian demand for limits on the Ukrainian military such that Ukraine cannot defend itself), Ukraine's denazification (the Russian demand for the replacement of the current Ukrainian government with a pro-Russian puppet government), international recognition of Russia's annexations of the four Ukrainian oblasts and Crimea in international agreements; and the lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia.[8] Putin's June 2024 demands essentially repeated his demands from the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Kremlin officials have also claimed that Russia and the United States reached an understanding based on Putin's June 2024 demands during the August 2025 summit in Alaska, but no publicly available agreements emerged from the summit.[9] The Kremlin's continued references to the June 2024 speech and alleged agreements from Alaska demonstrate the Kremlin’s rejection of the proposals in the 28- and 20-point plans to freeze the current lines in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts or in all four oblasts.

Statements from Russian State Duma deputies and insider sources about Russia's likely discontent with the latest proposals are in line with Kremlin statements and messaging in recent weeks about Russia's demands and uncompromising negotiating position. The Kremlin has not officially and publicly responded to the latest US-Ukrainian-European peace proposal as of this writing. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa criticized the plan's lack of a provision prohibiting Ukrainian membership in NATO and rejected proposals about Ukrainian participation in the management of the ZNPP.[10] Chepa stated that Russia will make significant adjustments to the clause on territories, the current version of which Chepa noted will not satisfy the Kremlin. Bloomberg reported on December 24 that a source close to the Kremlin stated that Russia will likely seek changes to the 20-point plan as the plan lacks provisions that are important to Russia.[11] The source reportedly stated that Russia's concerns about the document include the lack of guarantees prohibiting NATO's eastward expansion, insufficient limits on Ukraine's peacetime military forces and weapons, the lack of provisions about Ukraine's neutral status should Ukraine join the EU, and the lack of assurances about the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. Bloomberg reported that the source stated that the Kremlin also wants provisions on frozen Russian assets and the removal of Western sanctions in the peace proposal. The Kremlin has repeatedly called for any future peace settlement to eliminate the alleged "root causes" of the war, which the Kremlin defines as NATO expansion and Ukraine's alleged discrimination against Russian speakers.[12] Russia's demonstrated unwillingness to engage in compromises and its unwavering commitment to achieving its original war goals from 2022 suggest that the prospects for this peace agreement to end the war remain low at this time.

Kremlin-affiliated milbloggers are acknowledging significant Ukrainian successes in the Kupyansk direction and criticizing the Kremlin and the Russian military command for providing false battlefield reports. A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger retroactively claimed on December 24 that Russian forces lost a significant part of their bridgehead on the west (right) bank of the Oskil River as Ukrainian forces regained positions immediately north and northwest of Kupyansk in Kindrashivka and Radkivka, and on the outskirts of Myrove on a prior unspecified date.[13] The milblogger noted that the three settlements were the only settlements that Russian forces controlled prior to the launch of Ukrainian counterattacks in recent weeks, despite Russian military officials claiming control over 11 settlements in the area. The milblogger published a refined map that refuted previous Russian claims and showed that Ukrainian forces maintained or regained positions north of Kupyansk in Dovhenke, southeast of Zapadne, and northeast of Kindrashivka; northeast of Kupyansk in the area northeast of Holubivka; east of Kupyansk in, northeast of, and southeast of Petropavlivka and in Kucherivka; southeast of Kupyansk in, northeast of, east of, and south of Pishchane and in Kurylivka; and south of Kupyansk in the area east and northwest of Kolisnykivka.[14] The milblogger criticized the Russian military command for exaggerating Russian gains in and around Kupyansk and for prematurely redeploying reserves from the Kupyansk direction to reinforce other frontline sectors, leaving the town vulnerable to Ukrainian infiltrations. The milblogger noted that the Russian military command similarly tried to exaggerate successes in the Siversk direction in 2024. Another Russian milblogger claimed, citing sources in the Russian 112th Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st Guards Tank Army [GTA], Moscow Military District [MMD]) and 16th Spetsnaz Brigade (Russian General Staff's Main Directorate [GRU]), that Russian forces had "lost" Kupyansk and that Ukrainian forces cut off elements of the Russian 27th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (1st GTA) from their ground lines of communication (GLOCs).[15] A prominent milblogger involved in Russian crowdfunding efforts stated that local Russian reports suggest that Russian positions continue to deteriorate as Ukrainian forces achieved successes in Myrove, Radkivka, and Sobolivka (west of Kupyansk).[16] Russian milbloggers, therefore, have acknowledged that Ukrainian forces have liberated or maintained positions in 182.64 square kilometers in the Kupyansk direction since December 11.

Another Kremlin-affiliated milblogger stated that information is emerging about the "real state of affairs" in the Kupyansk direction and that the Russian military command has been blatantly "lying" to the "very, very top," referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.[17] The milblogger stated that the Russian military command is exaggerating Russian successes in a "number of areas" along the front. A Russian military journalist and retired colonel, who frequently contributes to Russian state media reporting on the war, stated that the situation in Kupyansk is challenging for Russian forces as Ukrainian forces continue to infiltrate in an effort to regain positions on the west bank of the Oskil River.[18] The journalist observed that Russian state media has deliberately decreased its coverage of the Kupyansk direction despite the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) had been providing detailed accounts about Kupyansk in late November 2025. The journalist stated that the Russian MoD has turned to reporting only "dry statistical reports" that are not useful. The prominent milblogger involved in Russian crowdfunding efforts claimed that exaggerated or false reports of Russian advances in Kupyansk misled the Russian military command into issuing inappropriate orders, such as redeploying reserves before Russian forces consolidated positions in the Kupyansk direction and ultimately undermined Russian forces' operational effectiveness.[19] The milblogger also accused the Kremlin of stopping compensations for Russian servicemembers fighting in Kupyansk after "rosy" reports that Russian forces had "captured everything" in the area became official.[20] A Russian milblogger covering the Russian Western Grouping of Forces (GoF) claimed that Russian commanders tailor their reports at each command level in an effort to appease the expectations of senior commanders and officials, creating an inefficient system that undermines decision-making.[21] The widespread milblogger criticism of the Kremlin's and the Russian military command's false and exaggerated claims in Kupyansk further exposes how the ongoing Russian cognitive warfare effort, which aims to paint Ukrainian defenses as on the verge of collapse and major Russian battlefield victories as inevitable, does not reflect the battlefield realities.[22]

Russian milbloggers also acknowledged that Russia's failures in Kupyansk indicate that Russia does not have sufficient manpower or materiel to imminently defeat the northern part of the Fortress Belt while simultaneously continuing offensive operations elsewhere. The Fortress Belt refers to Ukraine's main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014 that includes four cities — Slovyansk, Kramatorsk, Druzhkivka, and Kostyantynivka.[23] The Russian milblogger covering the Russian Western GoF implied that the Russian failure to seize Kupyansk, continue advances in the area, and further develop the ongoing Lyman offensive before 2026 is fixing a significant number of Russian troops in the area.[24] The milblogger claimed that multiple Russian units failed to meet their objectives. The milblogger claimed that elements of the Russian 121st and 122nd motorized rifle regiments (both of the 68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) did not fully seize Kupyansk nor reach the Blahodativka-Nechvolodivka line (southwest of Kupyansk); that elements of the 153rd Tank Regiment and 272nd Motorized Rifle Regiment (both of the 47th Tank Division, 1st GTA, MMD) did not start assaults against Kupyansk-Vuzlovyi (southeast of Kupyansk); that elements of the 423rd Motorized Riffle Regiment (4th Tank Division, 1st GTA) failed to seize Korovii Yar, Yarova, and Sosnove (all northwest of Lyman); and that elements of the 19th Tank Regiment and 31st and 36th motorized rifle regiments (all three of the 67th Motorized Rifle Division, 25th CAA, Central Military District [CMD]) did not seize Lyman.[25] The milblogger noted that Russian attempts to conduct multi-pronged offensives are preventing Russian forces from "methodically" breaking Ukrainian defenses in one priority area. The prominent milblogger involved in Russian crowdfunding efforts claimed that Ukrainian successes in the Kupyansk direction will prevent Russian forces from exploiting recent Russian advances near Lyman and Siversk, thus inhibiting Russia's offensive toward Slovyansk.[26] The milblogger added that Russian forces will need to cross the Siverskyi Donets River in the Lyman direction to reach Slovyansk and will need to protect their flanks from Ukrainian forces in Izyum. The milblogger assessed that Russian forces are unable to develop the Slovyansk offensive from the Siversk direction because they do not have a sufficient number of troops to conduct a frontal assault against Slovyansk. The milblogger noted that the Russian military command's redeployment of reserves from the Kupyansk direction to other sectors and Russian failures in Kupyansk show that Russian forces are unable to secure positions in previously seized areas without additional reserves.

ISW recently assessed that Russian forces will likely continue to struggle to maintain the Kremlin's desired multi-pronged offensives in different directions due to the long-term materiel and manpower costs of these simultaneous operations.[27] Russian efforts to start the battle for the Fortress Belt will likely further stretch Russian resources, and Russia will likely need to deprioritize other frontline sectors in order to concentrate even more forces to the Fortress Belt area. The Kremlin is therefore making demands in negotiations that Ukraine cede the unoccupied parts of Donetsk Oblast, likely in order to save Russia the personnel and materiel resources and possibly to put Russia in a more advantageous position to re-invade in the future to pursue Putin's longer-term strategic goal of controlling all of Ukraine.

Russian forces continue to strike energy infrastructure in Ukraine and particularly targeted critical infrastructure in Chernihiv Oblast overnight on December 23 and 24. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 116 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other strike drones — of which roughly 90 were Shahed-type drones — from the directions of Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Kursk and Oryol cities; Shatalovo, Smolensk Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai; and occupied Hvardiiske, Crimea.[28] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces shot down 60 drones in northern, southern, and eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces directed a significant number of drones against critical infrastructure facilities in Chernihiv Oblast and that 48 drones struck 19 locations as of 0830 local time. Ukrainian state energy operator Ukrenergo reported power outages in Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson, Kharkiv, and Chernihiv oblasts following the overnight strikes.[29] Chernihiv City and Oblast officials reported that Russian forces struck critical and energy infrastructure in Chernihiv Raion on the evening of December 23 and on December 24, causing tens of thousands of Chernihiv Oblast residents to lose power.[30] Chernihiv City officials also reported that Russian forces struck an apartment building and at least two other locations in the city, possibly with a jet-propelled Shahed drone.[31] Kharkiv City and Oblast officials reported that Russian forces struck a thermal power plant (TPP) in the Kharkiv City suburbs, possibly with a Tornado multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), killing at least one person and injuring 13, and damaging a nearby transportation enterprise.[32] Kharkiv City Mayor Ihor Terekhov stated that the strike disrupted power generation, heat supplies, and transport in the city and that serious damage to the TPP forced the city to switch to providing power via "energy islands."[33] Kherson City Military Administration Head Yaroslav Shanko also reported that Russian forces struck critical and residential infrastructure in Kherson City, killing at least one person and injuring another.[34] Ukrainian oil and natural gas extracting company Ukrnafta reported that Russian forces launched almost 100 strike drones against Ukrnafta's production facilities between December 22 and 24, causing damage to equipment and forcing Ukrnafta to temporarily stop some production.[35] Russia's December 23 to 24 strikes follow the large-scale combined missile and drone strikes that primarily impacted energy infrastructure in western Ukraine on December 22 to 23.[36] Russian consecutive strikes on energy infrastructure in western and eastern Ukraine are likely part of the Russian ongoing campaign to split Ukraine's energy grid in half.[37]

Key Takeaways:

• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky released the latest US-Ukrainian-European 20-point peace plan on December 23, which the United States will reportedly present to Russia.
• The Kremlin will need to compromise on demands it has long insisted on, including many that are incompatible not only with the latest 20-point peace plan but also with the initial 28-point plan.
• Statements from Russian State Duma deputies and insider sources about Russia's likely discontent with the latest proposals are in line with Kremlin statements and messaging in recent weeks about Russia's demands and uncompromising negotiating position.
• Kremlin-affiliated milbloggers are acknowledging significant Ukrainian successes in the Kupyansk direction and criticizing the Kremlin and the Russian military command for providing false battlefield reports.
• Russian milbloggers also acknowledged that Russia's failures in Kupyansk indicate that Russia does not have sufficient manpower or materiel to imminently defeat the northern part of the Fortress Belt while simultaneously continuing offensive operations elsewhere.
• Russian forces continue to strike energy infrastructure in Ukraine and particularly targeted critical infrastructure in Chernihiv Oblast overnight on December 23 and 24.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 23, 2025 

Russia conducted another large-scale combined missile and drone strike against Ukraine overnight on December 22 and 23, primarily targeting energy infrastructure in western Ukraine. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched a combined missile and drone strike against Ukrainian critical infrastructure using 635 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other strike drones (of which around 400 were Shaheds); three Kinzhal Kh-47M2 ballistic missiles; and 35 Kh-101 and Iskander-K cruise missiles.[i] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces repelled 587 drones and 34 Kh-101 and Iskander-K cruise missiles as of 1130 local time; that the three Kinzhal missiles did not reach their targets; and that 39 strike drones struck 21 locations while drone debris fell in eight locations.[ii] Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat credited Ukrainian F-16 fighter aircraft with shooting down most of the Russian cruise missiles.[iii] Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko reported that the attack primarily damaged energy infrastructure in western Ukraine.[iv] Ukrainian regional officials reported that Russian forces struck critical and energy infrastructure in Novohrod-Siverskyi, Chernihiv Oblast; Shostka, Sumy Oblast; and Ivano-Frankivsk, Khmelnytskyi, Rivne, and Lviv oblasts.[v] Ukrainian Acting Energy Minister Artem Nekrasov stated that Russian strikes caused nearly full power outages in Rivne, Ternopil, and Khmelnytskyi oblasts and milder power outages in Vinnytsia, Chernihiv, Zhytomyr, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv oblasts.[vi] The Ukrainian state energy operator Ukrenergo stated that the December 22 to 23 strike is the ninth large-scale Russian combined strike against Ukrainian energy infrastructure since the start of 2025, and Ukraine’s largest private energy company, DTEK, reported that the strike marked the seventh large-scale attack on DTEK's thermal power plants (TPPs) since October 2025.[vii]

Ukrainian officials reported that drone debris fell in Svyatoshynskyi Raion, Kyiv City and injured five people, and that Russian strikes against civilian infrastructure in Kyiv Oblast killed one person and injured three.[viii] Ukrainian officials also reported that Russian strikes killed one child and injured five people in Zhytomyr Oblast; damaged a two-story apartment building in Rivne Oblast; and damaged 14 residential buildings in Vinnytsia Oblast.[ix] Odesa Oblast Military Administration Head Oleh Kiper stated that Russian forces targeted energy, port, transport, industrial, and residential infrastructure in Odesa Oblast – damaging 112 buildings, causing power outages, and striking an empty storage facility.[x] Ukraine's Sea Port Administration also reported that Russian strikes damaged a civilian Lebanese-flagged vessel that was transporting Ukrainian soy in Odesa City port and Reniyskyi port infrastructure (southwest of Odesa City).[xi] Zaporizhstal (Zaporizhzhia Steel Works) metallurgical plant announced that it temporarily stopped production after losing power.[xii] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha noted that Russia launched the combined strike after rejecting the US and German-proposed Christmas ceasefire, and Zelensky emphasized Ukraine's need for additional Western air defense systems.[xiii]

Russian forces conducted a reduced battalion-sized mechanized assault in the Dobropillya direction and a reduced-platoon sized mechanized assault in the Kostyantynivka direction on December 22. Ukraine’s 1st Azov Army Corps [AC] reported that Russian naval infantry forces conducted a series of mechanized assaults moving along different routes in the Dobropillya direction on the morning of December 22.[xiv] Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) Commander Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi reported that elements of the Russian Pacific Fleet's 40th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade and 155th Naval Infantry Brigade (recently reformed into the 55th Naval Infantry Division) conducted the assaults with a total of 24 armored vehicles and dozens of motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).[xv] The Ukrainian National Guard reported that Russian forces moved in four armored columns during the attack.[xvi] The 1st AC reported that Ukrainian forces destroyed six tanks, nine infantry fighting vehicles, five armored personnel carriers, and one armored repair and recovery vehicle. The 1st AC reported that Russian forces used ATVs in the final assault phase and that Ukrainian forces destroyed 10 out of 11 ATVs. The 1st AC noted that Ukrainian forces used a combination of strike drones, tube artillery, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), small arms, and land mines to repel the assaults. Geolocated footage of the assault shows destroyed Russian vehicles near Razine and Fedorivka (both southeast of Dobropillya and northeast of Pokrovsk).[xvii]

Two Ukrainian brigades operating in the Kostyantynivka direction reported that Russian forces conducted a reduced-platoon mechanized assault from the directions of Toretsk (southeast of Kostyantynivka), Shcherbynivka (south of Kostyantynivka), and Ivanopillya (north of Shcherbynivka) on December 22.[xviii] One of the Ukrainian brigades reported that Ukrainian forces destroyed the two tanks and three all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) involved in the assault.[xix] Geolocated footage of the assault indicates that Russian forces advanced southeast of Kostyantynivka and likely seized Oleksandro-Shultyne (east of Kostyantynivka) on a prior date.[xx]

Combat footage showing failed Russian mechanized assaults continue to demonstrate that Russian forces have been unable to restore mechanized maneuver to the battlefield. Russian milbloggers criticized the Russian military command for conducting the mechanized assault in the Dobropillya direction, noting that Russian forces do not currently have the capability to successfully maneuver in mechanized columns. One milblogger claimed that the density of Ukrainian first-person view (FPV) drone and artillery strikes is such that even heavily protected vehicles cannot withstand multiple hits and are eventually immobilized.[xxi] The milblogger noted that experience has "repeatedly shown" that mechanized assaults during daylight hours and good weather conditions without concealment from fog "rarely lead to anything good." Another milblogger criticized the mechanized assault in the Dobropillya direction and implied that Lieutenant General Sukrab Akhmedov, the former commander of the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade and later the 20th Combined Arms Army (Moscow Military District [MMD]), commanded the mechanized assault.[xxii] The Russian military command reportedly removed Akhmedov from command of the 20th CAA in May 2024 after complaints that he commanded the Russian attritional assaults near Vuhledar in Winter 2022-2023 as the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade commander or his role in significant casualties after a Ukrainian rear strike in Summer 2023.[xxiii] The milblogger complained that Akhmedov now "received even more power" and formed several naval infantry columns near Dobropillya.[xxiv] The milblogger noted that the nature of the battlefield situation in the Dobropillya sector - and the wider frontline in the current war – means that groups larger than two soldiers would lead to "deadly consequences" as both Ukrainian and Russian drones have the immediate rear under "total surveillance." The milblogger stated that Russian forces can only ensure advances via their ongoing infiltration tactics using groups of one to two personnel who move on foot to concealed rally points areas before launching subsequent attacks. Another milblogger questioned why Russian forces are still using mechanized columns after achieving some battlefield successes recently using infiltration tactics.[xxv] The milblogger noted that a breakthrough with heavy armored vehicles requires proper planning, condition setting, and comprehensive support, such as the destruction of Ukrainian drone crews, adequate counterbattery fire to a significant depth, and coordination between units across a wide area. The milblogger particularly noted Ukraine's ability to strike the depth of the Russian Dobropillya salient from positions north of Myrnohrad and Pokrovsk and observed that rivers and the lack of bridges, anti-tank ditches, and lowlands in the area also constrain Russia's ability to maneuver.

Russian gains likely will continue to be constrained to a slow foot pace, and any sudden Russian operational-level breakthrough remains unlikely. Russian forces have been relying on infiltration tactics to make tactical gains across the front in recent months.[xxvi] Ukrainian forces have been reliably defeating Russia's periodic attempts to conduct mechanized assaults at and above the platoon level. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces have optimized for positional warfare in Ukraine, and Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov's December 17 statements about Russian technological and tactical adaptations in 2025 enforced this assessment.[xxvii] Russian gains across the theater – even in areas of relatively more rapid advances – have been limited to a foot pace, and Russia's inability to conduct mechanized assaults that result in large-scale gains confirms that Russian forces will be unable to make rapid breakthroughs and collapse Ukrainian defenses. The Kremlin's ongoing cognitive warfare effort that aims to paint Ukrainian defenses as on the verge of collapse and major Russian battlefield victories as inevitable does not reflect the battlefield realities about the ongoing nature and tempo of Russian advances.[xxviii]

The Russian Baltic Fleet is reportedly reforming its 336th Naval Infantry Brigade into the 120th Naval Infantry Division – the ninth new maneuver division that Russia has formed since 2022.[xxix] The Kaliningrad Oblast-based Russkiy Zapad media outlet reported on December 2 that the Russian Baltic Fleet is reforming its 336th Naval Infantry Brigade into the 120th Naval Infantry Division and that the division will have the 336th Naval Infantry Regiment.[xxx] Russkiy Zapad reported that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) had already begun reforming the brigade on an unspecified prior date. The Russian MoD indirectly confirmed on December 22 that the Russian Baltic Fleet is forming a new division and that elements of the division are undergoing intensive training at the Khmelevka Training Ground, Kaliningrad Oblast.[xxxi] An OSINT analyst observed that elements of the 120th Naval Infantry Division is currently operating near Shakhove in the Dobropillya direction alongside the recently reformed 55th Naval Infantry Division (formerly 155th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade, Pacific Fleet), 40th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade (Pacific Fleet), 61st Separate Naval Infantry Brigade (Northern Fleet), and 117th Separate Naval Infantry Regiment (Caspian Flotilla).[xxxii] Primorsky Krai Governor Oleg Kozhemyako earlier announced that the Pacific Fleet reformed the 155th Separate Naval Infantry Brigade into the 55th Naval Infantry Division on December 1.[xxxiii] Former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced in December 2022 that the Russian military command intended to form 17 new maneuver divisions, including by expanding five existing naval infantry brigades into five divisions.[xxxiv] ISW has observed evidence to support the formation and combat deployment of at least nine new Russian divisions since December 2022.[xxxv] The Russian military command has formed the 104th Airborne (VDV) Division and the 27th, 68th, 69th, and 71st motorized rifle divisions from previously existing brigades, the 55th Naval infantry Division, and the new 67th, 70th, and 72nd motorized rifle divisions since December 2022. ISW continues to assess that the expansion of Russian conventional forces and the Russian military’s larger force structure reform back to maneuver divisions is in line with Russia’s preparation for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future, as the Russian military command likely assesses that the Russian military will require more mass and higher echelon formations to wage effective combat operations.[xxxvi]

Key Takeaways:

• Russia conducted another large-scale combined missile and drone strike against Ukraine overnight on December 22 and 23, primarily targeting energy infrastructure in western Ukraine.
• Russian forces conducted a reduced battalion-sized mechanized assault in the Dobropillya direction and a reduced-platoon sized mechanized assault in the Kostyantynivka direction on December 22.
• Combat footage showing failed Russian mechanized assaults continue to demonstrate that Russian forces have been unable to restore mechanized maneuver to the battlefield.
• Russian gains likely will continue to be constrained to a slow foot pace, and any sudden Russian operational-level breakthrough remains unlikely.
• The Russian Baltic Fleet is reportedly reforming its 336th Naval Infantry Brigade into the 120th Naval Infantry Division – the ninth new maneuver division that Russia has formed since 2022.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 22, 2025 

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 21, 2025 

Russian forces are conducting a new cognitive warfare campaign through limited cross-border attacks across a broad part of the previously dormant northern frontline in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts. Ukrainian authorities reported on December 20 and 21 that Russian forces entered Hrabovske, Sumy Oblast (a small rural village southeast of Sumy City along the international border) overnight on December 19 to 20, and the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) and other Russian sources claimed on December 20 and 21 that elements of the Russian had seized Hrabovske and Vysoke (immediately south of Hrabovske).[i] Ukrainian Armed Forces Main Communications Directorate Spokesperson Captain Dmytro Lykhovyi stated on December 21 that Ukrainian forces withdrew from several positions near Hrabovske and are working to stabilize the area.[ii] Available evidence indicates that Russian forces have likely seized Hrabovske. A source reportedly affiliated with Ukrainian military intelligence reported that Hrabovske is a contested "gray zone" that neither Russian nor Ukrainian forces currently control, however.[iii] Russian milbloggers reported that Russian forces advanced across the international border into Hrabovske under the cover of night and fog and also entered Ryasne (immediately west of Hrabovske).[iv] The Ukrainian Joint Forces Task Force acknowledged on December 21 that fighting continues for Hrabovske but rejected reports that Russian forces had entered Ryasne.[v] Russian sources credited elements of the 34th Motorized Rifle Brigade (49th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Southern Military District [SMD]) with the seizure of Hrabovske.[vi]

Russian forces also conducted a geographically separate across-border attack against another small rural border village in Kharkiv Oblast. Geolocated footage published on December 21 shows Russian infantry (about two squads totaling around 15 infantry) attacking Ukrainian positions in northern Sotnytskyi Kozachok (northwest of Kharkiv City, about 15 kilometers east of Grayvoron, Belgorod Oblast, and less than half a kilometer from the international border), and a Ukrainian drone unit operating in the border area reported that Ukrainian forces repelled the assault.[vii]

These two cross-border attacks likely intend to advance the Kremlin's cognitive warfare campaign to convince the West that the frontlines in Ukraine are collapsing, such that Ukraine should concede to all of Russia's demands. The Kremlin likely intends to portray these limited cross-border attacks against small rural border villages in long-dormant areas of the international border as part of a broad new Russian offensive to reinforce a false narrative that Ukraine’s frontline is collapsing across the theater. Russian President Vladimir Putin stated on December 17 that Russia will achieve all of its war goals militarily if it cannot do so diplomatically, including the creation and expansion of a "buffer zone" in Ukraine.[viii] Putin first proposed creating a "buffer zone" in Ukraine in June 2023 following limited Ukrainian cross-border raids into Belgorod Oblast.[ix] The Kremlin has since invoked the concept of this buffer zone multiple times to signal broader territorial demands in northern Ukraine, including Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts, likely to set conditions to later demand that Ukraine cede some or all of this territory due to Russia's alleged need for a buffer zone.[x] The Kremlin will likely seek to use these attacks in combination with existing narratives about the creation of a buffer zone in Ukraine to convince the West to push Ukraine to concede to Russia because Russia will inevitably seize these areas regardless.[xi] ISW continues to assess that the frontlines in Ukraine are not in danger of rapid collapse and that a Russian victory is not inevitable.[xii]

Russian forces have not set conditions to start a new offensive across the international border in northern Ukraine. ISW has not observed evidence that would indicate that Russian forces are preparing for or capable of conducting a significant offensive operation across the international border area into northern Ukraine. Much of the Sumy and Kharkiv Oblast border area, including near Hrabovske has been dormant since late Summer 2025.[xiii] The frontline near Sotnytskyi Kozachok has been dormant since Summer 2024.[xiv] Russian forces have been struggling to advance in the international border area north and northeast of Sumy City since late June 2025 and have deprioritized this area of the frontline.[xv] ISW has observed no evidence to suggest that Russian forces have conducted a large-scale redeployment of forces to the Northern Grouping of Forces’ area of responsibility or near Ukraine’s northern international border that could support a dedicated offensive operation. Elements of the 34th Motorized Rifle Brigade, which Russian sources credited with the seizure of Hrabovske, have been operating in the border area since at least December 2024.[xvi] Russian forces, rather, have redeployed forces and means away from Sumy Oblast since Summer 2025, including elite airborne (VDV) and naval infantry units that Russia uses to bear the brunt of offensive operations in prioritized areas of the frontline.[xvii] Russian forces most recently redeployed elements of the 76th VDV Division from the Sumy direction to the Hulyaipole direction in September 2025 and the Pokrovsk direction in November 2025, Russia's two most prioritized areas of the front.[xviii] A source reportedly affiliated with Ukrainian military intelligence assessed that Russian forces have not massed sufficient forces and means to ”overwhelm” Ukrainian forces near Hrabovske.[xix]

Russian forces notably have not prepared the battlefield in northern Sumy or Kharkiv oblasts for a major ground offensive through intermediate-range strikes against Ukrainian logistics.[xx] Russian forces have not conducted a sustained battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign with drones against operational and tactical rear areas along the international border in northern Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts to prepare the battlefield for ground assaults, as the Russian forces have done in the Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole directions.[xxi] These BAI campaigns are part of a new Russian campaign design that aims to set conditions for intensified ground operations by degrading Ukrainian logistics and defenses ahead of such ground operations.[xxii] The absence of such preparation of the battlefield in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts is therefore noteworthy, as such shaping operations have become the standard Russian operational template for enabling ground operations. Ukrainian Joint Forces Task Force Spokesperson Colonel Viktor Trehubov’s stated that the Russian operations in the border area do not appear to be an effort to conduct a large-scale breakthrough or a major military operation but are a local provocation — a statement consistent with all available open-source information.[xxiii]

The Russian tactics in the assault in Sotnytskyi Kozachok are not consistent with Russian assault tactics across the theater and suggest the attack was designed to be seen. Russian forces conducted the assault into northern Sotnytskyi Kozachok with about two squads of personnel crossing the border in lines shoulder-to-shoulder with little dispersion. Such a manner of movement is inconsistent with Russian tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) elsewhere in the theater that emphasize dispersion, infiltration, and movement in small groups of two to five soldiers to avoid detection and fire damage from Ukrainian drones. Russian forces have largely switched to conducting infiltration missions in teams of two to five personnel throughout the theater as the main mode of offensive maneuver, so the observation of an anomalously large group of Russian infantry conducting a frontal assault using outdated tactics near Sotnytskyi Kozachok is notable.[xxiv] It is currently unclear why Russian forces conducted this assault with a large group of personnel operating in close proximity to each other in contradiction of current Russian TTPs. Russian forces may have incorrectly assessed that they would not come under Ukrainian drone and artillery fire. The Russian command in the area may have made this decision out of incompetence, though this is likely not enough to explain this decision, given how prolific the TTPs for using small-group Russian assaults and infiltration missions have become throughout the theater. The Russian military command may have designed the attack to be highly visible to ensure that Ukrainian drone crews and Western analysts undoubtedly would observe a large group of personnel to map a new Russian effort in a remote part of Kharkiv Oblast to achieve an informational effect.

Forecast and indicators: Russian forces may seek to conduct further cross border assaults in the coming days and weeks as part of this cognitive warfare campaign to influence ongoing peace negotiations by portraying the northern front as collapsing. The Kremlin and Russian media may issue intensified statements that portray these limited assaults as part of a new Russian offensive. The appearance of new small-scale tactical attacks punctuating the northern frontline and intensified Russian informational agitation around such activity would not indicate an actual new major ground offensive, however. Such activity would indicate that the primary objective of these tactical assaults is to achieve informational effects and not seize territory as part of a broader offensive.

Counterindicators: This assessment will be invalidated, and Russian forces will be more likely to be conducting an actual new ground offensive operation in northern Ukraine if Russian forces begin a concerted BAI campaign targeting Ukraine’s tactical and operational rear to degrade Ukraine’s frontline logistics or if Russian forces redeploy or commit new forces to the Northern Grouping of Forces’ area of responsibility. Such redeployments very likely would require the Russian theater command to deprioritize the southern and eastern frontlines. Both of these counterindicators remain unobserved as of December 21.

Russian forces forcibly deported about 50 civilians from Sumy Oblast in violation of international law. Hrabovske Mayor Larysa Kremenza stated on December 20 that there had been about 50 civilians left in Hrabovske when Russian forces entered the settlement and that Russian forces forcibly deported these civilians to Russia.[xxv] Kremenza stated that there were no children among those forcibly deported, and Lykhovyi stated that most of these civilians are elderly and had previously refused to evacuate.[xxvi] Ukrainian officials indicated that they are increasing evacuation measures in Sumy Oblast border areas.[xxvii] Forced deportation refers to an occupying power deporting residents of an occupied area across de jure international borders and is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.[xxviii] Russia has conducted an extensive forced deportation campaign in areas of occupied Ukraine for various purposes, including to Russify Ukrainian citizens, provide labor to industries in Russia, and undermine Ukraine's ability to reintegrate areas currently under occupation.[xxix] This campaign across all of occupied Ukraine intends to rob Ukraine of its multigenerational potential and damage Ukraine's future claims to its own people.[xxx]

Russian forces have likely seized Siversk — a town with a pre-war population of less than 11,000 — after 41 months of fighting. Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported on December 21 that Russian forces completed the seizure of Siversk, advanced to heights west and northwest of Siversk, and reached the chalk quarry west of Siversk.[xxxi] Mashovets reported that Russian forces also made tactical gains north of Svyato-Pokrovske and seized Fedorivka and Vasyukivka (all southwest of Siversk) since mid-November 2025.[xxxii] The Kremlin claimed that Russian forces seized Siversk as of December 11, and Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior Russian defense officials have since been using the seizure of the town to promote the false narrative that Ukrainian lines are collapsing and that Russian forces are capable of immediately threatening Slovyansk.[xxxiii] The Russian efforts in the Siversk direction have been extremely lengthy, especially given that Siversk has an area of about 10 square kilometers with a pre-war population of about 11,000. Russian forces took 41 months to advance roughly 12 kilometers from Lysychansk (east of Siversk) to the western administrative boundary of Siversk.[xxxiv] Ukrainian resistance significantly delayed Russian efforts on the approaches to Siversk: ISW assesses that Russian forces seized Verkhnokamyanske (about four kilometers east of Siversk) as of October 9, 2024, Bilohorivka (about 10 kilometers northeast of Siversk) as of February 23, 2025, and Serebryanka (about four kilometers northeast of Siversk) as of August 16, 2025.[xxxv] ISW first observed evidence that Russian forces entered Siversk’s town limits no later than November 18, indicating that Russian forces likely took 33 days to completely seize the town (with an area of three Central Parks) once entering it.[xxxvi] Russian forces must still advance the 30 kilometers from Siversk to Slovyansk and complete the seizure of Lyman before they can begin a direct assault on Slovyansk itself.[xxxvii] The Kremlin has been exaggerating the immediate implications of the seizure of Siversk in attempts to falsely portray Russian forces as imminently threatening the northern part of the Fortress Belt and making significant simultaneous advances across the theater, such that the frontline is imminently collapsing. Russian gains continue to be slow and grinding as they have been for the past two years.

US delegations continued separate meetings with Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Miami on December 21, as the Kremlin continues to reject making compromises to end the war. Ukrainian Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov reported that he and Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff Major General Andriy Hnatov conducted a third day of meetings with US negotiators in Miami on December 21.[xxxviii] Russian state media reported that the lead Russian negotiator and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev held separate meetings with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner on December 21.[xxxix] Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov stated on December 21 that he is "confident" that European and Ukrainian proposals “do not improve” the peace proposal or “enhance the chances of achieving long-term peace.”[xl] Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Kremlin officials have repeatedly rejected the US-proposed 28-point peace plan or any plan requiring Russia to compromise on any of its original war aims.[xli] Putin notably used his December 19 Direct Line televised press conference to outline his demands for a future peace settlement — the same demands with which he launched the full-scale invasion in February 2022.[xlii]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces are conducting a new cognitive warfare campaign through limited cross-border attacks across a broad part of the previously dormant northern frontline in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts.
• These two cross-border attacks likely intend to advance the Kremlin's cognitive warfare campaign to convince the West that the frontlines in Ukraine are collapsing, such that Ukraine should concede to all of Russia's demands.
• Russian forces have not set conditions to start a new offensive across the international border in northern Ukraine.
• Russian forces notably have not prepared the battlefield in northern Sumy or Kharkiv oblasts for a major ground offensive through intermediate-range strikes against Ukrainian logistics.
• The Russian tactics in the assault in Sotnytskyi Kozachok are not consistent with Russian assault tactics across the theater and suggest the attack was designed to be seen.
• Russian forces forcibly deported about 50 civilians from Sumy Oblast in violation of international law.
• Russian forces have likely seized Siversk — a town with a pre-war population of less than 11,000 — after 41 months of fighting.
• US delegations continued separate meetings with Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Miami on December 21 as the Kremlin continues to reject making compromises to end the war.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the border area of Belgorod Oblast and near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced in the Slovyansk-Lyman direction, in the border areas of Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts, and near Borova and Siversk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 20, 2025 

US delegations met separately with a Ukrainian-European delegation and a Russian delegation in Miami on December 19 and 20, respectively. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner met with Ukrainian Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov and Ukrainian Chief of the General Staff Major General Andriy Hnatov on December 19, and Umerov stated that European representatives also joined the talks at the invitation of the United States.[i] Axios correspondent Barak Ravid reported on December 19 that two unspecified sources stated that national security advisors from Germany, France, and the UK joined the US-Ukrainian talks on December 19.[ii] Ravid stated that Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani joined the December 19 talks. Lead Russian negotiator and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev arrived in Miami on December 20 to meet with Witkoff and Kushner.[iii] Reuters reported that a Russian source stated that there would not be a meeting between Dmitriev and the Ukrainian delegation.[iv]

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that both Russia and Ukraine must make compromises to end the war after Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to his full war aims on December 19. Rubio noted on December 19 that Ukrainian-Russian negotiations to end the war will require that both sides "give something" and that the United States is trying to figure out "what both sides are prepared to give."[v] Putin used his December 19 Direct Line televised press conference to outline his demands for a future peace settlement — the same demands with which he launched the full-scale invasion in February 2022.[vi] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in contrast, reiterated on December 20 his readiness to hold presidential elections in Ukraine as a step toward ending Russia's war. Zelensky stated that he is ready to hold elections in Ukraine if conditions are in place for Ukrainian authorities to ensure "proper, decent, and democratic elections."[vii] Zelensky stated that the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) is working to prepare and ensure the necessary infrastructure to hold elections abroad, as the number of Ukrainian citizens living abroad has grown.[viii] Zelensky noted that the Ukrainian military must be able to participate in the elections and that there must be international observers and a ceasefire, even if a temporary one, to hold elections. Russia's unwillingness to engage in good-faith negotiations and compromise from its demands for Ukraine's full capitulation continues to demonstrate the need for robust security guarantees to ensure that any future agreement produces a sustainable peace and prevent renewed Russian aggression. The Kremlin has repeatedly rejected such security guarantees, however.[ix]

Ukrainian forces struck Russian military and oil assets overnight on December 19 to 20. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) reported that SBU forces struck two Russian Su-27 fighter jets at the Belbek Airbase near occupied Sevastopol, Crimea, overnight.[x] The SBU reported that one of the aircraft was carrying ammunition and taxiing for a combat mission at the time of the strike, which destroyed the aircraft. The SBU published geolocated footage showing Ukrainian drones hitting the Su-27s.[xi] Ukrainian forces struck long-range radar systems, air defense systems, and a MiG-31 interceptor aircraft at the Belbek Airbase overnight on December 17 to 18.[xii] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces struck a Russian RSP-6M2 radar system overnight on December 19 to 20, which Russian forces used to assist aircraft landing in poor visibility, near occupied Krasnosilske, Crimea.[xiii] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that several Ukrainian drones also struck a Project 22460 Okhotnik-class patrol boat patrolling near an oil and gas field and a drilling rig in the Filanovsky oil field in the Caspian Sea and that Ukraine is conducting a battle damage assessment.[xiv] A Ukrainian open-source intelligence (OSINT) project assessed that Ukrainian forces used FP-2 long range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and likely struck the Rasul Gamzatov patrol boat.[xv] Ukrainian forces have struck oil infrastructure at the Filanovsky oil field three times since December 10.[xvi]

Three drones — at least two of which are reportedly Russian drone models — have entered Turkish airspace or crashed into Turkey since December 15. The Turkish Ministry of National Defense reported on December 15 that Turkish and NATO forces shot down a drone approaching Turkish airspace from the Black Sea.[xvii] Turkish authorities did not specify the type or origin of the drone. The Turkish Interior Ministry reported on December 19 that Turkish authorities found a downed Russian Orlan-10 reconnaissance drone near Izmit in northwestern Turkey.[xviii] Turkish outlets reported on December 20 that a third drone crashed in Balıkesir Province in northwestern Turkey, possibly on an earlier date, and that there were no identifying markings on the drone.[xix] A Russian milblogger claimed that the third drone was a Russian Merlin-VR reconnaissance drone.[xx] Turkish authorities have not directly attributed the incidents to Russia as of this writing. ISW continues to assess that Russia is intensifying its covert and overt attacks against Europe and that Russia has entered “Phase Zero” — the informational and psychological condition setting phase — to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[xxi]

Key Takeaways:

• US delegations met separately with a Ukrainian-European delegation and a Russian delegation in Miami on December 19 and 20, respectively.
• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reiterated that both Russia and Ukraine must make compromises to end the war after Russian President Vladimir Putin reaffirmed his unwavering commitment to his full war aims on December 19.
• Ukrainian forces struck Russian military and oil assets overnight on December 19 to 20.
• Three drones — at least two of which are reportedly Russian drone models — have entered Turkish airspace or crashed into Turkey since December 15.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, and Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 18, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov continue to publicly demonstrate their commitment to achieving Russia's original war aims while exaggerating Russian battlefield gains. Putin stated during a December 17 ceremony awarding medals to Russian servicemembers that Russia will achieve all of its goals and claimed that Russian forces have seized "strategically important settlements" that are opening up opportunities for further offensives.[i] The Kremlin readout from the event highlighted statements from a recipient of the Hero of Russia award, who stated that Russian forces are fulfilling Putin's mandate to seize Russia's "ancestral lands." Putin's December 17 statements are in line with his other recent statements, indicating his commitment to his 2022 maximalist war aims, such that he will not be satisfied with a peace agreement based on the US-proposed 28-point plan.[ii]

Putin continued to exaggerate Russian successes, alleging that Russian forces had seized Siversk.[iii] ISW has only observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have seized about 77 percent of Siversk. Gerasimov also claimed during a December 18 briefing for foreign military attachés that Russian forces have seized Kupyansk (despite mounting evidence of Ukrainian forces liberating a significant portion of the town) and control 50 percent of Kostyantynivka.[iv] ISW has not observed evidence or even claims of Russian advances in Kostyantynivka close to Gerasimov's figure. ISW has observed evidence that Russian forces have seized only 1.6 percent of Kostyantynivka, while maintaining a presence within only five percent of the town (either through infiltration missions or assaults). Even Russian milbloggers' maximalist claims about Russian advances are not as extensive as Gerasimov's, with milbloggers claiming that Russian forces have seized only about 11 percent of the town.

Gerasimov further claimed that Russian forces have seized over 6,300 square kilometers in 2025 — slightly more than Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov's December 17 claim of 6,000 square kilometers.[v] ISW assesses that Russian forces have seized only about 4,700 square kilometers in 2025, but even Gerasimov's more exaggerated claim only amounts to an area slightly larger than the state of Delaware or just 1.04 percent of Ukraine's total land area. Gerasimov's and Belousov's exaggerated claims actually demonstrate the slow pace of Russian advances and undermine the Kremlin's ongoing cognitive warfare effort to portray a Russian battlefield victory in Ukraine and the collapse of Ukrainian defenses as inevitable.[vi] Gerasimov used his briefing to foreign military officials to repeat many of the claims from Putin's and Belousov's addresses to the December 17 Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) board meeting, likely in order to spread these Russian narratives to an international audience.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to signal his commitment to negotiations as high-ranking Kremlin officials continue to publicly and explicitly reject significant points of the peace plan currently under discussion. Zelensky reiterated on December 18 his readiness to hold presidential elections in Ukraine as a step toward a peace agreement to end Russia’s war in Ukraine — in line with the initial US-proposed 28-point plan requiring that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of codifying the agreement. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated on December 18 that Russia continues to see the deployment of any Western troops to Ukraine as part of security guarantees for post-war Ukraine "unacceptable" and that Russia would see such troops as “legitimate.”[vii]  The Kremlin has repeatedly voiced its unwillingness to agree to any meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine, likely to allow Russia to renew its aggression against Ukraine after a peace to achieve Putin’s maximalist war aim of gaining full effective control over Ukraine. Zelensky has, in stark contrast, demonstrated Ukraine’s willingness to make meaningful compromises.[viii] Kremlin officials have repeatedly rejected elements of the 28-point plan, calling into question Putin’s willingness to accept even that outline agreement and demonstrating how essential a reliable security guarantee for Ukraine will be for the sustainability of any peace agreement.

Three Russian border guards briefly crossed into Estonian territory on December 17. Estonian authorities reported that the Russian border guards used a hovercraft to access the Vasknarva stone breakwater on the Narva River, which is situated in both Russian and Estonian territory.[ix] The border guards reportedly disembarked the hovercraft, walked a short distance along the breakwater into Estonian territory, and subsequently returned to Russian territory shortly thereafter.[x] Estonian Interior Minister Igor Taro stated on December 17 that the border guards crossed into Estonian territory in an area where Russian vessels must request access in order to pass into Estonian territory — a process to which Taro noted Russian authorities have long adhered.[xi] Taro stated that Estonian authorities have not determined the motive behind the border crossing. Estonian border guards observed seven armed Russian servicemembers, who were wearing uniforms that suggested they were not Russian border guards, operating near the Russia-Estonia border on October 10, but the Russian personnel did not enter Estonian territory in that incident.[xii] ISW continues to assess that Russia is intensifying its covert and overt attacks against Europe and that Russia has entered “Phase Zero” — the informational and psychological condition setting phase — to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[xiii] The December 17 event is the first instance ISW has observed of uniformed Russian personnel crossing over into NATO territory since the start of Russia's Phase Zero effort in September 2025.

Key Takeaways:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov continue to publicly demonstrate their commitment to achieving Russia's original war aims while exaggerating Russian battlefield gains.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky continues to signal his commitment to compromise in negotiations as high-ranking Kremlin officials continue to publicly and explicitly reject significant points of the peace plan currently under discussion.
• Three Russian border guards briefly crossed into Estonian territory on December 17.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Siversk and Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 17, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly and explicitly outlined his continued commitment to his maximalist war aims in Ukraine — the same aims for which Putin launched his full-scale invasion in 2022. Putin spoke on December 17 to an expanded meeting of the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) board, where he claimed that Russia will "undoubtedly" achieve its war goals in Ukraine.[1] Putin claimed that Russia would prefer to use diplomatic means to achieve its war goals and address the alleged "root causes" of the war (a term that the Kremlin has long used as shorthand to mean its original war justifications and demands). Russian State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik similarly noted on December 17 that Russia's goal remains to eliminate the root causes of the war, which Kolesnik stated "means the demilitarization [and] denazification" of Ukraine — a reference to Russia's original aims of severely limiting the Ukrainian military such that Ukraine cannot defend itself, the removal of the current Ukrainian government, and the installation of a pro-Russian puppet government in its place.[2]

Putin also reiterated Russia's commitment to eventually achieving its wider territorial aims in Ukraine, claiming that Russia will "liberat[e] its historical lands" through military means if Ukraine and the West "refuse to engage in substantive discussions."[3] Kremlin officials, including Putin, have repeatedly referred to wide expanses of Ukrainian territory beyond the four oblasts that Russia has illegally annexed as "historical" and "Russian" territory. Kremlin officials have often labelled Odesa City as a "Russian" city and discussed "Novorossiya" — an amorphous invented region in southern and eastern Ukraine that the Kremlin has claimed is “integral” to Russia, and that covers territory beyond the five regions that Russia has illegally annexed.[4] The Kremlin has repeatedly rejected US- and Ukrainian-proposed peace plans while trying to shift the blame for the lack of progress in negotiations onto Ukraine.[5] Putin's claim about seizing Russia's "historical" territories if Ukraine and the West refuse to engage in negotiations likely aims to put the responsibility on continued Russian efforts to achieve Putin's original war aims on Ukraine — not Russia.

Putin's statements continue to demonstrate that he will not be satisfied with a peace agreement based on the US-proposed 28-point peace plan. The Kremlin has not publicly and explicitly stated that it would accept the 28-point plan or any subsequent versions, but rather has been rejecting many points of the plan in recent weeks.[6] The statements by Putin and other Kremlin officials make clear that Putin has no intention of giving up his maximalist objectives in Ukraine and will seek to pursue them after any suspension of hostilities on conditions short of those objectives. The repeated Kremlin statements contradicting elements of the 28-point plan call into question Putin's willingness to accept even that outline agreement and demonstrate how essential a reliable security guarantee for Ukraine will be to the durability of any agreement.

The 28-point plan called for Russia to relinquish the territory it controls outside of occupied Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and for the frontline in Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts to freeze.[7] Putin and Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov indicated during the Russian MoD board meeting that Russia will not be satisfied with those lines. Putin noted that Russian forces are creating and expanding "buffer zones" in Ukraine.[8] Belousov continued to claim that Russian forces have seized Kupyansk — despite evidence of Ukrainian forces liberating a significant portion of the town.[9] Belousov claimed that the alleged seizure of Kupyansk will expand Russia's buffer zone in Kharkiv Oblast, thereby reducing the threat of Ukrainian shelling against northern areas of occupied Luhansk Oblast. Putin similarly tasked Russian forces with creating a buffer zone in northern Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts in the past, and the Kremlin is likely also to demand cede some of this territory due to Russia's alleged need for a buffer zone.[10] Belousov highlighted Russia's commitment to achieving control of all of Zaporizhia Oblast, claiming that ongoing Russian efforts to seize Hulyaipole and Orikhiv will "pave the way" for the seizure of the entire oblast.

Robust security guarantees for Ukraine are essential to ensure that any future agreement produces a sustainable peace, but the Kremlin has been publicly rejecting the idea of such guarantees.[11] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 17, for example, that Russia's position on foreign military contingents operating on Ukrainian territory is well known, consistent, and clear, and Kolesnik stated that Russia will not tolerate European security guarantees with troop deployments to Ukraine.[12] The Kremlin is likely seeking a peace agreement without security guarantees in order to set conditions for Russia to renew its aggression against Ukraine in the future, in order to achieve Putin's maximalist war aim of gaining full effective control over Ukraine.

Belousov used Russia's seizure of small- and medium-sized settlements to support false Russia claims that Russian forces can rapidly seize the significantly larger population centers comprising Ukraine's Fortress Belt. Belousov falsely claimed that the collapse of Ukrainian defenses is "inevitable," continuing extensive Kremlin cognitive warfare efforts that aim to portray a Russian battlefield victory as inevitable in order to influence ongoing peace negotiations.[13] Belousov claimed that Russian forces are fighting within Kostyantynivka, which Belousov stated is "key" to seizing Druzhkivka, Kramatorsk, and Slovyansk — major cities that make up the heavily fortified Fortress Belt that serves as the backbone of Ukraine's defense in Donetsk Oblast. Belousov highlighted Russia's seizure of small- and medium-sized settlements, such as Chasiv Yar, Kurakhove, and Mala Tokmachka. Belousov also claimed that Russian forces seized Siversk and Pokrovsk (which ISW has not observed evidence to confirm) and noted that Russian forces are currently trying to seize Hulyaipole and Lyman. Russian forces have often spent months trying to seize these small- and medium-sized settlements and have notably been fighting within Pokrovsk itself for almost 140 days.[14]

The cities in Ukraine's Fortress Belt are significantly larger than the small- and medium-sized settlements that Belousov highlighted. Kurakhove is only about seven square kilometers in size and had a pre-war population of only 5,000. Siversk and Chasiv Yar are both about 10 square kilometers with pre-war populations of about 11,000 to 12,000.

Pokrovsk, which Russian forces have been trying to take for nearly two years, is about 23 square kilometers with a pre-war population of 60,000. Kostyantynivka has an area of 33 square kilometers and a pre-war population of 67,000. Druzhkivka is 23 square kilometers with a pre-war population of 54,000. Kramatorsk is 48 square kilometers with a pre-war population of 147,000. Slovyansk is 63 square kilometers with a pre-war population of 105,000. Belousov is attempting to present Russia's seizure of much smaller settlements as evidence of Russia's ability to rapidly seize the much larger cities in the Fortress Belt, but battlefield realities indicate otherwise.

Belousov claimed that Russian forces have seized 6,000 square kilometers along the entire frontline during 2025 — an area smaller than the US state of Delaware and just under one percent of Ukraine's total land area.[15] ISW assesses that Russian forces have seized only 4,699.04 square kilometers in 2025 — an area slightly larger than the size of Rhode Island.[16] Even Belousov's exaggerated claims about Russian advances demonstrate the slow pace of those advances. Belousov claimed that the Russian seizure of the Fortress Belt will enable Russian forces to "quickly" seize the remainder of Donetsk Oblast, but his statements about Russian advances in 2025 are actually in line with ISW’s assessment that it will take Russian forces two or more years to seize the remainder of Donetsk Oblast at great cost.[17]

Belousov's comments demonstrate that Russian forces are optimizing themselves for positional warfare in Ukraine — not for the mechanized maneuver required to make rapid, large-scale gains. Belousov laid out a series of technological and tactical adaptations that Russian forces have made on the battlefield in the last year, including the increased use of drones for reconnaissance and fire missions, the effectiveness of the Russian Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies, the reliance on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorcycles to quickly traverse the "kill zone" in the face of drones, and the increased use of trench-based electronic warfare (EW) systems.[18] Many of these Russian adaptations actually demonstrate how the Russian military has optimized itself for positional warfare in Ukraine rather than preparing to resume fast paced mechanized maneuver in Ukraine — as ISW recently assessed.[19] Belousov’s statements further show that the Russian MoD does not expect the character of the war to quickly change but is preparing rather to continue positional warfare and slow grinding advances. Russian forces have developed a minimally sufficient operational technique that can enable very slow operational successes, but this approach does not translate effectively to maneuver warfare on a wide scale and will not allow Russian forces to rapidly collapse Ukrainian defenses in the short- to medium-term.[20]

Belousov sought to conceal Russia's military manpower problems. Belousov claimed that nearly 410,000 Russians have signed contracts with the Russian MoD since the beginning of 2025 — 8,200 per week or 32,800 per month.[21] Data from the Ukrainian General Staff on Russian losses indicate that Russian forces suffered an average of 34,600 casualties per month between January and November 2025 — suggesting that Belousov's recruitment numbers are not quite replacing Russian losses. Belousov's claimed figure is likely exaggerated, as Russian opposition media investigations examining Russian federal budget expenditures on payouts to new recruits have recently shown.[22] The Kremlin's ongoing efforts to mobilize reservists for likely deployment to Ukraine in the future further indicate that Russia cannot meet its force generation requirements through the ongoing system that uses high financial incentives to recruit volunteers due to a lack of volunteers, a lack of resources to fund the payouts, or both.[23] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin's efforts to deploy reservists to Ukraine are a domestically risky policy threatening to break the Kremlin’s ongoing social contract with the population, and the Kremlin would likely not pursue this force generation method unless necessary. Belousov is likely inflating the recruitment numbers to quell domestic worries about compulsory reserve mobilization.

Putin and Belousov highlighted Russian military and nuclear strength while threatening Europe. Putin claimed that it is "nonsense" that Russia poses a threat to Europe and that NATO, rather, is threatening Russia by preparing for a future confrontation.[24] Putin and Belousov simultaneously spotlighted Russia's military expansion efforts, strategic nuclear forces, and new weapons systems, such as the Burevestnik missile and Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle. Belousov claimed that Ukraine and the West are trying to prolong the war in order to weaken Russia and that NATO policies to prepare for a future war have created "preconditions" for Russia's continued military action into 2026. Belousov stated that Russia must therefore continue to impose its will on its "enemy," act preemptively, and refine its warfighting methods and techniques. Kolesnik also claimed on December 17 that Europe is playing "Russian roulette," which Russians "have always won," by supporting Ukraine.[25] Kolesnik claimed that Russia should show Germany the Soviet Victory Banner from the Second World War more often and that Germany should "think about Germany's future." Belousov's false claims that Ukrainian defenses are on the brink of collapse are incongruous with Russia's large-scale military expansion and weapons development efforts — if Ukraine is about to collapse, then the continued military mobilization of Russia should be unnecessary. ISW continues to assess that Russia's ongoing military reforms and expansion efforts reflect the reality that Russia is in no position to defeat Ukraine rapidly and are also part of preparation for a potential conflict with NATO in the future.[26]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly and explicitly outlined his continued commitment to his maximalist war aims in Ukraine – the same aims for which Putin launched his full-scale invasion in 2022.
• Putin's statements continue to demonstrate that he will not be satisfied with a peace agreement based on the US-proposed 28-point peace plan.
• Robust security guarantees for Ukraine are essential to ensure that any future agreement produces a sustainable peace, but the Kremlin has been publicly rejecting the idea of such guarantees.
• Belousov used Russia's seizure of small- and medium-sized settlements to support false Russia claims that Russian forces can rapidly seize the significantly larger population centers comprising Ukraine's Fortress Belt.
• Belousov's comments demonstrate that Russian forces are optimizing themselves for positional warfare in Ukraine – not for the mechanized maneuver required to make rapid, large-scale gains.
• Belousov sought to conceal Russia's military manpower problems.
• Putin and Belousov highlighted Russian military and nuclear strength while threatening Europe.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk and Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk, Siversk, Pokrovsk, and in western Zaporizhia Oblast.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 16, 2025 

The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide "robust" security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine.[1]  The Council of the European Union issued a joint statement on December 15 affirming that the United States and European leaders are committed to working together to provide “robust security guarantees” and economic recovery measures for Ukraine in the context of the peace deal. The Council agreed to provide support for the Ukrainian military in peace time; a European-led multinational force composed of forces from the Coalition of the Willing; a US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism; and a legally binding commitment to take military, diplomatic, and economic measures in the event of Russia’s reinvasion. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on December 16 that US and Ukrainian officials discussed legally-binding security guarantees during the talks.[2] Zelensky noted that Ukrainian and US officials will meet in Miami, Florida, to continue discussions about security guarantees, and a US official noted that US and Ukrainian working groups will likely meet over the weekend (December 20 and 21) "somewhere" in the United States, possibly Miami.[3]

 The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with "NATO-like" security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia's territorial claims to Ukraine's sovereign territory. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated in an English language TV interview with ABC News on December 15 that Russia "definitely will not at any moment subscribe to, agree to, or even be content with" any NATO troops in Ukraine, even if these forces are part of a security guarantee or are members of the Coalition of the Willing.[4] Ryabkov also reiterated that Russia would not compromise "in any form" on the five Ukrainian regions that Russia illegally annexed — which includes the entirety of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts and Crimea. Ryabkov notably stated that Russia has "five [regions] altogether," effectively reiterating the Kremlin's demand that Ukraine give up unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts to Russia, and therefore signaling that Russia remains unlikely to agree to any ceasefire that would freeze the current frontline. Ryabkov reiterated Russia's theory of victory — which claims that Russia will inevitably win by outlasting Ukrainian resilience and Western support — by stating that the end of Russia's war in Ukraine depends on when Ukrainian supporters "recognize the inevitable outcome of [Russian] success." Ryabkov also stated that Russia's whole "purpose" of war in Ukraine is to have Ukrainians find out that they belong in Russia, effectively restating the Kremlin's long-term goal of establishing control over Ukraine's government and its people, not just its land.[5] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly reiterated on December 16 that Russia wants to "end this war" but seeks to achieve its goals, which ISW assesses include decapitating and replacing the Ukrainian government, destroying the Ukrainian military, and undermining Western unity.[6] Peskov also rejected the Ukrainian-proposed and US-supported idea of a Christmas truce.[7] The Kremlin has been effectively rejecting key points of various peace deal proposals, including the original US-proposed 28-point peace deal, such as reliable security guarantees for Ukraine or territorial swaps.[8]

Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people, comparable to Nazi Germany, in an effort to further militarize Russian society. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed in an interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on December 15 that Europe is waging a war “under a Nazi flag” with Russia through European support for Ukraine.[9] Lavrov claimed that European leadership in Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and the Baltic states is reviving “the theory and practice of Nazism.” Lavrov also claimed that Germany is involved in a “resurgence of militarism” and connected modern Finland to Adolf Hitler and the Siege of Leningrad — likely referring to historically and culturally significant events that invoke historical grievances amongst Russians. Lavrov also compared modern European leadership to historical figures such as Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte that represent an existential threat to Russia. Lavrov’s false claims that different European leaders are practicing a nebulously defined “Nazism” are distinct from Russia’s false claims that Ukraine has neo-Nazi leadership, which pertains to Russia’s false claims that Ukraine is engaged in a genocidal campaign against Russian-speaking populations living in the country. Lavrov is leveraging the term “Nazi” to identify modern European countries and their current leadership as enemies of the Russian people and to recall Soviet narratives of patriotism to prepare the Russian population to accept greater levels of sacrifices in the pursuit of the ideological defense of the Russian state for an indeterminate amount of time.

The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces. Ukrainian military sources reported on December 16 that around 200 Russian servicemen remain in Kupyansk and that Russian forces have limited logistics due to successful Ukrainian shaping and interdiction operations.[10] Russian state media has recently vastly platformed statements from Russian military officials and propagandists that downplay the situation in Kupyansk, likely in an effort to uphold a false Russian narrative that Russian forces are imminently collapsing Ukraine's defense — a narrative aimed at influencing Ukraine and the West to make significant concessions to Russia. Russian state sources, including the Western Grouping of Forces (GoF) and an unnamed source from the Russian Joint GoF, claimed that Russian forces retained control over Kupyansk and accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of falsifying the December 11 video that he took in Kupyansk.[11] Some Russian milbloggers also amplified allegedly geolocated footage that shows two servicemen of the 121st Motorized Rifle Regiment (68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) reportedly walking in southern Kupyansk, using the video to claim that Russian forces still control the settlement.[12] Other Russian milbloggers, however, continued to criticize Russian state media for failing to adequately cover Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk, with one milblogger even pointing out that Russian state media is relying on the Western and Joint GoFs to conceal the battlefield situation in Kupyansk.[13]

The Russian Black Sea Fleet denied the loss of a Russian submarine as the result of a Ukrainian unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) strike against the Novorossiysk Naval Base on the night of December 14 to 15 Russian Black Sea Fleet Spokesperson Captain 1st Rank Alexey Rulev claimed on December 15 that Ukrainian reports of the sinking of a Russian submarine in Novorossiysk are false and that no vessels suffered damages in the strike, and Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD)-run TV network Zvezda published footage on December 16 allegedly showing the undamaged submarine.[14] An open-source intelligence (OSINT) analyst assessed that the Ukrainian UUV detonated 20 meters from the Russian Project 636 Varshavyanka-class (NATO Kilo-class) submarine and noted that the Zvezda-published footage does not show the stern of the submarine, which was closest to the explosion site.[15] Another OSINT analyst noted that satellite imagery taken on December 16 shows that the submarine has not moved since the strike, potentially indicating damage to the submarine.[16] Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk reported that the Black Sea Fleet now only fields two submarines capable of carrying Kalibr cruise missiles following the strike.[17] Russian milbloggers noted that Ukraine's ability to conduct a UUV strike inside the ostensibly secure Novorossiysk Naval Base is a serious security lapse, and reported that Ukrainian forces apparently hacked a surveillance camera at the Novorossiysk Naval Base headquarters to provide footage of the strike.[18] ISW cannot assess whether the Ukrainian UUV strike damaged the submarine from the available open-source information at this time.

Key Takeaways:

• The Council of the European Union confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide "robust" security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
• The Kremlin explicitly rejected US and European offers to provide Ukraine with "NATO-like" security guarantees as part of a peace deal and continued to signal its unwillingness to compromise on Russia's territorial claims to Ukraine's sovereign territory.
• Russia launched an information campaign to frame the European Union and individual European countries as an enemy of the Russian people comparable to Nazi Germany in an effort to further militarize Russian society.
• The Kremlin is trying to downplay ongoing Ukrainian counterattacks in Kupyansk as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers continue to acknowledge the severity of the situation for the Russian forces.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk and marginally near Kupyansk. Russian forces recently advanced in the Dobropillya and Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical areas.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 15, 2025 

US, Ukrainian, and European officials reportedly agreed on unspecified security guarantees for Ukraine during a peace negotiations meeting in Berlin, Germany, on December 15. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukrainian Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner met in Berlin, Germany, on December 15 to continue negotiations for a prospective peace deal to end Russia's war in Ukraine.[i] Two US officials told the New York Times (NYT) on December 15 that the United States, Ukraine, and Europe agreed on a "NATO-like" security guarantee for the future security of Ukraine.[ii] The US officials stated that the majority of the December 14 to 15 negotiations pertained to security guarantees, although the officials did not elaborate on specifics. The Kremlin has consistently indicated that it will reject any peace deals that offer reliable security guarantees for Ukraine, and is highly unlikely to accept a settlement that contains any provisions safeguarding Ukrainian territorial integrity.[iii] The Kremlin notably effectively rejected the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine as outlined in the US-proposed 28-point peace plan.[iv]

Zelensky stated on December 15 that discussions concerning territorial issues are ongoing, and the two US officials cited by NYT reported that Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin will likely need to discuss and decide upon the matter of territorial agreements themselves.[v] Putin has consistently declined to meet with Zelensky, including during the lead up to the full scale invasion and during several subsequent iterations of peace negotiations.[vi] Russia has previously attempted to secure untenable territorial concessions from Ukraine that include Ukraine’s Fortress Belt, the fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast that has served as the backbone of Ukraine’s defenses since 2014.[vii] Ukraine's concession of its most valuable defense line into the hands of the Kremlin would provide Russia with more advantageous positions to renew aggression against southwestern and central Ukraine in the future.[viii] ISW continues to assess that Russia will use political and military means to achieve its stated goal of seizing all of Ukraine and that Russia is therefore unlikely to accept a peace deal or security guarantees that do not grant full Russian control of Ukraine in the intermediate to long term future.[ix]

Ukrainian forces conducted an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) strike against a Russian submarine for the first time in naval history on the night of December 14 to 15. The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) published footage on December 15, which was later geolocated, showing Ukrainian “Sub Sea Baby” UUVs strike a Russian Project 636 Varshavyanka-class (NATO Kilo-class) submarine docked at the Novorossiysk Naval Base in Krasnodar Krai, causing explosions and critical damage to the submarine.[x] The SBU noted that the submarine was equipped with four Kalibr cruise missile launchers that Russia used to strike Ukraine and that the damage may have forced Russian forces to stop operating the submarine. Planet Labs satellite imagery captured on December 5 shows that two Kilo-class submarines were present at the Novorossiysk Naval Base as of December 5, and lower-resolution imagery captured on December 11 indicates that at least one Kilo-class submarine was present at the base as of December 11. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fire Information for Resource Management System (NASA FIRMS) data published on December 15 indicates that there were fires near the Novorossiysk Naval Base.[xi] Russian forces previously docked Kilo-class submarines in occupied Crimea and the Sevastopol port but began withdrawing them from the western Black Sea and transferring them to Novorossiysk in October 2023 due to a successful Ukrainian strike campaign against Russian Black Sea Fleet assets.[xii] Russia uses Kilo-class submarines to conduct Kalibr cruise missile strikes against Ukraine, primarily Odesa Oblast, and the Ukrainian strike likely intended to degrade Russia’s ability to target Odesa Oblast with Kalibr missiles. Ukraine’s strike against the Kilo-class submarine in Novorossiysk shows that Ukrainian forces continue to modernize and optimize their unmanned capabilities such that Ukraine can strike Russian military targets at a range that Russian forces previously thought safe.

Ukrainian forces continue counterattacking in the Kupyansk direction as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers acknowledge the severity of the situation for Russian forces. Ukrainian Joint Forces Group Spokesperson Colonel Viktor Trehubov reported on December 15 that Ukrainian forces continue clearing operations within Kupyansk and are avoiding engaging in urban combat, and that Russian forces are using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to supply the grouping of around 100 to200 Russian personnel left within Kupyansk.[xiii] Trehubov implied that the Russian forces' logistical situation is complicated in Kupyansk because UAVs have a limited carrying capacity, cannot fly over certain areas, and occasionally drop supplies in a way that exposes Russian positions to Ukrainian forces. A non-commissioned officer (NCO) of a Ukrainian brigade operating in the Kupyansk direction reported that Ukrainian forces have liberated several settlements and nearby forest areas, and that elements of his brigade are operating within northern Kupyansk.[xiv] The NCO stated that Russian forces continue attempting infiltration missions to reinforce positions in Kupyansk through a gas pipeline, but that Ukrainian forces have blocked the pipeline and have all possible egress points under fire control. Geolocated footage published on December 14 and 15 indicates that Russian forces likely do not hold positions within Petropavlivka (east of Kupyansk), contrary to Russian claims of advances in the area.[xv]

Russian milbloggers continued to acknowledge that the situation for Russian forces in Kupyansk is deteriorating.[xvi] A milblogger claimed that Russian forces hold some positions in northern and central Kupyansk but that the rest of the city is either a contested "gray zone" or Ukrainian held.[xvii] Another milblogger claimed that the situation for Russian forces in western Kupyansk is rapidly worsening; that elements of the Russian 68th Motorized Rifle Division (6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]) are "desperately fighting" and acknowledged that Ukrainian forces advanced within Kupyansk and Myrove (immediately northwest of Kupyansk).[xviii] The milblogger claimed that Russian forces no longer have manpower superiority in the area and that Ukrainian interdiction efforts are hindering Russian operations. The milblogger stated that Ukrainian gains in Kupyansk have forced Russian drone operators to withdraw from the area to the east (left) bank of the Oskil River. The Kremlin has been leveraging claims of advances in and near Kupyansk for a cognitive warfare effort designed to portray the Ukrainian lines as on the verge of collapse such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s demands, and the Ukrainian counterattacks in the Kupyansk direction continue to demonstrate that.[xix]

Russian forces are striking Ukrainian logistics lines in Odesa Oblast with various air-launched munitions, including glide bombs, highlighting Ukraine's urgent need for a well-provisioned and diverse air defense umbrella. Geolocated footage published on December 15 shows Russian long-range drones and glide bombs striking a bridge on the P-70 Odesa City- Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi highway over the Dneister River in Zatoka, Odesa Oblast, on December 14.[xx] Russian milbloggers claimed on December 14 that Russian forces struck a railway bridge near Zatoka with glide bombs and Geran (Shahed) drones, and a Kremlin-affiliated milblogger claimed on December 15 that the Russian strikes completely destroyed the bridge.[xxi] Additional geolocated footage published on December 15 shows Russian drones striking the Odeska railway bridge over the Sarata River in southern Sarata, Odesa Oblast.[xxii] Russian forces have recently intensified strikes against Odesa Oblast in parallel with intensified Kremlin rhetorical threats.[xxiii] The Russian use of glide bombs as part of their strike packages against Odesa Oblast is notable, as they allow Russian forces to cause damage to Ukrainian logistical infrastructure with relatively cheaper munitions.[xxiv] Russian forces must still use expensive manned aircraft to launch these glide bombs, which makes the aircraft vulnerable to the threat of Ukrainian air defenses, forcing Russia to weigh the balance of using cheaper munitions at the expense of its more exquisite aircraft systems. The increase in guided glide bomb attacks against Odesa Oblast highlights the fact that Ukraine urgently needs a holistic air defense umbrella that allows it to down manned aircraft, missiles, and drones alike.

Russian strikes appear to be advancing the Kremlin's stated goal of degrading Ukraine's energy infrastructure by splitting Ukraine's power grid in half. Ukraine requires Western-provided air defense systems and partner support for its drone interceptor development to safeguard itself against increasingly devastating strikes on its energy infrastructure. Several people familiar with the situation told the Washington Post on December 15 that Russian strikes threaten to completely disable transmission systems that move electricity from the western half of Ukraine, which stores most of Ukraine's electricity, to eastern Ukraine.[xxv] The Washington Post's sources noted that Russian strikes could effectively split Ukraine's energy grid into two parts along an east-west divide. ISW previously reported on Russian efforts to generate a west-east split in the Ukrainian power grid.[xxvi] An anonymous senior European diplomat told the Washington Post that eastern Ukraine is “at the brink” of a complete blackout, and another person familiar with the energy crisis stated that Kyiv City may also suffer a full blackout. The European diplomat also stated that Russian forces are attempting to create energy islands in individual Ukrainian oblasts, effectively cutting off individual regions from any electricity generation, deliveries, and transmission systems. A spokesperson for Ukraine's energy grid operator Ukrenergo told the Washington Post that Russian forces launched eight massive, combined missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure between October and December 2025, particularly targeting electricity and distribution infrastructure. Ukrainian energy expert Volodymyr Omelchenko stated that Russian forces launch regular combined strikes every seven to 10 days to maximize energy deficits and target infrastructure that is undergoing repairs after the previous strike.[xxvii] Omelchenko noted that Russian forces are constantly targeting energy distribution infrastructure in Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Odesa oblasts.

Russian forces launched 9,298 drones and 270 missiles in October 2025, 5,444 drones and 216 missiles in November 2025, and 2,757 drones and 91 missiles in December 2025 as of December 15.[xxviii] ISW has previously observed reports that Russian forces are engaging in a large-scale strike campaign that targets one or two specific regions in quick succession to degrade Ukraine’s ability to repair energy infrastructure rapidly.[xxix] Russian forces also focus on targeting different elements of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including substations, to systematically destroy the entire Ukrainian energy ecosystem and complicate Ukraine’s ability to treat targeted areas, elongating periods without power.[xxx] ISW continues to assess that Russia‘s increasingly large strike packages highlight the critical importance of Western assistance in bolstering Ukraine's air defense capabilities, particularly with subsidies for Ukrainian programs that focus on air defense innovations such as Ukraine's drone interceptor programs.

Key Takeaways:

• US, Ukrainian, and European officials reportedly agreed on unspecified security guarantees for Ukraine during a peace negotiations meeting in Berlin, Germany, on December 15.
• Ukrainian forces conducted an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) strike against a Russian submarine for the first time in naval history on the night of December 14 to 15.
• Ukrainian forces continue counterattacking in the Kupyansk direction as Russian ultranationalist milbloggers acknowledge the severity of the situation for Russian forces.
• Russian forces are striking Ukrainian logistics lines in Odesa Oblast with various air-launched munitions, including glide bombs, highlighting Ukraine's urgent need for a well-provisioned and diverse air defense umbrella.
• Russian strikes appear to be advancing the Kremlin's stated goal of degrading Ukraine's energy infrastructure by splitting Ukraine's power grid in half. Ukraine requires Western-provided air defense systems and partner support for its drone interceptor development to safeguard itself against increasingly devastating strikes on its energy infrastructure.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in western Zaporizhia Oblast. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 14, 2025 

The Kremlin is setting conditions to reject the Ukrainian and European peace plan drafts after it previously rejected key points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan that overwhelmingly benefitted Russia. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov stated in a TV interview with Kremlin journalist Pavel Zarubin on December 14 that Russia has stated its position “very clearly” and that Russia will have “strong objections” if Ukraine and Europe make amendments to the peace plan.[1] Ushakov also stated that Russia will not accept provisions related to various “territorial issues,” including any discussions of a demilitarized “buffer” zone in Donbas.[2] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to a question from Zarubin about the possibility of Ukraine reneging on a peace agreement by demanding that Russia receives guarantees and a system for the implementation of any peace agreements.[3] Peskov also emphasized that the Kremlin is uninterested in reviewing the European position on the peace deal.[4] Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively rejected seven points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan on December 11, including the original plan’s points on territorial swaps based on the line of contact and the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine.[5]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with US negotiators in Berlin, Germany on December 14 to continue negotiations to end Russia's war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner, and German Chancellor Frederich Merz met in Berlin to discuss the 20-point peace plan.[6] Witkoff stated that negotiations will continue on December 15.[7] Ukrainian Presidential Communications Adviser Dmytro Lytvyn told Reuters that negotiations lasted for over five hours.[8]

Russian forces will likely continue to struggle to maintain the Kremlin's desired multi-pronged offensive operations in different operational directions due to the long-term materiel and manpower costs of such operations. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian military officials have intensified exaggerated claims of advances across the frontline in recent weeks, namely focusing on the Vovchansk, Kupyansk, Siversk, Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad, and Hulyaipole directions.[9] Putin notably implied on November 27 that Russian forces would quickly translate Russian advances near Hulyaipole to operational breakthroughs in the Zaporizhia direction.[10] Russia will need to generate and concentrate substantially more manpower and materiel on each of these directions to achieve tangible operational effects, or will alternatively have to selectively prioritize offensive efforts in one frontline area, which would come at the expense of the Kremlin's information operations that aim to falsely portray Russian forces as imminently collapsing the entire frontline.

Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets assessed on December 13 that the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces (GoF), which operates in the Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole directions, will need to regroup or receive troops and materiel reinforcements from other operational directions in order to continue offensive operations in the Hulyaipole direction.[11] Mashovets assessed that Russian forces are increasingly struggling to conduct simultaneous offensive operations in the 5th Combined Arms Army's ([CAA], Eastern Military District [EMD]) area of responsibility (AOR) east and northeast of Hulyaipole and in the 36th CAA's (EMD) AOR in the Oleksandrivka direction. Mashovets stated that the Eastern GoF's troops and materiel are stretched along a wide frontline, which may complicate Russian forces' further offensive operations unless the Russian military command narrows down the offensive zone near Hulyaipole or transfers additional resources from other operational directions. Mashovets assessed that Russian forces may redeploy some elements of the 36th CAA and the 29th CAA (EMD), which are currently operating in the Oleksandrivka direction, to the 5th CAA's AoR over the coming weeks. Mashovets argued that elements of the Russian 127th Motorized Rifle Division and 57th Separate Motorized Rifle Brigade (5th CAA) will be unable to imminently achieve tactical or operational successes. ISW assessed on December 3 that Russian forces achieved the tactical breakthrough northeast and east of Hulyaipole in mid-November 2025, likely in part by concentrating and committing a force grouping comparable in size to the one operating in the Pokrovsk-Dobropillya direction.[12] Russian forces notably redeployed elements of the 76th VDV Division to the Hulyaipole direction from Sumy Oblast in September 2025; elements of the 228th Motorized Rifle Regiment (90th Tank Division, 41st CAA, Central Military District [CMD]) from the Central GoF’s AoR to the area between Novopavlivka and Hulyaipole; and elements of the 38th Motorized Rifle Brigade and 69th Separate Cover Brigade (both of 35th CAA, EMD) to the 5th CAA’s AoR northeast and east of Hulyaipole.[13]

Russian efforts to start the battle for the Fortress Belt – Ukraine's main fortified defensive line in Donetsk Oblast since 2014 – will likely further stretch Russian resources. Mashovets assessed that offensives against the Fortress Belt's Slovyansk and Kramatorsk strongholds would require the Russian military command to fully commit troops and materiel from the Western, Southern, and Central GoFs, and that Russian forces will not be able to get "distracted" on other directions, such as the Velykyi Burlyk or Orikhiv directions.[14] Mashovets added that Russia's strategic challenges, such as problems with its domestic war-time economy and the defense industrial base (DIB), will also negatively impact Russia's ability to generate sufficient forces and materiel for multi-pronged offensives. Russia will likely need to concentrate even more forces and deprioritize other frontline sectors to exploit tactical advances around Hulyaipole or to attempt to seize the rest of Donetsk Oblast. The Kremlin is therefore making territorial demands of unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts because it cannot militarily seize these regions at this time.

Ukraine’s long-range strike campaign continues to degrade Russia’s oil refining and military capabilities in Russia and occupied Ukraine. The Ukrainian General Staff reported on December 14 that Ukrainian forces struck the Afipsky Oil Refinery in Krasnodar Krai, causing explosions and a large-scale fire.[15] Geolocated footage published on December 14 shows largescale fire on the refinery’s territory.[16] Ukrainian military outlet Militarnyi reported that the refinery has a processing capacity of 6.25 million tons of oil per year and produces gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products.[17] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces additionally struck the Uryupinsk Oil Depot in Volgograd Oblast, causing explosions and fires at the facility.[18] Volgograd Oblast Governor Andrei Bocharov claimed that drone debris set fire to the Uryupinsk Oil Depot.[19] Russian opposition outlet Astra reported on December 14 that Ukrainian forces likely targeted the Slavneft-YANOS Oil Refinery, one of Russia’s largest oil refineries, in Yaroslavl City, Yaroslavl Oblast.[20] Militarnyi reported that local Telegram channels reported witnessing explosions in the vicinity of the oil refinery.[21] Yaroslavl Oblast Governor Mikhail Yevraev issued a drone strike warning for unspecified areas of Yaroslavl Oblast on December 13.[22] Ukrainian forces also reportedly struck Dorogobuzhskaya Thermal Power Plant (TPP) in Smolensk Oblast, causing power outages in the region.[23]

Ukrainian forces also struck Russian military and energy infrastructure in occupied Ukraine. The Ukrainian General Staff reported on December 14 that Ukrainian forces struck two Russian PMM ferry bridge vehicles, and Kasta-2E2 and the 96L6E radar stations in occupied Crimea.[24] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the 96L6E is an expensive component for Russia's S-300 and S-400 air defense systems. The Ukrainian Special Operations Forces (SSO) published footage on December 14, which was later geolocated, that showed Ukrainian drone strikes on a Russian fuel train near occupied Yantarne, Crimea and on an oil depot near occupied Bitumne, Crimea.[25] Ukrainian forces also reportedly struck two oil depots in occupied Simferopol and a substation in occupied Dzhankoi, Crimea, and NASA FIRMS data indicates that there were fires at the oil depot in occupied Bitumne and at the Dzhankoi power substation.[26] Militarnyi reported that the strikes against the power substation likely caused power outages in occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, and Russian occupation officials reported vast power outages in occupied Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts.[27] The Ukrainian SSO and the Ukrainian General Staff also reported that Ukrainian drones struck two command posts of the Russian 76th Airborne (VDV) Division; a 9С19 Imbir radar station; a Volna-2 electronic warfare (EW) station; and a first-person view (FPV) drone operator training center in occupied Donetsk Oblast.[28] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces struck a Russian TOR-M2 anti-aircraft missile system and a Russian drone lab in occupied Zaporizhia Oblast.[29]

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin is setting conditions to reject the Ukrainian and European peace plan drafts after it previously rejected key points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan that overwhelmingly benefitted Russia.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met with US negotiators in Berlin, Germany on December 14 to continue negotiations to end Russia's war in Ukraine.
• Russian forces will likely continue to struggle to maintain the Kremlin's desired multi-pronged offensive operations in different operational directions due to the long-term materiel and manpower costs of such operations.
• Ukraine’s long-range strike campaign continues to degrade Russia’s oil refining and military capabilities in Russia and occupied Ukraine.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka direction. Russian forces recently advanced in the Hulyaipole direction.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 13, 2025 

Ukrainian forces continue to advance within and near Kupyansk, and more details have emerged about the counteroffensive effort. Geolocated footage published on December 12 indicates that Ukrainian forces made further advances in central Kupyansk while conducting clearing operations and also advanced southeast of Petropavlivka (east of Kupyansk).[1] Ukrainian military observer Yuriy Butusov reported that Ukrainian forces completely seized Yuvileynyi Microraion in southwestern Kupyansk and assessed that this lost ground will likely prevent Russian forces from sustaining any remaining positions in southern Kupyansk.[2] Butusov reported that Ukrainian forces are still clearing Kupyansk, and geolocated footage published on December 12 and 13 indicates that Russian infiltration groups remain in northern and western Kupyansk.[3] The chief of staff of a Ukrainian drone battalion reported that Russian forces are still attempting to penetrate into Kupyansk, primarily on foot.[4] Russian milbloggers acknowledged Ukrainian advances into Yuvileynyi Microraion and northwest of Kupyansk and stated that heavy fighting continues near Myrove and Radkivka (both northwest to north of Kupyansk).[5] One milblogger acknowledged Russia's loss of Radkivka and two defensive positions south and east of Radkivka.[6] Many Russian milbloggers continued to cast doubt on or outright reject many of the Ukrainian reports of advances despite available evidence supporting the Ukrainian reporting.[7]

Ukrainian forces began counteroffensive operations in September 2025 after relatively rapid Russian advances in the Kupyansk direction and infiltrations into Kupyansk itself. Russian forces advanced relatively quickly in the Kupyansk direction in Summer 2025, threatening Kupyansk itself by early August 2025, and the Russian military command began portraying Russian infiltrations into Kupyansk as significant advances in late August.[8] Butusov's reporting indicates that Russian forces were able to leverage these infiltration missions to advance into and consolidate positions within Kupyansk. Butusov reported that assault groups of the Russian 121st and 122nd motorized rifle regiments (both 68th Motorized Rifle Division, 6th Combined Arms Army [CAA], Leningrad Military District [LMD]), 27th Motorized Rifle Brigade (6th CAA), and 1855th Battalion had established enduring positions within Kupyansk after Russian forces first infiltrated into the town in August 2025 and had also seized a key height north of Kupyansk — making the situation critical for Ukrainian forces by mid-September 2025.[9] Butusov reported that Ukrainian forces had liberated towns northwest of Kupyansk — Tyshchenkivka by September 24, Kindrashivka by October 9, and Radkivka by October 11 — allowing Ukrainian forces to break through Russian defenses in the area. Butusov reported that Ukrainian forces had reached the west (right) bank of the Oskil River and cut Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to Kupyansk from the north by October 21. Butusov stated that drone operators of the Russian Unmanned Systems Forces, Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies, the Sudniy Den (Judgement Day) drone project (reportedly part of the Sudoplatov Battalion), and 7th Motorized Rifle Regiment (11th Army Corps [AC], LMD) had created a "kill zone" (an area of elevated drone strike risk) in the Kupyansk direction.[10] Butusov noted that Ukrainian forces created and leveraged battlefield advantages to allow Ukrainian counterattacks despite the "kill zone."[11] The Ukrainian counterattack continues to demonstrate that Ukrainian forces are capable of making tactical gains on the frontline, particularly in areas where Russian forces are overstretched.[12] The Kremlin has been leveraging its claims of advances in and near Kupyansk for a cognitive warfare effort designed to portray the Ukrainian lines as on the verge of collapse, such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia's demands, and the Ukrainian counterattacks in the Kupyansk direction continue to demonstrate that this narrative is false.[13]

Russian forces launched 495 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 12 to 13, heavily targeting energy infrastructure across the country. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 465 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other drones, of which roughly 270 were Shaheds, from the directions of Kursk and Oryol cities; Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai; and occupied Hvardiiske and Cape Chauda, Crimea.[14] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces also launched four Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from the airspace over Tula and Tambov oblasts; five Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles from occupied Crimea; five Iskander-K cruise missiles from Kursk Oblast; and 16 Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black and Caspian seas. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 417 drones and 13 cruise missiles; eight missiles and 33 drones hit 18 locations; debris fell on three locations; and six missiles did not reach their targets (presumably due to Ukrainian electronic warfare [EW] operations). The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian strikes primarily targeted Odesa Oblast.

Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces struck civilian energy, residential, and port infrastructure in Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk, Cherkasy, Chernihiv, Kirovohrad, Kherson, and Mykolaiv oblasts, injuring at least eight civilians.[15] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian Energy Ministry reported that the Russian attacks struck energy infrastructure in Dnipropetrovsk, Chernihiv, Odesa, and Mykolaiv oblasts, causing power outages in Sumy, Kharkiv, Odesa, Chernihiv, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, and Mykolaiv oblasts.[16] Ukrainian Internal Affairs Minister Ihor Klymenko reported that Russian strikes left over one million subscribers without power across the country.[17] Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Oleksiy Kuleba reported that Russian strikes left Odesa City without electricity, water, and heat.[18] Ukraine's largest private energy company, DTEK, reported that Russian strikes damaged 20 power substations in Odesa Oblast and caused outages for at least 100,000 subscribers throughout the oblast.[19] The Ukrainian Navy reported on December 13 that Russian drones struck the Turkish vessel Viva that had been transporting sunflower oil in the Black Sea at the time of the strike.[20]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he will hold discussions regarding a peace settlement with US and European delegations in Berlin in the coming days.[21] Two White House officials told Axios on December 13 that US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner will meet with Zelensky, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Frederich Merz in Berlin on December 15.[22] A White House official stated that the United States would support a potential Ukrainian territorial referendum and sees Zelensky's proposal to hold this referendum as progress in the peace negotiations.

Key Takeaways:

• Ukrainian forces continue to advance within and near Kupyansk, and more details have emerged about the counteroffensive effort.
• Ukrainian forces began counteroffensive operations in September 2025 after relatively rapid Russian advances in the Kupyansk direction and infiltrations into Kupyansk itself.
• Russian forces launched 495 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 12 to 13, heavily targeting energy infrastructure across the country.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that he will hold discussions regarding a peace settlement with US and European delegations in Berlin in the coming days.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kupyansk and Lyman directions. Russian forces recently advanced in the Lyman direction.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 12, 2025 

Ukrainian forces recently liberated territory including part of the city of Kupyansk in a tactical counterattack in the Kupyansk direction. Ukrainian 2nd Khartiya Corps reported on December 12 that Ukrainian forces conducted a successful counterattack to stabilize the situation in the Kupyansk direction and liberated Kindrashivka and Radkivka (both north of Kupyansk) and the surrounding forests, liberated areas in northern Kupyansk, and broke through to the Oskil River, cutting Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to the Kupyansk area.[1] The Ukrainian 2nd Corps stated that Ukrainian forces have encircled roughly 200 Russian personnel in Kupyansk as of December 12.[2] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky published a photo of himself on the southwestern outskirts of Kupyansk along the P-07 Kupyansk-Shevchenkove highway on December 12 — indicating that Ukrainian forces have likely pushed Russian forces much farther back from this area.[3] Geolocated footage published on December 12 also shows Ukrainian forces operating throughout Kupyansk.[4] Other Russian and Ukrainian sources corroborated the Ukrainian counterattack.[5] A source reportedly affiliated with Ukrainian military intelligence reported that Ukrainian forces encircled Russian forces within Kupyansk, cleared northwestern Kupyansk, and liberated Myrove, Kindrashivka, and Radkivka.[6] The source indicated that Russian forces still hold Holubivka (north of Kupyansk). A Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces began infiltrating the northwestern outskirts of Kupyansk from Myrove (just northwest of Kupyansk) and Radkivka, indicating that Ukrainian forces also liberated Myrove.[7] The milblogger noted that Russian forces do not control eastern Kupyansk and that the Oskil River (which flows through Kupyansk) complicates Russian efforts to reach central Kupyansk. Other Russian milbloggers claimed that Ukrainian forces launched a counterattack and made some advances but rejected the extent of observed Ukrainian advances.[8] The Ukrainian Joint Forces Task Force reported on November 16 that it began efforts to push back Russian advances in the Kupyansk direction, and these recent advances are likely the result of a multi-week effort to retake Kupyansk.[9]

This Ukrainian counterattack demonstrates that Ukrainian forces remain capable of defending and counterattacking against significant Russian offensive efforts, contrary to the claims of Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian lines are collapsing. The Ukrainian advances in and near Kupyansk show that Ukrainian forces are capable of conducting successful counterattacks and making tactically significant gains, particularly when Russian forces are overstretched. The seizure of Kupyansk has been a Russian priority since mid to late July 2025, but Russian forces have been unable to allocate sufficient force concentrations to overcome Ukrainian defenses in this area as they pursue intense offensive operations elsewhere in the theater.[10] Russian forces have also struggled to move troops into Kupyansk because Ukrainian forces have been successfully maintaining fire control over Russian logistics into northern Kupyansk since before the recent Ukrainian advances.[11] Russian advances have come at disproportionately high casualty rates and significant time costs, and Russian forces have had to commit 150,000 servicemembers to the Pokrovsk direction alone.[12] Putin and senior Russian military officials have recently intensified exaggerated claims of advances across the frontline in recent weeks, and Putin highlighted on November 21 that Russian forces will "inevitably" repeat their operations in the Kupyansk direction in other areas of the front.[13] These exaggerated claims of advance are false, however, and even a prominent Kremlin-coopted milblogger claimed that the Ukrainian counterattack "took advantage" of "some not entirely truthful statements" — recognizing that Putin's November 27 claim of seizing Kupyansk was false.[14] Putin and senior Russian military officials have been attempting to portray the frontline in Ukraine as imminently on the verge of collapse, such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s demands, but this Ukrainian counterattack in Kupyansk along with staunch Ukrainian resistance along the rest of the line shows that this narrative is false.

The contours of the Ukrainian counterproposal to the most recent US peace proposal are emerging, but details of this counterproposal remain unclear. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on December 11 that Ukraine gave the United States an updated peace proposal framework containing 20 key points and is waiting for a US response.[15] Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Mykhailo Podolyak told French outlet Le Monde that the Ukrainian proposal to the United States contains three parts: the 20-point proposal to end the war itself, a proposal about the creation of a postwar European security architecture and security guarantees for Ukraine, and a proposal on Ukraine's reconstruction and defensive capabilities.[16] Podolyak stated that Russia must pay reparations to help rebuild Ukraine. Podolyak stated that Ukraine agreed to create a demilitarized "buffer” zone in Donbas, but that both Russian and Ukrainian forces will need to pull back from the current front line to create this zone. Zelensky additionally proposed at a briefing that Ukraine should hold a referendum on the territorial provisions of the US peace proposal.[17]  Zelensky reiterated his offer to hold elections but stated that Ukraine would need a ceasefire and additional security from the US and European states to ensure democratic elections.[18] The exact components of the Ukrainian counterproposal — including the provisions of such a referendum and the possible bounds and terms of a ceasefire or demilitarized zone — remain unclear as of December 12.

The Kremlin explicitly rejected Ukraine's proposals for a ceasefire and referendum.  Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to Zelensky’s territorial referendum proposal on December 12 by explicitly rejecting a ceasefire as a pause that "will not work" for Russia.[19] Peskov claimed that the ceasefire proposal is ”another deception, another delay” to prolong the war and re-arm Ukraine and suggested that a ceasefire is incompatible with a ”guaranteed, long-term” peace. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov also rejected any outcome that does not place Donbas under Russian control, by claiming that all of Donbas is Russian and reiterating the Kremlin's long-held demand that Ukraine must withdraw from all of Donbas before Russia will agree to a ceasefire.[20] Several Russian officials, including Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev and others who frequently parrot Kremlin narratives, also rejected Zelensky's proposed ceasefire and referendum.[21] Russian officials have rejected a ceasefire not only within the context of a territorial referendum but also throughout several attempts to arrive at a peace agreement to end the war.[22] The length of a ceasefire necessary to conduct an election or referendum would not be long enough to allow Ukraine to restore its combat capabilities, which is the continual Russian justification for refusing all ceasefire proposals. Russia continues to insist on the right to continue full-scale offensive operations until Russia is able to conclude the war on its terms. 

The Kremlin rejected the Ukrainian offer to establish a demilitarized zone. Ushakov responded to the proposal to establish a demilitarized zone in Donbas by stating that such a zone is possible but that Russia must deploy Rosgvardia — Russia's national guard — as well as Russian law enforcement and "everything necessary to maintain order and organize life" to this zone.[23] Such a deployment would militarize this zone. Putin created Rosgvardia in 2016 with the official mission of ensuring public order and guarding against terrorist attacks, but Rosgvardia possesses extensive conventional military capabilities and has active combat experience consistent with a conventional military.[24] Rosgvardia demonstrated combined arms capabilities prior to the February 2022 full-scale invasion in exercises using rotary-wing aircraft, artillery, air defense systems, drone support, and electronic warfare (EW) and conducted operations in Syria and occupied Crimea.[25] Rosgvardia units participated in the initial full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the efforts to seize Kyiv and Kharkiv cities, fought across the theater, including in the Russian offensive in Kursk Oblast, and are currently conducting rear area internal security operations and limited combat operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast.[26] Rosgvardia continues building out its conventional military capabilities, including by taking the heavy armored vehicles and other military equipment formerly belonging to the Wagner Group.[27] The deployment of Rosgvardia to a demilitarized zone is therefore incompatible with the purpose and meaning of such a zone, and Ushakov's insistence on deploying Russian units with full military capabilities to a demilitarized zone is therefore a rejection of the demilitarized zone. Such a deployment would also set conditions for Russia to further threaten Ukraine and conduct renewed combat operations using rested forces from more favorable lines, as ISW has previously assessed.[28]

The European Union (EU) agreed on December 12 to indefinitely freeze 210 billion euros (roughly $247 billion) in Russian assets to provide Ukraine with a reparations loan of up to 165 billion euros (roughly $194 billion).[29] The EU agreed to implement Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which allows the EU to indefinitely extend the asset freeze.[30] The EU vote to invoke Article 122 to freeze Russian assets indefinitely required only a qualifying majority (at least 15 of the 27 member states).[31] The EU previously required a unanimous, bi-annual vote to renew the asset freeze, so the December 12 agreement supports EU efforts to leverage Russian assets to finance a reparations loan for Ukraine. The European Council plans to finalize the details of the reparations loan on December 18.[32] The European Commission initially proposed using the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine in December 2023.[33] The EU would only require Ukraine to repay the loan if Russia pays reparations to Ukraine.[34]

Key Takeaways:

• Ukrainian forces recently liberated territory including part of the city of Kupyansk in a tactical counterattack in the Kupyansk direction.
• This Ukrainian counterattack demonstrates that Ukrainian forces remain capable of defending and counterattacking against significant Russian offensive efforts, contrary to the claims of Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian lines are collapsing.
• The contours of the Ukrainian counterproposal to the most recent US peace proposal are emerging, but details of this counterproposal remain unclear.
• The Kremlin explicitly rejected Ukraine's proposals for a ceasefire and referendum.
• The Kremlin rejected the Ukrainian offer to establish a demilitarized zone.
• The European Union (EU) agreed on December 12 to indefinitely freeze 210 billion euros (roughly $247 billion) in Russian assets to provide Ukraine with a reparations loan of up to 165 billion euros (roughly $194 billion).
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk and Oleksandrivka. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area and near Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 11, 2025 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively rejected seven points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan on December 11, including the original plan’s points on territorial swaps based on the line of contact and the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine. Lavrov effectively rejected the following provisions:

• Freezing the current line of contact in Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts;
• Restarting the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rather than Russia;
• Requiring NATO only to cease further enlargement rather than insisting on rolling NATO back to its pre-1997 borders;
• Permitting European fighter jets to be stationed in Poland;
• Providing reliable security guarantees to Ukraine;
• Confirming Ukraine's sovereignty; and
• Accepting EU regulations on the protection of religious minorities as the required basis for Ukrainian laws on the subject.

Lavrov stated that the Russian Constitution recognized illegally annexed Crimea and Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as "integral and equal subjects of the Russian Federation" and implied that Russia cannot give away territories enshrined in its constitution.[1] Lavrov also claimed that Russia and the United States reached an understanding at the Alaska Summit on August 15 based on the proposals that summarized Russian President Vladimir Putin's June 14, 2024, speech — in which Putin demanded complete Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts as one of the prerequisites for peace negotiations.[2] Lavrov's reiteration of the Russian demand for Ukrainian withdrawal from unoccupied parts of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts contradicts the 21st point of the original peace plan, which states that Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts will be frozen along the line of contact and that both Ukraine and Russia would de facto recognize the line of contact.[3] Russia's commitment to establishing full control of Zaporizhia Oblast also contradicts the 19th point of the original peace plan, which states that the ZNPP would restart its operations under the IAEA and would equally distribute electricity between Russia and Ukraine.

Lavrov effectively rejected the third, fifth, and ninth points of the original peace plan, which respectively required only that NATO would not expand further, that European jets would be stationed in Poland, and that Ukraine would receive "reliable" security guarantees.[4] Lavrov stated that Russia "cannot agree" to any security guarantees for Ukraine that it would see as preparations for "another attack" against Russia and demanded that Russia receive security guarantees. Lavrov threatened that Russia would deem any "peacekeepers" in Ukraine "legitimate military targets," effectively ruling out any meaningful Western security guarantees that could plausibly deter or defend against a Russian reinvasion of Ukraine as provided for under the fifth point. Point 8 of the 28-point plan reads: "NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine," but there is no discussion of a NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine. The 28-point plan did not preclude the deployment of forces from individual NATO member states as part of a security guarantee force. The Russians choosing to read that point as precluding the deployment of forces to guarantee the security of Ukraine would constitute a revision of the plan and would render any security guarantee toothless.

Lavrov proposed the December 2021 ultimatums to the United States and NATO as the basis for security guarantees for Russia. The 2021 ultimatums notably demanded "security guarantees" from the United States and NATO that amounted to the destruction of the current NATO alliance — such as halting the deployment of forces or weapons systems to member-states that joined NATO after 1997.[5] The Kremlin also demanded in January 2022 (as part of the extended negotiations on the 2021 suite of demands) that NATO roll back to the borders it had in 1997 borders when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed.[6] Lavrov thus effectively insisted on a rollback of NATO forces rather than the freeze on further NATO expansion included in the 28 points. An agreement based on the 2021 ultimatums would preclude the deployment of European fighter jets to Poland as well, since Poland joined NATO after 1997.

Lavrov also effectively rejected the 1st point of the original peace plan, which would confirm Ukraine's sovereignty.[7] Lavrov reiterated Russia's demand that Ukraine "must return to a non-aligned, neutral, and non-nuclear status" and that these principles are the "foundation of its statehood." Lavrov claimed that Russia's original recognition of Ukraine in 1990 was conditional on Ukraine's neutral and non-aligned status. He made clear that Russian recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty would be permanently conditional on Ukraine's foreign policy.

Lavrov rejected the 20th point of the original peace plan, which would accept Ukraine's adoption of "EU rules" on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities as sufficient to address Russia's claimed concerns on the matter.[8] Lavrov explicitly stated that it is "unacceptable" for the 20th point to limit Ukraine's obligations to just "EU rules" and that the "EU rules" on religious tolerance and protection of minorities are insufficient. Lavrov falsely implied on December 10 that the original 28-point peace plan did not feature the clause on "EU rules."[9]

Lavrov's December 11 statements indicate that the Kremlin is unwilling to accept the original 28-point peace plan but that Russia will instead demand further modifications should Ukraine agree to it. Lavrov's effective rejection of key elements of the 28-point peace plan is consistent with Russian President Vladimir Putin's November 27 statement that the 28-point plan could be the basis for future negotiations, but not a final agreement in itself.[10]

Senior Kremlin officials, including Putin, have similarly rejected key points of the 28-point plan in recent weeks. The Kremlin signaled that it would not be satisfied with Ukraine holding elections in 100 days after the signing of the deal, as specified by the 25th point of the original peace plan. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, and other lower-level Kremlin officials responded negatively on December 9 to Zelensky's expressed willingness to hold elections as early as the next 60 to 90 days.[11] Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated on November 26 that “there can be no talk of any concessions or any surrender” of the “key aspects” of Russia’s objectives in Ukraine in response to the US peace plan.[12] Ryabkov stated Russia “is prepared to achieve its stated goals” in negotiations — referring to Russia’s long-held and oft-repeated demands, including demands that Russia gain control over all of Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts and force the Ukrainian government to capitulate — and noted that Russia will continue its war in Ukraine if there are “any setbacks” in negotiations.[13] Lavrov and lower-level Russian State Duma officials notably began setting informational conditions to reject reliable security guarantees for Ukraine on December 10, with Lavrov threatening Russian retaliation against the deployment of European military contingents to Ukraine.[14] The Kremlin's position on peace negotiations and territorial swaps has not changed in 2025, with Putin stating in March 2025 that Russia does not intend to "give in to anyone" or "give" up illegally annexed territories.[15]

Russian State Duma deputies, whom the Kremlin uses to shape Russian public opinion, also made clear that Russia remains disinterested in signing any peace agreements, including the original 28-point peace plan. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik claimed on December 11 that he had not yet seen a single peace plan that "would be in line with [Russia's] interests" and denounced any plans that involve freezing the frontline along the line of contact.[16] State Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlyov stated on Russian state television on December 11 that any peace agreement that Russia signs will not guarantee "anything;" that physical force is more authoritative than law; and that Russia's goal in Ukraine were not to confined to seizing Donbas but was rather to ensure "global security" - likely a nod to the Russian 2021 demands for "security guarantees" for Russia from the United States and NATO.[17]

The Kremlin claimed that Russian forces seized Siversk as part of the Kremlin’s intensified cognitive warfare effort that seeks to portray Ukraine’s frontline as on the verge of collapse, and Russian battlefield victory as inevitable. Neither is true, and the Russian seizure of Siversk is unconfirmed as of December 11. Russian President Vladimir Putin held a virtual meeting with various echelons of commanders of the Russian Joint Group of Forces on December 11, in which Russian Southern Grouping of Forces Commander Lieutenant General Sergei Medvedev claimed that elements of the Russian 3rd Combined Arms Army (CAA, Southern Military District [SMD]) seized Siversk.^[18] 3rd CAA Commander Lieutenant General Igor Kuzmenkov claimed that Russian forces flanked Siversk from the north and south to cut off Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) and avoid urban warfare, and relied heavily on drones, artillery, and airstrikes to facilitate advances near and within Siversk. While geolocated footage published on December 11 indicates that Russian forces have likely seized eastern Siversk, the Russian seizure of western Siversk remains unconfirmed.^[19] Ukrainian 11th Army Corps (AC) Spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Dmytro Zaporozhets rejected Russia's claims of seizing Siversk on December 11 and stated that fighting continues throughout Siversk and that Russian forces are taking advantage of near-constant poor weather conditions to infiltrate into the town.[20]  direction also reported that Russian forces are leveraging bad weather to infiltrate in small groups and ostentatiously raise flags to assert that Russian forces control terrain and achieve informational efforts — in line with ISW's assessment that Russian forces are relying on flag raisings to claim advances in areas where Russian forces conducted small group infiltration missions and did not establish enduring positions.[21] Some Russian milbloggers also claimed on December 10 and 11 that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence in Siversk but that Russian forces control at least 90 percent of Siversk.^[22]

The Kremlin is attempting to portray the claimed fall of Siversk as the start of the battle for Slovyansk — a battle the Kremlin has not set conditions on the ground to begin. Medvedev claimed to Putin that Russia's alleged seizure of Siversk sets conditions for a Russian drive on Slovyansk, the northernmost tip of Ukraine's Fortress Belt in Donetsk Oblast to portray Russia as able to imminently and quickly advance on the northern part of the Fortress Belt.[23] Russian forces are at least several months away from being able to begin an offensive, conducting ground assaults against Slovyansk, however. Russian forces would have to complete the seizure of Lyman and advance the 14 kilometers from Lyman to Slovyansk (including crossing the Siverskyi Donets River) or traverse the 30 kilometers from Siversk to Slovyansk before assaulting the city itself. The Russian efforts for Lyman and Siversk have been years-long endeavors. Russian forces have been attempting to advance on Siversk since the fall of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in early July 2022, and it took Russian forces 41 months to advance 19 kilometers from the western outskirts of Lysychansk to central Siversk.[24] Ukrainian forces liberated Lyman in early October 2022 during their successful September-October 2022 counteroffensive, and Russian forces have been attempting to recapture the town since then.[25] Only after one or both of these advances would Russian forces be able to begin an assault on Slovyansk directly, and it will likely take a year for Russian forces to make these advances at their current rate of advance in the area. Russian forces have historically taken several months to seize relatively large urban areas, including Bakhmut, Chasiv Yar, and Pokrovsk — the seizure of which is not yet complete — and would likely take another several months to seize Slovyansk after reaching it.[26] The Kremlin is attempting to portray Russian forces as imminently threatening the northern part of the Fortress Belt as part of its broader effort to portray Russian forces as making significant simultaneous advances across the theater, such that the frontline is imminently collapsing.

Putin's December 11 meeting is part of a pattern of senior Russian officials aggrandizing claimed battlefield victories in the past several weeks to create the false perception that the frontlines are collapsing to push the West and Ukraine to capitulate to Russia's demands. ISW continues to assess that the frontline in Ukraine is not facing imminent collapse. Putin has held several meetings with Russian military commanders in recent weeks to falsely inflate the claims of Russian advances in various sectors of the frontline, including the Vovchansk direction in northern Kharkiv Oblast, the Kupyansk direction in eastern Kharkiv Oblast, the Pokrovsk direction in Donetsk Oblast, and the Hulyaipole direction in eastern Zaporizhia Oblast.[27] These officials have made exaggerated claims of advances in every meeting, and Russian ultranationalist milbloggers have rejected many of these claims as inflated.[28] The Kremlin is attempting to use these claims to portray a Russian military victory in Ukraine as inevitable, such that the West should stop supporting Ukraine and push Ukraine to capitulate to Russia's demands. The battlefield situation is serious in several sectors of the frontline, but the frontlines are far from collapsing, however. Russian forces have not been able to sustain tactically-significant gains across more than a few areas of the battlefield simultaneously, and there are several areas where Russian advances remain stagnant, including in southern Ukraine and in northern Sumy Oblast.[29] Russian forces have been able to make tactically-significant gains in certain sectors of the frontline largely through monthslong efforts to achieve partial battlefield air interdiction (BAI) effects in these sectors and degrade Ukrainian defenses ahead of intensified ground operations.[30]

Russian Chief of the General Staff Army General Valery Gerasimov claimed to Putin on December 11 that Russian forces had advanced south and southeast of Yunakivka, northeast of Sumy City.[31] Russian offensive operations in northern Sumy Oblast have stalled since late June 2025 and have not made any tactically-significant gains in the area.[32] Russian forces have also redeployed elements of the relatively elite naval infantry and airborne (VDV) elements that were leading the offensive operations to other areas of the frontline, including to the Pokrovsk direction and southern Ukraine.[33] Russian milbloggers, including a milblogger reportedly affiliated with the Russian Northern Grouping of Forces, have stated that Russian assaults near Yunakivka have been failing for several weeks and complained that the Russian military command orders Russian forces go conduct attritional assaults using the same unsuccessful tactics.[34]

Russian forces are only making tactical gains across most of the theater. ISW assesses that there are roughly 16 distinct tactical areas and operational directions in the theater. ISW has observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have advanced 4,652.2 square kilometers thus far in 2025, of which almost 80 percent occurred in only six directions: the Lyman, Kostyantynivka, Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka, Oleksandrivka, and Hulyaipole directions. Russian forces seized 964.01 square kilometers thus far in 2025 in the remaining 10 directions, only roughly 21 percent of the total Russian advances. These directions include the Sumy, northern Kharkiv Oblast, and Velykyi Burluk directions, where Russian forces have failed to make significant gains despite much-publicized efforts to create "buffer zones" near the Ukraine-Russia border, and the Kherson direction, where Russian forces have remained stagnant since a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive forced them to withdraw from west (right) bank Kherson Oblast in November 2022.[35] Russian forces have made the most dramatic advances in the Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka, and Oleksandrivka directions — places where Russian forces have concentrated over two combined arms armies’ worth of combat power, each, and dedicated extensive time and effort to advance.[36] The Russian military command is not able to simultaneously dedicate the manpower and resources necessary to make similar advances across the theater, and even the most extensive Russian advances are constrained to foot pace.[37] Russian forces have thus failed to make significant gains in any direction without a significant commitment of forces along relatively narrow tactical and operational areas, demonstrating that Russian advances remain concentrated along a few narrow areas of the frontline rather than the broad advance that the Kremlin promotes.[38] The Kremlin continues to engage in a systematic cognitive warfare effort to aggrandize Russian advances through exaggerated claims of gains and flag raising infiltration missions in an attempt to portray them as a sweeping, broad-front advance to falsely portray the frontline as collapsing across the theater, contrary to all available evidence.[39]

Ukrainian forces struck an oil platform in the Caspian Sea for the first time and struck other Russian oil and defense industrial infrastructure on the night of December 10 to 11. Sources within Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne and a person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg on December 11 that at least four Ukrainian long-range drones struck Lukoil-Nizhnevolzhskneft's Filanovsky Oil Field in the Caspian Sea overnight, halting oil and natural gas production at over 20 production wells.[40] Suspilne reported that the Filanovsky Oil Field is one of the largest explored oil fields in Russia and in the Russian part of the Caspian Sea, with reserves estimated at 129 million tons of oil and 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Ukrainian Center for Combating Disinformation Head Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko reported on December 11 that Ukrainian forces struck the Dorogobuzh Combined Heating and Power Plant (CHPP) that provides power to the Dorogobuzh Chemical Plant in Verkhnedneprovsky, Smolensk Oblast, overnight.[41] Kovalenko reported that the chemical plant produces chemicals critical to the Russian defense industrial base (DIB), including ammonia, nitrates, and nitrogen fertilizers. Russian opposition outlet Astra geolocated footage of overnight explosions in Verkhnedneprovsky to nearby the Dorogobuzh Chemical Plant.[42] Geolocated footage published on December 10 shows a fire and explosions at the Akron Chemical Fertilizer Plant in Veliky Novgorod, Novgorod Oblast.[43] An Astra source within the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations reported that Ukrainian drone strikes caused a fire at the Akron plant, halting operations at five workshops.[44] Astra reported that the plant produces ammonium nitrate for both military and civilian use.[45] Novgorod Oblast Governor Aleksander Dronov claimed on December 11 that falling drone debris damaged buildings in unspecified areas of Novgorod Oblast.[46] Astra geolocated footage of damaged buildings in Voronezh City, Voronezh Oblast, published on December 10 to near a CHPP and the Voronezhsintezkauchuk Plant, a manufacturer of thermoplastic elastomers and synthetic rubber products.[47] Voronezh Oblast Governor Aleksandr Gusev claimed that falling drone debris damaged a power line in Voronezh City, leading to power outages, and an industrial building in an unspecified location in southern Voronezh Oblast late on December 10 and overnight.[48] The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed on December 11 that Russian forces downed 287 Ukrainian drones overnight, including six over Smolensk Oblast, 19 over Novgorod Oblast, and four over Voronezh Oblast.[49]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov effectively rejected seven points of the US-proposed 28-point peace plan on December 11, including the original plan’s points on territorial swaps based on the line of contact and the provision of reliable security guarantees for Ukraine.
• Lavrov's December 11 statements indicate that the Kremlin is unwilling to accept the original 28-point peace plan but that Russia will instead demand further modifications should Ukraine agree to it.
• Lavrov's effective rejection of key elements of the 28-point peace plan is consistent with Russian President Vladimir Putin's November 27 statement that the 28-point plan could be the basis for future negotiations, but not a final agreement in itself.
• Senior Kremlin officials, including Putin, have similarly rejected key points of the 28-point plan in recent weeks.
• The Kremlin claimed that Russian forces seized Siversk as part of the Kremlin’s intensified cognitive warfare effort that seeks to portray Ukraine’s frontline as on the verge of collapse, and Russian battlefield victory as inevitable. Neither is true, and the Russian seizure of Siversk is unconfirmed as of December 11.
• The Kremlin is attempting to portray the claimed fall of Siversk as the start of the battle for Slovyansk – a battle the Kremlin has not set conditions on the ground to begin.
• Putin's December 11 meeting is part of a pattern of senior Russian officials aggrandizing claimed battlefield victories in the past several weeks to create the false perception that the frontlines are collapsing to push the West and Ukraine to capitulate to Russia's demands. ISW continues to assess that the frontline in Ukraine is not facing imminent collapse.
• Russian forces are only making tactical gains across most of the theater.
• Ukrainian forces struck an oil platform in the Caspian Sea for the first time and struck other Russian oil and defense industrial infrastructure on the night of December 10 to 11.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced near Siversk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 10, 2025

The Kremlin is setting information conditions to reject any meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine by threatening Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed on December 10 that, although Russia does not intend to go to war with Europe, the Kremlin will respond to "any hostile steps," such as the deployment of European military contingents to Ukraine and the seizure of frozen Russian assets.[1] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa similarly claimed on December 10 that Russia will deliberately target any European military contingents deployed to Ukraine.[2] Lavrov's and Chepa's statements come amid US, Ukrainian, and European discussions about providing security guarantees to Ukraine.[3] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on December 9 that US, Ukrainian, and European negotiators will discuss security guarantees for Ukraine during an upcoming security council-level meeting on an unspecified date.[4] The Kremlin is likely setting information conditions to undermine Ukrainian and Western efforts to secure meaningful security guarantees, such as deployment of military contingents or other military assistance, against possible renewed Russian aggression in the future.

The Kremlin preemptively rejected the legitimacy of any future Ukrainian government that it does not directly control in response to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recent statements that he is ready to hold elections before the end of Russia's war in Ukraine. Zelensky stated on December 9 that he is ready to hold elections in Ukraine as early as the next 60 to 90 days and asked the United States and European countries to provide election security.[5] Zelensky tasked Ukrainian parliamentarians with preparing legislative proposals to change the Ukrainian law that bans elections during martial law, likely referring to Ukraine's Constitution.[6] Kremlin officials responded negatively to Zelensky's statement, despite previous Kremlin demands that Ukraine hold elections as a prerequisite for any peace negotiations or agreement ending the war.[7] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded on December 10 that the Kremlin has not discussed Zelensky's willingness to hold elections and will continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds.[8] Peskov added that Russian President Vladimir Putin has long discussed the "need" for elections in Ukraine. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused Zelensky of "cynicism" and claimed that his request for the United States and Europe to provide security for the elections indicates that Ukraine has lost its sovereignty.[9] Russian Ambassador-at-Large and former Russian occupation official Rodion Miroshnik claimed that Zelensky's readiness to hold elections is an "arrogant bluff" and a "manipulation" of Ukraine's election rules and implied that Russia will oppose any US or European efforts to ensure election security in Ukraine.[10] Miroshnik insinuated that Zelensky cannot be ready to hold elections, given that Ukraine canceled the regularly scheduled elections in May 2024 and reiterated the Kremlin's false narrative about Zelensky's illegitimacy.  Russian state media also platformed on December 10 statements from Kremlin-affiliated former Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada Deputy Viktor Medvedchuk — a close personal ally of Putin who Putin initially aimed to replace Zelensky following Russia’s full-scale invasion — calling for Zelensky's forced removal from office and criticizing the ongoing peace talks.[11] The Kremlin's responses to Zelensky are consistent with Putin's November 27 statements that Russia is only interested in signing peace agreements with a pro-Russian government in Ukraine and that the Ukrainian government would need to take additional steps beyond the elections before the Kremlin would consider signing any peace agreements.[12] Kremlin officials' reactions to the prospect of elections in Ukraine further demonstrate that Russia continues to make excuses to stall any peace negotiations that do not equate to anything short of Ukraine's surrender.

The Kremlin once again rejected the Ukrainian-proposed ceasefire on energy infrastructure strikes and signaled Russia's commitment to destroying the Ukrainian power grid in the winter months. Zelensky stated on December 9 that Ukraine is ready to agree to an "energy truce" with Russia and implied that Ukraine would halt its strikes against Russian energy infrastructure if Russia ceased its strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure.[13] Ukrainian forces have been systematically targeting Russian oil refineries across Russia in 2025, undermining Russian revenue streams that directly fund its war effort.[14] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov rejected Zelensky's energy infrastructure ceasefire offer on December 10, stating that Russia is "working towards peace, not a ceasefire."[15] Lead Russian negotiator and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev accused Zelensky, the United Kingdom, and the European Union of attempting to "trick" Russia into a temporary ceasefire, likely in an attempt to justify Russia's refusal.[16] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa, similarly attempted to justify Russia's refusal by falsely accusing Ukraine of violating a prior US-brokered energy infrastructure ceasefire in March 2025.[17] Russia and Ukraine never agreed to any formal terms for the ceasefire, which Russia unilaterally claimed began on March 18 and did not renew.[18] ISW assessed in Spring 2025 that the Kremlin exploited the temporary energy infrastructure ceasefire’s vague and unfinalized terms in order to accuse Ukraine of violating the agreements.[19] A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger asserted that Russia must fully destroy Ukraine's power grid and that failing to do so could undermine Russia's offensive operations in Ukraine.[20] Russian forces recently intensified large combined missile and drone strike campaigns against Ukrainian energy infrastructure ahead of the Winter 2025-2026 heating season and appear to be launching these combined strikes every seven to 10 days in an effort to break Ukraine's power grid.[21]

Available open-source information indicates that Russian forces have not yet seized Pokrovsk, but the situation in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad area remains difficult. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces will very likely seize Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, but will take more time and suffer more casualties to do so. Geolocated footage published on December 9 indicates that Ukrainian forces are operating along the Donetska Railway in northwestern Pokrovsk and in northwestern Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk), having either maintained or recently recaptured these positions.[22] The situation for Ukrainian forces in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket remains serious, however. Russian forces continue to infiltrate into central and western Myrnohrad.[23] The spokesperson of a Ukrainian brigade operating in the Pokrovsk direction reported that Russian forces are simultaneously assaulting Myrnohrad itself and its flanks and are interdicting Ukrainian logistics.[24] The Ukrainian spokesperson stated that Ukrainian forces only have limited opportunities to conduct rotations due to Russian strikes and infiltration missions, requiring careful preparation for each rotation mission. The spokesperson stated that Russian forces are continuing air strikes against Ukrainian fortified positions and trying to combine large strike series with ground operations. The spokesperson reported that Russian forces are operating armored vehicles near Pokrovsk, and the Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces reported that elements of the Russian 76th Airborne (VDV) Division took advantage of poor weather conditions to conduct a mechanized assault from southern to northern Pokrovsk.[25] Geolocated footage published on December 10 shows Russian forces conducting a platoon-sized mechanized assault in western Pokrovsk.[26] These reports indicate that Russian forces have been able to transport at least some vehicles into Pokrovsk after Ukrainian interdiction efforts successfully prevented Russian mechanized and motorized vehicle operations in the Pokrovsk direction in mid-November 2025.[27] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi indicated on December 10 that Ukrainian forces still operate in northern Pokrovsk but acknowledged that there were no Ukrainian forces in Pokrovsk on an unspecified prior date, suggesting that Ukrainian forces have recently retaken limited positions within the town.[28] Syrskyi acknowledged that Ukrainian forces withdrew from the Sukhyi Yar, Lysivka, and Novopavlivka areas south to southeast of Pokrovsk on an unspecified prior date.

Ukrainian forces struck a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker in the Black Sea region with unmanned surface vehicles (USV) on December 10. Ukrainian intelligence sources told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne on December 10 that Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) and the Ukrainian Navy struck the DASHAN oil tanker with Sea Baby USVs in the Black Sea, severely damaging the tanker and forcing it to cease operations.[29] The Ukrainian intelligence sources stated that the DASHAN oil tanker was en route toward Novorossiysk, Krasnodar Krai; flew the Comoro Islands flag; and carried about $60 million of petroleum products at the time of the strike. Footage published on December 10 shows at least two USVs striking the tanker.[30] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger claimed that the DASHAN was in the Black Sea south of occupied Feodosia, Crimea at the time of the strike.[31] Russian milbloggers claimed that Ukrainian forces have struck four oil tankers in the past two weeks.[32] Ukrainian forces used Sea Baby USVs to strike the KAIRO and VIRAT oil tankers, both part of Russia's shadow fleet, in late November 2025.[33]

Russia may be setting conditions to threaten Odesa Oblast from Russian-occupied Transnistria in an effort to fix Ukrainian forces in southwestern Ukraine. Sources in Ukraine's Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR)'s Public Administration told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne on December 10 that the Kremlin is attempting to strengthen its presence in Transnistria by calling up reservists, bringing weapons out of storage, and launching drone production and training centers in Transnistria.[34] The GUR sources warned that these measures will increase the risk of Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups infiltrating into Odesa Oblast from Transnistria. Odesa Oblast borders Russian-occupied Transnistria to the west, and the capital of Tiraspol is about 80 kilometers from Odesa City – meaning that the deployment of Russian drone units to occupied Transnistria places Odesa City within range of Russian mid-range drone strikes. Russian forces have been successfully conducting strikes into Ukrainian rear areas at an operational depth (about 25 to 100 kilometers) across the theater using specialized drone units and likely could transfer some of these capabilities to units stationed in Transnistria.[35] The Kremlin likely seeks to divert Ukrainian resources away from the frontline and near-rear by forcing Ukrainian forces to defend against infiltration missions and drone strikes in Odesa Oblast. The GUR's warning comes as the Kremlin has been reigniting narratives in recent weeks claiming that Odesa City is a Russian city and threatening future aggression against Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts.[36] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is setting conditions to justify future Russian efforts to seize Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts, although Russia remains unlikely to be able to conduct such offensive operations in the near-term and will likely focus on bringing to bear asymmetric capabilities such as limited infiltration and operational-depth drone strikes.[37]

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin is setting information conditions to reject any meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine by threatening Europe.
• The Kremlin preemptively rejected the legitimacy of any future Ukrainian government that it does not directly control in response to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's recent statements that he is ready to hold elections before the end of Russia's war in Ukraine.
• The Kremlin once again rejected the Ukrainian-proposed ceasefire on energy infrastructure strikes and signaled Russia's commitment to destroying the Ukrainian power grid in the winter months.
• Available open-source information indicates that Russian forces have not yet seized Pokrovsk, but the situation in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad area remains difficult. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces will very likely seize Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad, but will take more time and suffer more casualties to do so.
• Ukrainian forces struck a Russian shadow fleet oil tanker in the Black Sea region with unmanned surface vehicles (USV) on December 10.
• Russia may be setting conditions to threaten Odesa Oblast from Russian-occupied Transnistria in an effort to fix Ukrainian forces in southwestern Ukraine.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Pokrovsk. Russian forces recently advanced in northern Kharkiv Oblast and the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area and near Oleksandrivka.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 9, 2025 

The Kremlin is significantly intensifying its cognitive warfare effort to present the Russian military and economy as able to inevitably win a war of attrition against Ukraine. High-ranking Kremlin officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have been aggressively promoting exaggerated battlefield advances and the alleged strength and resilience of the Russian economy.[i] This multipronged cognitive warfare effort aims to push Ukraine and the West into conceding to Russia's demands now during negotiations out of fear of intensified, protracted Russian military operations in the future. Though the situation in specific sectors of the frontline is serious, especially in the Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole directions, most of Putin's assertions of Russian victories do not correspond to the battlefield reality, nor do they indicate that the frontlines in Ukraine will collapse imminently.[ii] Putin's claims about the strength of the Russian economy also ignore how the Kremlin's recent economic policies indicate that the Russian economy is facing mounting costs in the face of Western sanctions, monetary constraints, and the compounding costs of the war.[iii]

The Kremlin's cognitive warfare effort aims to achieve several of Putin's original war aims through a negotiated settlement, as Russian forces are currently unable to achieve them on the battlefield. Putin and other high-ranking Kremlin officials have repeatedly and publicly reiterated their commitment to Russia's original war aims, including granting Russia a veto over future NATO expansion, the removal of the Ukrainian government, the installation of a pro-Russian puppet government, and limits on Ukraine's ability to defend itself.[iv] Putin reiterated on December 9 his call for Ukraine to cede all of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts – including areas that Russian forces currently do not occupy. Putin claimed that Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts are Russia's "historical territory" and were "always part of Russia."[v] Putin repeated his narrative that Ukraine is an artificial state that Soviet authorities whimsically created. The Russian Federation has notably recognized Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and borders several times in the past three decades, including with its recognition of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty.

ISW continues to assess that the Russian campaign to militarily seize the rest of Donetsk Oblast, including Ukraine's heavily fortified Fortress Belt, would likely take at least two-to-three years, pose a significant challenge, and result in difficult and costly battles that the Russian Federation may not be able to sustain.[vi] Russia's cognitive warfare effort aims to push Ukraine and the West to cede this heavily defended territory to Russia without a fight, allowing Russia to avoid spending significant amounts of time and resources to try to seize it on the battlefield. Ceding Donetsk Oblast to Russia would also notably set conditions for Russia to renew its aggression against Ukraine from more advantageous positions at a time of its choosing, particularly as Putin and other Kremlin officials continue to indicate that their longer-term strategic goal of controlling all of Ukraine – not only its southern and eastern regions – remains unchanged.[vii]

Russian forces have gained 0.77 percent of Ukrainian territory since the start of 2025 while suffering disproportionately high personnel costs. ISW has observed evidence to assess that Russian forces have seized roughly 4,669 square kilometers since January 1, 2025. Data from the Ukrainian General Staff indicates that Russian forces have suffered a total of 391,270 casualties in that time – or about 83 casualties per square kilometer. The Russian rate of advance has not exceeded a footpace, even in areas where Russian forces have been making relatively quicker gains recently, such as in the Hulyaipole and Pokrovsk directions. Russian advances are unlikely to move faster than a footpace in the near- to medium- term. The drone-dominated battlefield denies Russian forces the ability to conduct maneuver warfare at the scale necessary for rapid, operational-level advances that restore maneuver to the battlefield.[viii] Ukraine’s drone-based defenses have some vulnerabilities (e.g. weather factors) that Russian forces have managed to exploit to make tactically significant advances, but Ukraine’s drone defenses overall have denied Russian forces the ability to use armored vehicles and conduct mechanized maneuver and have forced Russian forces into grinding attritional infantry missions.[ix] This equilibrium is unlikely to change rapidly, barring any sudden changes in the fundamental technologies and operational concepts underpinning the current war in Ukraine.

Russia's resources are not endless as Putin is trying to assert, and Putin currently appears to be facing difficult decision points regarding the strategic sustainment of Russian force generation. ISW assessed in February 2025 that Russia would likely face a number of materiel, manpower, and economic issues in the next 12 to 18 months as the mounting costs of the war compounded over time.[x] Russia's main force generation recruitment system that uses high financial incentives to attract personnel appears to be hitting diminishing returns and negatively affecting the Russian economy.[xi] ISW previously assessed that Russia's slowing recruitment efforts likely could not indefinitely replace Russia's casualty rates without a compulsory reserve mobilization.[xii]

Putin is very likely preparing to attempt to offset Russia’s near-exhaustion of voluntary recruitment in 2026 by mobilizing elements of Russia's strategic reserve to sustain combat operations in Ukraine. The Kremlin remains unlikely to undertake a single large-scale mobilization at this time, however, and is most likely to persistently recruit reservists on a rolling basis. Putin signed a decree on December 8 authorizing the compulsory call-up of an unspecified number of Russian inactive reservists who will undergo compulsory "military assemblies" in the Russian Armed Forces, National Guard (Rosgvardia), Federal Security Service (FSB), Ministry of Emergency Situations military rescue units, and other state security agencies.[xiii] Putin tasked the Russian government with calling up the inactive reservists and organizing the assemblies in 2026, but the publicly released version of the decree classified two of the four provisions.[xiv] Military assemblies in Russia refer to the gathering of staff at a training ground or a unit's headquarters, usually within the context of preparing units for military exercises or service.[xv] Russia's resolution titled, "On Military Assembly and Certain Issues of Ensuring the Fulfillment of Military Duty," states that the Russian president may order military assemblies for training purposes or to check combat and mobilization readiness; that the assemblies may last no longer than two months; and that the total duration of a mobilized person's participation in a military assembly may not exceed 12 months.[xvi]

The December 8 decree will likely allow the Kremlin to covertly mobilize members of its strategic inactive reserve. Russia has two types of reserves. Russia retains a higher readiness “human mobilization reserve” - an active reserve of Russian citizens who sign a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) on a voluntary basis to serve in the reserve while remaining civilians except when called up. Russia also maintains an inactive reserve (also known as the human mobilization resource or “zapas” in Russian), which includes Russian men as old as 65-70 years old in some circumstances who are not actively affiliated with the Russian Armed Forces.[xvii] ISW warned in October 2025 that the Kremlin was preparing to conduct rolling partial mobilization without a formal declaration of war or formal announcement that it was conducting partial compulsory call-up.[xviii] Putin first signed a law on November 4 that allowed the Kremlin to call up active reservists to "defend critical infrastructure facilities" in Russia and occupied Ukraine, and Russian officials and state media avidly rejected concerns that the Kremlin would commit active reservists to combat operations in Ukraine.[xix] The December 8 decree notably does not impose any restrictions on the use of inactive reservists in combat operations, however, allowing the Kremlin to call up and determine the uses of inactive reservists during or after the military assemblies.[xx]

The Kremlin notably has been setting up a system that could support some limited compulsory reservist call-ups without interrupting Russia's semi-annual conscription cycles. The December 8 decree follows the Kremlin's recent intensified efforts to mitigate Russia’s administrative capacity bottlenecks that would complicate Russia’s ability to quickly mobilize reserves during the semi-annual conscription cycles. Putin signed another law on November 4, allowing Russian military conscription administrative processes to occur year-round, as opposed to only during the spring and fall cycles as had happened before.[xxi] The Kremlin has also been simplifying conscription regulations, likely to decrease the number of administrative and medical staff needed to support the semi-annual conscription cycles.[xxii] The Kremlin notably postponed the Fall 2022 conscription cycle after declaring partial mobilization in late September 2022 because it lacked the necessary administrative and medical staff to simultaneously facilitate two compulsory call-ups, and the September 2022 partial mobilization resulted in mass societal backlash against the regime.[xxiii]

The December 8 decree marks a notable departure from the Kremlin's social contract with the Russian people via its volunteer recruitment campaign, through which the Kremlin aimed to avoid deeply unpopular compulsory reserve call-ups. The ever-increasing cost of the system that used high financial incentives to recruit volunteers and the growing need for manpower to sustain Russia's highly attritional assaults have likely forced the Kremlin to reconsider its social contract regarding compulsory military service in Ukraine. Compulsory call-ups of reservists may enable the Kremlin to generate forces more cheaply and demobilize servicemembers mobilized in 2022, but will likely pose greater political risks to the Kremlin.[xxiv] The Kremlin's ongoing efforts to downplay or misrepresent the true intent of these personnel system changes suggest that the Kremlin remains unlikely to conduct a general mobilization of inactive reservists or repeat its 2022 partial mobilization at this time due to the heavy political costs associated with such compulsory reserve call-ups.[xxv] ISW continues to assess that the West and Ukraine can leverage the manner in which Russia’s economic, demographic, and force generation challenges compound over time to force Putin to grapple with challenging decision points at home sooner than he would like. The US can use such an approach to build leverage against Russia to compel Putin to come to the negotiating table with and offer concessions to end the war in Ukraine.[xxvi] The Kremlin notably has offered no concessions on the war in Ukraine so far and has not publicly signaled agreement with any of the United States' recently proposed ceasefires or peace plans.

A Kremlin official suggested that Russia may try to renege on any future peace agreement it signs with Ukraine due to the Ukrainian government's alleged "illegitimacy" - as ISW has long warned. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky claimed on December 9 that Ukraine must hold elections in order to "legitimize" the government.[xxvii] Slutsky stated that Russia must be "absolutely certain" that no one can challenge the authority of the Ukrainian signatories on a future peace agreement. The Kremlin, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have long used deliberate misinterpretations of Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution to allege that Zelensky is illegitimate.[xxviii] Slutsky's statement is in line with ISW's ongoing assessment that the Kremlin may use its false claims about Zelensky’s illegitimacy to renege on any future peace agreement it signs with Ukraine at a time of Russia’s choosing.[xxix]

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the latest 20-point US-proposed peace plan. Zelensky stated on December 8 that the latest US-proposed peace plan contains 20 points.[xxx] Zelensky stated that territorial issues remain unresolved and that Ukrainian forces are fighting in order to not give up Ukrainian territory. Zelensky noted that Russia is putting military, informational, and diplomatic pressure on Ukraine to cede all of Donetsk Oblast. Zelensky noted that there is currently a proposal to "exchange" the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and part of the territories that Russian forces occupy for the parts of Donetsk Oblast that Russian forces currently do not occupy. Zelensky continued to reiterate the importance of security guarantees for post-war Ukraine.

Ukraine continued discussions with its European allies on December 8 about the ongoing peace negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met on December 8 with French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and German Chancellor Friederich Merz in London to discuss diplomatic engagement with the United States and further defense support for Ukraine.[xxxi] Starmer noted the importance of reaching a settlement that guarantees a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. The Ukrainian readout of the meeting noted that the leaders reiterated that a peace plan must provide for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, security guarantees from Ukraine's partners, and a full ceasefire. Zelensky and Starmer also held a joint telephone conversation with representatives of Finland, Italy, Poland, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey, NATO, and the European Commission on December 8, wherein the parties emphasized that the Coalition of the Willing must play a significant role in future security guarantees for Ukraine.[xxxii] Zelensky noted that Ukraine is engaging in continuous communication with its partners to ensure that the ongoing negotiations consider Europe's position.

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin is significantly intensifying its cognitive warfare effort to present the Russian military and economy as able to inevitably win a war of attrition against Ukraine.
• The Kremlin's cognitive warfare effort aims to achieve several of Putin's original war aims through a negotiated settlement, as Russian forces are currently unable to achieve them on the battlefield.
• Russian forces have gained 0.77 percent of Ukrainian territory since the start of 2025 while suffering disproportionately high personnel costs.
• Russia's resources are not endless as Putin is trying to assert, and Putin currently appears to be facing difficult decision points regarding the strategic sustainment of Russian force generation.
• Putin is very likely preparing to attempt to offset Russia’s near-exhaustion of voluntary recruitment in 2026 by mobilizing elements of Russia's strategic reserve to sustain combat operations in Ukraine. The Kremlin remains unlikely to undertake a single large-scale mobilization at this time, however, and is most likely to persistently recruit reservists on a rolling basis.
• A Kremlin official suggested that Russia may try to renege on any future peace agreement it signs with Ukraine due to the Ukrainian government's alleged "illegitimacy" - as ISW has long warned.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the latest 20-point US-proposed peace plan.
• Ukraine continued discussions with its European allies on December 8 about the ongoing peace negotiations.
• Russian forces recently advanced near Lyman and Pokrovsk and in western Zaporizhia Oblast. Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Oleksandrivka.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 8, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to portray the Russian economy as able to support a protracted war in Ukraine — likely to buttress the ongoing Russian cognitive warfare effort falsely claiming that a Russian victory is inevitable. Putin stated on December 8 at the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects that Russia is working to overcome demographic issues and increase the birth rate, and highlighted numerous support measures the Kremlin is offering families with children.[1] Putin stated that the birth rate continues to decline, including due to unspecified "external challenges" - likely in part referring to the demographic impacts of the war in Ukraine. Putin stated that the Kremlin will include birth rate indicators in performance evaluations of regional governors. Putin claimed that sociological indicators about people's readiness to have children have most significantly improved in occupied Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts — where Russian occupation authorities have been pushing pro-natalist policies as part of wider efforts to exploit occupied Ukraine as an economic and demographic resource.[2] Putin claimed that Russia's GDP growth will be about one percent by the end of 2025 and that inflation will be near or below six percent, with the Central Bank forecasting four to five percent inflation in 2026. Putin claimed that Russia can now gradually increase "economic momentum" while maintaining low unemployment and moderate inflation. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin claimed that Russian GDP growth in the past three years is roughly 10 percent despite "unprecedented" sanctions pressure and that the Russian economy can "move forward" despite "attempts to restrain [Russia's] development."

The Kremlin’s recent economic policies indicate that the Russian economy is doing markedly worse than Putin’s statements seek to suggest, however.[3] Putin intensified his efforts to portray the Russian economy as resilient and able to support protracted hostilities in Ukraine in the lead-up to the December 2 US-Russia meeting in Moscow, and Putin's December 8 remarks are likely similarly aimed at influencing the ongoing peace negotiations.[4] Putin is likely attempting to convince the United States that increased sanctions pressure will not have its intended effect on the Russian economy and will not push Putin to make compromises to end his war against Ukraine. Putin is also notably not discussing the ongoing war in Ukraine in his speeches on the Russian economy, likely in order to obscure the connections between Russia's battlefield losses and economic problems.[5] The Kremlin appears to be trying to dovetail its claims about the Russian economy with the false narrative that a Russian victory on the battlefield is inevitable. Both narratives aim to push the West and Ukraine into capitulating to Russia's demands now out of fear of intensified, protracted Russian military operations in the future. ISW continues to assess that the West and Ukraine can leverage several key Russian battlefield and economic weaknesses to force the Kremlin to negotiate and make real concessions and that a Russian victory is not inevitable.[6]

Kremlin officials continue to demonstrate Russia's unwillingness to compromise to end Russia's war against Ukraine. Russian State Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlev stated on December 8 that Russia does not care who signs the "capitulation" to end the war but that the "main thing" is that the terms in the settlement "satisfy Russia."[7] Zhuravlev claimed that the issues that led to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine stemmed from deteriorating US-Russia relations such that Russia should sign a peace agreement only with the United States — not Ukraine. Zhuravlev's statements reiterate how the Kremlin has consistently made demands not only of Ukraine, but of NATO as well, and that the Kremlin continues to refuse a settlement to the war that amounts to anything less than Ukrainian capitulation.[8] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 8 that negotiations to end the war must be "done in silence" — repeating recent Kremlin calls for parties to withhold details about the ongoing negotiations from the public, likely to obfuscate Russia's rejection of proposed peace plans.[9]

Russia is reportedly planning to foment protests in Ukraine, likely to support the longstanding Kremlin narrative that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. Ukrainian Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets stated on December 8 that Russian special services are planning to destabilize the domestic situation in Ukraine by staging allegedly "peaceful protests" in large cities throughout southern and eastern Ukraine.[10] Lubinets stated that the Russian special services plan to recruit women, especially mothers of Ukrainian military personnel who are prisoners of war (POW)s or missing in action (MIA) for such protests. Lubinets stated that the Kremlin aims to use the protests to pressure Ukraine's military-political leadership amidst ongoing peace negotiations. The Kremlin, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, have long used deliberate misinterpretations of Ukrainian law and the Ukrainian constitution to allege that Zelensky is illegitimate.[11] Ukrainian intelligence notably identified the Russian "Maidan-3" information campaign in 2024 that aimed to spread doubt about Zelensky's legitimacy.[12] The reported Russian attempt to foment protests in Ukraine is likely similarly aimed at reinforcing the false narrative that the current Ukrainian government does not have the support of the Ukrainian people. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin may use its false claims about Zelensky's illegitimacy to renege on any future peace agreement it signs with Ukraine at a time of Russia's choosing.[13]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to portray the Russian economy as able to support a protracted war in Ukraine — likely to buttress the ongoing Russian cognitive warfare effort falsely claiming that a Russian victory is inevitable.
• Kremlin officials continue to demonstrate Russia's unwillingness to compromise to end Russia's war against Ukraine.
• Russia is reportedly planning to foment protests in Ukraine, likely to support the longstanding Kremlin narrative that the Ukrainian government is illegitimate.
• Russian forces recently advanced near Borova and Pokrovsk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 7, 2025 

The Kremlin positively reacted to the recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS). Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on December 7 that the new US NSS is "largely consistent with [Russia's] vision" and could be a "modest guarantee" that Russia and the United States will be able to continue work toward securing a peace settlement in Ukraine.[1] Peskov stated that the Kremlin considers the NSS's call for cooperation with Russia and refraining from listing Russia as a "direct threat" to the United States as a "positive step."[2] Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev stated that the updated NSS is a signal that the United States is ready to discuss issues related to the "security architecture," likely referring to European security architecture and the role NATO plays in it.[3] Medvedev stated that the NSS "unexpectedly" aligns with Russia's ideas about the need to share security and respect the sovereignty of states. Medvedev stated that the "window of opportunity for dialogue" is now "ajar."

Russian forces are conducting a battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign against Ukrainian ground lines of communications (GLOCs) in northern Kharkiv Oblast, likely to disrupt Ukrainian logistics to eventually facilitate battlefield gains. The Kharkiv Oblast Infrastructure Restoration and Development Service reported on December 7 that Russian forces struck a bridge near Staryi Saltiv (east of Kharkiv City and roughly 16 kilometers from the front line), forcing Ukrainian authorities to close the T-2111 Chuhuiv-Velykyi Burluk road near Pechenihy (southeast of Kharkiv City and roughly 40 kilometers from the front line) and the T-2104 Kharkiv City-Vovchansk-Chuhunivka highway near Staryi Saltiv.[4] Pechenizkyi Hromada Head Oleksandr Husarov reported on December 7 that Russian forces also conducted a missile strike against the Pechenihy Reservoir Dam, forcing Ukrainian authorities to suspend traffic across the dam.[5] Geolocated footage published on December 7 shows damage to the dam after the Russian strike.[6] Russian strikes on the bridge and dam likely aim to degrade Ukrainian GLOCs supplying the Vovchansk, Velykyi Burluk, and Kupyansk directions. Ukrainian forces were reportedly prepared for this scenario, such that the effectiveness of these Russian strikes on Ukrainian logistics may be limited. The Ukrainian 16th Army Corps reported on December 7 that Russian forces have long been systematically targeting the Pechenihy Reservoir Dam with missiles, Shahed-type drones, guided glide bombs, Molniya drones, and first-person view (FPV) drones but have only started to destroy the area in recent days.[7] The 16th Army Corps noted that Ukrainian forces have long been aware of the potential risks to the dam and developed contingency plans and backup routes in the event of significant damage to the dam. Russia’s BAI campaigns involve strikes against targets in the near rear and operational rear, such as roads, railways and bridges that support Ukrainian GLOCs.[8] Russia's BAI campaigns aim to facilitate subsequent Russian offensive operations in the weeks and months that follow by degrading Ukraine’s ability to sustain front line defenses. Russian strikes targeting the operational rear of the Kharkiv, Velykyi Burluk, and Kupyansk directions may aim to replicate these effects in these sectors of the front as part of preparation for intensified offensive operations. Russian forces have notably been unable to replicate the successes their months-long BAI campaign brought about in the Pokrovsk direction in other sectors of the front, however, possibly because Russia can only dedicate the necessary assets to generate these effects at scale in a single operational area at a time.[9]

Russian forces also intensified strikes against bridges near the Zaporizhia-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border. Geolocated footage published on December 6 shows Russian drone strikes against a mined bridge across the Haichur River in central Andriivka (southwest of Oleksandrivka and north of Hulyaipole).[10] ISW continues to assess that Russia’s ability to cross the Haichur River will likely be the determining factor in its ability to make operationally significant advances further westward.[11] Russian forces may have destroyed the bridge in Andriivka in order to disrupt supplies to and isolate Ukrainian forces on the river's east bank and facilitate Russian advances in the area south of the river near Oleksandrivka. The bridge strike suggests that Russian forces are confident that they will be able to cross the river at another point or will be able to rebuild the Andriivka crossing in the future.

Balloons from Belarusian airspace continue incursions into NATO airspace in Lithuania. The Vilnius International Airport reported that it temporarily suspended operations on December 6 due to an unspecified number of balloons flying towards the airport from Belarusian airspace.[12] Lithuanian authorities have not named an actor behind the latest balloon incursion as of this writing, but aerial incursions from Belarus have forced the Vilnius International Airport to suspend operations several times in recent months.[13] ISW continues to assess that Russia is increasingly engaging in covert and overt attacks against Europe and that the ongoing airspace violations are likely part of “Phase Zero” — Russia’s broader informational and psychological condition-setting phase — to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[14] ISW continues to assess that Belarus is Russia’s de facto cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine, such that Belarusian incursions into NATO airspace are very likely part of Russia’s broader Phase Zero effort.[15]

Key Takeaways:

• The Kremlin positively reacted to the recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS).
• Russian forces are conducting a battlefield air interdiction (BAI) campaign against Ukrainian ground lines of communications (GLOCs) in northern Kharkiv Oblast, likely to disrupt Ukrainian logistics to eventually facilitate battlefield gains.
• Balloons from Belarusian airspace continue incursions into NATO airspace in Lithuania.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced near Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 6, 2025 

Russian forces launched 704 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 5 to 6, heavily targeting railway and energy infrastructure across the country. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 653 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other drones, of which over 300 were Shaheds, from the directions of Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk cities; Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai; and occupied Cape Chauda, Crimea.[1] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces also launched three Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from the airspace over Ryazan and Tambov oblasts; 34 Kh-101/Iskander-K/Kalibr cruise missiles from Rostov Oblast and the Black Sea area; and 14 Iskander-M/KN-23 ballistic missiles from Bryansk and Rostov oblasts, Krasnodar Krai, and occupied Crimea. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 585 drones, 29 cruise missiles, and one ballistic missile; that an unspecified number of missiles and 60 drones hit 29 locations; and that debris fell on three locations.

Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces struck civilian rail, energy, residential, and port infrastructure in Kyiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Chernihiv, Zaporizhia, Odesa, Lviv, Volyn, and Mykolaiv oblasts.[2] Ukraine's Energy Ministry reported that Russian forces struck electricity generation, distribution, and transmission facilities throughout Ukraine.[3] The Ukrainian Energy Ministry reported that the Russian strikes caused power outages in Odesa, Chernihiv, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Mykolaiv oblasts on the morning of December 6, leading to energy restrictions and rolling blackouts across the country. Ukrainian State Inspectorate for Energy Supervision Deputy Head Anatoliy Zamulko reported that Russian forces struck facilities that redistribute electricity between Ukrainian regions, forcing Ukrainian nuclear power plants (NPPs) to reduce their electricity generation capacity.[4] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported that Russian drone strikes destroyed the Fastiv Rail Station in Kyiv Oblast.[5] Ukrainian railway operator Ukrzaliznytsia reported that the Russian strikes against the station disrupted suburban routes, forcing Ukrainian authorities to limit railway operations.[6] Ukrzaliznytsia Chairperson Oleksandr Pertsovsky noted that the Russian strikes did not hit cargo trains but rather Fastiv Station and electric commuter trains that connect Kyiv City with its suburbs.[7] Ukrainian Internal Affairs Minister Ihor Klymenko reported that Russian forces also struck food and medicine warehouses in Kyiv, Volyn, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts.[8]

The US and Ukrainian negotiating delegations agreed that any progress toward peace talks to end the war in Ukraine is dependent on Russia’s readiness to demonstrate a good-faith commitment to long-term peace.[9] The US Department of State and Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov issued a joint statement about the December 4-5 US-Ukrainian talks.[10] The statement noted that the delegations worked to find a “credible path” toward a durable and just peace in Ukraine. Umerov reaffirmed Ukraine's priority to secure a peace settlement that protects Ukraine's independence and sovereignty, ensures the safety of Ukrainians, and provides a stable foundation for Ukraine's prosperous democratic future. The delegations agreed on the framework of security arrangements; discussed the deterrence capabilities necessary for a lasting peace; and reviewed the agenda to support Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, joint US-Ukrainian economic initiatives, and long-term recovery projects. Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi stated in an interview with Sky News published on December 6 that there can only be a just peace if there is a ceasefire along the current front lines, after which Russia and Ukraine can conduct negotiations.[11]

Ukrainian forces continue to hold positions within Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad while Russian forces are complicating Ukrainian logistics in the area. Geolocated footage published on December 6 shows three Ukrainian servicemembers raising a flag on Yakuba Kolasa Alley in northern Pokrovsk, indicating that Ukrainian forces still maintain positions within the town.[12] Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi also stated in an interview with Sky News published on December 6 that Ukrainian forces maintain positions in northern Pokrovsk.[13] Additional geolocated footage published on December 6 shows Russian forces striking a Ukrainian drone launcher in Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk), an area in which Russian sources previously claimed that Russian forces maintained a presence.[14] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger acknowledged that Ukrainian forces maintain limited positions within Myrnohrad.[15] The chief of staff of a Ukrainian drone battalion told The Telegraph in an article published on December 6 that Ukrainian and Russian forces in Pokrovsk are operating in “pockets” close to each other as Ukrainian and Russian positions are interspersed among neighboring buildings.[16] The chief of staff noted that there is no discernible front line in the area, in line with indicators that Russian forces have infiltrated between Ukrainian positions into Myrnohrad and northern Pokrovsk. Russian forces continue to hinder Ukrainian logistics in this direction, however. A Ukrainian drone unit servicemember stated to The Telegraph that unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are an insufficient replacement for logistics via manned vehicles, as the UGVs carry less cargo than traditional vehicles and often only survive a few missions before Russian forces destroy them. Ukrainian sources have recently noted that Ukrainian forces maintain limited logistics in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket, but Russian forces very likely can disrupt narrow Ukrainian exfiltration routes and ground lines of communication (GLOCs) with artillery and drones.[17] ISW continues to assess that available open-source information indicates that Russian forces have not completed the encirclement of Ukrainian forces in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket but are attempting to completely deny Ukrainian tactical and operational level logistics in the area, even as Ukrainian forces maintain limited positions within both towns.[18]

A February 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) rendered the protective structure of the NPP unable to fulfill its primary safety functions. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi stated on December 5 that an IAEA inspection team confirmed during the week of November 28 to December 5 that the February 14, 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl NPP severely damaged the New Safe Confinement (NSC) structure enclosing the remains of the plant's reactor No.4 such that the NSC can no longer fulfill its primary safety functions, including its confinement capabilities.[19] Grossi added that the plant requires comprehensive repairs to “ensure long-term nuclear safety.” The Kremlin has periodically conducted information operations aimed at portraying Ukraine as endangering the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia NPP (ZNPP), but continued Russian strikes and shelling against Ukrainian NPPs, as well as Russia's consistent mismanagement of the ZNPP, highlight that Russia remains the actual danger to Ukrainian NPPs.[20]

The Kremlin appears to be increasingly leaning on India to alleviate domestic labor shortages and is setting conditions for India to support drone production for Russia's war effort. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov announced on December 5 that Russia may accept an “unlimited number” of migrant workers from India under the new bilateral labor mobility agreement signed on December 5 in New Delhi.[21] Manturov stated that Russian manufacturing industries have a labor shortage of 800,000 workers, and that Russian trade, construction, and service industries have a labor shortage of 1.5 million workers. Manturov stated that it will likely take Russia well over a year to set the conditions necessary to accept, employ, and process many Indian migrants. Kherson Oblast occupation head Vladimir Saldo stated on December 6 that regional occupation authorities discussed possible business cooperation with Indian partners at a recent international investment forum.[22] Saldo stated that occupation authorities are ready to attract Indian migrant workers to strengthen the region's agricultural industry and to work with Indian partners to integrate occupied Kherson Oblast into international trade corridors.

Head of the Russian state-owned defense conglomerate Rostec, Sergey Chemezov, stated on December 5 that Russia is in discussions with India to localize production of Russian drones, such as Lancet loitering munitions, in India.[23] Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an interview on December 4 to English-language news magazine India Today, wherein he highlighted that Russia is not just selling military equipment to India but also sharing technology for shipbuilding and missile and aircraft manufacturing.[24] Putin stated that India uses Russian Su-57 fighter aircraft and produces Russian T-90 tanks and Russian-Indian BrahMos cruise missiles in India. Putin and Chemezov's statements suggest that the Kremlin is considering expanding joint weapon production in India to drones that Russia would very likely use on the battlefield in Ukraine, possibly in exchange for Russian technological innovations and lessons learned in Ukraine. A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger notably reported on December 5 that a delegation of the Smolensk Oblast First Person View (FPV) Drone Piloting Center arrived in India to complete objectives within the framework of the Russian-Indian strategic partnership.[25] The milblogger added that the center has already started training the first international FPV drone piloting group in Russia in cooperation with Smolensk Oblast Medical University and arrived in Goa, India to discuss training for Indian drone operations with the Indian Sport Ministry.[26]

India's increased partnerships with Russia come against the backdrop of Russia's growing reliance on North Korea and the People's Republic of China (PRC) to support the war in Ukraine. Russia is reportedly localizing Garpiya drone production in the PRC, and PRC-origin drone components have been critical in Russia's efforts to adapt its drones to gain battlefield advantages.[27] North Korea has reportedly started mass production of short range FPV drones and medium range strike drones in North Korea, possibly to provide to Russia in the future,  and has provided Russia with soldiers, artillery shells, and missiles.[28] Russia is also reportedly relying on North Korea for migrant workers, including to work at Russia's Alabuga Special Economic Zone (ASEZ) in the Republic of Tatarstan to produce Shahed-type drones.[29] North Korea, in turn, is also receiving direct combat experience operating drones in exchange for its materiel, manpower, and labor support.[30]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian forces launched 704 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 5 to 6, heavily targeting railway and energy infrastructure across the country.
• The US and Ukrainian negotiating delegations agreed that any progress toward peace talks to end the war in Ukraine is dependent on Russia’s readiness to demonstrate a good faith commitment to long-term peace.
• Ukrainian forces continue to hold positions within Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad while Russian forces are complicating Ukrainian logistics in the area.
• A February 2025 Russian drone strike on the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) rendered the protective structure of the NPP unable to fulfill its primary safety functions.
• The Kremlin appears to be increasingly leaning on India to alleviate domestic labor shortages and is setting conditions for India to support drone production for Russia's war effort.
• India's increased partnerships with Russia come against the backdrop of Russia's growing reliance on North Korea and the People's Republic of China (PRC) to support the war in Ukraine.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area and near Novopavlivka and Oleksandrivka. Russian forces recently marginally advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 5, 2025 

US and Ukrainian officials continued peace talks to end the war in Ukraine in Miami, Florida on December 4 and 5. Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov and Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff Major General Andriy Hnatov met with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner in Miami, Florida on December 4 and 5 to continue discussing a possible peace settlement.[1] A source with knowledge of the negotiations told Axios that Witkoff and Kushner briefed the Ukrainian delegation on the December 2 Witkoff-Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting.[2] Umerov previously led the Ukrainian delegation in talks with US negotiators in Hallandale Beach, Florida on November 30.[3] Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov stated on December 5 that Russia is waiting on a response to the December 2 talks.[4] ISW will continue to monitor for more information about the ongoing peace negotiations process.

Available open-source information indicates that Russian forces have not encircled Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad as of December 5 as Russian forces continue efforts to complete the encirclement of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket. Geolocated footage published on December 4 indicates that Russian forces recently advanced north and southeast of Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk.[5] Additional geolocated footage published on December 4 indicates that Russian forces also infiltrated into positions in northwestern Pokrovsk.[6] These geolocations are not yet dispositive that Russian forces have achieved a complete land encirclement of Ukrainian forces in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket, however. Commander of the Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces, Commander Brigadier General Yevhen Lasiychuk, reported on December 5 that Russian forces have not encircled the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket and that Ukrainian forces hold northern Pokrovsk and maintain positions in central Pokrovsk.[7]  Lasiychuk noted that Russian forces are avoiding urban warfare and are instead attempting to bypass Pokrovsk from its flanks. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces will very likely complete the seizure of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad after a 21-month campaign, though the timing and operational implications of these seizures remain unclear at this time.[8] Although ISW has not observed visual evidence or official Ukrainian reports to assess that Russian forces have encircled Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad, the situation is likely extremely difficult, and Russian forces very likely can disrupt narrow Ukrainian exfiltration routes and ground lines of communication (GLOCs) with artillery and drones.

Russian forces are attempting to completely deny Ukrainian tactical- and operational-level logistics to the Pokrovsk direction using drones to achieve effects of battlefield air interdiction (BAI). A Ukrainian artillery battalion commander operating in the Pokrovsk direction reported on December 5 that Russian forces are using drones in an attempt to interdict Ukrainian GLOCS within a 50-kilometer range of Pokrovsk but that Ukrainian forces are attempting to mitigate.[9] Lasiychuk  noted that Ukrainian forces are able to supply and conduct rotations into the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket and are working to widen the GLOC north of the pocket.[10] Russia’s evolving campaign design relies on achieving partial effects battlefield air interdiction (BAI) against Ukrainian logistics at an operational depth (about 25 to 100 kilometers) over several months to degrade Ukrainian defensive abilities such that Russian forces can advance more easily against a degraded Ukrainian forces.[11] Russian forces have dedicated elite drone units, such as the Rubikon Center for Advanced Unmanned Technologies, to striking Ukrainian logistics and drone operators at operational depths.[12] A successful Russian BAI campaign within a 50-kilometer range of Pokrovsk would also impact Ukrainian logistics into the Kramatorsk, Kostyantynivka, and Novopavlivka directions and would likely enable more rapid Russian advances, especially if Russian forces managed to replicate campaign successes in other areas of the frontline.

Ukrainian forces continue to strike Russian oil and defense industrial base (DIB) infrastructure. The Ukrainian General Staff reported on December 5 that Ukrainian forces struck an unspecified facility and caused a fire at the Temyruk seaport in Krasnodar Krai, which houses liquified natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, ships, and other cargo.[13] The Ukrainian General Staff noted that the battle damage assessment (BDA) is ongoing. A Krasnodar Krai government source reported on December 5 that a Ukrainian drone strike damaged port infrastructure in Temyruk and caused a fire covering an area of 1,350 square kilometers.[14] The Ukraine General Staff also reported that Ukrainian strikes damaged an installation and caused a fire at the Syzran Oil Refinery in Samara Oblast, which has an annual processing capacity of seven to 8.9 million tons of oil.[15] Ukrainian Unmanned Systems Forces (USF) Commander Major Robert “Magyar” Brovdi reported that Ukrainian forces also struck the Balashovskaya electrical substation in Volgograd Oblast.[16]

The Ukrainian General Staff confirmed on December 4 that Ukrainian forces struck the Nevinnomyssk Azot Chemical Plant in Nevinnomyssk, Stavropol Krai on the night of December 3 to 4.[17] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the Nevinnomyssk Azot Chemical Plant is a critical part of the Russian DIB with a production capacity of over one million tons of ammonia and up to 1.4 million tons of ammonium nitrate per year — making the plant a key supplier of basic components for explosives and ammunition products for the Russian military. The Ukrainian General Staff reported on December 5 that a recent Ukrainian strike against Saratov Oil Refinery, Saratov Oblast, likely referring to a strike overnight on November 27 to 28, damaged the refinery’s ELOU-AVT-6 primary oil purification unit.[18] The Ukrainian General Staff noted that Ukrainian strikes forced the Saratov Oil Refinery to suspend crude oil processing as of December 2025 and that the refinery is operating at under 50 percent of its capacity.

Five unidentified drones flew over a major French nuclear submarine base on the evening of December 4 amid increasing reports of drones flying over European military infrastructure. French Defense Minister Catherine Vautrin confirmed on December 5 that the French military used unspecified means to intercept the drones over the Île Longue base in Finistère, which houses France’s four nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).[19] French military sources told Agence France-Presse that French marines opened fire on the drones, but other French media sources suggested that French authorities attempted to jam the drones.[20] French officials have not officially attributed the drones to a specific actor as of this writing. Several sources noted that an unspecified number of drones also flew over the Crozon peninsula — where the Île Longue base is located — on the evening of November 17 to 18 but the drones did not enter restricted military airspace.[21] The December 4 drone sightings are part of a newly observed pattern of aerial incursions into NATO airspace, possibly with the purpose of reconnoitering known European military bases and defense infrastructure.[22] ISW continues to assess that Russia is increasingly engaging in covert and overt attacks against Europe and that ongoing Russian and suspected Russian airspace violations are likely part of Russia’s “Phase Zero” effort — Russia's broader informational and psychological condition-setting effort that aims to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[23]

Russian forces committed a war crime in the Siversk direction. Geolocated footage published on December 2 shows a soldier of the Russian 88th Motorized Rifle Brigade (3rd Combined Arms Army [CAA], formerly 2nd Luhansk People’s Republic Army Corps [LNR AC], Southern Military District [SMD]) executing a Ukrainian prisoner-of-war (POW) with his hands raised in surrender in Svyato-Pokrovske (southwest of Siversk).[24] A Russian Telegram channel claiming to be the official channel of the Russian 3rd CAA notably published the footage of the execution and characterized Russian forces’ murder of a Ukrainian POW as “humane treatment.”[25] ISW has observed an increase in Russian war crimes in directions where Russian forces are beginning to intensify offensive operations and infiltrating into towns, and Russian forces recently began infiltration operations in Siversk.[26] ISW continues to assess that the Russian military command is endorsing and sometimes ordering war crimes on the battlefield and that Russia is torturing and abusing Ukrainian civilian prisoners as part of the wider military modus operandi.[27]

Key Takeaways:

• US and Ukrainian officials continued peace talks to end the war in Ukraine in Miami, Florida on December 4 and 5.
• Available open-source information indicates that Russian forces have not encircled Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad as of December 5 as Russian forces continue efforts to complete the encirclement of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket.
• Russian forces are attempting to completely deny Ukrainian tactical- and operational-level logistics to the Pokrovsk direction using drones to achieve effects of battlefield air interdiction (BAI).
• Ukrainian forces continue to strike Russian oil and defense industrial base (DIB) infrastructure.
• Five unidentified drones flew over a major French nuclear submarine base on the evening of December 4 amid increasing reports of drones flying over European military infrastructure.
• Russian forces committed a war crime in the Siversk direction.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Novopavlivka. Russian forces recently advanced near Borova and Pokrovsk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 4, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his commitment to his original war aims from 2021 and 2022 and unwillingness to compromise during an interview with Indian media – likely as part of the Kremlin’s efforts to shape the international information space during the ongoing negotiations process. Putin gave an interview to India Today English-language news magazine ahead of his December 4 state visit to India.[i] Putin stated that Russia will end its war in Ukraine when it achieves the goals that Putin set forth at the start of the full-scale invasion. Putin stated that Ukraine must understand that the "best way" to solve the war is for Ukraine to agree to a peace settlement like the one Russia tried to impose on Ukraine in 2022 – referencing the 2022 Istanbul agreement that amounted to Ukraine's full capitulation.[ii] Putin responded to a question about what constitutes a victory for Russia, stating that Russia wants to "protect" ethnic Russians, the Russian language, and the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine – justifications the Kremlin has often used for its demand for the removal of the current Ukrainian government and its replacement with a pro-Russian government.[iii] Putin also demanded that NATO not expand further, essentially calling for a revocation of NATO's Open Door Policy and return to NATO's 1997 borders. ISW continues to assess that Putin, in part, launched his full-scale invasion in order to destroy NATO and seize control of all of Ukraine, and Putin's original war demands notably include not only demands of Ukraine but of NATO and the West as well.[iv]

Putin is attempting to falsely frame his war aims as solely geographically limited to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Putin falsely claimed that Russia "had no choice" but to recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DNR and LNR), that he offered Ukraine to withdraw its forces from all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts to avoid hostilities in 2022, and that Ukraine subsequently refused. Putin claimed that Russia will now either seize all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts through military means or Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the areas of the two oblasts that Ukraine still controls. Putin's focus during the December 4 interview on Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts ignores the way that his full-scale invasion initially sought to capture far more territory than just those two regions, including Kyiv City, and to fully control Ukraine through a Kremlin-installed government. Russia had to rescope its strategy after its failure to take Kyiv City to focus instead on more limited operations in eastern Ukraine.

Putin attempted to obfuscate his rejection of the latest US peace proposal in the December 4 interview. Putin discussed the December 2 meeting with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner, claiming that the peace proposals from the US delegation were "in one way or another" based on the agreements from Putin's previous meeting with US President Donald Trump in Alaska. Putin stated that there were points in the US-proposal to which Russia could not agree, but that he would not offer more specifics so as to not "disrupt" Trump's peace process. ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin is purposely refraining from publicly discussing the December 2 meeting in order to obfuscate Russia's rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal that did not concede to all of Russia’s absolutist war demands.[v]

Other Kremlin officials continued to publicly display their commitment to Putin's original war aims. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky stated that Russia will not change its "basic" demands, including the prohibition of NATO membership for Ukraine and Ukraine's demilitarization (Ukraine’s disarmament such that Ukraine cannot defend itself in the future) and denazification (a term the Kremlin uses to call for the removal of the current Ukrainian government).[vi] Slutsky claimed that Russia can "entirely" achieve this "baseline" on the battlefield. State Duma Defense Committee Member Andrei Kolesnik claimed that Ukraine could lose its statehood, not just territory, such that it is "better" for Ukraine to reach a negotiated settlement before "things will get worse."[vii] ISW continues to assess that the Kremlin has been engaged in widespread cognitive warfare efforts in the lead up to and during the ongoing negotiations process that aims to paint a Russian victory on the battlefield as imminent and inevitable, such that Ukraine and the West should give in to Russia's demands now.[viii] Russian military victory is not imminent or inevitable, however, and the West maintains significant agency in how Russia’s war against Ukraine ends.[ix]

The Kremlin is setting conditions to frame any future agreement to not attack and seize Odesa and Mykolaiv cities as an alleged Russian "concession" in peace negotiations, even though Russia is currently incapable of seizing these cities. Russian State Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlev claimed on December 3 that Russian commanders have not been publicly reporting on activity in the Kherson direction recently because Russian forces are "deliberately" not intensifying offensive operations there.[x] Zhuravlev claimed that Russian forces "definitely could" intensify in the area and then could launch an offensive on Odesa and Mykolaiv cities such that Ukraine would have "no other major cities left on the Black Sea coast." Zhuravlev threatened that Russian forces could use occupied Crimea as a launch point for such offensive operations "both on land and at sea." Zhuravlev further claimed that Ukrainian authorities are discriminating against Russian-speakers in Odesa, Kherson, and Mykolaiv cities and that residents in Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts would vote to "join" Russia should there be referenda in those regions – calling back to the sham referenda that Russia held in Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson oblasts in 2022 to justify its illegal annexation of the four regions.[xi] High-ranking Kremlin officials, including Putin himself, have recently reignited the longstanding Russian narratives about Russia's claim to Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts.[xii] These Kremlin statements in the past days are likely part of a cognitive warfare effort aimed at influencing the ongoing peace negotiations. Russian forces are notably not in a position to make such large-scale advances to take Odesa or Mykolaiv cities either by land or sea. Russian forces would need to deprioritize other sectors to deploy a significant force grouping to successfully cross the Dnipro River and make significant advances westward and northward over land - an exceedingly difficult undertaking.[xiii] Ukrainian forces have also significantly damaged and denied further usage of the Black Sea Fleet's (BSF) landing ships that Russian forces would need for an amphibious invasion, while also pushing the BSF out of the northwestern Black Sea.[xiv] The Kremlin may be setting conditions to "relinquish" its demands for these territories in the future in order to create the impression that the Kremlin is making "concessions" during negotiations.

The Kremlin may also be incorporating threats of kinetic action into this cognitive warfare effort surrounding Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts. Putin responded to an alleged Ukrainian attack against a Russian-flagged tanker off the coast of Turkey on December 2, threatening to strike Ukrainian ports, ships traveling to Ukrainian ports, and vessels of states helping Ukraine.[xv] Putin also threatened to cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea – possibly threatening to seize territory in Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and Ukrainian Navy Spokesperson Captain Third Rank Dmytro Pletenchuk assessed, however, that Russia may have staged the attack.[xvi] The Kremlin may also try to present a Russian agreement to refrain from striking Ukrainian ports and vessels on the Black Sea as an alleged "compromise" in negotiations. ISW continues to assess that Putin remains committed to his goal of taking control of all of Ukraine, however. Any putative Kremlin "concession" agreeing to abandon efforts to seize Odesa and Mykolaiv cities would be a short-term negotiating tactic, not a shift in the Kremlin's long-standing strategic goals.

ISW has not observed evidence to suggest that Russian forces have encircled Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk) as some Ukrainian sources continue to indicate that Ukrainian forces maintain limited ground lines of communication (GLOCs) into Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad. Ukrainian media outlet Hromadske reported on December 3 that Ukrainian servicemembers stated that Russian forces encircled Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad as of November 29, and one of the sources stated that Ukrainian forces in the area have not rotated since November 12.[xvii] A source told Hromadske that Ukrainian attempts to relieve the encirclement have been partially successful. The source also indicated that Ukrainian forces could hold Myrnohrad if Ukrainian forces retook Chervonyi (Krasnyi) Lyman (north of Myrnohrad) and Rodynske (just northwest of Chervonyi Lyman). Ukraine's 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces Spokesperson Colonel Volodymyr Polevyi refuted claims that Russian forces had surrounded Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad, reporting that Ukrainian forces continue to conduct rotations and limited logistics within the town.[xviii] ISW has not observed visual evidence or official Ukrainian reports to assess that Russian forces have encircled Ukrainian forces in Myrnohrad, though the situation is likely extremely difficult, and Russian forces very likely can disrupt narrow Ukrainian exfiltration routes and GLOCs with artillery and drones.

Ukrainian forces are still operating within Pokrovsk as Russian forces continue infiltration missions in the area. Ukrainian military officials, including the Ukrainian General Staff and Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi, reported on December 4 that Ukrainian forces maintain a presence within Pokrovsk and even hold unspecified areas of the town.[xix] Geolocated footage published on December 1 and 3 shows two Russian servicemembers unconfidently operating north of Pokrovsk and two operating in central Rivne (between Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad).[xx] The spokesperson of a Ukrainian brigade operating in the Pokrovsk direction reported on December 4 that Russian forces are infiltrating in fireteams of two to three personnel into northern Pokrovsk during poor weather conditions.[xxi] The spokesperson stated that the Russian military command has concentrated roughly 150,000 personnel in the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad area, about 11,000 to 12,000 of which are conducting assaults. The spokesperson stated that Russian drones are complicating Ukrainian logistics but that Ukrainian forces have been able to conduct several rotations and bring in supplies in the past few days.

Russia appears to have launched a new cognitive warfare campaign aimed at spreading narratives about Russian preparations for an offensive on Chernihiv City against the backdrop of the ongoing peace negotiations. Ukrainian Center for Combatting Disinformation Head Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko warned on December 4 that Russian sources are spreading narratives about Russian forces purportedly preparing for offensive operations against Chernihiv City.[xxii] Kovalenko observed that these narratives emerged against the backdrop of the US-led peace effort and noted that the claims aim to put additional pressure on Ukrainian society and imitate a Russian ability to simultaneously advance on multiple fronts. Kovalenko stated that Russia does not have the manpower or materiel required for an assault on Chernihiv City and that Ukrainian forces have been repelling Russian provocations in Chernihiv Oblast. Kovalenko recalled that Russia launched similar cognitive warfare campaigns against Kharkiv and Sumy cities in the past but that Ukrainian forces prevented Russian forces from advancing to these cities. ISW observed on December 3 and 4 a limited number of milbloggers vaguely implying that Russian forces are preparing for offensive operations against Chernihiv City.[xxiii] The Kremlin may start widely amplifying this narrative as part of its consolidated cognitive warfare campaign aimed at convincing Ukraine and the West to capitulate to Russia's demands that it cannot secure militarily.[xxiv]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated his commitment to his original war aims from 2021 and 2022 and unwillingness to compromise during an interview with Indian media – likely as part of the Kremlin’s efforts to shape the international information space during the ongoing negotiations process.
• Other Kremlin officials continued to publicly display their commitment to Putin's original war aims.
• The Kremlin is setting conditions to frame any future agreement to not attack and seize Odesa and Mykolaiv cities as an alleged Russian "concession" in peace negotiations, even though Russia is currently incapable of seizing these cities.
• ISW has not observed evidence to suggest that Russian forces have encircled Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk) as some Ukrainian sources continue to indicate that Ukrainian forces maintain limited ground lines of communication (GLOCs) into Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.
• Russia appears to have launched a new cognitive warfare campaign aimed at spreading narratives about Russian preparations for an offensive on Chernihiv City against the backdrop of the ongoing peace negotiations.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Oleksandrivka and Hulyaipole. Russian forces recently advanced near Velykyi Burluk, Kupyansk, Lyman, Siversk, Novopavlivka in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 3, 2025 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory and negotiating tactics assume that Russia can outlast the West and Ukraine in a war of attrition. Rubio stated on December 2 in an interview with Fox News that Putin appears to be the "most difficult" party in the peace negotiations process.[1] Rubio amplified Putin's recent statement that Russia will "achieve its objectives" no matter the cost or timeline and noted that this is Putin's "actual mentality" about his war in Ukraine. Putin's long held theory of victory for the war in Ukraine is predicated on the assumption that the Russian military and economy can outlast and overcome both Western support for Ukraine and Ukraine’s own ability to continue defending itself against Russian aggression.[2] Rubio stated that it is not realistic for Russia to continue its war for another "four or five years" and emphasized that Russia holds less Ukrainian territory currently than it did in the first few months of the full scale invasion in early 2022. Ukrainian forces have notably retaken over 50 percent of the territory that Russian forces have seized since 2022, and Russia's economy is facing several issues that will likely continue to affect its ability to continue a war of attrition in the medium to long term.[3]

Russian officials continue to falsely frame recent Russian advances on the battlefield as an indication that a Russian victory is imminent and inevitable. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov stated on December 3 that Russian forces' successes had a "positive impact" on the December 2 meeting between Putin and a US delegation in Moscow and that Russian advances have given the West a "more accurate assessment" of the "paths to achieving" peace in Ukraine.[4] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee Chairperson Leonid Slutsky claimed on December 3 that Western officials are changing their negotiating positions given Russia's successes on the front.[5] The Kremlin's claims about, and overinflation of, Russian battlefield gains and their impact on the negotiating process support Putin's theory of victory for a protracted war. Putin and other high ranking Kremlin officials have recently intensified their cognitive warfare efforts that aggrandize battlefield claims to convince the United States that Russia is winning in Ukraine, such that Ukraine and the West should acquiesce to Russian demands now during negotiations.

Kremlin officials continued to refuse to publicly discuss the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russia meeting, as ISW previously forecasted. Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa stated on December 3 that Russia is holding the talks with the United States “confidentially” to prevent outside forces from “exerting pressure” on the negotiations.[6] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov similarly stated that Russia will conduct the negotiations “in silence” and claimed that the negotiations will be more successful if they are private.[7] Peskov also claimed that Russia hopes the United States will adhere to Russia’s preference not to divulge information about the negotiations. ISW previously assessed that the Kremlin was preparing to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russia meeting, to obfuscate Russia’s rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.[8]

The Kremlin is reigniting narratives that Odesa City is a Russian city. Russian State Duma Deputy Dmitry Pevtsov claimed on December 3 that Russia will likely resolve the war with the "pseudo-state" Ukraine through military means so that Russians can go to their "ancestral lands" in Odesa City.[9] Former Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin claimed on November 26 that he would like Odesa and Mykolaiv cities to be a part of Russia through "voluntary" means, not military means.[10] Russian claims regarding Odesa and Mykolaiv cities come against the backdrop of Russian President Vladimir Putin's December 2 threat that Russia could cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea – possibly to set conditions to seize territory on Ukraine’s Black Sea coast in Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts.[11] These recent Russian territorial claims and threats against the Black Sea region are not new or isolated but follow repeated statements in the past, including from Putin himself.[12] Putin claimed in December 2023 that Russia historically controlled the Black Sea region and that Odesa City is a "Russian" city."[13] Russian officials last ignited their narrative that Odesa City is a Russian city during the height of the April 2025 peace negotiations, likely in an attempt to paint Russia as prepared to protract the war and seize even more territory from Ukraine, such that Ukraine and the West should give in to Russia's seemingly more limited demands now.[14] Russian officials’ renewal of these narratives in December 2025 likely aims to support the Kremlin's ongoing cognitive warfare effort to portray Russia as capable of protracting the war to achieve its goals and a Russian victory as ultimately inevitable. The Kremlin may also aim to use repeated narratives over the years about Odesa City to set conditions to justify renewed aggression against Ukraine following a future peace settlement in the name of protecting ethnic Russians and "ancestral" Russian lands. ISW continues to assess that Russia is not in a position to cross the Dnipro River, make significant advances westward, and seize Odesa City, however.[15]

Russian forces achieved the tactical breakthrough northeast and east of Hulyaipole in mid-November 2025, likely in part by concentrating and committing a force grouping comparable in size to the one operating in the Pokrovsk-Dobropillya direction. Ukrainian military observer Kostyantyn Mashovets reported that the Russian Eastern Grouping of Forces (GoF) currently operating in the Hulyaipole and Dnipropetrovsk direction is comparable in combat effectiveness and numerical strength to the Central GoF operating in the Pokrovsk and Dobropillya sectors and that the Eastern GoF may even have a greater concentration of manpower in its area of responsibility (AoR).[16] Ukrainian officials reported in November 2025 that the Russian military command committed between 170,000 to 220,000 troops to the Pokrovsk direction.[17] The Russian Eastern GoF near Hulyaipole consists of three brigades of the 35th Combined Arms Army (CAA, Eastern Military District [EMD]) operating south of Hulyaipole; one division and two brigades of the 5th CAA (EMD) operating directly east and north of Hulyaipole; two brigades of the 36th CAA (EMD) operating near Velykomykhailivka and southwest of Novopavlivka; and one brigade and one regiment of the 29th CAA (EMD) conducting active defense jointly with the 36th CAA.[18] The Russian military command notably strengthened the Eastern GoF in Summer-Fall 2025 by redeploying a number of elements to the area. The Russian military command redeployed elements of the 76th Airborne (VDV) Division to the Hulyaipole direction from Sumy Oblast in September 2025; elements of the 228th Motorized Rifle Regiment (90th Tank Division, 41st CAA, Central Military District [CMD]) from the Central GoF's AoR to the area between Novopavlivka and Hulyaipole; and elements of the 38th Motorized Rifle Brigade and 69th Separate Cover Brigade (both of 35th CAA, EMD) to the 5th CAA's AoR northeast and east of Hulyaipole.[19]

Mashovets assessed that the redeployment of elements of the two brigades to the 5th CAA's AoR significantly improved its combat capability, enabling the 5th CAA to develop a tactical breakthrough 17 kilometers in depth, conduct a wide river crossing over the Yanchur River near Uspenivka (northeast of Hulyaipole), and reach the outskirts of Hulyaipole from the north and northeast.[20] Mashovets speculated that the Russian military command may have committed some elements of the 49th CAA (Southern Military District [SMD]), including detachments of the 34th and 205th motorized rifle brigades or possibly elements of the 7th Military Base, to the area because the Russian military command frequently uses these elements to reinforce various GoFs - including the Dnepr GoF (operating in western Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts) and the Western GoF (operating in the Kupyansk and Lyman directions).[21] Mashovets stated that the 5th CAA presumably has two brigades in reserve and warned that Russian forces may try to redeploy elements of the 76th VDV Division or the 90th Tank Division to reinforce the 5th CAA's tactical breakthrough.[22] The commitment and redeployment of elements of several units from other frontline sectors further suggests that the recent Russian tactical breakthrough in the Hulyaipole direction is, in part, due to significant manpower concentration in the area over several months, rather than a sudden breakthrough or collapse of Ukrainian defenses as Kremlin officials have recently tried to claim.[23] This significant force concentration suggests that Russia will likely need to concentrate even more forces and deprioritize other frontline sectors to exploit tactical advances around Hulyaipole and attempt to develop them into operational successes.

The 5th CAA's tactical breakthrough north and northeast of Hulyaipole could enable Russian forces to achieve operational successes in both the Hulyaipole and Orikhiv directions. Russia's ability to exploit such a breakthrough, however, largely depends on Ukrainian resistance and denial of Russian river crossings. Elements of the 5th CAA achieved a tactical breakthrough north and northeast of Hulyaipole after seizing a tactical bridgehead over the Yanchur River near Uspenivka (on the west bank of the Yanchur River) in November 2025.[24] Ukrainian military sources reported that Russian forces were able to advance in the area using infiltration tactics and by exploiting foggy weather, which undermined Ukrainian drone operations in the area.[25] Rural terrain west of Uspenivka likely facilitated a rapid Russian advance towards the Haichur River, which flows through Hulyaipole. Ukrainian forces likely struggled to defend positions in the open fields that cover the area west of Uspenivka, allowing Russian forces to relatively rapidly advance 17 kilometers deep. Russian forces now face the challenge of crossing the Haichur River.

Russia's ability to cross the Haichur River will likely be the determining factor in its ability to make operationally significant advances further westward. Russian forces may aim to isolate and threaten an encirclement of Hulyaipole from the north and northwest. Mashovets warned that Russian advances near Danylivka (north of Hulyaipole at the junction of the Yanchur and Haichur rivers) could threaten to isolate the Ukrainian grouping in Hulyaipole from Ukrainian forces in the Pokrovske-Oleksandrivka area (north of Danylivka along the T-0401 Pokrovske-Hulyaipole highway).[26] Russian forces may aim to cross the Haichur River in the Danylivka-Dobropillya area to threaten an encirclement of Hulyaipole from the northwest. Russian forces may also aim to advance across the river to the O-081238 Rizdvyanka-Zaliznychne highway that runs west of Hulyaipole and supplies Ukrainian forces defending the town. Russian forces may further aim to advance westward from the Haichur River to threaten Ukrainian defenses in the Orikhiv direction by advancing to the T-0408 Orikhiv-Novomykolaivka highway, a major GLOC into Orikhiv. Russia's ability to cross the Haichur River is therefore critical to its ability to isolate Ukrainian groupings in both the Hulyaipole and Orikhiv areas.

Ukrainian forces have been successfully restraining the 36th CAA's advances further northeast near Velykomykhailivka, however. Mashovets noted that Ukrainian counterattacks in recent weeks have pushed elements of the 36th CAA back near Sosnivka (southeast of Velykomykhailivka and just south of the Vorona River) and allowed Ukrainian forces to maintain a bridgehead between Orestopil and Novoselivka (northwest and northeast of Sosnivka) between the Vorona and Vovcha rivers.[27] Mashovets noted that Ukrainian defenses near Oleksandrivka (west of Velykomykhailivka on the southern bank of the Vovcha River) are also holding back Russian advances to the Vovcha River and allowing Ukrainian forces to strike the C-041424 road between Voskresenka and Novoselivka (both east of Velykomykhailivka in the Russian near rear) that Russian forces use to bring supplies to the Vovcha River. Ukrainian forces have thus far prevented Russian forces from advancing to and seizing Oleksandrivka, a key settlement near the junction of the Haichur and Vovcha rivers, and Ukraine's continued successful defense of this area may complicate Russian attempts to cross the Haichur River.

High-ranking Kremlin officials continue to set conditions to justify potential future Russian aggression against Moldova and the Baltics. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed on December 3 that authorities in the Baltic states and Moldova are passing "racist" laws and are "discriminating" against the Russian population.[28] Lavrov's statement notably mirrors the narratives that the Kremlin used to try to justify its invasions of Ukraine. Russian officials have long applied the Kremlin's informational playbook used against Ukraine to threaten Moldova as well as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland.[29] ISW continues to assess that Russia has entered a "Phase Zero" effort that aims to set informational and psychological conditions to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia conflict in the future.[30]

The Kremlin is attempting to mobilize Russian and Belarusian civil societies, including Belarusian organizations and the Russian Orthodox Church, to garner support for the war in Ukraine and influence campaigns globally. Russian President Vladimir Putin met with volunteers involved in humanitarian aid deliveries in Russia and occupied Ukraine as part of the state-affiliated #MyVmeste (#WeAreTogether) international forum for civic participation on December 3.[31] Putin spoke with a veteran from occupied Donetsk Oblast who is currently involved in providing supplies to Russian servicemembers in Ukraine, and the veteran asked Putin to expand the forum's operations in Russia's "border regions," likely referring to regions bordering Ukraine as well as areas of occupied Ukraine. Putin also offered state support to a volunteer who sought to create a civil society initiative that aims to unite family members of Russian servicemembers. Putin also stated that he will talk with Russian Energy Minister Sergey Tsivilev about a proposal from a physician at the only Russian Orthodox Church's hospital, which has been treating Russian servicemembers fighting in the Pokrovsk direction and training volunteers on tactical medical treatment. The physician stated that the hospital trained over 8,000 volunteers and would like to restart a 19th and 20th century-era movement that provided battlefield treatment in occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and Crimea. The physician asked for government funding and Kremlin support to open the movement's branches in all Russian regions and occupied Ukraine.

Putin also spoke to a Belarusian Paralympian and the founder of a charitable foundation based in Belarus that supports occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. The Paralympian claimed that the foundation remained operational despite US sanctions, that many Russian volunteers travel to Belarus to support the foundation, and that the foundation is opening a rehabilitation center in Borisov, Belarus, for children who sustained injuries from mine explosions. The Paralympian asked for Putin's support for the foundation's effort to launch a separate Missiya Dobra (Mission of Good) program to advance the Russian and Belarusian Union State's humanitarian objectives in Africa, Latin America, and Europe, which had already reportedly received 500,000 rubles (about $6,500) from the Crimea occupation government. Putin also spoke to the founder of the BRICS Youth Council, who discussed how Russia sent volunteers to India and announced that the Russia-BRICS project office approved the creation of the BRICS Youth Council. Putin's meetings with various civil societies and organizations come against the backdrop of various Russian reports that civil support and crowdfunding efforts had significantly decreased over time, especially after the Kremlin began efforts to centralize control and to restrict the operations of non-government organizations (NGOs).[32] The December 3 meeting also follows Putin's November 25 decree on Russia’s “State National Policy,” which in part aims to strengthen all Russians’ civic identity, civil unity, and patriotism to ensure Russia’s national interests and to safeguard Russia’s national security.[33] ISW also assessed that Russia would leverage its control over Belarus to augment Russia's war effort and the Union State framework as a model to expand Russian influence in the former Soviet Union.[34]

Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide announced on December 3 that Norway, Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands will provide two packages totaling $500 million to Ukraine through the Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which funds NATO states’ purchases of US-made weapons for Ukraine.[35] Eide noted that Germany and Poland will provide one package, and Germany and the Netherlands will provide the second. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stated that Germany will provide $200 million toward the packages, which will provide Ukraine with essential supplies, including air defense equipment and ammunition.[36]

Key Takeaways:

• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged that Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory and negotiating tactics assume that Russia can outlast the West and Ukraine in a war of attrition.
• Kremlin officials continued to refuse to publicly discuss the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russia meeting, as ISW previously forecasted.
• The Kremlin is reigniting narratives that Odesa City is a Russian city.
• Russian forces achieved the tactical breakthrough northeast and east of Hulyaipole in mid-November 2025, likely in part by concentrating and committing a force grouping comparable in size to the one operating in the Pokrovsk-Dobropillya direction.
• The 5th CAA's tactical breakthrough north and northeast of Hulyaipole could enable Russian forces to achieve operational successes in both the Hulyaipole and Orikhiv directions. Russia's ability to exploit such a breakthrough, however, largely depends on Ukrainian resistance and denial of Russian river crossings.
• High-ranking Kremlin officials continue to set conditions to justify potential future Russian aggression against Moldova and the Baltics.
• The Kremlin is attempting to mobilize Russian and Belarusian civil societies, including Belarusian organizations and the Russian Orthodox Church, to garner support for the war in Ukraine and influence campaigns globally.
• Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine.
• Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Vovchansk, Pokrovsk, Novopavlivka, and in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area. Russian forces recently advanced near Siversk and Pokrovsk.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 2, 2025 

Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected the US-Ukrainian peace proposal during his meeting with a US delegation in Moscow on December 2 and remains highly unlikely to accept any compromises short of his original war goals. Putin, Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov, and Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) CEO Kirill Dmitriev met on December 2 with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former Senior Advisor to the US President Jared Kushner.[1] Ushakov stated after the meeting that the US and Russian delegations discussed "several options" for a peace settlement but that they did not agree on a "compromise plan."[2] Ushakov stated that some of the US proposals were acceptable to Russia but that Putin "made no secret" of Russia's critical or negative attitude about others. Ushakov stated that the parties did not discuss "specific wording or specific proposals" but discussed the "essence" of the documents that the United States "submitted to Moscow some time ago." Ushakov stated that the delegations discussed territorial issues and the "enormous prospects" for US-Russian economic cooperation. Ushakov stated that the US and Russian delegations agreed not to disclose the substance of the talks - in line with ISW's December 1 forecast that the Kremlin was planning to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the meeting to obfuscate Russia's rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.[3] High-ranking Kremlin officials, including Putin, have been consistently rejecting the 28-point peace plan and its subsequent iterations since it was first reported in mid-November 2025 because the proposed plans did not concede to all of Russia’s maximalist war demands.[4]

NBC reported on December 2, before the US-Russian meeting, that a Russian official stated that Russia will not compromise on territory in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, limits on Ukraine's military, and US and European recognition of Russia's occupation of Ukrainian territory.[5] The source reportedly stated that Russia is prepared to be flexible on "secondary issues," such as frozen Russian assets in Europe. Kremlin insider sources may have leaked information into the US information space about Russia's stance to frame Russia as willing to compromise on some "secondary issues" in return for Ukrainian and Western concessions on other issues. Russia's original war aims include the annexation of all of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts and limits on the Ukrainian military such that Ukraine cannot defend itself, while issues related to frozen Russian assets are notably not part of Russia's original war aims. Kremlin insider reports likely also aim to obfuscate Putin's actual, more extreme objective of taking control of not only all of Zaporizhia and Kherson oblasts, but of all of Ukraine.

The Kremlin intensified its cognitive warfare effort that aims to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent in the lead up to the December 2 US-Russia meeting, likely to coerce the West into accepting Russia's absolutist demands. Putin held a meeting with Russian military commanders on the evening of November 30 and answered journalists' questions on December 2, during which Putin flaunted Russia's alleged successes across the battlefield.[6] The Kremlin notably did not publish the readout of Putin's meeting with the commanders until late in the evening on December 1, suggesting that the Kremlin was trying to create informational efforts ahead of Putin's December 2 meeting with the US delegation. Putin and Russian military commanders claimed that Russian forces seized Pokrovsk, southern Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk), Vovchansk, and Kupyansk. Ukrainian officials and Russian milbloggers continued to refute these Kremlin claims, however. Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Oleksandr Syrskyi reported on December 2 that Ukrainian forces are clearing Russian forces from Kupyansk and blocking Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups' infiltration routes into the town.[7] Ukraine's Joint Forces Task Force reported that Ukrainian forces control most of Kupyansk and that Russian groups only maintain a presence in the northern part.[8] Ukrainian military officials reported that Ukrainian forces maintain positions within Vovchansk and Pokrovsk, and a Russian milblogger acknowledged that Ukrainian forces remain in northern Pokrovsk.[9]

Putin and the Russian military commanders amplified Russian successes in the Lyman, Siversk, Kostyantynivka, Hulyaipole, and Orikhiv directions, and Putin noted that Russian forces "entirely" maintain the initiative across the front.[10] Putin stated that the Russian military command must provide Russian troops with "everything they need" for winter operations – implying that Russia is prepared to continue hostilities to achieve its goals militarily. Putin's long held theory of victory is predicated on the assumption that Russian forces will be able to indefinitely continue gradual advances, prevent Ukraine from regaining any territory, outlast Western support for Ukraine and Ukrainian ability to resist Russian aggression, and ultimately win a war of attrition.[11] Putin's aggrandized battlefield claims are part of his wider efforts to convince the West that Russia can outlast Ukraine, such that Ukraine and the West should acquiesce to Russian demands now during negotiations.

Putin exaggerated Russia's claimed seizure of Pokrovsk as strategically important for large scale breakthroughs. ISW has not observed evidence to confirm the complete Russian seizure of Pokrovsk, but Russia's seizure of the town in the near future is unlikely to produce rapid Russian advances. Putin claimed on December 2 that Pokrovsk is a “good base” for achieving all the objectives that Putin set at the beginning of the war.[12] Putin claimed that Pokrovsk offers Russian forces the ability to advance in "any direction" that the Russian General Staff “deems most promising.” Putin’s statements overestimate the ease with which Russian forces will be able to conduct large-scale breakthroughs from Pokrovsk. Russian forces will likely face several challenges when advancing from Pokrovsk. Ukrainian forces have a series of effective field fortifications to the west, north, and northeast of Pokrovsk that will complicate Russian advances from Pokrovsk.[13] Russian forces have also recently exploited periods of foggy and rainy weather that hinder the operability of Ukrainian drones to advance in various areas of the front line, but these weather conditions will not persist indefinitely.[14] Russian forces will additionally face terrain and water features that complicate Russia’s ability to rapidly maneuver. Russian forces notably previously failed to make operationally significant advances in the Dobropillya direction as they struggled to widen the deep but narrow penetration and maintain supplies to Russian forces in the area.[15] Elements of the Russian 51st Combined Arms Army (CAA, former 1st Donetsk People’s Republic Army Corps [DNR AC], Southern Military District [SMD]) also notably struggled to close the northern shoulder of the Russian encirclement of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket while also defending against Ukrainian counterattacks in the Dobropillya direction, and Russia will likely face similar problems advancing from Pokrovsk.[16] Russian forces operating in the Pokrovsk direction are also likely severely degraded, having suffered significant losses in recent months.[17] ISW previously assessed that the Russian seizure of Pokrovsk would achieve an operationally significant effect of depriving Ukraine of its use of Pokrovsk as a logistics hub, but that Russia had already achieved this objective by July 2025.[18] The further operational significance of a Russian seizure of Pokrovsk will depend on the nature of Ukrainian withdrawal, Ukrainian defenses beyond Pokrovsk, and the availability of necessary combat power to exploit the collapse of the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad pocket. A Russian seizure of Pokrovsk will not significantly alter Russia's ability to achieve Putin's objective of imminently seizing all of Donetsk Oblast, as Russian forces have yet to seize the Fortress Belt, Ukraine’s main defensive line in Donetsk Oblast that consists of large population centers the size of which Russia has not seized since 2022.

Putin also intensified efforts to portray the Russian economy as resilient and able to support protracted hostilities in Ukraine in the lead up to the December 2 meeting. Putin spoke at the VTB "Russia Calling!" investment forum on December 2, before he met with the US delegation, and attempted to portray the Russian economy as unaffected by Western sanctions.[19] Putin acknowledged that external pressure has impacted Russia but claimed that the Russian economy is "successfully coping" with these challenges. Putin claimed that Russia's unemployment rate is 2.2 percent and that Russia has made significant progress in reducing inflation to seven percent year on year. Putin acknowledged that Russian economic growth slowed in the first nine months of 2025 but claimed that the Russian government expected this when the Russian Central Bank raised the interest rate to 21 percent in October 2024 to combat rising inflation rates. Putin attempted to posture medium-term stability by claiming that the Kremlin designed the federal budget for 2026-2028 to mitigate external risks and increase the share of non-oil and gas revenues. Putin noted that Russia has significantly increased trade with countries like the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and India.

The Kremlin's recent economic policies indicate that the Russian economy is doing markedly worse than Putin's portrayal, however. Russian inflation is estimated at around 20 percent, and the Russian Ministry of Finance stated on September 29 that it expects Russia's oil and gas revenues to be down 50 percent in 2026 as compared to 2025.[20] The Russian Central Bank began selling its physical gold reserves in late November 2025 for the first time as part of the Russian Ministry of Finance's operations to fund the state budget.[21] Russia has steadily depleted its sovereign wealth fund's liquid reserves funding its war in Ukraine and has had to resort to selling its gold reserves due to unsustainable spending.[22] Putin also signed a law on November 27 increasing the Value Added Tax (VAT) from 20 to 22 percent, likely to buttress federal budget deficits.[23] Russia's extremely low unemployment rate indicates that Russia is experiencing labor shortages and is likely causing wage inflation in the civilian and defense sectors, contributing to inflation. Russia has also likely had to resort to importing labor from North Korea to compensate for labor shortages, and Putin's recent executive order temporarily waiving visa requirements for Chinese nationals suggests that Russia could be preparing to import labor from the PRC as well.[24] Russia recently began compulsory recruitment of active reservists, likely to prepare to deploy them to combat in Ukraine, as Russian regional authorities continue to reduce one-time recruitment payments in the face of mounting economic strain.[25] These policies demonstrate that the Russian economy is not as resilient to Western sanctions, monetary constraints, and the cost of the war effort as Putin is claiming. Putin is likely attempting to convince the United States that increased sanctions pressure will not have its intended effect on the Russian economy and will not push Putin to make compromises to end his war against Ukraine.

Putin attempted to preemptively deflect blame onto Europe for Russia's rejection of any peace plan iterations ahead of the December 2 US-Russian meeting. Putin answered journalists' questions on December 2 ahead of the meeting and claimed that Europe is hindering US President Donald Trump's peace efforts.[26] Putin stated that Europe created peace proposals with points that are "completely unacceptable" to Russia and that Russia will only "allow" Europe to return to the negotiation process if Europe accepts the "realities on the ground," a phrase the Kremlin often uses to refer to Russian advances on the battlefield. Ushakov similarly stated on December 2, following the US-Russia meeting, that European leaders are engaged in "destructive actions" in the peace process.[27] High ranking Kremlin officials repeatedly indicated in recent weeks that the Kremlin was not going to accept any peace agreement that did not meet Russia's maximalist demands, including the US-proposed original 28-point peace plan.[28] The Kremlin is likely setting conditions to blame Europe's insertion of non-starters into any peace plan as the reason for Russia's rejection, essentially using Europe as a scapegoat for Russia's own obstruction of the peace process.

Putin threatened Europe to prevent Europe from engaging in the peace process. Putin claimed that Russia has no intention of going to war with Europe but would be "ready right now" should Europe suddenly want to fight Russia.[29] Putin issued a thinly veiled nuclear threat, stating that a situation would "quickly arise" should Europe start a war with Russia, in which Russia will "have no one to negotiate with." Putin also threatened that a future Russia-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) war would not be like Russia's war in Ukraine, which Putin claimed Russia is conducting "surgically" and "carefully." Putin claimed that the war in Ukraine is not a war "in the literal, modern sense of the word," threateningly implying that Russia could fully mobilize its military, economy, and society in a war against NATO. Russian State Duma deputies echoed Putin's threats on December 2. Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa claimed that there is a "dangerous trend" in Europe toward militarization and threatened that "the more you play with fire, the higher the risk of a conflagration in Europe and around the world."[30] State Duma Defense Committee member Lieutenant General Viktor Sobolev claimed that Europe is trying to protract the war in Ukraine until a war between Russia and Europe erupts.[31] Kremlin threats against Europe likely aim to deter Europe's involvement in the peace process as well as undermine the strengthening of Europe's defenses out of fear of allegedly provoking Russian aggression.

Russia may be trying to set information conditions to justify Russian strikes against Ukrainian ports to impose a de facto blockade of Ukraine. The Turkish Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure stated on December 2 that the MIDVOLGA-2 tanker reported that unspecified actors attacked it 80 miles off the coast of Turkey while it was transporting sunflower oil from Russia to Georgia.[32] Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi stated that Ukraine was not involved in the incident and that Russia may have staged it, questioning why the ship was sailing from Russia to Georgia via Turkey's exclusive economic zone.[33] Russian milbloggers widely blamed Ukrainian forces for conducting a strike against the Russian-flagged vessel with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).[34] Sources in Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU) notably told Ukrainian media on November 29 that Ukraine was responsible for unmanned surface vehicle (USV) strikes against two oil tankers in Russia's shadow fleet on November 28.[35] The reported use of UAVs against a ship that is not part of Russia's shadow fleet as well as the Ukrainian MFA's public denial about the December 2 strike, are markedly different from the SBU sources' acknowledgement and the use of USVs in the November 28 strikes. The MIDVOLGA-2 notably changed its destination from Rostov-on-Don, Russia, to Mersin, Turkey, on November 28 and turned off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) near occupied Kerch, Crimea, on November 29.[36]

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded on December 2 to a journalist's question about the incident, stating that Russia will take retaliatory measures.[37] Putin threatened that Russia would expand its strikes against Ukrainian ports and ships travelling to Ukrainian ports or would strike vessels belonging to states that are allegedly helping Ukraine conduct strikes against Russian vessels. Russia notably aimed to impose a de facto blockade on Ukrainian ports by withdrawing from the 2022-2023 Black Sea Grain Initiative, which allowed cargo ships to sail between ports in Odesa Oblast and the Bosphorus Strait without fear of Russian strikes.[38] Russia aimed to use the Black Sea Fleet (BSF) to deter Ukrainian and international maritime activity in the Black Sea without having to enforce an actual blockade. Ukraine's missile and drone strike campaign starting in June 2023, however, largely inhibited Russia's ability to use the BSF. Russia may be attempting to use threats of retaliatory strikes to prevent Ukraine's Black Sea activity, as the BSF is no longer an effective deterrent. Russia may also aim to use the threat of strikes to discourage international vessels from transporting Ukrainian grain due to high insurance costs and ultimately to accuse Ukraine of causing global food insecurity.[39]

Putin may also be setting information conditions to justify Russian attempts to seize Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts, although Russia's seizure of these regions remains unlikely at this time. Putin stated that Russia's "most radical" response to the December 2 strike on the tanker would be to cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea – possibly threatening to try to seize territory on Ukraine's Black Sea coast in Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts.[40] Ukrainian Presidential Office Deputy Head Colonel Pavlo Palisa told reporters on June 5 that Russia likely seeks to occupy the entirety of Ukraine on the east (left) bank of the Dnipro River and seize Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts by the end of 2026, depriving Ukraine of access to the Black Sea.[41] A Russian milblogger responded to Putin's threat, noting that it is "currently impossible" for Russian forces to seize Mykolaiv and Odesa oblasts.[42] ISW continues to assess that Russia is not in a position to cross the Dnipro River, make significant advances westward, and seize Odesa City.[43]

Russian forces are modifying their Shahed-type drones to target Ukrainian air defenders. Ukrainian electronic and radio warfare expert Serhiy “Flash” Beskrestnov reported on December 2 that Russian forces have begun striking Ukrainian mobile fire teams operating in moving vehicles with Shahed-type drones.[44] A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger noted on December 2 that recent Russian technological adaptations - such as cameras - allow Russian drone operators to directly control Shahed drones (as opposed to Shahed drones with preplanned routes and targets that Russian forces have historically used in strikes against Ukraine’s rear areas), making it easier for Russian forces to hunt Ukrainian air defense systems, especially in rear areas.[45] Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister for Innovation Lieutenant Colonel Yurii Myronenko recently stated that Russian forces started using operator-controlled Shahed drones to engage Ukrainian fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, which Ukrainian forces have been using to shoot down Russian drones.[46] Beskrestnov also reported on December 1 that Russian forces have equipped Shahed drones with R-60 air-to-air missiles to try to destroy Ukrainian helicopters and aircraft that hunt Shaheds.[47] Recent Russian adaptations to the Shahed drone will likely degrade Ukraine's air defenses and ability to down Shaheds in the rear, and Russia has been exploiting drone adaptations to strike moving targets like trains to generate battlefield air interdiction (BAI) effects.[48]

Key Takeaways:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected the US-Ukrainian peace proposal during his meeting with a US delegation in Moscow on December 2 and remains highly unlikely to accept any compromises short of his original war goals.
• The Kremlin intensified its cognitive warfare effort that aims to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent in the lead up to the December 2 US-Russia meeting, likely to coerce the West into accepting Russia's absolutist demands.
• Putin exaggerated Russia's claimed seizure of Pokrovsk as strategically important for large scale breakthroughs. ISW has not observed evidence to confirm the complete Russian seizure of Pokrovsk, but Russia's seizure of the town in the near future is unlikely to produce rapid Russian advances.
• Putin also intensified efforts to portray the Russian economy as resilient and able to support protracted hostilities in Ukraine in the lead up to the December 2 meeting.
• The Kremlin's recent economic policies indicate that the Russian economy is doing markedly worse than Putin's portrayal, however.
• Putin attempted to preemptively deflect blame onto Europe for Russia's rejection of any peace plan iterations ahead of the December 2 US-Russian meeting.
• Putin threatened Europe to prevent Europe from engaging in the peace process.
• Russia may be trying to set information conditions to justify Russian strikes against Ukrainian ports to impose a de facto blockade of Ukraine.
• Putin may also be setting information conditions to justify Russian attempts to seize Odesa and Mykolaiv oblasts, although Russia's seizure of these regions remains unlikely at this time.
• Russian forces are modifying their Shahed-type drones to target Ukrainian air defenders.
• Russian forces recently advanced in Sumy Oblast and near Kostyantynivka, Pokrovsk, and Hulyaipole.

Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 1, 2025 

US-Ukrainian talks reportedly continued in Florida on December 1 ahead of US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 2 to present the US-Ukrainian peace proposal. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov reportedly held more meetings in Florida on December 1.[1] US President Donald Trump stated on November 30 that he does not have a deadline for a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine.[2] US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on November 30 that the US goal is to end the war while "help[ing] Ukraine be safe forever" and preventing another invasion.[3] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov stated that Witkoff will meet with Putin in Moscow on the afternoon of December 2.[4]

The Kremlin is setting conditions to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russian meeting, possibly in order to obfuscate Russia's likely rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal. Peskov responded to a question about points in the latest US-Ukrainian peace proposal, stating that Russia does not intend to conduct negotiations through a "megaphone" or "through the media."[5] Peskov stated that the Kremlin will release footage from the start of the Putin-Witkoff meeting on December 2, but that it is too early to talk about any public statements afterwards.[6] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa stated on December 1 that he would like the US delegation to "reaffirm the fundamental nature" of the positions that the United States and Russia allegedly reached during the US-Russia Alaska summit in August 2025.[7] Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlev claimed on December 1 that the "right" negotiations are between Russia and the United States, who will present a "fait accompli" to Europe and Ukraine such that they will have "no choice but to...sign whatever [the United States and Russia] say."[8] High-ranking Kremlin officials and Russian milbloggers have been consistently rejecting the 28-point peace plan and its subsequent iterations since it was first reported in mid-November 2025 because the proposed plans did not concede to all of Russia's maximalist war demands.[9] The Kremlin has been exploiting the lack of clarity about the Alaska summit to conceal the way the Kremlin — not Ukraine — is impeding the negotiations process by sticking to its original war demands.[10] The Kremlin will likely try to replicate this approach with the upcoming US-Russia meeting on December 2 and is setting conditions to conceal the details of the talks from the public, likely because Russia will reject the terms of the plan.[11] The Kremlin likely seeks to avoid framing Russia as an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine if Moscow rejects the peace deal that the United States will present to Russia, and that Ukraine agreed to. Russia previously rejected several US-proposed ceasefires that Ukraine agreed to.[12]

Prominent Russian milbloggers continue to undermine the Kremlin’s effort to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent or inevitable. A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger responded to the Russian Ministry of Defense's (MoD) December 1 claim that Russian forces seized Klynove (north of Kostyantynivka, about 10 kilometers from the current Russian frontline) by criticizing the MoD's repeated exaggerations about battlefield successes.[13] The milblogger claimed that the Russian MoD is making premature claims that Russian forces seized settlements without offering any supporting evidence and is even claiming Russian success in settlements several kilometers away from confirmed Russian positions. The milblogger noted that the Russian MoD has made clearly false claims over five settlements in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area in 2025 alone — Orikhovo-Vasylivka in February 2025, Novomarkove in March 2025, Markove and Mayske in September 2025, and Fedorivka in October 2025. The milblogger added that recent developments on the battlefield are strengthening the current Russian negotiating position and insinuated that the Russian MoD is actually hurting its negotiating position by making false claims that could easily "backfire" with the emergence of evidence to the contrary. The Kremlin has repeatedly made exaggerated claims about the battlefield as part of its ongoing cognitive warfare effort to falsely portray a Russian victory as inevitable, such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s demands now.[14] ISW continues to assess that while the situation in some specific sectors of the front line is serious, particularly in the Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole directions, the Kremlin’s efforts to present Russia’s victory in Ukraine as inevitable do not correspond to battlefield realities.[15] It is notable that the Kremlin’s misrepresentation of the situation on the ground continues to be so far from reality that prominent pro-war milbloggers continue to feel compelled to issue their own corrective statements.

Russian forces are not yet confirmed to have seized all of Pokrovsk despite operating within the town for over 120 days. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced on December 1 that Russian forces seized Pokrovsk, though it remains unclear whether Ukrainian forces may occupy limited scattered positions in northern Pokrovsk. The Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces reported on December 1 that Russian forces have become bogged down in urban warfare within Pokrovsk, contrary to previous claims from Russian military and political leadership that Russian forces encircled Ukrainian forces in Pokrovsk.[16] The corps reported that Ukrainian forces killed 1,221 Russian servicemembers and wounded 545 in the Pokrovsk agglomeration in November 2025, including 519 killed and 131 wounded within Pokrovsk alone. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces have incurred significant casualties in their monthslong campaign to seize Pokrovsk.[17] The corps reported that Ukrainian forces retain main and alternate rotation routes in Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk) and recently rotated troops in the town. The corps’ statements indicate that Ukrainian forces likely retain the ability to resupply forces within Myrnohrad, despite Russian interdiction of Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) between Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.[18] ISW has not yet observed evidence to confirm that Russian forces have completed the seizure of Pokrovsk as of this writing. The Kremlin may have announced the seizure of Pokrovsk prematurely on December 1 — as it has for numerous other settlements in Ukraine — as part of a cognitive warfare effort in order to shape the US-Russian negotiations in Moscow on December 2.

Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine’s growing defense industrial base (DIB). Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans announced on December 1 that the Netherlands will contribute 250 million euros (roughly $290 million) to Ukraine through the Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which funds NATO states' purchases of US-made weapons for Ukraine.[19] Ukrainian Defense Minister Denis Shmyhal and Brekelmans also signed an agreement to jointly produce Ukrainian drones in both the Netherlands and Ukraine, which the Netherlands will purchase and then transfer to the Ukrainian military.[20]

The Russian military continues implementing longstanding plans to form new Russian divisions as part of the Russian military's transition back towards a force structure based on maneuver divisions, likely in preparation for a possible future war with NATO. The Russian Pacific Fleet announced on December 1 the reorganization of its 155th Naval Infantry Brigade into the 55th Naval Infantry Division.[21] Former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced in December 2022 that the Russian military command intended to form 17 new maneuver divisions, including by expanding five existing naval infantry brigades into five divisions.[22] The new 55th Naval Infantry Division is very likely not staffed at its full doctrinal end strength, given that the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade participated in combat operations, including in the Pokrovsk direction and previously in Kursk Oblast, which likely have significantly degraded the brigade.[23] ISW has observed evidence to support the formation and combat deployment of at least eight new Russian divisions since December 2022.[24] The Russian military command has formed the 104th Airborne (VDV) Division and the 27th, 68th, 69th, and 71st motorized rifle divisions from previously existing brigades, and the new 67th, 70th, and 72nd motorized rifle divisions since December 2022.[25] These divisions also likely have not yet reached their doctrinal end strength, as they have all been committed to active combat operations. The Russian military will likely be able to bring them up to their full end strength rapidly after the end of fighting in Ukraine.[26] ISW continues to assess that the expansion of Russian conventional forces and the Russian military’s larger force structure reform back to maneuver divisions is in line with Russia’s preparation for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future, as the Russian military command likely assesses that the Russian military will require more mass and higher echelon formations to wage effective combat operations.[27]

Balloon incursions in NATO airspace continue to shut down Lithuanian airports. Lithuanian authorities temporarily suspended operations at the Vilnius International Airport on the evening of November 30 into the early morning on December 1 due to balloons flying towards the airport.[28] Lithuanian air navigation company Oro Navigacija Director Saulius Batavicius stated that authorities detected roughly 60 balloons in Lithuanian airspace and that an unidentified actor launched the balloons continuously at varying altitudes and in small groups.[29] Lithuanian authorities have not attributed the balloon flights to any specific actor as of this writing, though Lithuanian officials previously attributed similar balloon incursions to Belarus.[30] The overnight balloon sightings come against the backdrop of repeated similar incursions from Belarusian airspace - the most recent of which occurred on the night of November 28 to 29 — that have closed the Vilnius Airport.[31] ISW continues to assess that Russia is increasingly engaging in covert and overt attacks against Europe and that ongoing Russian airspace violations are likely part of Russia’s ”Phase Zero” effort — Russia’s broader informational and psychological condition-setting effort that aims to prepare for a possible NATO-Russia war in the future.[32] ISW continues to assess that Belarus is Russia’s de facto cobelligerent in the war in Ukraine, such that suspected and confirmed incursions into NATO airspace from Belarusian airspace are very likely part of Russia’s broader Phase Zero effort.[33]

Key Takeaways:

• US-Ukrainian talks reportedly continued in Florida on December 1 ahead of US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 2 to present the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.
• The Kremlin is setting conditions to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russian meeting, possibly in order to obfuscate Russia's likely rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.
• Prominent Russian milbloggers continue to undermine the Kremlin’s effort to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent or inevitable.
• Russian forces are not yet confirmed to have seized all of Pokrovsk despite operating within the town for over 120 days.
• Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine’s growing defense industrial base (DIB).
• The Russian military continues implementing longstanding plans to form new Russian divisions as part of the Russian military's transition back towards a force structure based on maneuver divisions, likely in preparation for a possible future war with NATO.
• Balloon incursions in NATO airspace continue to shut down Lithuanian airports.
• Russian forces recently advanced in the Hulyaipole direction.

Previous Updates

• November 2025
• October 2025
• September 2025
• August 2025
• July 2025
• June 2025
• May 2025
• April 2025
• March 2025
• February 2025
• January 2025
• December 2024
• November 2024
• October 2024
• September 2024
• August 2024
• July 2024
• June 2024
• May 2024
• April 2024
• March 2o24
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• July 2023
• June 2023
• May 2023
• April 2023
• March 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• July 2022
• June 2022
• May 2022
• April 2022
• March 2022
• February 2022