In a confirmation of Russia’s restoration of maneuver warfare, the New York Times described how Russia is currently seeking to lay siege to Russian villages on the flanks in the Pokrovsk direction. “To the southwest of Toretsk,” the Times writes, “Russian forces are widening a bulge they have cut into Ukrainian defenses, as they push toward the strategic city of Pokrovsk, a railway and road junction.” Rather than attack Pokrovsk directly, which is heavily fortified with trenches as well as anti-tank ditches, the Times observes that “Russian troops are trying to flank [Pokrovsk] by seizing less fortified territory to the south.” According to the Times, Russians “through weak points in Ukrainian defenses, [capturing] narrow strips of land to form pincers around Ukrainian positions before tightening the noose.” Of Selydove, the Times claims “Russian troops have now partly succeeded in forming a semicircle around” the village. Of Vuhledar, the Times claims the village “fell last week after being caught in a pincer movement.”[1]
In regards to Russia’s restoration of maneuver warfare on the steppes of the southeastern Donbas, Russia has began to shift the weight of its integrated arms in different ways to facilitate encirclements. In the so-called ‘ballerina’ cauldron (i.e., кольцo между Невельском и рекой “Волчья”), the Russians have recently reduced targeting with artillery from an established position of fire control along the geographic heights above the Ground Lines of Communication (i.e., GLOCs) leading to the surrounded village of Kurakhove. In response to the reduction in artillery, the Russians have increased dramatically the number of FPV drone attacks, targeting columns, convoys, escorts, or rotations in an effort to seal the encirclement. During Military Summary’s daily update, the host explains how the Russians have applied more weight to FPV drones than artillery or glide bombs to stop traffic from flowing in or out of the encircled village.
On Wednesday, the New York Times sought to portray Ukraine’s Kursk operation as inactive. The Times wrote: “The flurry of activity in eastern Ukraine contrasts with the situation in the Kursk region in western Russia, which Ukrainian forces partly invaded in August. Kyiv’s troops made swift gains early in the offensive, some of which were reversed by Russian counterattacks last month. The front line has recently stabilized, with each side making only marginal advances.”[1] Within less than a day, military bloggers, both Russian and Ukrainian, have portrayed a drastically different picture of the situation in the Kursk region for the Ukrainians.
Although ‘General’ Syrsky claimed the Kursk offensive to be a resounding success, the reality is different. The Kursk operation did not reach the river Seym, Glushkovo, Tyotkino, of Korenevo; the operation failed to reach the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant (i.e., NPP). In terms of territory, the operation reached no significant military objective after Sudzha’s initial capture.
References
- [On A10: “Russian forces close in on crucial towns in Ukraine’s East,” New York Times, October 9th, 2024]
[“Военкоры и военблогеры сообщили об успехах российских войск в Курской области,” Взгляд, 11 октября 2024]
- «Неожиданный прорыв морпехов 155 бригады к Зеленому шляху – в тыл группировки ВСУ в районе Любимовки заставил противника спасаться бегством», – говорится в сообщении. Со ссылкой на украинские ресурсы сообщается, что «русские продавили левый фланг Курской группировки ВСУ».
[“Мощный прорыв армии России на Курском фронте: завершается разгром врага в Любимовке, Зелёном Шляхе и Ольговке,” «Военкоры Русской весны», https://t.me/RVvoenkor/78524]
[“Ворог продавив лівий фланг Курського угрупування Сил Оборони України,” DeepStateUA, https://x.com/Deepstate_UA/status/1844479224092205500]
