Situation Report

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SITUATION REPORT (SITREP)

DTG: 240619Z NOV 25 REPORTING PERIOD: 240600Z NOV 25 – 240619Z NOV 25 OPERATIONAL AXES: POKROVSK (MAIN EFFORT) / KHARKIV-VOVCHANSK (SHAPING EFFORT) OVERALL THREATCON: CAT-3 (C2 FRAGMENTATION/RESOURCE DIVERSION: CRITICAL)

---

1. SITUATION OVERVIEW (SIT-SUM)

The operational environment is characterized by the convergence of kinetic crises on the Pokrovsk axis and a rapidly escalating, coordinated multi-domain effort by the Russian Federation (RF) to force Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) reserve dissipation via the Kharkiv/Vovchansk vector, synchronized with continued high-level Information Operations (IO). The critical decision remains the timely, secure commitment of Plan 7-B MOD reserves to the Pokrovsk axis, despite deliberate RF efforts to distract the Command Authority.

1.1. Battlefield Geometry and Key Terrain

• Pokrovsk Axis: The immediate threat remains the physical interdiction of the M-30 Ground Line of Communication (GLOC) near Rodynske by RF 40th/155th OMBR elements.
• Kharkiv Oblast (Vovchansk/Velykyi Burluk): This area has been activated as a secondary operational concern. RF sources (TASS 06:01Z, Zvиздец Мангусту 06:06Z) are actively promoting narratives of UAF emergency reinforcement (D-S belief: 0.67), suggesting the RF is seeking to create a crisis environment here to draw off critical Pokrovsk reserves.
• Deep Rear (Ballistic Strike Window): The anticipated NLT 240000Z massed ballistic strike window has passed. FACT: No BDA or confirmation of the strike has been received in the current reporting period. JUDGMENT: This remains the highest kinetic intelligence gap.

1.2. Weather and Environmental Factors Affecting Operations

No change. Clear conditions favor continued ISR missions and aviation support for RF maneuver elements in both the Pokrovsk and Kharkiv areas. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

1.3. Current Force Dispositions and Control Measures

FACT: UAF C2 is confirming the propagation of reports (via TASS) that emergency reinforcement is underway in Vovchansk (D-S belief 0.67). JUDGMENT: This suggests UAF forces are either reacting to genuine RF pressure in the Vovchansk area or the RF IO campaign is successfully framing UAF internal planning. The primary risk is the strategic dissipation of Plan 7-B MOD reserves due to competing crises. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

---

2. ENEMY ANALYSIS (THREAT ASSESSMENT)

2.1. Enemy Capabilities, Intentions, and Courses of Action

CAPABILITY: RF has demonstrated capability to simultaneously run high-level strategic deception ("Geneva"), operational PSYOPS (Pokrovsk "Cauldron"), and kinetic shaping operations (Vovchansk narrative). INTENTION: The RF intention is now refined: Force the strategic delay or diversion of Plan 7-B MOD reserves. This is achieved by:

1. Paralyzing high-level decision-making (Geneva IO).
2. Creating an urgent alternative kinetic/reserve requirement (Kharkiv/Vovchansk reports).
3. Maintaining pressure on the M-30 GLOC (Rodynske).

Recent Tactical Changes or Adaptations: The RF has adapted the "Geneva Peace Framework" IO by introducing conflicting reports: RF sources claim failure/disagreement (Operatsiya Z 06:04Z), while UAF-aligned media (RBK 06:12Z) asserts successful adjustments. JUDGMENT: This creates deliberate strategic ambiguity, preventing the UAF NCA from issuing a clean, decisive denial and maximizing decision paralysis. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

2.2. Logistics and Sustainment Status

No significant changes observed since the Kstovo strike. RF logistics are supporting offensive efforts on at least two axes (Pokrovsk and the emergent Kharkiv threat). (CONFIDENCE: MEDIUM)

2.3. Command and Control Effectiveness

RF C2 is highly effective and synchronized. Evidence includes the simultaneous deployment of high-level diplomatic messaging (TASS/Bloomberg on US-RF meetings and US demands, 06:03Z, 06:14Z) alongside military blogger synchronization (Kotsnews, Colonelcassad, Rybar analysis of Seversk/Vovchansk). This suggests a centralized, dynamic IO command structure. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

---

3. FRIENDLY FORCES (BLUE FORCE TRACKING)

3.1. Ukrainian Force Posture and Readiness

POSTURE: UAF forces are reacting defensively to perceived or real threats on the Kharkiv axis, evidenced by the high D-S score and TASS reporting (06:01Z). The overall operational posture remains severely hampered by the strategic dilemma: commit forces to critical Pokrovsk or react to the emergent Vovchansk crisis. READINESS: Tactical readiness remains adequate, but strategic readiness is compromised by the C2 threat and resource constraints.

3.2. Recent Tactical Successes or Setbacks

SUCCESSES: UAF Strategic Communications (STRATCOM) attempted to counter the "Geneva" failure narrative by quickly circulating reports of successful adjustments (RBK 06:12Z). SETBACKS: The RF has successfully forced the UAF command to divert analytical and/or physical resources toward the Vovchansk crisis point, diluting the focus on the Pokrovsk main effort. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

3.3. Resource Requirements and Constraints

CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: Immediate, unambiguous clarity on the status and location of Plan 7-B MOD reserves. These reserves must be insulated from the IO surrounding both Pokrovsk ("Cauldron") and the new Kharkiv narratives. CONSTRAINT: The apparent inability to verify the status of the NLT 240000Z ballistic strike results in persistent AD and C2 dispersion, preventing optimized asset allocation.

---

4. INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (COGNITIVE DOMAIN)

4.1. Propaganda and Disinformation Campaigns

The IO focus is three-fold, targeting UAF strategic capacity:

1. Strategic Confusion (Geneva): Conflicting reports on US-Ukraine negotiations (failure vs. success) and US demands (TASS/Bloomberg 06:14Z) aims to undermine the legitimacy of NCA decisions regarding military operations.
2. Operational Diversion (Kharkiv): The synchronized push regarding UAF emergency reinforcement in Vovchansk (06:01Z, 06:06Z) is designed to generate fear of a northern breakthrough, forcing the physical redeployment of Plan 7-B MOD.
3. Long-Term Erosion: Narratives concerning French military service changes (05:55Z) continue the effort to signal long-term Western commitment is weakening.

4.2. Public Sentiment and Morale Factors

The introduction of contradictory "Geneva" narratives (failure vs. success) risks fracturing trust in both official UAF sources and Western media, leading to general strategic cynicism and potential internal friction within the military ranks regarding the purpose of continued fighting. (CONFIDENCE: MEDIUM)

4.3. International Support and Diplomatic Developments

RF proxies are actively promoting the narrative of US dominance in peace talks, suggesting the US is forcing Ukraine to accept a plan as "the basis for negotiations" (TASS 06:14Z). This aims to portray Ukraine as a non-sovereign actor being manipulated into concessions. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)

---

5. PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS (FUTURE OPERATIONS)

The RF is currently maximizing the effects of the IO distraction to facilitate the kinetic objective at Pokrovsk.

5.1. Most Likely Enemy Courses of Action (MLCOA) - Next 6 Hours (240619Z - 241219Z)

(HIGH CONFIDENCE)

1. Vovchansk Narrative Amplification: RF will increase kinetic probing or high-visibility fire missions in the Vovchansk/Velykyi Burluk direction, coupled with amplified IO, to solidify the perception of a major northern thrust, maximizing the strategic dilemma for UAF reserves.
2. GLOC Interdiction: RF elements (SpN/OMBR) will intensify efforts to hold sections of the M-30 GLOC near Rodynske, utilizing the kinetic cover provided by the Kharkiv distraction.
3. Deep Strike Follow-up: If the anticipated NLT 240000Z ballistic strike did occur, RF ISR will be focused on BDA and exploiting damaged C2 infrastructure. If the strike was delayed/canceled, RF will likely prepare a revised strike package for NLT 241800Z, still targeting C2.

5.2. Most Dangerous Enemy Courses of Action (MDCOA) - Next 12 Hours

(HIGH CONFIDENCE) The UAF Command, reacting to the high volume of critical reporting on Kharkiv, divers or splits Plan 7-B MOD reserves, sending a significant portion north. Simultaneously, the core RF kinetic force at Pokrovsk achieves physical interdiction of the M-30/T-05-15, effectively cutting off forward units. The fragmented Plan 7-B MOD proves insufficient to stabilize either front, leading to operational breakthroughs in both areas.

5.3. Timeline Estimates and Decision Points (CRITICAL STATUS)

---

6. INTELLIGENCE GAPS AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

---

7. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS

The immediate objective is to stabilize C2 through IO inoculation and ensure Plan 7-B MOD reaches the Pokrovsk axis without diversion.

1. STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS (STRATCOM / NCA): HARMONIZE GENEVA NARRATIVE.

   • Action: Issue a single, unified statement (Presidential level) that confirms negotiations occur, but emphatically rejects any enemy-seeded narrative of territorial concession or mandatory adherence to US-dictated terms. Directly address and neutralize the confusion created by the contradictory claims of "success" vs. "failure."
   • Rationale: Eliminates the C2 paralysis caused by strategic ambiguity and reinforces the NCA’s sovereignty.

2. MANEUVER PROTECTION (J3 / J4): POKROVSK PRIORITY ASSERTION.

   • Action: J3 must issue a Flash Report (FLASH) confirming that Plan 7-B MOD deployment remains 100% committed to the Pokrovsk axis and that the Kharkiv/Vovchansk threat is currently being managed by local reserves and ISR. Do not divert reserves based on TASS/RF blogger reporting.
   • Rationale: Prevents strategic dissipation of the critical reserve force. The Vovchansk threat is likely a deliberate resource-drawing deception (High Confidence Judgment).

3. INTELLIGENCE DISCIPLINE (G2): IMMEDIATE STRIKE BDA CONFIRMATION.

   • Action: Elevate CRITICAL (1) to highest priority. Commanders must operate under the assumption that C2 nodes may have sustained damage until confirmed otherwise. Implement C2 backup protocols for J-FIRE authorization immediately.
   • Rationale: The lack of confirmation of the scheduled massed strike creates uncertainty that must be mitigated by procedural hardening.

4. OPERATIONAL DECEPTION (J3 / STRATCOM): COUNTER-DECEPTION.

   • Action: Feed controlled, low-confidence intelligence back through channels regarding fictional "emergency reinforcement" heading toward Kharkiv Oblast (Izyum/Kupyansk area), not Vovchansk.
   • Rationale: To confirm RF penetration/source viability in the Kharkiv sector (CRITICAL 2) and reinforce the RF’s belief that their deception operation is working, potentially buying time for Plan 7-B MOD movement toward Pokrovsk.

//END SITREP//