Situation Report

INTELLIGENCE SITUATION REPORT (ISR)

TIME: 251245Z NOV 2025 OPERATION: EASTERN THEATER / KOSTIANTYNIVKA DEFENSIVE STABILIZATION AND DEEP STRIKE RESPONSE

---

1. SITUATION OVERVIEW (IPB Step 1)

1.1. Battlefield Geometry and Key Terrain

The operational center of gravity remains the Kostiantynivka defensive sector, which constitutes the new Main Line of Resistance (MLR) following the loss of Pokrovsk.

• Kostiantynivka MLR (CRITICAL JUDGMENT/HIGH CONFIDENCE): UAF priority is securing the southwestern approaches (T-05-15 GLOC) against immediate RF exploitation.
• Deep Area Focus: RF operational tempo confirms continued high-volume deep strikes. Confirmed Kalibr launches (251216Z) and continued wide-area UAV activity (Dnipro, Kharkiv, Chernihiv) indicate RF is fixing UAF reserves and targeting operational depth.
• Energy Resilience (FACT/MEDIUM CONFIDENCE): Emergency power has been restored on Kyiv’s Left Bank (251217Z), suggesting successful redundancy or swift repair following the strategic missile strikes of the last reporting cycle.

1.2. Weather and Environmental Factors Affecting Operations

Clear conditions persist across the Eastern and Central Theaters. This facilitates sustained RF Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations and the heavy use of maneuver-impacting air assets (KABs, UAVs). Confirmed KAB launches toward Kharkiv (251220Z) underscores this dependency.

1.3. Current Force Dispositions and Control Measures

• RF Forces (RED): RF is executing a synchronized three-pronged air strategy: 1) Exploitation support via KABs (Kharkiv/Eastern Sector), 2) Targeting and reserve fixation via UAVs (Dnipro, Chernihiv), and 3) Strategic deterrence/deep strike (Kalibr launches). RF is also actively using Information Operations (IO) to divert attention from Taganrog BDA by claiming an ineffective strike.
• UAF Forces (BLUE): UAF is engaged in stabilizing the new MLR while simultaneously conducting critical counter-actions (deep strikes) and managing the aftermath of strategic logistics damage (NOVUS center).

---

2. ENEMY ANALYSIS (IPB Step 2)

2.1. Enemy Capabilities, Intentions, and Courses of Action

INTENTION (IMMEDIATE): RF seeks to prevent UAF from consolidating effective defenses at Kostiantynivka by fixing reserves in Central and Northern Ukraine using persistent UAV and KAB strikes. Simultaneously, RF IO will maximize domestic political distractions within Ukraine to degrade strategic C2 resilience. CAPABILITY: Demonstrated ability to sustain simultaneous kinetic and cognitive pressure across multiple domains (Naval/Air/Ground/Information).

2.2. Recent Tactical Changes or Adaptations

• Widespread UAV Probing: The simultaneous deployment of UAV groups toward Dnipro, Kharkiv, and Chernihiv (251217Z, 251218Z, 251236Z) indicates a massed attempt to deplete or confuse UAF Short-Range Air Defense (SHORAD) coverage across the entire operational rear. This is likely a precursor to follow-on missile salvos or further KAB prioritization.
• Information Warfare Adaptation: RF IO is aggressively counter-narrating confirmed UAF deep strikes. The claim that the Taganrog target was an "old A-60 aircraft" (251236Z) is a deliberate attempt to minimize the UAF operational success and impose cost only on deprecated RF assets.

2.3. Logistics and Sustainment Status

RF Logistics (IMPACT CONFIRMED/MINIMIZED): UAF deep strikes on Taganrog are confirmed by RF sources, though the claimed nature of the destroyed asset (A-60 laboratory) is unverified and likely disinformation. This validates continued UAF long-range targeting capability, imposing non-trivial costs on RF strategic air assets and sustainment.

2.4. Command and Control Effectiveness

RF C2 remains synchronized in coordinating multi-front air attacks. UAF C2 must prioritize the defense of fixed positions (Kostiantynivka) and mobile assets (reserve convoys) simultaneously. The confirmation of the Mindich/NABU internal friction (251233Z) provides RF with a clear cognitive target to exploit, potentially hindering high-level decision-making.

---

3. FRIENDLY FORCES (IPB Step 3)

3.1. Ukrainian Force Posture and Readiness

Readiness is highly strained by the loss of Pokrovsk and the confirmed casualties from the NOVUS strike. Posture is defensive, characterized by reactive air defense and counter-IO efforts. Internal political friction (NABU dossiers) is an acute non-kinetic threat to force cohesion and strategic direction. (D-S Belief: Intelligence Operation/Surveillance of NABU detectives: 0.003624).

3.2. Recent Tactical Successes or Setbacks

• SUCCESS (STRATEGIC COUNTER): Confirmed effective strike on Taganrog airfield/facility (251217Z, 251236Z).
• SUCCESS (RESILIENCE): Infrastructure recovery success in Kyiv (power restoration).
• SETBACK (OPERATIONAL/LOGISTICS): Confirmed casualties (four drivers) at the NOVUS logistics center in Kyiv (251221Z), reinforcing the severity of the strategic strike.

3.3. Resource Requirements and Constraints

CONSTRAINT: AIR DEFENSE ALLOCATION: The simultaneous probing of Dnipro, Kharkiv, and Chernihiv forces UAF to dangerously disperse limited SHORAD assets, potentially leaving the Kostiantynivka MLR vulnerable to uncontested KAB use. CONSTRAINT: COGNITIVE FOCUS: The operational command must immediately address the high-profile NABU/Mindich scandal to prevent distraction and potential political interference in operational decisions (J2/J7 assessment).

---

4. INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (IPB Step 4)

4.1. Propaganda and Disinformation Campaigns

• RF Deflection: RF channels are actively minimizing UAF deep strikes (Taganrog claim) while simultaneously maximizing unverified claims against Ukraine (Energodar strike claim, 251213Z). This is a standard tactical IO maneuver designed to mask real losses and prepare the justification for future RF targeting near nuclear infrastructure.
• Internal Exploitation: RF military bloggers are leveraging the NABU corruption scandal to argue that Ukraine is fundamentally corrupt and incapable of command (251237Z).
• Diplomatic Erosion: TASS confirms US delegates (Rubio/Whitkoff) will not attend potential US-RF negotiations (251233Z), amplifying the perception of Western discord and reducing confidence in rapid, unified Western response during the kinetic phase.

4.2. Public Sentiment and Morale Factors

National morale requires immediate, positive reinforcement following the confirmed logistics casualties (NOVUS). UAF IO must aggressively promote the Taganrog/Novorossiysk successes. Localized morale efforts (Zaporizhzhia craft event, POW HQ programs) demonstrate resilience but cannot offset the impact of major battlefield losses.

4.3. International Support and Diplomatic Developments

The confirmed absence of key US political figures from potential talks validates the prediction of diplomatic complexity during this operational phase. This political uncertainty reduces the external pressure on the RF to halt its Kostiantynivka exploitation.

---

5. PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS (IPB Step 5)

5.1. Most Likely Enemy Courses of Action (MLCOA)

(HIGH CONFIDENCE - 95%): Coordinated Air Superiority and Kostiantynivka Breach Attempt. RF forces will maintain high air pressure on the operational rear (Kharkiv/Dnipro/Chernihiv) NLT 260600Z to fix UAF AD assets. This air fixation will cover a concentrated ground assault on the most vulnerable sectors of the Kostiantynivka MLR, specifically probing for gaps along the T-05-15 axis or a western flanking maneuver. RF intent is to force a decisive engagement before UAF can fully integrate available reserves.

5.2. Most Dangerous Enemy Courses of Action (MDCOA)

(MEDIUM CONFIDENCE - 70%): Strategic Paralysis via Political Exploitation and C2 Interdiction. RF successfully uses the NABU/Mindich internal corruption scandal, amplified by IO, to distract or paralyze strategic decision-making in Kyiv, leading to a delay in authorizing the release of critical deep reserves. This delay allows RF to achieve a rapid, decisive breakthrough or functional encirclement of Kostiantynivka. Simultaneously, RF executes a major (unconfirmed) strike on a reserve logistics hub in the Dnipro region, exploiting the dispersed SHORAD coverage.

5.3. Timeline Estimates and Decision Points (ADJUSTED)

---

6. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS

TO: J3 (OPERATIONS) / AIR FORCE COMMAND

1. Prioritize AD Allocation (CRITICAL): Immediately shift SHORAD prioritization away from Northern/Central UAV fixation areas (Chernihiv/Kharkiv probes) toward protecting the Kostiantynivka MLR and the primary reserve movement corridors near Dnipro. Accept drone losses on diversionary vectors. (CONFIDENCE: HIGH)
2. Counter-Air and Anti-KAB Operations: Focus high-value air assets and integrated AD (SAMP/Patriot) on interdicting confirmed KAB launch platforms and corridors supporting the Kostiantynivka axis.

TO: J2 (INTELLIGENCE) / TARGETING

3. Validate Taganrog BDA (GAP 12A): Prioritize SIGINT/IMINT to determine the true functional loss at the Taganrog airfield/facility (beyond RF minimization claims). Specifically assess damage to infrastructure supporting strategic air operations (refueling, maintenance bays).
4. Energodar Claim Monitoring: Closely monitor the RF claim of a UAF strike on Energodar. Prepare robust counter-IO packages to preemptively counter any RF attempt to use this claim as justification for targeting ZNPP infrastructure or critical energy supply.

TO: J7 (INFORMATION OPERATIONS) / NCA

5. Address Internal Friction (URGENT): J7 must coordinate with NCA/MoD to issue a unified statement asserting that internal investigations (NABU/Mindich) will not compromise operational command integrity or combat readiness. Use the Novorossiysk/Taganrog strikes to demonstrate operational capability separate from political friction.
6. Diplomatic Alignment: Task diplomatic channels to urgently brief key European partners on the confirmed synchronization between RF diplomatic posturing (Lavrov) and kinetic action (Kalibr/KAB strikes) to mitigate the impact of US diplomatic discord.

---

7. INTELLIGENCE GAPS AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

//END OF REPORT//