Situation Report

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SITUATION REPORT (SITREP)

TIME: 111800Z DEC 25 SUBJECT: KONSTANTINOVKA/SLOVYANSK AXIS CRISIS; CONFIRMED UAF EW SUCCESS AGAINST RF C2; P1 COUNTER-LOGISTICS STRIKE REMAINS CRITICAL

---

1. SITUATION OVERVIEW (IPB Step 1)

1.1. Battlefield Geometry and Key Terrain

The operational center of gravity remains the defense of the strategic urban corridor, now threatened by dual, converging RF axes:

• Konstantinovka Axis (CRITICAL): RF claims partial control (45%) and continues high-tempo ground assault. The defense of Konstantinovka is now directly linked to the security of the Kramatorsk/Slovyansk hub from the South/Southwest.
• Siversk Axis (HIGH THREAT): RF confirms the claimed seizure of Siversk (validated by the Putin/Commanders video conference, 14:51Z). The RF 3rd Army is actively exploiting this success and advancing toward Slovyansk (14:45Z). This creates an immediate northern pincer threat on the main defensive line.
• Zaporizhzhia Axis: RF forces maintain a high tempo of advance, validated by public statements from President Putin (14:49Z). This confirms sustained pressure against the UAF retrograde (Contingency Plan PHOENIX) around Stepnohorsk.
• Deep Battle: Confirmed non-frontline strike by RF aviation using aerial bombs against a civilian structure in Sumy Oblast (Velykopysarivska, 14:58Z), resulting in civilian casualties. This indicates RF maintains a robust stand-off strike capability aimed at terrorizing border regions.

1.2. Weather and Environmental Factors Affecting Operations

Current operations are assumed to be supported by conditions favoring mechanized movement and low-altitude fixed-wing/drone operations, enabling the high volume of KAB employment and high-tempo ground assaults.

1.3. Current Force Dispositions and Control Measures

• RF: Forces are focused on maximizing the coordinated penetration opportunity created by the Siversk seizure and the Konstantinovka breach. High-level political validation (Putin) ensures kinetic success translates immediately into propaganda value.
• UAF: Defensive positioning requires rapid commitment of reserves to stabilize both the Konstantinovka perimeter and the new Siversk-Slovyansk axis.

---

2. ENEMY ANALYSIS (IPB Step 2)

2.1. Enemy Capabilities, Intentions, and Courses of Action

• Capability (HIGH): RF maintains synchronized ground maneuver, high-volume fire support (KAB), and highly effective political/military Command and Control (C2) alignment.
• Intention (Kinetic): The immediate intention is the operational isolation of the Kramatorsk-Slovyansk defensive cluster by achieving significant penetrations along both the Konstantinovka (Pokrovsk) and Siversk axes NLT 140000Z DEC 25.
• Intention (IO/Strategic): The critical intention is to amplify battlefield success (Siversk capture, Zaporizhzhia tempo) to lend credibility to the escalating "DMZ Sovereignty" narrative (TASS, previous SITREP).

2.2. Recent Tactical Changes or Adaptations

RF continues to heavily leverage high-level C2 video conferences (Putin/Commanders) for domestic IO purposes. However, the successful UAF Electronic Warfare (EW) disruption of the C2 link near Siversk (14:57Z) demonstrates a vulnerability in their forward C2 relay nodes. This confirms a capability gap in RF redundancy for high-profile command communications.

2.3. Logistics and Sustainment Status

The 260th Central Rocket Artillery Base (GRAU) surge (SAR Score 24.96) remains the single largest operational threat. Its interdiction is paramount to preventing the RF from achieving sustained fire superiority necessary to overwhelm the defenses converging on Slovyansk/Kramatorsk. (Confidence Assessment: HIGH)

2.4. Command and Control Effectiveness

RF strategic C2 (aligning Gerasimov claims with Putin validation) is highly effective. However, tactical C2 effectiveness is locally compromised by UAF EW/SIGINT capabilities, demonstrated by the successful interdiction of the Siversk-based command link.

---

3. FRIENDLY FORCES (IPB Step 3)

3.1. Ukrainian Force Posture and Readiness

UAF is primarily focused on containing the tactical crisis in Konstantinovka while simultaneously executing the complex retrograde maneuver in Zaporizhzhia (Plan PHOENIX). Readiness is improved by the confirmed implementation of General Staff administrative reforms simplifying personnel transfers and mitigating Unauthorized Absence (SZCh) risks (14:57Z).

3.2. Recent Tactical Successes or Setbacks

• Success (EW/SIGINT): Verified successful disruption of a high-profile RF command video conference near Siversk using EW/SIGINT assets (14:57Z). This provides a critical window of opportunity to exploit RF C2 vulnerabilities.
• Setback: Confirmed RF success in converting the Siversk seizure into an active pressure axis toward Slovyansk, drawing resources away from the critical Konstantinovka front.

3.3. Resource Requirements and Constraints

The immediate constraint is the requirement for Combat Reserve Allocation capable of stabilizing two distinct, high-intensity penetration points (Konstantinovka South, Siversk North). A decisive commitment of EW assets is required to amplify the C2 disruption success demonstrated at Siversk across other critical front sectors.

---

4. INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (IPB Step 4)

4.1. Propaganda and Disinformation Campaigns

RF IO continues to push the high-level C2 synergy narrative to emphasize operational inevitability. The primary strategic threat is the continued amplification of the "DMZ Sovereignty" claim—demanding international recognition of the contact line as sovereign Russian territory, thereby nullifying any diplomatic efforts based on the 20-point peace plan.

4.2. Public Sentiment and Morale Factors

Morale remains stressed by kinetic events (Konstantinovka fighting, Sumy civilian casualties). However, the General Staff's public commitment to improving internal administrative processes (SZCh/transfer reforms) serves as a necessary positive internal morale factor, demonstrating responsiveness to service member concerns.

4.3. International Support and Diplomatic Developments

Political instability in key European states (Bulgaria, Hungary) maintains a high risk of fracturing consensus on aid packages. The international response to the aggressive RF "DMZ Sovereignty" claim is now the central diplomatic focus, requiring immediate counter-narrative establishment by the National Command Authority (NCA). (Confidence Assessment: HIGH)

---

5. PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS (IPB Step 5)

5.1. Most Likely Enemy Courses of Action (MLCOA) – (HIGH Confidence)

1. Dual Axis Convergence: RF forces will sustain synchronized offensive action from Siversk (3rd Army) toward Slovyansk and from the Pokrovsk pocket toward Konstantinovka. The objective is to force a UAF decision to abandon one front or split reserves, resulting in accelerated collapse NLT 140000Z DEC.
2. Logistics-Enabled Breakthrough: RF will successfully move the identified materiel from the 260th GRAU into forward supply depots, enabling a doubling of artillery saturation rates across both critical axes (Konstantinovka/Slovyansk).
3. IO Escalation: RF media will continue to link successful kinetic action (Siversk, Zaporizhzhia tempo) directly to the validity of the "DMZ Sovereignty" demand to preempt international diplomatic efforts.

5.2. Most Dangerous Enemy Courses of Action (MDCOA) – (HIGH Confidence)

1. Operational Encirclement of Kramatorsk/Slovyansk: Coordinated breakthrough on both the Siversk and Konstantinovka axes results in the operational encirclement or bypass of the critical defensive hubs, forcing a large-scale, uncontrolled UAF withdrawal and the loss of major industrial/population centers.
2. Strategic Support Erosion: RF's DMZ sovereignty campaign gains traction among Western states facing internal political pressure, leading to the freezing of critical materiel transfers (e.g., Polish MiG-29s) and forcing Kyiv into unfavorable ceasefire negotiations.

5.3. Timeline Estimates and Decision Points

---

6. INTELLIGENCE GAPS AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

---

7. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS