Situation Report

MILITARY INTELLIGENCE SITUATION REPORT (SITREP)

TIME: 112000Z DEC 25 SUBJECT: CRITICAL DEFENSIVE CRISIS: SLOVYANSK NORTHERN FLANK UNDER ACTIVE RECCE PROBE; LRPF WINDOW NARROWING; HIGH-LEVEL RF REJECTION OF TERRITORIAL REFERENDUM.

---

1. SITUATION OVERVIEW (IPB Step 1)

1.1. Battlefield Geometry and Key Terrain

The operational geometry remains defined by the dual-axis threat to the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk defensive hub, following the validated loss of Siversk.

• Slovyansk Northern Flank (FACT/CRITICAL): UAF Air Force reports confirmed UAV reconnaissance penetrating the northern perimeter of Slovyansk (111935Z DEC). This confirms active RF intelligence gathering preparatory to an exploitation attempt by the RF 3rd Combined Arms Army (CAA) along the Siversk axis.
• Huliaipole/Zaporizhzhia (FACT): RF MoD claims confirmed the destruction of a Forward Operating Base (FOB) belonging to the 33rd Separate Assault Brigade (33 OSHB) near Huliaipole using FAB-250 glide bombs (111921Z DEC). This validates the intelligence judgment that RF is using standoff munitions to fix UAF attention and prevent reinforcement of OC East.
• Kharkiv Region (FACT): RF Defense Minister Belousov congratulated the 272nd Motorised Rifle Regiment on the capture of Kurilovka. This is a secondary operational gain that demonstrates sustained RF pressure outside the main Donbas effort.

1.2. Weather and Environmental Factors Affecting Operations

No significant changes. Conditions remain permissive for continued high-tempo ground and air operations across the Eastern theater.

1.3. Current Force Dispositions and Control Measures

UAF forces are under maximum strain, evidenced by:

1. Ammunition Stress (JUDGEMENT): Open source reporting by high-profile UAF voices highlights an ongoing and critical shortage of materiel ("deficit русорізу"). (Confidence: HIGH, supported by DS belief 0.215776).
2. Air Defense Posture: Immediate threat response required to counter the observed UAV reconnaissance runs over Slovyansk. SHORAD assets must be redirected from rear areas.

2. ENEMY ANALYSIS (IPB Step 2)

2.1. Enemy Capabilities, Intentions, and Courses of Action

Capability: RF maintains the capacity for sustained high-intensity warfare, supported by deep strike capabilities (FAB-250 deployment) and effective centralized C2 (MoD validation of minor gains). Intention (Kinetic): Immediate intent is the exploitation of the Siversk breach, confirmed by active reconnaissance flights over Slovyansk's northern approach. The primary objective remains the operational isolation of Kramatorsk via the converging pincer movement. Intention (Hybrid/IO): To leverage kinetic success and political friction to achieve non-negotiable territorial gains (DMZ Sovereignty), aggressively rejecting any diplomatic maneuver (like a referendum) that might grant UAF forces a temporary ceasefire for reconstitution.

(Confidence Assessment: HIGH)

2.2. Recent Tactical Changes or Adaptations

The use of FAB-250s against the 33 OSHB in Huliaipole confirms continued reliance on inexpensive, mass-produced standoff weapons to achieve localized tactical objectives and pin down key UAF brigades.

2.3. Logistics and Sustainment Status (CRITICAL)

The 260th GRAU munitions surge is confirmed mobile (SAR 0.00). The deadline for successful LRPF interdiction remains NLT 120200Z DEC. This is a Go/No-Go decision point. Failure will directly enable the MLCOA kinetic breakthroughs.

(Confidence Assessment: HIGH)

2.4. Command and Control Effectiveness

RF C2 remains robust and centralized. The immediate public congratulation of the 272nd MRR by the Defense Minister demonstrates intent to recognize and reward all successful tactical initiatives, reinforcing front line motivation. Medvedev’s highly aggressive statements further signal alignment between political leadership and kinetic battlefield efforts, suggesting unity of purpose.

3. FRIENDLY FORCES (IPB Step 3)

3.1. Ukrainian Force Posture and Readiness

Readiness is currently optimized for defensive holding actions but is severely strained by logistical deficiencies (ammunition shortage) and the manpower crunch (SZCh reassignment policy). The immediate threat requires a strategic shift of engineering and short-range air defense assets to the Slovyansk northern flank.

3.2. Recent Tactical Successes or Setbacks

The principal setback is the loss of Siversk and the operational exposure of the Slovyansk hub. Potential Counter-Stroke (JUDGEMENT): UAF deep strike activities, including reported activity near Sevastopol (111938Z DEC), continue to demonstrate the capability to strike strategic targets, providing a necessary counter-narrative to RF kinetic gains.

3.3. Resource Requirements and Constraints

The most acute constraints are:

1. Time: Extremely limited time (less than 6 hours) to execute the LRPF strike against the 260th GRAU convoy.
2. Materiel: Critical shortage of "русорізу" (ammunition and weapons systems).
3. Air Defense: Immediate need for SHORAD systems to counter low-flying UAVs (like the one observed over Slovyansk).

4. INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (IPB Step 4)

4.1. Propaganda and Disinformation Campaigns

RF IO is focused on undermining UAF diplomatic flexibility and Western support:

1. Diplomatic Sabotage (FACT): Dmitry Medvedev publicly and aggressively rejected President Zelensky’s proposal for a territorial referendum, framing it as a geopolitical insult ("showed the White House the middle finger"). This confirms the RF will not accept negotiated terms that slow their current kinetic momentum.
2. Western Disunity (JUDGEMENT): RF channels (e.g., Операция Z) continue to push the narrative of US/RF collusion against EU interests using fabricated media covers. This aims to increase friction before the Dec 13 diplomatic meeting.
3. Internal Cohesion: RF reports on cadre preparation and military-family support programs aim to project internal stability, contrasting with reports of UAF manpower struggles.

4.2. Public Sentiment and Morale Factors

UAF morale is stressed by losses but is bolstered by potentially significant financial news: Reports indicate the EU is near an agreement to transfer up to €90 billion from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. This provides a crucial, positive strategic offset to the current tactical setbacks.

4.3. International Support and Diplomatic Developments

Friction Point (FACT): Reports of potential disputes or delays concerning the transfer of Polish MiG-29 fighter jets inject uncertainty into critical air support planning. This requires immediate diplomatic clarification.

(Confidence Assessment: MEDIUM)

5. PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS (IPB Step 5)

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

1. Immediate Exploitation (T+0 to T+12 HRS): The confirmed UAV reconnaissance over Slovyansk will immediately be followed by heavy fire preparation and probing ground assaults by elements of the 3rd CAA against the newly established UAF hasty defensive line, targeting the P-79 road network.
2. Artillery Escalation (T+12 to T+24 HRS): Barring a successful LRPF strike, the 260th GRAU materiel will begin arriving at forward depots (Volnovakha/Ilovaisk). High-volume artillery fire superiority will be established against the Slovyansk-Kramatorsk defensive lines NLT 121000Z DEC.
3. Diplomatic Deadlock: RF will utilize the kinetic successes (Siversk, Konstantinovka penetration) and Medvedev’s hardline rhetoric to demand territorial concessions at the Dec 13 meeting, framed by the "DMZ Sovereignty" narrative.

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

1. OPERATIONAL DEFEAT (DONBAS): Coordinated RF pincer movement, fully enabled by GRAU munitions, achieves a breakthrough leading to the catastrophic operational loss of Kramatorsk and Slovyansk, forcing a lengthy, disorganized retrograde to the West.
2. STRATEGIC COERCION SUCCESS: Western partners (particularly the identified US faction) perceive the tactical situation as a systemic UAF collapse and leverage the Dec 13 meeting to force a ceasefire recognizing current battlefield lines, crippling Ukraine's sovereign negotiating position.

5.3. Timeline Estimates and Decision Points

---

6. INTELLIGENCE GAPS AND COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS

---

7. ACTIONABLE RECOMMENDATIONS