Sitrep for Feb. 28-March 3, 2025 (as of 11 a.m. UTC+3) 

Frontline Situation Update

Over the past few days, there have been relatively few changes on the frontline, with both Ukrainian and Russian forces significantly slowing the pace of their advances. This trend is expected to continue in the foreseeable future.

In the Pokrovsk direction, the Russian Armed Forces have recaptured some positions near the village of Pishchane that had been liberated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in early February. We assess this change as highly insignificant, as the current format of positional warfare means that certain positions can regularly change hands.

In the Svatove direction (southern part of the Kupiansk direction), where Russian forces advanced south of the town of Kupiansk at the end of 2024, the fighting has intensified near the village of Zahryzove, south of Kruhliakivka, and near the village of Stepy (formerly known as Pershotravneve), where the RuAF have advanced in the village of Nadiia. These clashes are occurring near the villages of Kruhliakivka, Pishchane and Kolisnykivka.

In the northern part of the Ukrainian bridgehead in the Kursk region, the DeepState project is reporting Russian advances near the village of Pogrebki and in the village of Novaya Sorochina, which we mentioned in our previous sitrep. The latter is confirmed by a video showing Russian soldiers freely moving through the village and raising flags. Although DeepState marks Novaya Sorochina as a gray zone, we lean toward the assessment that it is under Russian control.

The most significant changes on the frontline have occurred in the southwestern part of the Kursk bridgehead. The RuAF have taken control of the border zone between the villages of Sverdlikovo and Nikolayevo-Darino, which were captured in late January to early February. As a result, Russian forces now have the N-07 (or R-200) highway within fire range, complicating the supply lines of the Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region.

So far, there have been no reports of the presence of North Korean mechanized units in Russia, which had been previously reported as being transferred, nor have there been reports of armored vehicles being transported from North Korea to the eastern part of Russia.

Some media outlets, including Agentstvo [Agency], citing the Institute for the Study of War [ISW], have reported a threat of encirclement for Russian forces in the center of the town of Toretsk. This is allegedly due to Ukrainian counterattacks, which have allowed them to regain positions in the central part of the town (confirming the advances mentioned in previous sitreps). As a result, Russian troops would now face a risk of encirclement. However, we believe this claim is inaccurate. Urban combat is extremely difficult, especially considering the manpower shortages both armies are experiencing. Russian soldiers cannot fully control the entire town center, which allows Ukrainian troops to maneuver between buildings and retake positions they had previously retreated from. Meanwhile, reports indicate that additional Russian forces are being transferred to the Toretsk direction.

Ukrainian and Russian Strikes

The MoD reported a Russian strike on the Novomoskovskyi training ground in the Dnipropetrovsk region, using an Iskander-M short-range ballistic missile system. Drone footage, likely from an Orlan-30, shows a large group of people moving around on camp grounds, and while the image quality does not allow us to confirm if they are military personnel, it seems probable. The video then cuts to show a cluster munition strike.

The Novomoskovskyi training ground is located near the village of Cherkaskе, northeast of Dnipro, approximately 130 km [81 mi] from the frontline. The fact that a Russian UAV was able to conduct reconnaissance and give fire direction for Russian missiles suggests that Ukrainian air defense capabilities are deteriorating. The strike on the training ground was acknowledged by the commander of the AFU Ground Forces, Mykhailo Drapatyi, and various sources report dozens of casualties.

Ukrainian military expert Serhii "Flash" Beskrestnov posted condolences, confirming Ukrainian losses in the strike. In addition, he reported another similar strike two days earlier in the Zaporizhzhia region.

The Ukrainian Air Force carried out a strike using two glide bombs on the Federal Security Service (FSB) Border Department building in the village of Belaya Beryozka in the Russian Bryansk region, near the Ukrainian Sumy and Chernihiv regions. According to sources from the Astra Telegram channel, one person was killed and 14 others were injured, including FSB and military personnel. The debris removal operation is still ongoing. According to the General Staff of the AFU, the strike destroyed military infrastructure, communication equipment and various technical systems used to coordinate combat operations. The exact type of air-dropped bombs used remains unknown, but they were undoubtedly precision-guided munitions—potentially GBU-39, JDAM or the AASM Hammer glide bombs. It is worth noting that the GBU-39 is typically deployed from F-16 fighter aircraft, which were recently spotted near the Russia-Ukraine border, while the other munitions can be launched from MiG-29 aircraft.

The 412th Nemesis Separate Regiment of the Unmanned Systems Forces of the AFU, which operates in the Pokrovsk direction, released a video showing the successful tracking of a TOS-1 Solntsepyok MLRS to its hiding location, followed by a strike on the system and an ammunition storage facility near the town of Selydove. The footage shows a bomber drone dropping a large explosive device, resembling an anti-tank mine with attached tail fins for flight stabilization. The strike resulted in a massive secondary detonation. The AFU General Staff had previously reported this attack.

The aforementioned regiment also released images of Russian fortification structures, constructed taking into account the modern realities of warfare, particularly the threat posed by drones. In addition to zigzag trenches, which provide cover not only from UAVs but also from shelling, the photographs reveal snail-shaped reinforcements. Unlike a standard bunker, this curved design makes it exceedingly difficult for a drone to navigate, while soldiers can take shelter from an explosion around the bend. At the center of this "snail," a machine gunner is often stationed, capable of defending the position against drones. Such fortifications are far more effective than the conventional bunkers and straight trenches built by ex-convicts from the Wagner Group.

Photographs of Ukrainian fortifications along the Pokrovsk direction have also emerged, similarly designed with drone threats in mind: they are enclosed on all sides, including from above. Video footage shows a "tunnel" made of metal grating.

Against this backdrop, the assertions of an American tank crewman are striking, claiming that the UAV threat is exaggerated since, in a well-coordinated ground offensive, the positions of UAV operators would be preemptively neutralized. In his view, the damage inflicted by drone strikes is overstated due to the presence of cameras, which capture every strike, unlike artillery barrages, still the predominant means of destruction on the battlefield.

This serviceman unequivocally underestimates the danger of FPV drones, as in the context of full-scale war, it is nearly impossible to clear enemy territory to a depth of 20 kilometers [12 mi] in preparation for offensive operations. Yet this is precisely the range that FPV drones can now cover, with their operators able to dynamically shift positions, complicating efforts to track them.

On March 2, US Central Command (CENTCOM) released footage of the elimination of Mohammed Yusuf Zia Talai, the leader of Hurras al-Din, an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group operating in Syria. On Feb. 23, a US Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone carried out a strike using a Hellfire R9X missile, which employs an inert warhead with six pop-out blades instead of explosives to minimize collateral damage.

Upcoming Peace Talks

On Feb. 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with American President Donald Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance in the Oval Office of the White House. It had been expected that during the meeting the parties would sign a frame agreement on rare earth metals but the talks collapsed. A complete video of the meeting has been published by C-SPAN, while the Associated Press provides a transcript of its key moments.

The full recording, in our view, does not give the impression that Trump and Vance "ambushed" Zelenskyy. The exchange started to heat up after a Polish journalist asked Trump to comment on Eastern Europeans’ concern about his alignment with Putin. When Vance emphasized the importance of diplomacy Zelenskyy wondered what he exactly meant, given that Putin has a history of breaking every possible deal and agreement. In response, Vance lost his temper and accused Zelenskyy of showing disrespect. After Zelenskyy remarked that the US might also feel the war's repercussions in the future, Trump became very angry. The talks continued behind closed doors, and shortly afterward, Zelenskyy left the White House earlier than expected.

According to a member of the Trump administration cited by The New York Times, all American aid to Ukraine, including the latest supplies of ammunition and equipment authorized and funded by the Biden administration, could soon be canceled. The President may choose to halt not only military aid but also indirect support, such as other forms of military funding, intelligence sharing and the training of Ukrainian troops and pilots.

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico announced the termination of financial and military support for Ukraine, stating that Ukraine will never be strong enough to negotiate from a position of military strength and that Slovakia does not want to further escalate the conflict.

In a conversation with Zelenskyy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasized the need to respect what Trump has already done for Ukraine, noting that it was during Trump's first term that the US supplied Ukraine with lethal weapons—Javelin anti-tank missiles. According to Rutte, Zelenskyy should "find a way" to restore relations with the US president.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also warned Zelenskyy that the path to peace in Ukraine must go through the White House and that the only option for negotiations is to engage with President Trump. According to Starmer, Zelenskyy needs to establish relations with Trump, as no peace will be lasting unless it is guaranteed by the US. French President Emmanuel Macron called the EU summit in Brussels on March 6 a key moment for securing "large-scale funding, likely amounting to hundreds of billions of euros," which will be required to strengthen European defense.

Speaking with British journalists at London’s Stansted Airport on the evening of March 2, Zelenskyy stated that he is ready to fulfill one of Donald Trump's demands—signing a mineral agreement that would grant the U.S. access to Ukraine's resources, however, he will not apologize.

France and the United Kingdom proposed a partial ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine for a duration of one month, which would cover air and maritime attacks, including strikes on energy facilities, but not ground combat operations. According to Macron, the second part of the plan involves European countries sending a peacekeeping contingent to Ukraine at a later stage. This plan does not seem realistic to us.

Russian and Ukrainian drone operators expressed their opinions regarding the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump, as well as Vance, using the methods available to them—writing messages on drone payloads.

Western Assistance

The United Kingdom announced that as part of a long-term program to enhance air defense capabilities, set to last until 2030, it will supply Ukraine with more than 5,000 LMM missiles for the Martler MANPADS and Stormer HVM air defense vehicles.

Military analyst Franz-Stefan Gady has published his reflections on how Europe can support Ukraine if US military aid and support ceases.

1. Ukraine can only enter negotiations that avoid a so-called Diktatfrieden if it has a stable frontline. Therefore, the first priority must be stabilizing the frontline in the southern Donetsk region. This will only be possible if Ukraine addresses its manpower shortages and Europe increases artillery deliveries in the event that US supplies cease.
2. Europe must negotiate with the US to procure interceptors for long-range air defense. There is already a shortage of these interceptors, and it remains unclear how quickly additional supplies could reach Ukraine, as they would need to come directly from manufacturers rather than US military depots.
3. European governments must demonstrate their commitment to rearmament by securing multi-year contracts with their defense industries. This also requires finding more effective ways to finance long-term defense projects—such as overhauling ESG criteria.
4. Most importantly, Europe must clearly define its objectives in Ukraine and determine what it is collectively willing to risk. This clarity must precede any discussion of potential European troop deployments. It is easy to enter a war but far more difficult to exit—especially without well-defined and realistic objectives that align with available resources and acceptable risks.
5. Europe cannot fully replace US military aid and lacks quick solutions in some key areas essential for Ukraine. However, the situation is not hopeless—steps can already be taken to help stabilize the frontline in 2025. At the same time, Ukraine’s main challenge—a shortage of personnel at forward positions—can only be addressed by Ukraine itself.

The current focus is not on reclaiming Crimea and all occupied territories by military means. Zelenskyy has repeatedly acknowledged in interviews that these areas cannot be liberated through military action alone and has expressed hope for a future diplomatic solution. It is crucial to ensure Ukraine enters negotiations from the strongest possible position—one that prevents Russia from dictating ceasefire terms and discourages Putin from acting on the slogan, "We can do it again."

Russia and China have recently directed their intelligence services to ramp up recruiting of US federal employees working in national security, targeting those who have been fired or feel they soon could be, according to four people familiar with recent US intelligence on the issue and a document reviewed by CNN. Many have already been let go by the new administration or believe they may soon lose their jobs—making them especially vulnerable to recruitment.

An analytical article on the past and future of NATO was published on Re: Russia, an independent Russian expert and discussion platform. Throughout the history of the alliance, the US has accounted for about 70% of NATO’s total defense spending, American military officials have held senior command positions and NATO forces have depended on US military infrastructure. This arrangement satisfied all parties until the 2010s. Although it was never openly acknowledged, NATO was never created nor has it ever existed as an equal alliance.

The shift in US views on NATO over the past 15 years is linked to the need to focus on strategic competition with China while limiting military expenditures. Meanwhile, increasing European defense spending to 3.5% of GDP would bring European and US contributions to NATO to near parity, requiring a restructuring of the alliance and making it no longer asymmetric.

While US defense spending remains 1.75 times higher than that of all other allies combined, decisions on how to allocate these funds are not always made collectively. For example, the decisions to invade Iraq or to increase the military presence in the Pacific were made unilaterally by the US, without NATO-wide consultation. Europe has met its 2014 commitments to increase defense spending, while Trump’s current demands represent a new condition tied to rising US expenditures on containing China. At the same time, Trump is ready to question or annul US commitments under the NATO treaty. As a result, increasing defense spending under the previous political structure loses significance for Europe, and NATO reform or the creation of a new military-political alliance should be anticipated.

We need your support to continue our efforts. Please consider making a monthly donation to CIT through our fundraising page or Patreon.