Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment Analysis: December 6, 2025

The military-strategic landscape on December 6, 2025, continued to be defined by a relentless grind in Ukraine’s eastern administrative regions, a situation analyzed in detail by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). The operational dynamics underscore a persistent contest for incremental positional advantage, heavily influenced by Russia’s sustained deep-strike campaign and an evolving calculus of manpower and international support. The fighting remains concentrated across the Donbas and the northern approaches to Kharkiv, reflecting Russia’s overarching strategic goals to secure administrative boundaries and degrade Ukrainian combat power through attrition.

The Eastern Front Operational Dynamics

The core of the conflict remains rooted in intense ground combat throughout eastern Ukraine. Russia has continued to commit considerable manpower and materiel toward achieving specific, albeit limited, objectives within the Donbas, particularly aiming to secure the entirety of the Luhansk Oblast and advance against the northern defenses of Donetsk Oblast. The operational tempo is a direct consequence of the high value both sides place on holding or gaining territory, a reality mediated by the resilience of long-term Ukrainian fortifications and the ability of Kyiv to absorb and counter Russian momentum.

Northern Sector Pressure Points and Kharkiv Region Objectives

A primary driver of current Russian military action in the northern theater is the strategic imperative to re-establish a security perimeter along the international border, specifically addressing threats emanating from the Belgorod Oblast. This defensive necessity fuels offensive operations intended to push Ukrainian formations farther from the boundary, mitigating cross-border raids and shelling. A related offensive aspiration involves advancing Ukrainian lines close enough to the Kharkiv City region to bring them within effective tube artillery range of Russian-deployed systems. Such an achievement would fundamentally alter the strategic situation for Ukraine’s second-largest city, potentially leading to severe restrictions on military and logistical activities within the metropolitan area.

On the day of the report, December the sixth, Russian forces maintained continuous offensive pressure across the northern sectors of Kharkiv Oblast. This involved localized assaults and probing actions designed to test the determination of the Ukrainian defenses. Critically, however, the assessment noted an absence of any confirmed, significant territorial breakthroughs or major advances in this northern theater on December 6, indicating that while the pressure is unrelenting, Ukrainian defenses are currently preventing a major Russian rupture in this sector.

Kupyansk Axis Maneuvers and Logistical Contention

The Kupyansk direction continues to serve as a zone of active, though not yet decisive, Russian offensive operations. The interpreted strategic vision for this axis centers on consolidating control over the entirety of the Luhansk Oblast’s administrative boundaries while simultaneously projecting force westward into the eastern fringes of Kharkiv Oblast. This thrust is also intrinsically linked to the effort to place significant operational pressure on the northern flank of the main defensive lines in Donetsk Oblast.

Russian military elements continued to execute offensive actions along this vector on December 6, seeking exploitable weaknesses in the Ukrainian deployment. Despite the commitment of resources, the intelligence assessment confirmed that, similar to the Kharkiv sector operations, there were no verified or substantial territorial gains registered by Russian forces along the Kupyansk axis during the reported twenty-four-hour period. This operational stasis suggests that the Ukrainian command is successfully matching Russian offensive efforts with sufficient defensive capability, transforming the expected Russian winter push into a costly war of attrition along this vital corridor. Maintenance of Ukrainian positions here is viewed as crucial for precluding a wider Russian envelopment of the remaining Ukrainian-held territory in the east.

The Push to Secure the Remainder of Luhansk Oblast

The long-standing political objective of the Russian Federation—the complete capture and assertion of administrative control over the entirety of the Luhansk Oblast—remains a central military driver. While significant portions of the oblast have been under Russian control for an extended duration, fully securing the remaining Ukrainian-held pockets represents a crucial political milestone for the Kremlin, signaling progress toward its maximalist Donbas war aims.

Operations flowing from the Kupyansk axis are directly aimed at aiding this consolidation by preventing Ukrainian forces from reinforcing or threatening the western flanks of the contested areas within Luhansk. Any successful Russian operation in this region would serve the dual purpose of freeing up combat units for redeployment to other critical sectors or securing a more stable rear area for future westward advances into Kharkiv or Donetsk Oblasts. The pressure exerted is characterized by attrition, massed fire, and methodical advances, reflecting the current operational reality where resilient Ukrainian defenses necessitate a slow, costly approach for the aggressor.

Intense Fighting in the Donetsk Operational Area

The southern end of the main contact line, predominantly encompassing the Donetsk Oblast, stands as the site of the most tactically complex and geographically critical engagements currently observed. The Russian military effort in this area is marked by deep, coordinated thrusts aimed at dislocating major Ukrainian groupings and seizing vital transport hubs. The operations immediately surrounding the cities of Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad represent a concentrated attempt to breach the Ukrainian defensive architecture, with potential localized success carrying cascading effects across the wider eastern front.

The Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad Salient and Encirclement Efforts

A central focus of ongoing military action revolves around the Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad urban areas, which function as significant logistical and command centers for the Ukrainian forces defending the eastern sector. Reports confirmed that as of the assessment date of December 6, Ukrainian defenders have successfully maintained their positions within these key cities, resisting sustained attempts at direct assault or tactical isolation by Russian forces. However, the Russian military has pursued a concerted strategy to complete the encirclement of this Ukrainian pocket, a maneuver that would severely compromise the combat units situated there.

This effort to establish a comprehensive ring around the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad grouping is the immediate focus of Russian tactical planning in this specific area. While the encirclement was not reported as fully complete by the close of December 5, ongoing Russian operations are clearly designed to tighten this perceived noose, aiming to force a costly withdrawal under fire or compel a surrender, which would represent a major strategic victory in the Donbas. The tactical stakes in this confined geographic area are immense, representing the immediate success or failure of the current operational cycle of the Donbas offensive.

Ukrainian Logistical Resilience Under Drone Interdiction

A key factor complicating the Russian effort to isolate Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad is the sustained struggle for logistical superiority in the immediate vicinity. Russian forces are actively employing sophisticated means to sever the flow of ammunition, reinforcements, and sustenance to the defenders. A particularly emphasized tactic involves the systematic and extensive use of Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones) to achieve effects analogous to battlefield air interdiction (BAI). The explicit aim is to deny Ukrainian forces the ability to efficiently move reserves and supplies at the tactical and operational levels through immediate rear areas.

This drone saturation strategy places significant stress on Ukrainian logistical units, compelling them to utilize less optimal routes, conduct movements under cover of darkness, or rely on less protected means of transport. The resilience of the Ukrainian defense in this area is therefore a direct metric of their logistical adaptability and their capacity to absorb and mitigate this continuous aerial harassment. The confirmed ability of Ukrainian units to still hold ground and effectively manage incoming supplies despite persistent interdiction efforts speaks to their operational discipline and the effectiveness of their counter-drone measures, even as the situation remains highly precarious.

Developments in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka Tactical Zone

Moving further south within the Donetsk operational area, a significant line of contact is developing around the general tactical zone encompassing Kostyantynivka and Druzhkivka. This section of the front line is characterized by more fluid tactical exchanges, featuring localized advances and counter-advances, suggesting a more contested and less linear front than in other sectors.

On the day under review, available open-source information indicated that Ukrainian forces managed to achieve some localized gains in this specific Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka zone. Simultaneously, however, Russian forces also registered marginal, yet noticeable, advances within the same general vicinity. This dynamic suggests that neither side has established decisive dominance here, resulting in a fluid tactical situation where minor unit actions dictate the day-to-day map changes. The Ukrainian capacity to conduct localized offensives, even while under pressure elsewhere, demonstrates a capacity for offensive action that prevents a singular Russian focus on the Pokrovsk salient.

Southern and Southeastern Battlefield Adjustments

While the primary operational focus remains heavily weighted toward the eastern administrative boundary, shifts and continuing engagements in the southern and southeastern theaters warrant dedicated analysis, as they often serve as indicators for future strategic direction or as means for fixing Ukrainian reserves away from the main effort. These sectors are characterized by both static defense and localized maneuvers intended to test the stability of flanks.

Gains and Holds Near Novopavlivka and Oleksandrivka

In the areas proximate to Novopavlivka and the vicinity of Oleksandrivka, battlefield reports indicated that Ukrainian forces have recently been successful in achieving localized offensive successes. These gains, even if they do not constitute a deep breakthrough, are significant in that they disrupt Russian efforts to solidify control or establish new lines of communication, compelling the Russian command to react and divert attention. Conversely, these same areas have seen Russian forces actively contest any Ukrainian progress, with recent reports indicating Russian marginal advances near these same locations.

This suggests an environment of intense, localized attrition where control shifts back and forth based on the success of the most recent tactical action. The ability of Ukrainian units to successfully execute offensive actions in these sectors demonstrates that pockets of operational initiative remain available to the defenders, preventing the war from becoming solely a Russian offensive enterprise across the entire front line. These actions inherently shape the strategic depth available to Ukraine’s eastern defense.

Russian Efforts to Consolidate Occupied Territories

Beyond the active contact line, a broader and less visible military effort is directed toward the long-term consolidation of already occupied territories. This involves securing key transportation nodes, integrating local administrative structures with Russian governmental models, and ensuring the functionality of the imposed security apparatus. The assessment implies that a key underlying objective for the Russian military is to make the current line of control permanent and defensible by hardening the occupied territories against internal dissent and external probing attacks, thus creating a stable foundation for launching any future, deeper operations.

Russian Force Generation and International Procurement

The prosecution of a conflict of this magnitude over an extended period places an enormous strain on a nation’s industrial base, manpower reserves, and international relationships. As the war continues into its fourth year, ISW analysis routinely scrutinizes how the Russian Federation is managing these critical inputs to sustain its high operational tempo, which increasingly relies on external assistance to cover domestic shortfalls.

Escalating Reliance on External State Actors

Global diplomatic maneuvering by the Kremlin points toward an increasing, almost critical, dependency on a small number of external state actors to maintain the technological and material requirements of the ongoing war effort. The analysis suggests that Moscow is noticeably increasing its engagement with the Republic of India, attempting to cultivate partnerships that would alleviate critical domestic shortages. This engagement appears to extend beyond simple transactional purchases and may involve setting conditions for direct support, such as assistance in establishing or scaling up domestic drone production capabilities within Russia, a development that would significantly boost current electronic and aerial warfare efforts.

This intensification of outreach to India is framed within the context of Russia’s already well-documented and growing reliance on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to sustain its materiel pipeline. The PRC is reportedly localizing production of the Orlan-10 drone in the PRC, and its components are critical to Russian adaptation efforts. Furthermore, the DPRK has reportedly begun mass production of FPV and medium-range strike drones, possibly for future supply to Russia, in addition to providing artillery shells and missiles. This pattern highlights a strategic vulnerability: the continued success of the Russian war machine is becoming intertwined with the geopolitical calculus of a small circle of non-Western states willing to support Moscow despite international sanctions regimes.

Domestic Labor Shortages and Wartime Mobilization Strain

The intense operational demands on the Russian military are inevitably translating into significant pressures on the domestic labor market and the broader socio-economic fabric of the Federation. The Kremlin’s turn toward international partners for labor capacity directly suggests that domestic human resource pools are becoming depleted or are being prioritized for direct military service or critical war-related industries. Severe labor shortages have been reported, with some analyses indicating a record high deficit of 2.6 million employees at the end of 2024, with manufacturing, trade, and transportation being the most affected sectors.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov announced on December 5 that Russia may accept an “unlimited number” of migrant workers from India under a new bilateral labor mobility agreement signed in New Delhi. Manturov stated that Russian manufacturing industries face a shortage of 800,000 workers, with trade, construction, and service industries missing 1.5 million workers. This reliance on foreign labor signals an internal friction point, implicitly acknowledging the long-term demographic and human capital costs associated with the protracted conflict and ongoing mobilization, which has drawn men away from industry while increasing military-industrial needs.

Ukrainian Response and Counter-Targeting Strategy

The Ukrainian defense strategy is an active, multi-layered approach that combines tenacious front-line defense with a sophisticated, strategic offensive campaign targeting the aggressor’s industrial and logistical depth. This strategy aims to impose costs on Russia that exceed the perceived benefits of its territorial gains, thereby attempting to shift the calculus toward a negotiated settlement on terms favorable to Kyiv.

Strikes Against Russian Defense Industrial Base and Energy Assets

In direct response to the continuous Russian aerial campaign, Ukrainian forces have maintained and, in some areas, intensified their targeting of assets crucial to the Russian war-making capacity within the internationally recognized borders of the Federation. A primary focus remains the Russian oil processing and refining infrastructure, as well as key components of the nation’s Defense Industrial Base (DIB). By disrupting the flow of refined fuel products, Ukraine aims to constrain the mobility of Russian ground forces and aviation. By targeting the DIB, the objective is to degrade Russia’s ability to produce new munitions and repair existing equipment—effectively attempting to slow the rate at which Russia can replenish its losses and sustain its high-expenditure war. This counter-targeting strategy is essential for balancing the ledger against Russia’s deep-strike capabilities.

The scale of the Russian aerial offensive leading up to December 6 was notable: Russian forces launched 704 total missiles and drones against Ukraine overnight on December 5 to 6, heavily targeting railway and energy infrastructure across the country. The Ukrainian Air Force reported downing 585 drones, 29 cruise missiles, and one ballistic missile in that exchange, though an unspecified number of missiles and 60 drones still hit 29 locations.

Maintenance of Defensive Lines in Critical Hubs

The operational success of the counter-targeting strategy is intrinsically linked to the steadfastness of the front-line defenders. The ability of Ukrainian forces to retain control over critical urban nodes, such as the Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad area, is paramount, as every day these strongpoints remain under Ukrainian control prevents the Russian military from achieving a significant operational consolidation that could free up corps-level assets for other theaters. The defense in these sectors is characterized by disciplined fire discipline, effective exploitation of local terrain features, and methodical execution of counter-fire missions to suppress Russian direct-fire assets. The persistence on the ground ensures that Russia must continue to consume valuable reserves and materiel in costly frontal assaults, a rate of consumption that is ultimately unsustainable.

Analysis of Operational Tempo and Strategic Forecast

The day’s assessment synthesizes tactical reports into a cohesive picture of the current operational tempo, suggesting a continuation of grinding attrition punctuated by localized, high-stakes maneuvers, rather than a sweeping operational collapse by either side.

Assessment of Russia’s Near-Term Military Goals

Russia’s military objectives remain clearly delineated by its current operational thrusts: achieve territorial consolidation in the Donbas, specifically securing Luhansk Oblast entirely, and create a strategically unfavorable situation for Ukraine around Kharkiv by bringing it within artillery range. The immediate near-term goal is the tactical success around Pokrovsk, as this offers the quickest path to a major achievement in the Donbas sector, a political necessity for the Kremlin. The tempo is one of sustained, methodical pressure, leveraging fire superiority and manpower where possible, while accepting a slow rate of advance when met with determined defense. The primary strategic challenge for the Russian command remains translating localized tactical successes into irreversible operational momentum capable of collapsing a large section of the Ukrainian defense.

Implications of Current Battlefield Trends for Future Trajectory

The trends visible on December the sixth suggest a continued, protracted war of attrition. Ukrainian resilience in maintaining key defensive positions, particularly in the face of massive aerial bombardment and attempted logistical strangulation via drone interdiction, indicates that a rapid Russian victory remains highly improbable. Conversely, Russia’s continued ability to exert significant pressure on multiple axes suggests that Ukraine faces a constant, existential threat that will necessitate ever-increasing levels of external material support to maintain parity. The future trajectory hinges on whether Ukraine can successfully sustain its counter-strikes against Russian logistics and DIB, thereby reducing the aggressor’s operational tempo, or if Russia can eventually build up enough local force concentration to achieve a decisive positional breakthrough, particularly in the Donetsk region. The current balance indicates a high-stakes contest of endurance where industrial capacity and material inputs play roles as significant as frontline infantry unit performance.

Wider Security Implications and Information Environment

The conflict in Ukraine continues to send shockwaves throughout the broader Euro-Atlantic security architecture, influencing global perceptions of military capabilities and vulnerabilities, particularly in the realm of high-tech warfare.

Reports of Unidentified Aerial Activity Over European Military Sites

In a development underscoring the pervasive nature of the security crisis, recent days have seen unconfirmed but noteworthy reports of unidentified aerial objects operating over sensitive military installations outside of the immediate conflict zone. Specifically, an incident involving the overflight by five unidentified drones above the Île Longue naval base in western France—the home port of the nation’s nuclear-armed ballistic-missile submarines—was reported on the evening of December 4, 2025, around 19:30 local time. Security personnel at the base detected the five drones, prompting an immediate activation of counter-drone procedures, with fusiliers marins opening fire as part of the response protocol.

While the French Ministry of the Armed Forces has not officially attributed the incursion, this event is reported amidst a broader pattern of similar aerial surveillance near critical military infrastructure across Europe, including incidents in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The presence of these devices over such a critical French strategic asset has prompted a judicial investigation and represents a clear expansion of the informational and security confrontation beyond the direct combat theater, testing the reaction times and readiness of NATO member states’ air defense systems.

Precedent Set by Previous Conflict Incidents

The conflict has already established numerous grim precedents, from the systematic use of advanced drone swarms for battlefield interdiction to significant infrastructure damage. A particularly grim milestone mentioned in recent assessments is the reported incident at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) in February 2025, which reportedly compromised the protective containment structure, rendering it unable to fulfill its primary safety functions.

The current situation, where logistical denial through drone warfare is an explicit, primary objective for both sides, showcases a mature integration of unmanned systems into core operational planning—a model that other militaries are undoubtedly studying intently. Furthermore, the ongoing peace negotiations contextually frame these kinetic events. US and Ukrainian negotiating delegations have asserted that any progress toward talks to end the war is contingent upon Russia demonstrating a demonstrable, good-faith commitment to long-term peace, a commitment not reflected in the intensity of the December 5-6 strikes. The evolution of both Russian and Ukrainian tactical doctrines in response to these new realities will define the next phase of the conflict and influence international military doctrine for years to come.