Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment: December 16, 2025

The military and political landscape on December 16, 2025, reflects a grinding, attritional conflict where strategic goals remain frozen, yet tactical fluidity persists, particularly in key sectors of the eastern and northern theaters. The Institute for the Study of War’s (ISW) assessment for this date highlights a Russian effort characterized by sustained, high-cost pressure operations, frequently punctuated by high-tech asymmetric responses from Ukrainian forces, set against a backdrop of irreconcilable diplomatic posturing. The focus remains on the Donbas’s consolidation, while the information sphere witnesses a severe escalation of Kremlin rhetoric designed to solidify domestic support for a protracted war.

Operational Dynamics in the Northern Sectors

The northern theater, encompassing operations near Kharkiv and Kupyansk, retains its status as a critical, though often secondary, focus for Russian combined arms endeavors. The strategic goal appears to be the establishment of a permanent buffer zone along the international border with Belgorod Oblast and the constant application of pressure sufficient to fix high-value Ukrainian brigades away from the Donbas. This pressure is designed to degrade Ukrainian logistics hubs in the region through the credible, persistent threat of massed conventional artillery fire, even without the execution of a full-scale deep penetration operation.

The Kupyansk Sub-Sector: Ukrainian Resiliency Tested

The engagements surrounding Kupyansk continue to be defined by the grim reality of close-quarters, attritional warfare, frequently manifesting as brutal, house-to-house and street-by-street engagements. Reports emerging on December 16 indicate that while Ukrainian forces have successfully stabilized the line and even secured marginal tactical gains in certain built-up areas, the commitment of Russian forces, including elements of the Leningrad Military District’s (LMD) 68th Motorized Rifle Division, remains exceptionally dire. According to assessments, elements of the Russian 68th MRD have been described as “desperately fighting” in the western parts of Kupyansk and the nearby area of Myrove. Furthermore, the severity of the tactical situation for the committed Russian units has been acknowledged even by the Russian ultranationalist milblogger community, suggesting the issues have moved beyond simple tactical setbacks into genuine concerns regarding unit cohesion and the sustained fighting capability within this localized pocket. The Kupyansk area is effectively acting as a significant manpower sink, consuming valuable Russian resources that might otherwise be redeployed to more decisive operations further south and east. Kyiv’s ability to successfully counterattack here, however modest, underscores the operational quality of its territorial defense forces and its refined capacity for rapidly reinforcing exposed flanks utilizing mobile reserve units. The very act of sustaining this offensive pressure consumes significant Ukrainian artillery shells, reconnaissance assets, and mandatory unit rotation cycles, serving a crucial strategic purpose even in the absence of broad, map-altering forward movement.

Northern Kharkiv Oblast: Pressure Against the International Border

The declared objective for Russian forces operating in the northern reaches of Kharkiv Oblast remains explicitly centered on pushing Ukrainian defenders backward toward the international border shared with Russia’s Belgorod Oblast. This objective is less about immediate territorial conquest and more about establishing a tactical depth advantage. This depth, if achieved, would render key Ukrainian supply routes and forward command posts increasingly vulnerable to overwhelming massed conventional artillery fire—a capability Russia seeks to maximize before the compounding effects of deep winter weather fully complicate mechanized movement across the theater. While confirmed, large-scale advances on December 16 were notably absent, the persistent, lower-intensity offensive operations signify a continuous, attritional probing effort. This probing is designed to systematically search for weaknesses within the forward defense line that Ukrainian brigades established during the late summer and autumn campaigns. This continuous offensive posture serves the strategic end of expenditure, aimed at depleting Ukrainian reserves of both material and the will to fight simultaneously, regardless of daily territorial shifts on the map.

The Eastern Front: Key Thrusts and Stalemate Zones

The Donbas remains the undeniable epicenter of kinetic conflict, the area where Russia has concentrated the overwhelming majority of its modernized and most experienced operational formations. The full annexation of Luhansk and substantial gains within Donetsk Oblast are viewed by the Kremlin as essential political and military validation for the continuing endeavor. This sector consistently witnesses the most deliberate, albeit glacially slow, application of Russian combined arms doctrine, often exhibiting a heavy reliance on overwhelming electronic warfare suppression capabilities coupled with massed indirect fire barrages.

Advances Near Kostyantynivka and the Avdiivka Salient Shift

The tactical area spanning Kostyantynivka and extending toward the vital communications hub of Druzhkivka has become a significant focal point for renewed Russian commitment. Geolocated evidence, specifically published on December 16, suggests a tangible, if geographically small, alteration of the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA) in favor of Russian units. The previous pattern of mere infiltration attempts has reportedly transitioned into more deliberate operations that successfully seized and held forward terrain, representing a localized success for Moscow. This specific movement appears strategically linked to capitalizing on any operational slack created by Ukrainian redeployments to other threatened sectors, or potentially represents an effort to roll up the Ukrainian flank following the successful stabilization of defensive forces near the heavily contested areas surrounding the former Avdiivka salient. While the aggregate territory gained is measured in meters, the strategic value is substantial, centering on positioning for potential future thrusts deeper into Ukrainian-held Donetsk territory, aiming to compress the remaining defensive lines protecting critical communication nodes along the Pokrovsk-Kramatorsk corridor. The intensity of the fighting here reflects the mutual understanding by both commands regarding the localized significance of these micro-advances. Furthermore, Russian forces are noted to have recently advanced in the Dobropillya tactical area, complementing pressure near Kostyantynivka.

The Struggle for Control Over Remaining Luhansk Territories

The operational goal of seizing the final administrative remnants of Luhansk Oblast continues to dictate a significant allocation of Russian force structure. Despite previous official pronouncements of success in the region, pockets of tenacious Ukrainian resistance maintain control over key elevated positions and fortified settlements. This stubborn defense denies Russia the complete propaganda victory of a final mop-up operation. The fighting in these remaining zones is exceedingly difficult, characterized by combat often taking place within dense woodland areas or heavily mined approach corridors. Russian forces are frequently observed employing massed, often poorly coordinated, direct-fire assaults to overcome entrenched positions, a method that consistently results in disproportionately high casualty rates for relatively minor territorial gains. This unwavering commitment to the formal boundary objective signals a deep political rigidity within the Kremlin, an unwillingness to declare intermediate success until the pre-invasion administrative boundary is fully secured. This fixation risks overextending forces that analysts suggest might be better utilized in a more flexible, opportunity-driven campaign elsewhere.

Southern Axis: Kherson, Zaporizhia, and the Azov Approach

The southern front maintains its high strategic importance due to its proximity to the Crimean land bridge, though the operational tempo here remains generally lower than in the Donbas. This is primarily attributed to the complex terrain and the heavily fortified, multi-layered Ukrainian defensive lines established following the counteroffensives of the preceding year. The current focus is less on achieving immediate breakthrough and more on achieving attrition, interdiction of rear areas, and maintaining a constant, credible threat against Russian lines of communication.

Status of Ukrainian Counter-Efforts in Western Zaporizhia

In the westernmost reaches of the Zaporizhia sector, Ukrainian forces have reportedly managed to achieve localized counter-advances on December 15, suggesting the successful execution of a spoiling action or a targeted counter-strike against a temporarily weakened sector of the Russian line. Such tactical movements, even if temporary in duration, are strategically crucial for disrupting Russian logistics flows feeding the Melitopol and Berdiansk axes. These operations are assessed to likely involve highly mobile reconnaissance-in-force groups specifically designed to test the depth and responsiveness of Russian brigade-level reserves. For Ukraine, preserving an offensive capability in the south is deemed vital for maintaining the strategic initiative and tying down significant Russian forces that might otherwise be rotated to the eastern front to support planned winter offensives. The terrain in this sector generally favors the defensive posture, meaning that any Ukrainian advance requires a significant expenditure of both tactical effort and materiel to secure even a temporary advantage over entrenched positions.

Limited Russian Probing in the Kherson Sector

In the area surrounding the Dnipro River near Kherson, the reported Russian ground assaults on December 15 remained strictly “limited” in scope and intensity, consistent with previous patterns. This likely signifies a continuation of probing actions designed primarily to fix Ukrainian artillery assets and forward reconnaissance elements onto the left bank of the Dnipro River. There is currently no substantive evidence to suggest a serious Russian attempt to cross the river in strength or to launch a major offensive operation aimed at retaking Kherson City itself. Instead, the activity appears precisely tailored to disrupt Ukrainian stabilization efforts along the river line, test the efficacy of Ukrainian electronic countermeasures, and maintain a state of constant operational alert for Ukrainian units, thereby preventing their transfer to more active front sectors. The high operational security reportedly maintained by Ukrainian forces in this area suggests that any Russian probing has been quickly met with effective, pre-sited counter-fire control measures.

The Information and Diplomatic Frontline

The conflict’s character is not solely defined by kinetic engagements; the information sphere and diplomatic corridors are arenas of equally significant, though less immediately visible, strategic competition. The events reported as of December 16 confirm a simultaneous escalation across both these non-kinetic fronts.

The Kremlin’s Domestic Information Militarization Strategy

A chillingly effective information campaign has been launched by the Kremlin, the central aim of which is the comprehensive militarization of Russian domestic society. This effort deliberately frames the entire European Union, and with increasing focus, individual European nations, as an existential enemy, equating them in historical and moral terms to Nazi Germany during the Great Patriotic War. This rhetorical device is intended to forge a deep, nationalistic bond between the general populace and the ongoing military action, thereby mitigating the internal political costs associated with sustained high casualty rates and ongoing economic strain. The narrative simultaneously seeks to downplay the severity of battlefield realities, such as the acknowledged difficulties and recent counterattacks in the Kupyansk sector, by casting any such setbacks as merely minor tactical adjustments within the context of a larger, existential struggle against a monolithic Western adversary. This construction of the narrative is deemed crucial for maintaining internal political cohesion as the war drags on.

Diplomatic Rejection and Moscow’s Stance on Territory

The diplomatic developments are sharply contrasted by Moscow’s reaction to the recently proposed security framework. While US, Ukrainian, and European officials lauded the reported Berlin agreement, reportedly concluded on December 15, as a major step toward establishing long-term Ukrainian security architecture, the Kremlin explicitly and publicly rejected the framework as reported. This rejection was not a subtle diplomatic gesture; it served as a clear signal of continued maximalist aims. The core, seemingly intractable sticking point remains, as it has for years: Moscow’s fundamental unwillingness to compromise on its deeply entrenched territorial claims to what it defines as sovereign Ukrainian land. This hardline stance, when placed in direct contrast to the Western commitment to long-term security support, paints a clear picture of irreconcilable objectives heading into the new calendar year, strongly suggesting a protracted conflict path rather than an imminent diplomatic off-ramp. The Council of the European Union has confirmed that European countries and the United States will provide “robust” security guarantees to Ukraine as part of the peace deal, a detail the Kremlin has explicitly rejected in favor of its own maximalist claims.

Logistical Vulnerabilities and Long-Range Strikes

The war has increasingly devolved into a contest of precision targeting, where the adversary’s ability to sustain its forces through the winter and degrade the enemy’s capacity to wage war across distance is paramount. Attacks against critical logistics nodes and the introduction of new combat capabilities define this current phase of the conflict.

Glide Bomb Campaigns Targeting Odesa Logistics

Russia continues to employ air-launched munitions, with a particular emphasis on precision-guided glide bombs, against targets located deep behind Ukrainian lines. There is a notable and continued focus on the critical logistics networks surrounding the Odesa region. The operational intent behind these sustained strikes is transparent: to severely degrade Ukraine’s national capacity to move materiel, especially essential supplies arriving via the Black Sea ports or transit routes originating in Central Europe. Analysts suggest these strikes are part of a concerted, if slow, effort to accelerate the systemic degradation of Ukraine’s national energy infrastructure, with the ultimate aim of splitting the national power grid into non-interconnected halves, thereby crippling both industrial output and military sustainment capacity. This reliance on stand-off munitions underscores the continued relative weakness of Russian ground forces in achieving deep operational penetration, forcing them to rely on massed stand-off bombardment to achieve strategic aims that kinetic ground operations have failed to deliver.

The Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Precedent in Naval Warfare

A significant, perhaps historic, event was successfully executed in the preceding twenty-four hours leading up to this assessment: Ukrainian forces successfully executed a strike against a Russian naval vessel, specifically a submarine, utilizing an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV). This event marks a notable and, by all accounts, unprecedented achievement in modern naval warfare history. The successful deployment and proven effectiveness of such an asymmetric system against a high-value, heavily protected asset like a submarine demonstrates a rapid and alarming maturation of Ukraine’s asymmetric naval capabilities in the Black Sea theatre. This action directly challenges the established Russian naval dominance, forcing a profound re-evaluation of operational security protocols for their most prized surface and sub-surface assets. The strategic impact includes a significant psychological blow to the Russian Black Sea Fleet command structure and serves as a powerful demonstration to international partners of Ukraine’s continued capacity to innovate and project power in unexpected and technologically advanced domains.

Force Generation, Morale, and Manpower Assessment

The long-term viability of both belligerents’ war efforts rests fundamentally on the ability to sustain high-quality manpower reserves and, perhaps more crucially, to maintain the fighting spirit and cohesion of front-line units. As the conflict grinds deeper into its fourth year, these deeply human factors become increasingly determinative of the overall strategic outcome.

Observed Russian Unit Cohesion and Replenishment Rates

Evidence compiled from active sectors like Kupyansk suggests a significant heterogeneity in the observed cohesion and overall combat effectiveness of Russian units currently deployed across the contact line. While the most elite or recently reconstituted units may retain functional capability for specific tasks, the observed rate of attrition necessitates the constant incorporation of less experienced, hastily mobilized, or demonstrably lower-quality formations merely to plug critical personnel gaps. This influx inherently impacts the speed of tactical decision-making and the ability of these composite units to execute complex combined arms maneuvers without substantial external support or highly experienced junior leadership. Replenishment rates, particularly for specialized roles such as drone operators, artillery specialists, and junior company/platoon leadership, appear increasingly strained across the board. This suggests that the sustained, high-intensity attrition of the preceding year is beginning to exert corrosive effects on the overall fighting organization, forcing senior commanders to accept demonstrably lower-risk, lower-reward operational profiles simply to avoid catastrophic unit collapse.

Assessment of Ukrainian Manpower Mobilization Cycles

Ukraine continues to manage the inherently difficult task of cycling experienced, combat-weary personnel out of the front lines for essential rest, medical attention, and retraining, while simultaneously integrating new waves of mobilized and newly trained personnel into active service. The current reported focus appears heavily weighted toward prioritizing quality over sheer quantity, with significant institutional effort placed on integrating advanced Western training methodologies recently imported from allied nations. The success of any future large-scale Ukrainian offensive operation hinges entirely on the effectiveness of these recent mobilization cycles and their ability to rapidly achieve operational readiness without compromising operational security or eroding unit trust among integrated personnel. Maintaining a high degree of operational security around these sensitive rotation and reintegration schedules is paramount, as any disruption or compromise could severely impact the capacity of brigades to maintain their current defensive posture while simultaneously preparing for any potential future large-scale maneuver operations on the initiative.

Forecast and Conclusion: Trajectory into Early Twenty-Twenty-Six

The situation assessed on the sixteenth of December, two thousand twenty-five, paints a picture of a war characterized by largely frozen objectives for the larger strategic aims, yet one featuring intense tactical fluidity at the immediate layer of the battle. The coming weeks, defined by persistent high-intensity attrition under challenging winter conditions, will severely test the capacity of both sides to sustain their current operational tempo and logistical frameworks.

Projected Winter Operational Tempo and Climate Factors

The onset of deeper, more consistent winter weather is universally expected to moderately slow the pace of large-scale mechanized maneuver across the entire theater, tending to favor forces that can effectively sustain operations using static defenses and well-prepared, hardened logistics hubs. However, the current prevailing mode of fighting—low-level, grinding infantry assaults heavily supported by indirect fire and drones—is proving less susceptible to the effects of mud and frost than were the large armored thrusts characteristic of prior years. Therefore, while the speed of the front line’s movement may necessarily decrease, the *intensity* of fighting in key sectors, most notably the Donbas, is expected to remain extremely high, potentially escalating if either side perceives a window for a localized breakthrough before the weather fully solidifies the lines for an extended, mid-winter stalemate. The availability and effective utilization of precision-guided munitions and reliable counter-drone technology are rapidly becoming more critical determinants of localized success than traditional factors like fuel reserves or basic vehicle mobility.

Critical Chokepoints for the Upcoming Quarter

Looking forward into the initial months of the next year, several geographical and political chokepoints will disproportionately determine the war’s trajectory. Militarily, the integrity of the supply lines feeding the Ukrainian forces currently holding the vital Pokrovsk-Kramatorsk corridor and the sustained resilience of the Ukrainian defenses around Kupyansk will serve as primary indicators of Russian success or failure in achieving their stated Donbas consolidation goals. Politically, the most significant variable remains the level of sustained, coordinated military and financial aid provided by Western partners. This aid must be provided in the face of the Kremlin’s increasingly aggressive political posturing and sustained domestic information warfare campaign. Should the Russian information campaign succeed in fracturing Western resolve—a key political objective—the strategic balance will shift dramatically in Moscow’s favor, irrespective of the ground situation on any given day. The overall assessment remains one of a determined defense struggling against a determined, though increasingly brittle and high-cost, offensive, all under the shadow of a looming, fundamental diplomatic standoff over core territorial principles. The developments in the Ukraine war continue to command immediate and sustained international attention due to these deeply intertwined military and political vectors, which possess the capacity for broader, long-term implications well beyond the current combat zones.