The War in Ukraine: Assessing the Trajectory on October 23, 2025

The military and political landscape surrounding the conflict in Ukraine, as assessed through the data compiled for the Institute for the Study of War’s (ISW) Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment of October 22, 2025, reveals a dynamic defined by unyielding Russian pressure against an increasingly hardened Ukrainian resistance. This ongoing struggle is characterized by significant kinetic action, a dedicated escalation of hybrid and energy warfare tactics by Moscow, and a continually evolving, yet crucial, commitment from Western partners. The immediate future of the confrontation will pivot on the ability of both belligerents to manage the onset of winter, a season that promises to test systemic resilience and logistical endurance in equal measure.

The Escalation of the Energy Infrastructure War

As October wanes, the conflict is moving inexorably toward a critical phase centered on energy infrastructure. Russia’s campaign of long-range strikes against Ukraine’s power grid has intensified in the lead-up to Winter 2025-2026, a pattern observed in previous years but executed with renewed strategic focus. These strikes, utilizing a combination of drones and missiles, are designed not merely for tactical advantage but for systemic degradation and the demoralization of the Ukrainian populace.

Systemic Degradation and Ukrainian Resilience

• Russian forces executed a significant combined drone and missile strike on the night of October 21 and 22, following earlier coordinated attacks in mid-October that impacted multiple oblasts, including Dnipropetrovsk, Chernihiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv, leading to widespread blackouts across Ukraine.
• Reports indicate that Russian forces are employing tactics of sustained harassment, circling drones over damaged power facilities to impede repair efforts by Ukrainian emergency crews.
• The cumulative effect of these strikes has been severe; as of early October 2025, reports suggested Russian strikes had eliminated approximately 60 percent of Ukraine’s natural gas production capacity, which analysts projected would necessitate substantial fuel import expenditures—potentially 1.9 billion euros—for the upcoming winter months.
• In response, Ukrainian grid operators are engaged in rapid repair cycles, yet the relentless tempo of attacks strains air defenses and hinders the domestic production of necessary spare parts.
• Simultaneously, Ukraine continues its deep-strike campaign against Russian rear assets, having recently targeted oil logistics facilities in occupied Crimea, such as Feodosia and Hvardiiske, in an effort to disrupt Russia’s own logistical backbone.

This energy confrontation will be a defining feature of the coming months. Russia seeks to leverage its manufacturing capacity, bolstered by cooperation with external actors, to create an energy deficit, particularly in eastern Ukraine, while Ukraine must rely on expedited repairs, energy conservation measures, and the protective capabilities provided by evolving Western air defense support.

The Brutality of Positional Ground Combat

On the ground, the operational tempo remains high, characterized by attritional positional fighting around key objectives. The focus of Russian ground efforts continues to center on the Donetsk Oblast, with the strategic objective of capturing its entirety and pushing toward Dnipropetrovsk Oblast.

The Pokrovsk Sector: A Grinding Advance

The area around Pokrovsk stands out as the current strategic center of gravity in the eastern sector. The fighting here is intensely attritional, testing the defensive resolve of Ukrainian forces stationed in this operational nexus.

• The Russian military has increased its pressure with an overwhelming tempo of tactical engagements concentrated around Pokrovsk, with Ukrainian General Staff reporting cycles seeing over one-third of all daily combat engagements occurring in this narrow sector.
• ISW assesses that Russian forces have likely achieved marginal advances, with geolocated footage from October 21 suggesting Russian personnel raised a flag in eastern Molodetske, southwest of Pokrovsk, indicative of successful infiltration efforts, though not necessarily a major breakthrough of the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA).
• Russian formations are attempting to leverage infiltration tactics—often involving small groups moving covertly, sometimes using thermal shielding—to probe and test Ukrainian defensive lines. Furthermore, reports from the Ukrainian command in the Pokrovsk direction noted an increase in mechanized assaults, with formations employing armored fighting vehicles to rapidly transport infantry across open ground, especially when worsening weather conditions, such as fog, may hamper Ukrainian drone surveillance operations.
• In a related tactical development, Ukrainian forces have reportedly achieved localized advances in the Dobropillya tactical area, indicating that the front remains highly contested and dynamic rather than unidirectional.

The success of future ground operations for either side hinges on logistics and the ability to sustain these high-intensity engagements. For Russia, it means feeding the high rate of materiel expenditure and manpower losses; for Ukraine, it means ensuring that incoming Western materiel is integrated rapidly enough to counter the persistent pressure, particularly given the difficulties presented by the winter transition.

Evolving Western Commitments and Political Friction

The international commitment to Ukraine’s defense is undergoing a structural evolution, with new mechanisms being layered atop existing aid structures in direct response to Moscow’s intransigence. This is manifesting both in concrete military support and in diplomatic posturing.

New Levers and Diplomatic Stalemate

The United States has recently announced the deployment of new economic and military levers, designed to bolster Kyiv’s defense capabilities as the conflict enters a protracted phase. This follows the persistent diplomatic reality that Moscow continues its refusal to negotiate in good faith.

• Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explicitly reiterated on October 21 that Russia is unwilling to entertain any immediate ceasefire that does not result in the complete capitulation of Ukraine, confirming the Kremlin’s commitment to its maximalist war aims.
• In contrast, Ukraine and its European allies signaled support for a recent proposal put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump for an immediate ceasefire, highlighting the vast gulf between the stated positions of the warring parties.
• The new framework for European support is crystallizing, with Ukraine being defined as a key element of the European Union’s defence preparedness under a new bloc roadmap. The stated goal is for Ukraine to become a “steel porcupine”—a nation too difficult to seize—by integrating its defense industry with Europe’s and ensuring long-term, predictable funding.
• To sustain defense capacity in the short term, the European Commission is planning to mobilize a reparation-based loan, backed by frozen Russian assets, intended to ensure a steady supply of weapons predominantly sourced from European and Ukrainian defense industries.

Furthermore, the Kremlin appears to be executing strategic information operations to obfuscate its military intentions. Moscow announced plans to deploy active reservists to protect critical rear infrastructure, such as oil refineries and transportation nodes, from Ukrainian drone strikes. While Russian officials frame this as a necessary defensive measure utilizing volunteers, Western intelligence assesses this as a mechanism to prepare for the future deployment of these reservists into combat operations in Ukraine, potentially to mask manpower shortages or prepare for future offensives.

Strategic Outlook and Continuing Assessment

The data compiled for the assessment of October 22, 2025, paints a picture of a conflict trajectory that is hardening rather than collapsing. Stubborn Russian aggression, both kinetic and political, is being met by a resilient Ukrainian defense, increasingly sophisticated in its adaptation and backed by evolving Western commitments.

Key Determinants for the Near Future

1. The Energy Crucible: The immediate future will be a contest of attrition against infrastructure. Russia will seek to impose a systemic energy deficit to break Ukrainian resolve and industrial capacity, while Ukraine must maximize repair efficiency and ensure the reliability of Western-supplied air defense interceptors to protect critical nodes.
2. Logistics and Manpower: The next major phase of ground operations will heavily depend on which side can better manage its logistics and manpower reserves under winter conditions. The intense positional fighting around urban centers like Pokrovsk will continue to consume resources at an unsustainable rate for any force unable to secure timely replenishment.
3. The Leverage of Long-Range Strikes: The success of Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities against Russian rear assets will be a constant variable, imposing an ongoing cost on Moscow’s war-sustainment efforts, particularly in the energy and defense-industrial sectors.

The Institute for the Study of War will continue to track these dynamics closely. Subsequent reports will focus on charting the actual, tangible impact of the new Western levers on the battlefield—whether the promised integration and funding translate into a sufficient quantitative or qualitative shift in Ukrainian capabilities. Crucially, the Kremlin’s continued, stated refusal to negotiate in good faith remains the single greatest determinant of the war’s ultimate length and its final trajectory. Any prospect of a genuine, lasting de-escalation remains contingent upon a fundamental, and currently absent, change in Moscow’s strategic calculus.