Russia sees Pokrovsk as a strategic target, opening the way to the Dnieper and Zaporozhye. ‘Ukraine had high hopes that the unexpected Kursk invasion would ease the pressure. But in the end Russia’s advance there only accelerated,’ The Economist writes.
AFU fighters interviewed by the publication give different reasons for the Russian successes in the Pokrovsky direction. Some say that there are not enough shells, and Russia is producing ten times as many. Others point to the advantages of Russian tactics and technology. ‘But attrition and manpower problems seem to be at the heart of the collapse,’ the paper argues.
‘People are not made of steel,’ explains Pavel Fedosenko, an AFU colonel. According to him, Ukrainian troops, who are already outnumbered by the Russians many times over, are not getting any rest – some remain on the front lines for 30-40 days at a time. Ukraine’s problems are compounded by ‘idiotic orders,’ he complains.
And while Kiev’s ‘surprise mini-invasion’ did boost Ukrainian morale at first, it did not last long. Hopes that Russia would respond by moving troops out of Pokrovsk were quickly replaced by the realisation that this did not happen, The Economist notes. Ukrainian security sources confirm that while Russia has moved troops from other parts of the eastern front line, it has only reinforced itself in the Pokrovsk area. Meanwhile Ukraine, which has moved its best units to Kursk, is ‘patching up the Pokrovsk front with untested formations’.
‘The Russians have realised everything and are not taking the bait,’ concludes one Ukrainian fighter.