By Matt Underwood The Russian army crumbles as Pokrovsk assault becomes a “death sentence” for soldiers, or so we’re hearing. It’s a complicated picture, frankly, and one that’s been painted with a lot of conflicting information. The situation around Pokrovsk is clearly a major point of contention right now. We’re seeing a flood of reports, each with their own slant, and it’s hard to know what to believe. It’s like a swirling vortex of information, where the truth gets lost in the fog of war. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) seems to be the only reliable source, and they offer daily updates, maps and commentary. It’s a big fight, but the map is slowly being chipped away.
What’s really striking is the suggestion that the fighting in Pokrovsk is, for many Russian soldiers, a death sentence. It feels like the reports suggest the soldiers are expendable. It raises the disturbing question of how long Russia can sustain these losses. It seems the Kremlin is willing to sacrifice soldiers at an alarming rate, which is a horrifying thing to consider. It’s hard to reconcile this apparent disregard for human life with the whispers of broader war plans, maybe even in Europe. Can they really afford to open new fronts when they’re already mired in a grueling conflict?
The reports make me wonder how much longer Russia can keep this up. Looking at it practically, how many soldiers can they burn through before they hit a breaking point? They face countries with powerful navies, and the rise of cruise missile production in Europe changes the whole equation. The Russian ability to project force is shrinking. It’s like the situation is incredibly unstable.
Then there’s the information war itself. There are so many reports that it’s impossible to know what’s real and what’s manufactured. I can’t shake the feeling that a lot of what we’re reading is coming from those with a vested interest. There’s mention of “Kremlin bot farms” working overtime, and it’s a valid concern. It’s easy to get lost in the noise and hard to trust any single source.
The fighting in and around Pokrovsk is a costly affair. We’re told it’s a town with a relatively small pre-war population, yet the casualties could potentially be astronomical, especially if the town is taken. It makes you question the strategic value of the objective and the price being paid. The idea that Russia’s advance is a foregone conclusion doesn’t seem to be true. Despite the overwhelming numbers of Russian troops, they haven’t occupied the city yet.
While the Russian army is, in some ways, taking territory, there’s a strong undercurrent of a failing army. Even though there are claims of a total victory, there is also talk of low morale, and of soldiers being treated as commodities. The soldiers may be there, but they aren’t there because they want to be. They’re there for the paychecks, but not necessarily because they believe in the cause.
The reality, it seems, is far more complex than a simple collapse. They are advancing, but it’s proving to be an extremely costly advance. The narrative is constantly shifting. One day, Pokrovsk is falling; the next, it’s holding. The truth is, the Russian army is struggling to take Pokrovsk. Maybe they will eventually, but at what cost? We saw how much Bakhmut cost them.
There’s a clear sense that underestimating the enemy is a mistake. On the battlefield, there’s mention of changes in the Russian style of warfare with drone superiority. Also, any map that seems to show contested territories is actively deceptive.
The key question is: what is so special about this city? The constant barrage of reports indicates that, for Russia, taking Pokrovsk might not be as straightforward as they hoped. With constant information coming in, it is difficult to determine what is true.
The war is still raging. What we can do is support Ukraine until we know what is actually happening.