The front remains highly volatile, however, he told "Ukraina stuudio."

In the past week, the Russians have continued attacking Ukrainian cities. Airstrikes have also damaged Ukraine's energy infrastructure, and when we look at the front line, we are still talking about Pokrovsk. What is the situation there right now?

Truly, the main focus has not changed. It remains on the Pokrovsk sector, as it has done for quite some time, although fighting is also going on on other fronts. If we look at the bigger picture, it seems that the Russian side also has human resources problems, as Ukraine has managed to make small advances in several places. Certainly, small and tactical ones, but progress nonetheless.

From the Pokrovsk sector, what is particularly important is what is happening firstly in the direction of Dobropillja, where the Russians have breached the defensive lines. The Ukrainian side has managed to clear out the northern tip of that breakthrough there, and is currently trying to cut through the lower part of the pocket, to prevent the Russians from bringing in supplies and reinforcements.

The situation in Pokrovsk remains hard. The Russians are still trying to encircle from the north, but fighting is also going on inside the city, and the situation changes by the hour. There are those quarters where the Russian side has managed to advance, and at the same time, there are those quarters where Ukraine has managed to retake some ground, so it's a highly dynamic and complex situation.

Why is Pokrovsk so vital? Throughout this war, we have been talking about the various cities where the Russians want to break through. Why did this particular direction become so important for them, at some point?

When we talk about settlements more generally, the Ukrainians have actually been able to build and fortify many of them as defensive positions and defend them very successfully, doing so with fewer resources and causing very heavy losses for Russia. Pokrovsk is a special case in that sense, as it is a logistical hub. Supply roads and a railway go there, and Ukraine used this to supply the front line and bring in reinforcements and supplies. That made Pokrovsk a key location, and for these reasons, Ukraine heavily fortified its surroundings. One can see that Russia has been trying for a lengthy period of time to achieve a breakthrough there, but has not succeeded.

Regarding that Dobropillja breakthrough, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said this week that 174 square kilometers of territory occupied by the Russians had been liberated. Why then did that breakthrough fail for the Russians?

I think there are several reasons here. First, that Ukraine was able to bring in reserves in time, then when the front line was breached, they managed to bring in not just reserves but some very experienced units, for example, the Azov brigade, who were able to react and offer serious resistance there and clear those areas.

Second, that breakthrough by the Russian side took place on a relatively narrow section, and they were unable to broaden it. They did try to infiltrate through the defense in small groups, and once past the defensive line they moved quickly forward, but the outcome was that those small groups could not consolidate to form any serious offensive force. Additionally, they were not adequately supplied or reinforced. Ukraine's quick actions and Russia's miscalculations in widening the attack are the main reasons they have failed to achieve offensive success.

Is that the modern battle tactic now, to use small squads? The front line there is reportedly not easily definable, and the enemy could, in some sense, be anywhere.

It is more due to the fact that the terrain there is often open, making concealment very difficult. This means that the activity and fortifications appear as strongpoints along the front line, and there isn't a continuous line.

Furthermore, Ukraine has serious staffing issues and simply does not have enough people. As a result, there aren't any trenches to speak of, that are fully manned.

Further still, however, Ukraine cares about its people, its soldiers, and has been trying to keep the front line staffed with as small a contingent as possible, to avoid losses. That is the reason — and of course also the technical means — as movement has been taking place not only along the front line but within a range of tens of kilometers, on both sides. Thanks to sensors, however, this type of movement is very quickly and easily detected, making any movement there highly challenging.

The newspaper The Wall Street Journal wrote this week that the U.S. will (re)start sharing intelligence with the Ukrainians, to carry out precision strikes deep inside Russia, for example, against oil infrastructure. To our knowledge, the U.S. has actually provided intelligence before — so what has changed now?

Indeed, the U.S. has been sharing intelligence to a greater or lesser extent since the start of the war. It is true there was a period when the new administration temporarily paused the sharing of certain information. On the other hand, I think when if we are talking about attacking infrastructure located on Russia's territory — be it industrial sites or energy facilities — the Ukrainians probably already know about those large targets and their locations. I believe Ukraine's HUMINT on the ground is also very effective. I think this U.S. intelligence sharing is more about objects like troop or equipment concentrations of a temporary nature — those new ones that appear. For example, if a new plant for Shahed drone production is being built, or if materiel or troops are being assembled and stored somewhere. That kind of fresh information, which is of military importance.

The keyword of the past week has been Tomahawk missiles. Could you explain what these are, what their technical characteristics are, and why the Russians reacted so strongly to the news that the U.S. might give them to Ukraine?

This is actually a very good weapons system that the U.S. has used quite extensively in various wars. The Tomahawks entered service around the early 1980s. They have been continuously developed — there are many variants of this missile type, and they have been constantly improved for different functions.

This missile is primarily launched from ships — both submarines and surface vessels — but recently, land-based launchers have also been tested and developed. Since Ukraine doesn't have these types of vessels, if these missiles do get supplied to Ukraine, we would be talking about land-based launchers.

But the missile is highly effective. It is slightly under six meters in length, and the warhead is under half a ton. It is also significantly faster than a drone and much harder to intercept — so definitely a very good weapons system that has proven itself in combat. If the Ukrainians start getting them, I believe it will certainly contribute to their victory.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!