December 12, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Ukraine recaptures territory in Kupyansk

Institute for the Study of War

Ukrainian forces recently liberated territory including part of the city of Kupyansk in a tactical counterattack in the Kupyansk direction. Ukrainian 2nd Khartiya Corps reported on December 12 that Ukrainian forces conducted a successful counterattack to stabilize the situation in the Kupyansk direction and liberated Kindrashivka and Radkivka (both north of Kupyansk) and the surrounding forests, liberated areas in northern Kupyansk, and broke through to the Oskil River, cutting Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) to the Kupyansk area.[1] The Ukrainian 2nd Corps stated that Ukrainian forces have encircled roughly 200 Russian personnel in Kupyansk as of December 12.[2] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky published a photo of himself on the southwestern outskirts of Kupyansk along the P-07 Kupyansk-Shevchenkove highway on December 12 — indicating that Ukrainian forces have likely pushed Russian forces much farther back from this area.[3] Geolocated footage published on December 12 also shows Ukrainian forces operating throughout Kupyansk.[4] Other Russian and Ukrainian sources corroborated the Ukrainian counterattack.[5] A source reportedly affiliated with Ukrainian military intelligence reported that Ukrainian forces encircled Russian forces within Kupyansk, cleared northwestern Kupyansk, and liberated Myrove, Kindrashivka, and Radkivka.[6] The source indicated that Russian forces still hold Holubivka (north of Kupyansk). A Russian milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces began infiltrating the northwestern outskirts of Kupyansk from Myrove (just northwest of Kupyansk) and Radkivka, indicating that Ukrainian forces also liberated Myrove.[7] The milblogger noted that Russian forces do not control eastern Kupyansk and that the Oskil River (which flows through Kupyansk) complicates Russian efforts to reach central Kupyansk. Other Russian milbloggers claimed that Ukrainian forces launched a counterattack and made some advances but rejected the extent of observed Ukrainian advances.[8] The Ukrainian Joint Forces Task Force reported on November 16 that it began efforts to push back Russian advances in the Kupyansk direction, and these recent advances are likely the result of a multi-week effort to retake Kupyansk.[9

This Ukrainian counterattack demonstrates that Ukrainian forces remain capable of defending and counterattacking against significant Russian offensive efforts, contrary to the claims of Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian lines are collapsing. The Ukrainian advances in and near Kupyansk show that Ukrainian forces are capable of conducting successful counterattacks and making tactically significant gains, particularly when Russian forces are overstretched. The seizure of Kupyansk has been a Russian priority since mid to late July 2025, but Russian forces have been unable to allocate sufficient force concentrations to overcome Ukrainian defenses in this area as they pursue intense offensive operations elsewhere in the theater.[10] Russian forces have also struggled to move troops into Kupyansk because Ukrainian forces have been successfully maintaining fire control over Russian logistics into northern Kupyansk since before the recent Ukrainian advances.[11] Russian advances have come at disproportionately high casualty rates and significant time costs, and Russian forces have had to commit 150,000 servicemembers to the Pokrovsk direction alone.[12] Putin and senior Russian military officials have recently intensified exaggerated claims of advances across the frontline in recent weeks, and Putin highlighted on November 21 that Russian forces will “inevitably” repeat their operations in the Kupyansk direction in other areas of the front.[13] These exaggerated claims of advance are false, however, and even a prominent Kremlin-coopted milblogger claimed that the Ukrainian counterattack “took advantage” of “some not entirely truthful statements” — recognizing that Putin’s November 27 claim of seizing Kupyansk was false.[14] Putin and senior Russian military officials have been attempting to portray the frontline in Ukraine as imminently on the verge of collapse, such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s demands, but this Ukrainian counterattack in Kupyansk along with staunch Ukrainian resistance along the rest of the line shows that this narrative is false.The contours of the Ukrainian counterproposal to the most recent US peace proposal are emerging, but details of this counterproposal remain unclear. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reported on December 11 that Ukraine gave the United States an updated peace proposal framework containing 20 key points and is waiting for a US response.[15] Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Mykhailo Podolyak told French outlet Le Monde that the Ukrainian proposal to the United States contains three parts: the 20-point proposal to end the war itself, a proposal about the creation of a postwar European security architecture and security guarantees for Ukraine, and a proposal on Ukraine’s reconstruction and defensive capabilities.[16] Podolyak stated that Russia must pay reparations to help rebuild Ukraine. Podolyak stated that Ukraine agreed to create a demilitarized “buffer” zone in Donbas, but that both Russian and Ukrainian forces will need to pull back from the current front line to create this zone. Zelensky additionally proposed at a briefing that Ukraine should hold a referendum on the territorial provisions of the US peace proposal.[17]  Zelensky reiterated his offer to hold elections but stated that Ukraine would need a ceasefire and additional security from the US and European states to ensure democratic elections.[18] The exact components of the Ukrainian counterproposal — including the provisions of such a referendum and the possible bounds and terms of a ceasefire or demilitarized zone — remain unclear as of December 12.

The Kremlin explicitly rejected Ukraine’s proposals for a ceasefire and referendum.  Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded to Zelensky’s territorial referendum proposal on December 12 by explicitly rejecting a ceasefire as a pause that “will not work” for Russia.[19] Peskov claimed that the ceasefire proposal is ”another deception, another delay” to prolong the war and re-arm Ukraine and suggested that a ceasefire is incompatible with a ”guaranteed, long-term” peace. Russian Presidential Aide Yuriy Ushakov also rejected any outcome that does not place Donbas under Russian control, by claiming that all of Donbas is Russian and reiterating the Kremlin’s long-held demand that Ukraine must withdraw from all of Donbas before Russia will agree to a ceasefire.[20] Several Russian officials, including Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev and others who frequently parrot Kremlin narratives, also rejected Zelensky’s proposed ceasefire and referendum.[21] Russian officials have rejected a ceasefire not only within the context of a territorial referendum but also throughout several attempts to arrive at a peace agreement to end the war.[22] The length of a ceasefire necessary to conduct an election or referendum would not be long enough to allow Ukraine to restore its combat capabilities, which is the continual Russian justification for refusing all ceasefire proposals. Russia continues to insist on the right to continue full-scale offensive operations until Russia is able to conclude the war on its terms

The Kremlin rejected the Ukrainian offer to establish a demilitarized zone. Ushakov responded to the proposal to establish a demilitarized zone in Donbas by stating that such a zone is possible but that Russia must deploy Rosgvardia — Russia’s national guard — as well as Russian law enforcement and “everything necessary to maintain order and organize life” to this zone.[23] Such a deployment would militarize this zone. Putin created Rosgvardia in 2016 with the official mission of ensuring public order and guarding against terrorist attacks, but Rosgvardia possesses extensive conventional military capabilities and has active combat experience consistent with a conventional military.[24] Rosgvardia demonstrated combined arms capabilities prior to the February 2022 full-scale invasion in exercises using rotary-wing aircraft, artillery, air defense systems, drone support, and electronic warfare (EW) and conducted operations in Syria and occupied Crimea.[25] Rosgvardia units participated in the initial full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the efforts to seize Kyiv and Kharkiv cities, fought across the theater, including in the Russian offensive in Kursk Oblast, and are currently conducting rear area internal security operations and limited combat operations in northern Kharkiv Oblast.[26] Rosgvardia continues building out its conventional military capabilities, including by taking the heavy armored vehicles and other military equipment formerly belonging to the Wagner Group.[27] The deployment of Rosgvardia to a demilitarized zone is therefore incompatible with the purpose and meaning of such a zone, and Ushakov’s insistence on deploying Russian units with full military capabilities to a demilitarized zone is therefore a rejection of the demilitarized zone. Such a deployment would also set conditions for Russia to further threaten Ukraine and conduct renewed combat operations using rested forces from more favorable lines, as ISW has previously assessed.[28]

The European Union (EU) agreed on December 12 to indefinitely freeze 210 billion euros (roughly $247 billion) in Russian assets to provide Ukraine with a reparations loan of up to 165 billion euros (roughly $194 billion).[29] The EU agreed to implement Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which allows the EU to indefinitely extend the asset freeze.[30] The EU vote to invoke Article 122 to freeze Russian assets indefinitely required only a qualifying majority (at least 15 of the 27 member states).[31] The EU previously required a unanimous, bi-annual vote to renew the asset freeze, so the December 12 agreement supports EU efforts to leverage Russian assets to finance a reparations loan for Ukraine. The European Council plans to finalize the details of the reparations loan on December 18.[32] The European Commission initially proposed using the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine in December 2023.[33] The EU would only require Ukraine to repay the loan if Russia pays reparations to Ukraine.[34]

Key Takeaways

  1. Ukrainian forces recently liberated territory including part of the city of Kupyansk in a tactical counterattack in the Kupyansk direction.
  2. This Ukrainian counterattack demonstrates that Ukrainian forces remain capable of defending and counterattacking against significant Russian offensive efforts, contrary to the claims of Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian lines are collapsing.
  3. The contours of the Ukrainian counterproposal to the most recent US peace proposal are emerging, but details of this counterproposal remain unclear.
  4. The Kremlin explicitly rejected Ukraine’s proposals for a ceasefire and referendum.
  5. The Kremlin rejected the Ukrainian offer to establish a demilitarized zone.
  6. The European Union (EU) agreed on December 12 to indefinitely freeze 210 billion euros (roughly $247 billion) in Russian assets to provide Ukraine with a reparations loan of up to 165 billion euros (roughly $194 billion).
  7. Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Kupyansk and Oleksandrivka. Russian forces recently advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area and near Hulyaipole.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.