March 14, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: No evidence for Putin’s claim to have encircled Ukrainian troops in Kursk

Institute for the Study of War

ISW has observed no geolocated evidence to indicate that Russian forces have encircled a significant number of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast or elsewhere along the frontline in Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed during a press conference on March 13 that Russian forces have “isolated” Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast and that it is “impossible” for small groups of Ukrainian forces to withdraw from positions in Kursk Oblast.[1] Putin claimed that Ukrainian forces will not be able to leave Kursk at all “if” Russian forces can conduct a “physical blockade” in the coming days. Putin stated during a Russian Security Council meeting on March 14 that Russian forces have “blocked” unspecified Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast.[2] The Ukrainian General Staff reported on March 14 that Russian authorities are fabricating claims about the alleged “encirclement” of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast in order to influence the political and informational scene.[3] The Ukrainian General Staff reported that Ukrainian forces have regrouped and withdrawn to more advantageous defensive positions in Kursk Oblast and that Ukrainian forces are not under threat of encirclement.

Russian milbloggers have also not coalesced around claims that Russian forces have encircled or “blocked” a significant number of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast in recent days, but milbloggers may alter their reporting to mirror Putin’s claims in the coming days. Some Russian milbloggers claimed on March 12 and 13 that Russian forces encircled an unspecified number of Ukrainian forces in an unspecified area of Kursk Oblast, but many Russian milbloggers published maps on March 13 and 14 acknowledging that Ukrainian forces have viable egress routes into Sumy Oblast from their remaining positions in Kursk Oblast.[4] At least one Russian milblogger explicitly questioned claims that Russian forces encircled Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast on March 12, and another complained on March 12 that Russian forces are unable to encircle Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast because Russian forces cannot conduct rapid, mechanized breakthroughs into rear Ukrainian areas.[5]

Putin claimed in October 2024 that Russian forces “encircled” 2,000 Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast, but ISW never observed any Russian milblogger claims or geolocated footage to substantiate Putin’s October 2024 claim.[6] Putin has repeatedly failed to acknowledge that the Ukrainian salient in Kursk Oblast extends from the Ukrainian-Russian international border and that Ukrainian forces can transit the sections of the border under Ukrainian control.

Putin seized on a statement by US President Donald Trump about the supposed encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast to distract from his recent rejection of the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal. President Trump stated in a post on Truth Social on March 14 that Russian forces have “completely surrounded” “thousands” of Ukrainian forces, presumably in Kursk Oblast, and called on Putin to “spare” their lives.[7] Putin responded directly to Trump’s request during the March 14 security council meeting and claimed that Russian forces will guarantee the “life and decent treatment” of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast if Ukrainian forces surrender.[8] Putin reiterated unsubstantiated claims that Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast have committed crimes against Russian civilians in the area and said that Russia considers the Ukrainian incursion an act of “terrorism.” Putin claimed that Ukrainian authorities must order Ukrainian forces to surrender in order for Russia to implement Trump’s request. Putin is attempting to present himself as a reasonable and merciful leader whom President Trump can engage with and to generate a new narrative to distract from Putin’s decision to reject the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal on March 13.[9]

Kremlin statements following Putin’s meeting with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff on March 13 underscore Putin’s rejection of the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal and continued unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin received Witkoff in Moscow on the evening of March 13 and reiterated that Putin “supports Trump’s position on the settlement in Ukraine” but that there are “questions that need to be answered together.”[10] Peskov said that Putin gave Witkoff information to pass to Trump and that Russia and the United States understand that Putin and Trump need to have a conversation and will determine the details of a Putin-Trump phone call in the future.[11] Neither the Kremlin nor the US government have provided further details about this meeting as of this report.

Peskov’s emphasis on a direct Putin-Trump call and Putin’s continued refusal to accept the US-Ukrainian proposed ceasefire suggests that Putin likely intends to distract from and prolong any negotiations for a future ceasefire in Ukraine. Putin’s recent calls for a direct phone call with Trump are only the latest development in Putin’s efforts to posture Russia and the United States as equal on the global stage.[12] Russian insider sources recently claimed that Putin aims to protract negotiations about a possible temporary ceasefire, and Putin’s recent public statements are consistent with these insider claims.[13] Leaked documents from a think tank close to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB)’s Fifth Service reportedly state that the Kremlin is unwilling to accept a ceasefire in Ukraine before 2026.[14] ISW assessed on March 12 that these Russian insider source leaks may have been intentional and part of a Russian negotiating strategy that aims to push the United States to renegotiate its deal with Ukraine on the temporary ceasefire.[15]

Russian forces marginally advanced towards the international border in Kursk Oblast on March 14, but Ukrainian forces still maintain limited positions in Kursk Oblast. Geolocated footage published on March 13 indicates that Russian forces advanced within Zaoleshenka (immediately west of Sudzha).[19] Russian forces likely also seized Goncharovka (west of Sudzha), given that NASA Fire Information for Resource Management (FIRMS) data from March 14 indicates heavy fighting in the area and that Russian sources recently claimed that Russian forces seized the settlement.[20] Other Russian sources continued to claim that Russian forces seized Zaoleshenka, Goncharovka, and Rubanshchina (west of Sudzha), and that Russian forces advanced near Guyevo (south of Sudzha) and up to the southern outskirts of Oleshnya (southwest of Sudzha along the international border).[21] A Russian milblogger claimed that Russian forces have not yet entered Gogolevka (southwest of Sudzha along the international border), and another milblogger claimed that Ukrainian forces also maintain positions within Oleshnya, Guyevo, and Gornal (southwest of Guyevo along the international border).[22] Russian forces continued ground attacks near Kurilovka (south of Sudzha), and a milblogger claimed that Russian forces are regrouping for further advances within Kursk Oblast.[23] Elements of the Russian “Kurskiye Vityaz” Assault Battalion, reportedly of the “Pyatnashka” International Volunteer Brigade (51st Combined Arms Army [CAA], formerly 1st Donetsk People’s Republic Army Corps [DNR AC], Southern Military District [SMD]), are reportedly operating near Sudzha, and elements of the 1st Battalion of the Russian 9th Motorized Rifle Regiment (18th Motorized Rifle Division, 11th AC, Leningrad Military District [LMD]) are reportedly operating near Malaya Loknya (north of Sudzha).[24]

Russian forces also reportedly continued to advance in northern Sumy Oblast. Ukraine’s State Border Service Spokesperson Andriy Demchenko stated on March 14 that small Russian assault groups are continuing to attack into northern Sumy Oblast and are trying to advance towards Novenke and Zhuravka (both northeast of Sumy City).[25] Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces advanced east of Novenke and into northern Basivka (northeast of Sumy City).[26] A Russian milblogger reiterated claims on March 14 that Russian forces may attempt to create a “sanitary zone” in Sumy Oblast in the future.[27] Ukraine’s Pivnich (Northern) Operational Command Spokesperson Colonel Vadym Mysnyk responded to recent speculation about the possibility of a Russian cross border attack into Chernihiv Oblast and stated that Ukrainian forces have the situation along the international border in Chernihiv Oblast under control and that Russian sabotage and reconnaissance groups have operated in the area “for a long time.”[28]

Key Takeaways:

  • ISW has observed no geolocated evidence to indicate that Russian forces have encircled a significant number of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast or elsewhere along the frontline in Ukraine.
  • Putin seized on a statement by US President Donald Trump about the supposed encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast to distract from his recent rejection of the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal.
  • Kremlin statements following Putin’s meeting with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff on March 13 underscore Putin’s rejection of the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal and continued unwillingness to engage in good faith negotiations to end the war in Ukraine.
  • Russian forces marginally advanced towards the international border in Kursk Oblast on March 14, but Ukrainian forces still maintain limited positions in Kursk Oblast.
  • Consistent Ukrainian strikes against Russian air defense assets are reportedly allowing Ukrainian long-range drones to increasingly penetrate the Russian air defense umbrella in deep rear areas, including in Moscow Oblast.
  • The Ukrainian military reorganized the Ukrainian 3rd Separate Assault Brigade into the 3rd Army Corps, further showcasing Ukraine’s force efforts to transition to a corps structure.
  • Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military assistance and technical support and demonstrate interest in strengthening bilateral cooperation.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced in Toretsk, and Russian forces recently advanced in Toretsk and near Siversk and Pokrovsk
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.