December 1, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Russia announces capture of Pokrovsk

Institute for the Study of War

US-Ukrainian talks reportedly continued in Florida on December 1 ahead of US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 2 to present the US-Ukrainian peace proposal. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Rustem Umerov reportedly held more meetings in Florida on December 1.[1] US President Donald Trump stated on November 30 that he does not have a deadline for a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine.[2] US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated on November 30 that the US goal is to end the war while “help[ing] Ukraine be safe forever” and preventing another invasion.[3] Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitri Peskov stated that Witkoff will meet with Putin in Moscow on the afternoon of December 2.[4]

The Kremlin is setting conditions to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russian meeting, possibly in order to obfuscate Russia’s likely rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal. Peskov responded to a question about points in the latest US-Ukrainian peace proposal, stating that Russia does not intend to conduct negotiations through a “megaphone” or “through the media.”[5] Peskov stated that the Kremlin will release footage from the start of the Putin-Witkoff meeting on December 2, but that it is too early to talk about any public statements afterwards.[6] Russian State Duma International Affairs Committee First Deputy Head Alexei Chepa stated on December 1 that he would like the US delegation to “reaffirm the fundamental nature” of the positions that the United States and Russia allegedly reached during the US-Russia Alaska summit in August 2025.[7] Duma Defense Committee Deputy Chairperson Alexei Zhuravlev claimed on December 1 that the “right” negotiations are between Russia and the United States, who will present a “fait accompli” to Europe and Ukraine such that they will have “no choice but to…sign whatever [the United States and Russia] say.”[8] High-ranking Kremlin officials and Russian milbloggers have been consistently rejecting the 28-point peace plan and its subsequent iterations since it was first reported in mid-November 2025 because the proposed plans did not concede to all of Russia’s maximalist war demands.[9] The Kremlin has been exploiting the lack of clarity about the Alaska summit to conceal the way the Kremlin — not Ukraine — is impeding the negotiations process by sticking to its original war demands.[10] The Kremlin will likely try to replicate this approach with the upcoming US-Russia meeting on December 2 and is setting conditions to conceal the details of the talks from the public, likely because Russia will reject the terms of the plan.[11] The Kremlin likely seeks to avoid framing Russia as an impediment to ending the war in Ukraine if Moscow rejects the peace deal that the United States will present to Russia, and that Ukraine agreed to. Russia previously rejected several US-proposed ceasefires that Ukraine agreed to.[12]

Prominent Russian milbloggers continue to undermine the Kremlin’s effort to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent or inevitable. A Kremlin-affiliated Russian milblogger responded to the Russian Ministry of Defense’s (MoD) December 1 claim that Russian forces seized Klynove (north of Kostyantynivka, about 10 kilometers from the current Russian frontline) by criticizing the MoD’s repeated exaggerations about battlefield successes.[13] The milblogger claimed that the Russian MoD is making premature claims that Russian forces seized settlements without offering any supporting evidence and is even claiming Russian success in settlements several kilometers away from confirmed Russian positions. The milblogger noted that the Russian MoD has made clearly false claims over five settlements in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area in 2025 alone — Orikhovo-Vasylivka in February 2025, Novomarkove in March 2025, Markove and Mayske in September 2025, and Fedorivka in October 2025. The milblogger added that recent developments on the battlefield are strengthening the current Russian negotiating position and insinuated that the Russian MoD is actually hurting its negotiating position by making false claims that could easily “backfire” with the emergence of evidence to the contrary. The Kremlin has repeatedly made exaggerated claims about the battlefield as part of its ongoing cognitive warfare effort to falsely portray a Russian victory as inevitable, such that Ukraine and the West should concede to Russia’s demands now.[14] ISW continues to assess that while the situation in some specific sectors of the front line is serious, particularly in the Pokrovsk and Hulyaipole directions, the Kremlin’s efforts to present Russia’s victory in Ukraine as inevitable do not correspond to battlefield realities.[15] It is notable that the Kremlin’s misrepresentation of the situation on the ground continues to be so far from reality that prominent pro-war milbloggers continue to feel compelled to issue their own corrective statements.

Russian forces are not yet confirmed to have seized all of Pokrovsk despite operating within the town for over 120 days. The Russian Ministry of Defense announced on December 1 that Russian forces seized Pokrovsk, though it remains unclear whether Ukrainian forces may occupy limited scattered positions in northern Pokrovsk. The Ukrainian 7th Rapid Reaction Corps of the Air Assault Forces reported on December 1 that Russian forces have become bogged down in urban warfare within Pokrovsk, contrary to previous claims from Russian military and political leadership that Russian forces encircled Ukrainian forces in Pokrovsk.[16] The corps reported that Ukrainian forces killed 1,221 Russian servicemembers and wounded 545 in the Pokrovsk agglomeration in November 2025, including 519 killed and 131 wounded within Pokrovsk alone. ISW continues to assess that Russian forces have incurred significant casualties in their monthslong campaign to seize Pokrovsk.[17] The corps reported that Ukrainian forces retain main and alternate rotation routes in Myrnohrad (east of Pokrovsk) and recently rotated troops in the town. The corps’ statements indicate that Ukrainian forces likely retain the ability to resupply forces within Myrnohrad, despite Russian interdiction of Ukrainian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) between Pokrovsk and Myrnohrad.[18] ISW has not yet observed evidence to confirm that Russian forces have completed the seizure of Pokrovsk as of this writing. The Kremlin may have announced the seizure of Pokrovsk prematurely on December 1 — as it has for numerous other settlements in Ukraine — as part of a cognitive warfare effort in order to shape the US-Russian negotiations in Moscow on December 2.

Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine’s growing defense industrial base (DIB). Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans announced on December 1 that the Netherlands will contribute 250 million euros (roughly $290 million) to Ukraine through the Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List (PURL) initiative, which funds NATO states’ purchases of US-made weapons for Ukraine.[19] Ukrainian Defense Minister Denis Shmyhal and Brekelmans also signed an agreement to jointly produce Ukrainian drones in both the Netherlands and Ukraine, which the Netherlands will purchase and then transfer to the Ukrainian military.[20]

Key Takeaways

  1. US-Ukrainian talks reportedly continued in Florida on December 1 ahead of US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on December 2 to present the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.
  2. The Kremlin is setting conditions to refrain from publicly discussing the outcomes of the December 2 US-Russian meeting, possibly in order to obfuscate Russia’s likely rejection of the US-Ukrainian peace proposal.
  3. Prominent Russian milbloggers continue to undermine the Kremlin’s effort to portray a Russian victory in Ukraine as imminent or inevitable.
  4. Russian forces are not yet confirmed to have seized all of Pokrovsk despite operating within the town for over 120 days.
  5. Ukraine’s European allies continue to provide military aid and support to Ukraine’s growing defense industrial base (DIB).
  6. The Russian military continues implementing longstanding plans to form new Russian divisions as part of the Russian military’s transition back towards a force structure based on maneuver divisions, likely in preparation for a possible future war with NATO.
  7. Balloon incursions in NATO airspace continue to shut down Lithuanian airports.
  8. Russian forces recently advanced in the Hulyaipole direction.
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.