Kharkiv: Why Russian troops are massing near Ukraine's 'fortress city'
After pushing Ukrainian troops out of Kursk, the Russian region they had occupied parts of for many months, what's left of the 50,000-strong Russian force is positioned just across the border from Kharkiv.
A major push along all or part of the frontline by Moscow's troops has been expected for some time but has not yet fully materialised, analysts say.
It's believed Russia has a "four-month window" to break through Ukrainian forces before the weather begins to turn and dwindling stocks of Soviet tanks possibly start to run low.
Where are the massing Russian troops - and are elite soldiers among them?
Kremlin troops have been gathering on the other side of the border near Kharkiv in northeast Ukraine, according to a senior Ukrainian military figure.
"The enemy is trying to pull its personnel closer to the line of combat contact and conduct at least some assault actions," Andriy Pomahaibus, chief of staff of the 13th Operational Brigade, said this week.
"In general, they are not succeeding."
Nonetheless, he said there is "clear preparation for active assault actions by the enemy".
39:55
Sky News military analyst Michael Clarke says the accumulation of troops comes off the back of the Russian operation to push Ukraine out of the pocket of the Kursk region they had occupied, which is not far from Kharkiv.
"Now they have Kursk back the argument is: will they keep going?"
Some of Russia's most experienced soldiers - including from the elite VDV airborne unit - were moved to reinforce the Kursk campaign, and could still be among the gathered troops.
Prof Clarke adds: "If they have left those units there, that would suggest they want them to spearhead something else.
"If those units turn up back around Pokrovsk (in Donetsk) that would then mean they are not about to build up a major strategic attack near Kharkiv."
Is Russia preparing to attack Kharkiv?
Prof Clarke says it's possible Russia is preparing for a big push near the border cities of Kharkiv and Sumy.
This could either be a direct attack on one of the cities - a tough task given how well defended they are - or an attempt to capture much of the surrounding area Ukraine liberated in Autumn 2022.
Located just 20 miles from the border with Russia, Kharkiv is Ukraine's second-largest city with a pre-2022 population of more than a million.
It is regarded as a "fortress" and was awarded the distinction Hero City of Ukraine for its resistance during the opening months of the 2022 invasion.
However, Prof Clarke doesn't think Russia has the resources for a big push at Kharkiv or Sumy this summer, after the Kremlin instead opted to try to attack along wide stretches of the frontline.
"I think the Russians basically used up the forces they might have otherwise used up for a strategic offensive," he says.
This, he says, caused Ukraine to use up its reserves to counter the Russian attacks.
"Both sides have sacrificed the possibility of a strategic offensive for this ongoing battle of attrition."
'Four-month window' for Russia to make a breakthrough
Dr Jack Watling, a military expert from the RUSI thinktank, argues Russia will likely "soft launch" its offensive rather than going for a rapid manoeuvre by large mechanised units.
"The Russians lack the force quality to operate in this way," he says.
Instead, the summer offensive will likely see a "steady increase in the number and scale of assaults across a broadening area", he added. "Indeed, there are indications this process has already started."
3:44
Prof Clarke says Russia has a "four-month window" to make a breakthrough in Ukraine this year.
"I think they must know this is their last year of build-up before they reach a plateau," he adds, referring to Russia's issues with tank production.
Thus far Russia has been using its vast stocks of vehicles left over from the Soviet era, with only about 25% of its armour coming from new production.
Dr Watling agrees: "Russian stockpiles of legacy Soviet equipment, from tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, to artillery pieces, will be running out between now and mid-autumn, such that Russia's ability to replace losses will be entirely dependent on what it can produce from scratch."
This, he added, makes the prospect of fresh sanctions from Europe and possibly America particularly timely.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
The United Nations and its agencies have long struggled with funding shortfalls. Now an entrenched problem is becoming an acute crisis in the shadow of Donald Trump's executioner's axe. The US is the biggest contributor, at 22%, to the UN's core budget. In February, the White House announced a six-month review of US membership of all international organisations, conventions and treaties, including the UN, with a view to reducing or ending funding – and possible withdrawal. The deadline for decapitation falls next month. Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block. The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working. A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable. The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted. The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities. Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero. The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children. The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs. UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said. Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering? Will they fight to save the UN? Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Twenty years on from 7/7, we have learned nothing
As our thoughts turn to the terror attacks which rocked London 20 years ago tomorrow, the Russian Federation is – according to the Dutch government – now responsible for thousands of chemical weapon attacks in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is now heartbreakingly similar to the trench warfare of WW1. The casualty rate is similar and now the Russians are trying to break the stalemate with gas as the Germans did at the second battle of Ypres in April 1915. As then, the lack of respirators initially was decisive: but the delivery of protective equipment to the frontline in WW1 nullified this dreadful weapon, as it should in Ukraine once British masks arrive in the coming weeks. Twenty years ago, at the time of 7/7, I was commanding the UK's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) defence force and we were on operations in Iraq. We were dealing with a potential Al Qaeda biological weapon attack against British troops in southern Iraq. Though much about that episode is still confidential, the basic detail is in my memoir Chemical Warrior. That situation ultimately turned out to be a false alarm, but it brought conventional operations to a halt for 48 hours as my team and I dealt with the threat. This is when I began to think that if you had no morals or scruples you would use chemical weapons all the time. In his brilliant autobiography Nine Lives, Aimen Dean, a jihadist turned MI6 agent working within Al Qaeda, details how the terror organisation was planning to use and develop chemical and biological weapons. This is undoubtedly still an aspiration of ISIS and other jihadist groups. What has vexed me for some time is the thought that had 7/7 been a CBRN attack, God only knows what the death toll might have been. I saw at close hand the vile Assad regime killing thousands of Syrian civilians with the deadly nerve agent Sarin, but also with much more readily available chlorine. When I was fighting with the Peshmerga against ISIS, in 2015-17, the terrorists frequently fired mortars at us full of mustard agent aka mustard gas. ISIS also tried to obtain highly enriched uranium to make an improvised nuclear device which could have devastated whole towns and villages. The successors of the 7/7 jihadists have tried and, so far, failed to devastate the hated West with some form of CBRN attack. Long may this continue, but we must not drop our guard. It is not just the terrorists who view this type of attack as the gold standard, but also tyrants and rogue states. The dictator of North Korea had his stepbrother assassinated with the nerve agent VX, and my hometown of Salisbury was attacked by Russian hitmen on the orders of Putin himself, with Novichok, the deadliest chemical man has ever produced. There was enough Novichok used in the attack to kill half the population of Salsibury. Nonetheless there are countermeasures for every threat. It is the one that is ignored or put in the too difficult bracket that will cause us serious harm. The routine use of readily available toxic industrial chemicals like chlorine in Syria, and of 'non lethal' CS gas in Ukraine, has drawn very little comment from the international community. Tyrants like Putin may become emboldened to use more toxic and lethal substances or pathogens against us. The awful events of 7/7 showed us long ago that it's a dangerous world, full of people who wish us harm, and it is much more dangerous today. But for too long we have allowed evil to flourish without action or even protest. Worse, we have failed to strengthen our defences: we have used creative accounting to pretend spending was adequate, rather than actually finding more money for the armed services, the intelligence agencies, the special forces and all the others who guard us while we sleep. Going forward we need to remember that stark lesson we should have learned 20 years ago. It won't matter how good (or not) our other public services or our welfare system may be if our defences are inadequate.
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Ukraine's Zelenskiy says latest Trump call the 'most productive' yet
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Saturday (July 5) that his latest conversation with U.S. President Donald Trump this week was the best and "most productive" he has had to date. Olivia Zollino reports.
