Tightening the Noose: Russia’s Military Encirclement Strategy and Wartime Statecraft in Ukraine

Editor’s Note: Russia’s Ukraine campaign is unfolding on two fronts—military and domestic—and this article from ComplexDiscovery offers a crucial, real-time synthesis of both. Drawing from the July 25, 2025, assessment by the Institute for the Study of War and AEI’s Critical Threats Project, it captures the full spectrum of Moscow’s wartime posture. On the ground, Russia’s push toward Pokrovsk and Kupyansk signals renewed momentum aimed at fracturing Ukrainian defense lines. Behind the scenes, the Kremlin is tightening economic levers and domestic narratives to sustain and justify its long-term confrontation. For cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery professionals, this piece offers insight into how hybrid warfare increasingly merges battlefield maneuvers with economic manipulation and information control—raising important implications for threat intelligence, risk management, and digital evidence verification.

For those seeking to grasp the full scope of this evolving landscape, the complete updates from the Institute for the Study of War serve as an invaluable resource.

Background Note: ComplexDiscovery’s staff offers distinctive perspectives on the Russo-Ukrainian war and Middle Eastern conflicts, informed by their military experience on the West German, East German, and Czechoslovakian borders during the Cold War, as well as in Sinai as part of Camp David Accord compliance activities, during the timeframe of the Persian Gulf War. This firsthand regional knowledge has been further enhanced by recent staff travels to Eastern European countries, including Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These visits have provided up-to-date, on-the-ground insights into the current geopolitical climate in regions directly impacted by the ongoing conflict.

Combined with cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery proficiency, this multifaceted experience enables comprehensive analysis of these conflicts, including the critical impact of cyber warfare, disinformation, and digital forensics on modern military engagements. This unique background positions ComplexDiscovery to provide valuable insights for conflict-related investigations and litigation, where understanding the interplay of technology, data, and geopolitical factors is crucial.

Russo-Ukrainian Conflict Update*

Tightening the Noose: Russia’s Military Encirclement Strategy and Wartime Statecraft in Ukraine

ComplexDiscovery Staff

Even as its troops press deeper into Ukrainian territory, the Russian state is simultaneously engineering a quieter, more calculated offensive at home—one targeting both its economic structure and domestic media sphere. From the lowering of key interest rates to enable military industrial output, to the purging of media figures perceived as unsympathetic to Kremlin narratives, Moscow’s widening war strategy underscores a campaign fought as fiercely behind borders as it is across them.

This multidimensional campaign also includes a strategic deferral of diplomatic engagement. Despite calls from the United States—most notably from President Donald Trump, who declared on July 25 that a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky “is going to happen”—Russian officials continue to delay any high-level negotiations. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov reaffirmed Moscow’s position that such a meeting is premature without prior technical agreements, effectively stalling talks. The Institute for the Study of War assesses that this delay is a deliberate maneuver by Russia to project openness to diplomacy while gaining operational time to consolidate battlefield positions and extract concessions from the West. Ukraine, meanwhile, maintains its readiness to negotiate, in stark contrast to Moscow’s obstructive stance.

On the battlefield, Russian forces have escalated their envelopment efforts around Pokrovsk in Donetsk Oblast. The reported seizure of Novoekonomichne, located northeast of Pokrovsk, marks a key advancement. Geolocated footage supports this Russian claim, although Ukrainian positions remain intact near the Kapitalna Mine and Hrodivka. Russian reconnaissance groups have also staged incursions into Pokrovsk’s outskirts and Myrnohrad, indicating attempts to probe Ukrainian defenses and sow disarray. However, ISW has not confirmed any sustained Russian presence in central Pokrovsk.

These operations are spearheaded by seasoned elements of the 51st Combined Arms Army (CAA), particularly the 5th Motorized Rifle Brigade, which had previously led assaults during the 2024 Kurakhove operation. Their renewed presence east of Pokrovsk following redeployment in early 2025 points to Moscow’s long-game strategy to fracture Ukrainian lines in Donetsk by concentrating experienced and reconstituted units.

Meanwhile, Kupyansk remains under mounting threat from Russian forces pushing from multiple vectors—north, northeast, and southwest. Advances in Holubivka and northern Kupyansk itself, confirmed through recent geolocated footage, place critical Ukrainian ground lines of communication at risk. Russian intent to sever the H-26 Kupyansk–Shevchenkove highway would significantly impair Ukraine’s logistical coherence in the area. This aligns with a broader Russian objective to envelop Kupyansk and force a Ukrainian fallback across the Kupyanka River.

The ISW posits three strategic scenarios should Kupyansk fall: a direct westward push toward Shevchenkove and Velykyi Burluk to extend a buffer zone along the northeast border; a pivot south to consolidate control over Borova and Lyman and threaten Ukraine’s defensive belt; or a redeployment of Russian forces from the area to reinforce operations in Pokrovsk, Kostyantynivka, or Novopavlivka. Each course underscores Russia’s dual objectives—incremental territorial gains and optimized force allocation across its priority sectors.

As Russia presses for gains on the battlefield, its leadership is simultaneously recalibrating domestic economic instruments to sustain the long war effort. On July 25, the Central Bank of Russia reduced its key interest rate from 20% to 18%, its second such move in two months. Officials cited moderating inflation and borrowing needs, but the underlying motive appears strategic: making capital more accessible to the defense-industrial base (DIB). With military manufacturers at the heart of wartime expenditure, this easing of fiscal policy signals an effort to expand DIB output by lowering the cost of borrowing amid a money supply swollen by wartime spending.

Such a measure, however, is not without precedent or risk. In October 2024, a 21% rate hike was enforced to combat inflation exacerbated by military disbursements and a weakening ruble. The present move, by contrast, reflects an attempt to strike a balance between inflation control and continued financial lubrication of the war economy. The ISW notes that while this may yield temporary gains in industrial activity, it remains uncertain whether inflation will remain subdued over the longer term.

Complementing this financial shift is a renewed emphasis on domestic media control. The sudden dismissal of Mikhail Gusman, First Deputy Director-General of TASS, on July 24, reflects the Kremlin’s intolerance for dissenting or diplomatically inconvenient narratives. Gusman’s recent praise for Azerbaijan’s foreign policy posture reportedly triggered his removal. This incident follows increased state pressure on media outlets that challenge Kremlin narratives, signaling an ongoing strategy to consolidate information control as a key pillar of wartime governance.

Further intensifying the multifaceted campaign are developments along other key fronts. Russian forces claimed limited gains northwest of Toretsk, possibly seizing Oleksandro-Kalynove, and continue to assault Ukrainian lines in the Chasiv Yar and Siversk sectors. In Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts, localized clashes were reported, though without major breakthroughs. Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces mounted targeted drone strikes on key Russian military-industrial infrastructure within Russian territory, including gunpowder and chemical plants in Stavropol and Tambov. These strikes, reportedly targeting supplies essential to missile and artillery systems, highlight Kyiv’s intent to disrupt Russia’s war-making capabilities beyond the frontline.

In the southern axis, both sides maintained a static posture near Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. However, Ukrainian counterattacks near Kamyanske and sabotage repulsions in Stepnohirsk signal continued efforts to restrain Russian attempts to break through near the Kakhovka Reservoir and M-18 highway corridor.

Russia’s aerial campaign remains relentless. A wave of Shahed-type drones and ballistic missiles targeted infrastructure across Ukraine on the night of July 24, with Ukraine intercepting most of the drones. However, Kharkiv suffered infrastructural damage, including to a medical facility. In response, President Zelensky urged domestic drone manufacturers to produce 1,000 interceptors per day, underscoring Ukraine’s evolving adaptation to aerial threats.

Together, these developments illuminate the contours of a long-term Russian strategy that synchronizes battlefield maneuvers with institutional levers of state power—economic, informational, and diplomatic. As Russia continues to stall negotiations while intensifying pressure across multiple domains, a critical question emerges: can Ukraine and its allies adapt with equal breadth and endurance to confront a war fought simultaneously at the front, in financial systems, and within the narratives of statecraft?

Detailed Reporting with Maps for July 25, 2025, from the ISW – Mouseover to Scroll

Review the Detailed Reporting and Maps PDF

About the Institute for the Study of War Research Methodology

ISW’s research methodology relies on both primary and secondary sources, enabling researchers to develop a comprehensive understanding of the situation on the ground. In order to analyze military and political developments in any given area, ISW’s research analysts must wholly understand the systems of enemy and friendly forces. They must also understand the population demographics, physical terrain, politics, and history of that area. This lays the analytical foundation for understanding the reasons for particular developments and fulfilling their assigned research objectives. ISW analysts also spend time in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in order to gain a better understanding of the security and political situation and to evaluate the implementation of current strategies and policies. Their researchers compile data and analyze trends, producing a granular analysis of developments in areas of research, producing an accurate, high-resolution, timely, and thorough picture of the situation. ISW’s research methodology guarantees its success and commitment to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations, achieve strategic objectives, and respond to emerging problems that may require the use of American military power.

About the Institute for the Study of War

The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. They are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.

Learn more, get involved, and contribute today.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies

* Sourced and shared with direct expressed permission from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

Additional Reading

• From Dissent to OSINT? Understanding, Influencing, and Protecting Roles, Reputation, and Revenue
• Data Embassies: Sovereignty, Security, and Continuity for Nation-States

Source: ComplexDiscovery OÜ