logo
Russia steps up offensive across the front line in Ukraine, in apparent defiance of Trump. What does it mean for the war?

Russia steps up offensive across the front line in Ukraine, in apparent defiance of Trump. What does it mean for the war?

London and Kyiv
CNN —
Offensive operations by Russia's army have increased across the front line, according to social media posts by Ukrainian officers, an analysis of information from the General Staff in Kyiv and soldiers speaking to CNN.
It is not yet clear if this is the start of a major spring offensive by Vladimir Putin's forces, of which Ukraine has been warning for some time. However, it appears to suggest the Russian leader is unconcerned about upsetting US President Donald Trump, who will make up his mind 'in a matter of weeks' if the Kremlin is serious about peace, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said last week.
Where is the current fighting?
For several months, some of the fiercest fighting has been taking place to the south of the town of Pokrovsk – a one-time key logistics hub for Ukraine's armed forces in the Donetsk region.
Ukraine's army has achieved several small tactical successes since the start of the year, pushing back some of the Russian advance towards Pokrovsk, which had bought it to within just a few kilometers of the town center.
But a Ukrainian reconnaissance officer deployed in the area told CNN that, over the last 10 days, Russia's armed forces became more active again and were bringing forward further manpower and vehicles for future assaults.
'We see it on the drone footage, and we hear them talking about it on the radio intercepts,' said the officer, who CNN is not naming.
But with Pokrovsk itself heavily defended and the military supplies previously situated there largely relocated, Russia's main effort in the area could be to push westward, rather than north.
Ukrainian artillery crew members manning a howitzer position at an undisclosed location on the Donetsk frontline on April 6.
Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters
Social media posts by Ukrainian soldiers in the last few days describe fears of possible encirclement in one location and breach of a defensive line in another.
'The frontline in this area has entered an active phase. The Russians will not stop,' one Ukrainian with the call-sign Muchnoi wrote on Telegram.
The aim of the advance is a town called Novopavlivka, he said.
'They will enter the Dnipropetrovsk region – this is one of the key tasks set by the Russian command.'
Moving into Dnipropetrovsk would be a significant moment because it would be the first time Russian troops have set foot there. Indeed, it would be the first new Ukrainian region to come under part-Russian occupation since the earlyweeks of the full-scale invasion more than three years ago.
The Ukrainian mapping service DeepState puts Putin's forces just six kilometers (3.7 miles) away from the region while people living along the border are already being evacuated, Dnipropetrovsk officials say.
For Putin – and quite possibly American negotiators as well – any Russian control over a part of Dnipropetrovsk could be seen as a useful bargaining chip in a future negotiation.
Surges along the front line?
Luhansk is Ukraine's easternmost region and the one where Putin's forces have most control – just a few pockets remain in Ukrainian hands. Here, too, Russian troops have made steady gains in recent weeks, particularly the north of the town of Lyman, a railway hub and rear support base for Ukraine's troops.
'It's hard, we need to work on stabilizing the front and methodically knocking out the enemy, otherwise the gangrene will spread,' one Ukrainian officer wrote on Telegram.
Data analysis by CNN of the combat engagements recorded by Ukraine's General Staff shows an increase in Russian activity over the last two weeks along all parts of the front line. While CNN cannot confirm the numbers, and they are unlikely to be definitive, the data provides clear evidence of an upward shift from March 23 onwards.
Before that date, the average number of daily clashes in March had been around 140 (excluding an outlier on March 11). Since then, while tallies have fluctuated, the average has been around 180 clashes per day, an increase of about 30%.
The data includes the Kursk region in Russia, where Ukraine is now holding on to just a few villages along the border, after a slow but successful Russian rollback of Kyiv's surprise gains last summer. The ground advances are also seeing Russia make inroads into Ukraine's neighbouring Sumy region, creating small grey zones where neither side is in complete control.
Further complicating the picture along the northern border is Ukraine's incursion into a slither of Russia's Belgorod region, confirmed by Kyiv for the first time on Monday.
How are the Russians fighting?
Ukrainian soldiers report a variety of Russian tactics in recent weeks.
In the south of Donetsk region, a Ukrainian officer with the call sign Alex described Russian troops moving forward in columns consisting of both armored and soft-skin vehicles– about four to five infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, while 'the rest are trucks, cars and golf carts.'
He did not hide his scepticism at the prospects for major Russian advances if current maneuvers reveal a real shortage of armor.
'Yes, they have a lot of manpower, several times more than we do, but whatever one says, in a war in the 21st century, it is impossible to build on any successes and launch a rapid offensive without mechanized means of delivering and supporting infantry,' Alex wrote on Telegram.
Also writing on Telegram, Ukrainian commander Stanislav Buniatov said Russian forces there were suffering heavy losses but continued undeterred. 'One unit in this area loses ten to 50 Russians per day,' he said.
A view of the abandoned town of Maryinka in the Donetsk region on April 1.
AFP/Getty Images
Further west, close to the Dnipro River, where Russian forces last week gained control of the small settlement of Lobkove, a Ukrainian commander with a strike drone squad told CNN he was observing a build-up of manpower between 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) behind the line of contact.
'The Russians are operating in small tactical groups of five to seven men, maximum 10 people. As soon as it's foggy or rainy, they start advancing using bad weather as cover from our drones.'
As spring progresses and the weather turns drier, tactics will change, the drone commander says.
'They can't use heavy vehicles at the moment. It's too wet, they will get stuck. As soon as the land dries up, they will make a move; it's not in doubt, they will charge for sure.'
Reality checks
Despite the downbeat assessments, it is important to keep some perspective. The amount of territory Russia is capturing remains small. For instance, its forces southwest of Pokrovsk, bearing down on Dnipropetrovsk region, are only about 45 kilometers (28 miles) further advanced than they were one year ago.
In fact, Britain's Ministry of Defence, in common with other analysts, assesses Russia's rate of advance to have been in steady decline for six months, from about 730 square kilometers captured in November last year to just 143 last month.
Part of this may well be down to the challenges of warfighting in winter, though the US military's senior commander in Europe, Gen. Christopher Cavoli, in an upbeat testimony to Congress last week, said Kyiv's forces had 'assumed very strong defensive positions,' and were 'well dug in.'
'It is very hard to envision Ukraine collapsing and losing that conflict,' Cavoli concluded.
A Ukrainian gunner prepares to fire a howitzer towards Russian troops at an undisclosed location on the Donetsk frontline on April 6.
Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters
Even so, land warfare analyst Nick Reynolds, of the Royal United Services Institute in London, cautions against thinking that because Russia has not taken much territory, it is not achieving anything.
Russia's territorial claims, he says, will not be achieved through military advance, tree line by tree line, village by village.
'The aim is attrition, and the goal is not immediate. The goal is to kill people, to destroy equipment, to suck in resources, to bankrupt the Ukrainian state and to break its will to fight.'
Even weak Russian offensives, he says, need some defense by Ukraine, which in turn allows for better mapping of Ukrainian defensive positions, providing targets for artillery or glide bomb attacks.
Prognosis
Even in a best-case scenario, Europe's stepped-up efforts to re-arm Ukraine, amid doubts over US military support, will likely take a few years to come to fruition. While Ukraine's own defense industry has made great strides, it remains more economically dependent on its allies than Russia's, analysts say.
Under pressure from Washington, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky remains publicly committed to an end to the war, as long as any peace agreement is just and secure and does not allow Russia to resume fighting later.
For its part, the Kremlin says it wants peace too, but only if the 'root causes' of the conflict are addressed, which in essence means Ukraine must fall back unequivocally into Moscow's sphere of influence.
But Putin's announcement last week of the largest conscription round in more than 10 years, and his stated ambition to build an army with 1.5 million active servicemen, along with an aerial onslaught that shows no signs of slowing, point more to a campaign of attrition than any intention to stop.
For fighters on the front lines, even high-ranking officers, peace talks mean little.
'Trust me, in my experience, when you are sitting there at the front, you don't think about them. There is an order to follow and there is a desire to survive,' one told CNN.
Victoria Butenko contributed reporting.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel attacks suburbs of Beirut, targeting alleged Hezbollah ‘drone factories'
Israel attacks suburbs of Beirut, targeting alleged Hezbollah ‘drone factories'

Egypt Independent

time2 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

Israel attacks suburbs of Beirut, targeting alleged Hezbollah ‘drone factories'

CNN — The Israeli military carried out strikes on Hezbollah 'drone factories' in southern Lebanon and suburbs of Beirut on Thursday, as large plumes of smoke could be seen rising from the Lebanese capital. The Israeli attack marked its biggest escalation in Lebanon since the US-brokered a ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah in November. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it was striking 'terror targets of the Hezbollah Aerial Unit (127)' in the southern Beirut suburb of Dahieh. NNA news reported strikes from Israeli drones, saying that a 'series of warning strikes, numbering more than seven' had targeted the city's southern suburbs. The news outlet also said that Israeli drones carried out an airstrike on the town of Ain Qana in Lebanon's Iklim Tuffah region. There were no initial reports of casualties related to the strikes, the spokesperson for Lebanon's Ministry of Public Health told CNN early on Friday morning. The Israeli military had previously warned of a coming strike in the area, intended to target alleged 'underground UAV production facilities' controlled by Hezbollah. The aftermath of Israeli strikes in the Dahieh suburb of the Lebanese capital on Friday. Hassan Ammar/AP IDF Arabic Spokesperson Avichay Adraee issued an 'urgent warning' via social media earlier on Thursday, urging residents of 'Al-Hadath, Haret Hreik, and Burj Al-Barajneh,' neighborhoods to immediately evacuate buildings marked in red on attached maps and adjacent structures, and to stay at least '300 meters (328 yards) away' for safety. A second 'urgent warning' was issued by the Israeli military via a post on X accompanied by a satellite photo of Lebanon with highlighted zones they said showed the locations of Hezbollah sites. The warning urged residents to evacuate nearby buildings 'immediately and stay at least 500 meters away from them.' The announcement prompted widespread panic and evacuations, according to NNA. Social media video captured Thursday night showed dozens of cars leaving neighborhoods in the city's south. The strikes were carried out as Muslims in Lebanon prepared to celebrate Eid al-Adha, known as the Feast of Sacrifice, on Friday. Most Muslims in Lebanon usually celebrate the eve of Eid which fell on Thursday evening local time. The Lebanese army warned that it could suspend its cooperation with a committee led by the United States and France to monitor the ceasefire provisions that include disarming Hezbollah. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam both condemned the Israeli strikes, with Aoun saying that they were a 'blatant violation of an international agreement, as well as the basic tenets of international and humanitarian laws and resolutions' on the eve of an important religious occasion. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz responded to Aoun, saying: 'Mr. President – there will be no calm in Beirut, no order and stability in Lebanon without security for the State of Israel. Agreements must be respected. If you do not do what is required – we will continue to act, and with great force.' Lebanon's new government has vowed to disarm paramilitary groups in the country such as Hezbollah and Palestinian factions. Last week, Salam said that his government had dismantled 500 pieces of weaponry north of the Litani river in southern Lebanon. Israel previously struck the same neighborhood, a Hezbollah stronghold, in late March. A ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon had been brokered in November 2024, but strikes on southern Lebanon targeting Hezbollah militants and facilities have continued. CNN's Charbel Mallo and Lauren Izso contributed to this report

Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next
Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next

Egypt Independent

time2 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next

CNN — Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. In a mind-boggling moment, on Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump, the only convicted felon ever to serve as president, told reporters as he strode across the South Lawn of the White House. Later, Trump deployed hundreds of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles and authorized the arrival of 2,000 more National Guard reservists after a weekend of unrest that saw clashes with police and burning cars in contained areas of the city. The protests were triggered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps seeking undocumented migrants in a city and state that are epicenters of Democratic power. California and Los Angeles officials reject Trump's claims that they have lost control. On Monday evening, law enforcement officers pushed back demonstrators throwing projectiles with flash bangs. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power — often on questionable grounds — and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. 'The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,' Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said on Monday evening. 'Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on US soil,' Reed said in a statement. California Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, whose district encompasses Paramount, just south of Los Angeles, condemned Trump's mobilizations of troops that she said were not justified by the situation. 'This is where I think this is a sign of a dictator,' she told CNN's Jake Tapper. 'And the threat he is making against the governor to arrest him — I mean come on — that is pretty outrageous.' White House border czar Tom Homan speaks with reporters at the White House on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Washington. Evan Vucci/AP Trump border czar tells CNN that Democratic claims about troops are 'ridiculous' Top Trump administration officials are throwing around words like 'insurrection.' Not surprisingly, many observers have taken such rhetoric as a sign the White House is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that would allow the president to activate troops to put down a rebellion in a state. There is no such revolt in California. Trump's claims on Monday that his swift action stopped Los Angeles being obliterated are also not true. The president's border czar Tom Homan, meanwhile, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that claims by Democratic officials that protests intensified because Trump sent National Guard troops were 'ridiculous.' Joining 'The Source' from Los Angeles, Homan said, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters— I mean, they make the decisions.' Protesters gathered in large numbers in Los Angeles on Monday night, raising the prospect of another cycle of tension and uncertainty. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. And hopes of restraint are hardly supported by Trump's second term so far. The president has, for instance, invoked highly contentious national emergencies on immigration and trade to unlock rarely used executive powers with no pushback from the Republican Congress. He's used presidential authority against what he regards as centers of liberal authority and influence: at Ivy League universities, in the federal government and in the media. And even in his breakup with erstwhile DOGE chief Elon Musk last week, Trump threatened yet another abuse of power by cancelling federal subsidies for the SpaceX boss's firms. The administration is spoiling for a fight as it lays down a marker in California for other Democratic states where leaders are loath to cooperate with Trump's deportation purge. It obviously also perceives a political advantage in the president positioning himself as the guardian of public order in a way that allows Republicans to accuse Democrats of defending softer immigration enforcement. Protesters confront National Guard soldiers and police outside a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids, on June 9, 2025Is Trump for real or is he bluffing? But as ever with Trump, there's a question as to whether he's serious with his threats or is staking out an extreme position to please his voters or even to create some perceived leverage for himself. Homan, for instance, told CNN's Collins that Newsom had 'absolutely not' done anything at this point to justify his arrest. And North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer adopted the classic GOP line that not everything that the president says should be taken literally when asked about administration threats to detain Newsom. 'You guys could ask every day if I am comfortable with what he said. He hasn't arrested him. I can't imagine that he is going to arrest Gavin Newsom,' Cramer told CNN's Manu Raju. Cramer also voiced the view of many Republicans that, far from behaving like an authoritarian, Trump is rightfully addressing failures by Democratic leaders on immigration policy and public order. 'There's no question about it: Places like California have thumbed their noses at the American people and decided they want to be sanctuary for criminals,' Cramer said. So far, National Guard reservists mobilized by the president over the head of a state governor for the first time since the Civil Rights era in the 1960s have mostly been used to defend federal buildings in Los Angeles. While the announcement of a deployment of Marines to the city was superficially alarming, their orders prohibit them from conducting law enforcement activities like making arrests without Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. The Marines are expected to be used to bolster National Guard members on the ground while up to 2,000 reservists are mobilized. CNN's Evan Perez, meanwhile, reported on Monday evening that while officials like top White House aide Stephen Miller have been talking about an 'insurrection,' administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. This may all signify that the president is not yet ready to push the nation toward an unprecedented authoritarian cliff — even if his personal history, not least over January 6, 2021, suggests that in the heat of the moment he often takes the most reckless course. And Trump may be playing with fire in a city and state where anger over his wild four-month-old presidency is boiling. By inserting troops into such a volatile and tense environment, he's opening the possibility that flashpoints could ignite and even that tragic circumstances could unfold. But then again, maybe that's the point, if the president is seeking a predicate to deploy active-duty troops on the streets of American cities. Another troubling omen is that Newsom — who, like Trump, relishes public fights — has no incentive to cave to the man he would like to replace as president in 2029. Newsom, for example, wrote on social media on Monday that the president was deploying another 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, even though only 300 from his initial 2,000-strong contingent had so far arrived in the city. 'This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego,' the governor said. 'This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops.' The state has sued the administration over that initial call-up of reservists. State Attorney General Rob Bonta called Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard troops 'unnecessary, counterproductive, and most importantly, unlawful.' The suit created yet another legal morass around one of Trump's most aggressive power grabs. California has now lodged 24 lawsuits against the administration in 19 weeks. With every day that passes in the California public order crisis, the political incentives seem to be driving toward more confrontation rather than a peaceful resolution. But ultimately it's up to Trump how this ends.

Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught
Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught

Egypt Independent

time2 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

Why Trump's move toward using the military on US soil is so fraught

CNN — The country hangs on a hugely significant precipice, as President Donald Trump moves toward making good on his long-running suggestions of an extraordinary step: deploying the military on US soil. About 700 Marines have now been mobilized to join the National Guard in Los Angeles to deal with demonstrations over federal immigration raids, CNN reports. The Marines were previously on 'ready to deploy' status. (It is still unclear what their specific task will be once in Los Angeles, sources told CNN. And like the National Guard troops, they are prohibited from conducting law enforcement activity such as making arrests unless Trump invokes the Insurrection Act.) But to hear the White House tell it, this show of force is not just the right thing to do but also a political winner. Responding to a poll showing 54 percent of Americans approved of Trump's deportation program, White House spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X Sunday, 'And the approval number will be even higher after the national guard was sent to LA to beat back the violence this weekend.' But whether the American people actually want this military activation isn't nearly so clear. In fact, they've rejected such things in the past. The administration may be making a huge gamble on the American people's tolerance for a heavy-handed federal response. And while Americans might not have much sympathy for the demonstrators in Los Angeles who engage in violence or for undocumented immigrants, recent surveys have shown they often say Trump goes too far in his attempts to address such problems. There is something of an analog for the current situation. It came in 2020 when federal law enforcement suddenly moved to clear Lafayette Square, near the White House, of racial justice demonstrators, resulting in violent scenes. This wasn't the military, but it was controversial – in part because Trump then walked across the square with military leaders for a photo-op. (Then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper also resisted Trump's suggestions of using active-duty military at the time.) The American people did not like what they saw. A USA Today/Ipsos poll conducted a week later showed 63 percent of Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas that day. It also showed Americans opposed deploying military forces in other states by 10 points, 51-41 percent. Similarly a CNN poll conducted by SSRS at the time asked a broader question – whether it would be appropriate for a president to 'deploy the U.S. military in response to protests in the United States.' Americans said this would be 'inappropriate' by a wide margin, 60-36 percent. All of which suggest Americans are predisposed to viewing such actions skeptically. These numbers come with caveats, though. The CNN poll question is a great window into how this could be received. But it's possible people's views have shifted or could shift with circumstances, including the role the Marines end up playing in Los Angeles. Back in 2020, the racial justice protests were relatively popular, and people didn't view them as particularly violent. Americans sympathized with the cause, believing George Floyd had been murdered by police. It's too early to tell how people view the demonstrators in Los Angeles. And the plight of the undocumented immigrants whom the administration is trying to deport is probably less sympathetic than the racial justice protesters' cause. (Clear majorities generally support deporting undocumented immigrants, who are in this country without authorization.) But when it comes to the administration's immigration crackdown, Americans have also expressed nuanced feelings. And the poll the White House cited this weekend is a case in point. In the CBS News/YouGov survey, which was conducted before Saturday's protests broke out in Los Angeles, Americans said they approved of Trump's deportation program, 54-46 percent. They also liked its 'goals,' 55-45 percent. But that's not quite the same as saying they approved of the administration's actions, full stop. The same poll asked whether people liked 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. And there, Americans actually disliked his approach by double-digits, 56-44 percent. While independents were about evenly split on Trump's deportation program, they disliked how he's gone about it by 30 points, 65-35 percent. This is a dichotomy we see in lots of polling of Trump's deportation actions. Americans like the idea of mass deportation, but not so much the implementation. They like the president a lot on securing the border. But they like him significantly less on 'immigration,' and they like him even less when 'deportation,' specifically, is invoked in the question. One possible reason: Americans see the administration moving haphazardly. That could most notably be the case with things like deporting the wrong people and actions that have been halted by the courts, including ones in which judges have said people haven't been given enough due process. It's possible that people could come to sympathize with the cause of the Los Angeles protesters – if not the violent ones – at least to some degree. While Americans generally favor mass deportation, those numbers decline significantly when you mention the prospect of deporting otherwise-law-abiding people with jobs and those who have been in this country for a long time. (For example, a recent Pew Research Center poll showed Americans opposed deporting undocumented immigrants who have jobs, 56-41 percent, and they opposed deporting the parents of US citizen children 60-37 percent.) But the raids that set off the protests have been directed at workplaces generally – not necessarily at criminals or gang members. The Department of Homeland Security has claimed at least five of the people arrested during Sunday immigration sweeps in Los Angeles had criminal convictions or were accused of crimes. Through it all, the administration has made a rather Machiavellian political calculation: that however much people dislike the means, their support for the ends will carry the day. Maybe people say they don't like the lack of due process the administration has provided – or the wrong people getting sent to a brutal Salvadoran prison – but how much do they really care if the end result is lots of deportations? Similarly, the administration could be making the calculation that scenes of violence in Los Angeles could marshal support for a previously unthinkable step of deploying the military domestically against protesters – something Americans opposed by 24 points just five years ago. So much depends on what the Marines end up doing in Los Angeles and whether Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to allow them to engage in policing activities. But the Trump administration has clearly gone too far for people before as part of their deportation efforts. And the one big crackdown on protesters we have seen in the Trump era didn't go well. This would appear pretty fraught – not just practically, but politically.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store