Ukraine liberates Kotlyne, Russian guide bombs lose accuracy, security guarantee scenarios for Ukraine. Serhiy Zgurets’ column

Frontline situation

Let's start with the frontline events, where the number of combat clashes in the past few days was less than a hundred. This is lower than the peak figures, which reached 250 clashes. Now it's below a hundred, indicating that either the weather is affecting operations, Russian forces are exhausted, or there are some disruptions on the Russian side in certain areas of the front. 

Liberation of Kotlyne

This month, which is coming to an end, can be described as a period of active counterattacks by Ukraine’s Defense Forces. This primarily concerns the Pokrovsk sector, where earlier the Russians attempted to advance both on the flank and with frontal assaults toward Pokrovsk.

However, the Pokrovsk direction now demonstrates the ability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces — with thorough preparation, coordination, and trained personnel — to achieve notable and acceptable results even under enemy numerical superiority.

A few days ago, we discussed the liberation of Pishchane, where fighters with Ukraine's 425th Assault Regiment destroyed the Russian 47th Motorized Rifle Brigade. On February 25, we reported that Ukrainian units ousted Russian troops from Uspenivka — one of the settlements on the western flank of the advance toward Pokrovsk.

Yesterday, the 25th Separate Airborne Brigade published a highly illustrative and interesting video explaining how one of its battalions prepared for and eliminated Russian troops in the village of Kotlyne. This settlement is also on the western flank of Pokrovsk. What makes this operation notable is that Kotlyne is located close to the Pokrovsk-Dnipro highway, which Russian forces sought to reach to significantly complicate logistics for supplying Pokrovsk. The brigade was tasked with driving Russian invading troops out of Kotlyne.

The preparation lasted for some time, involving a series of planned measures, including stabilizing the area around Kotlyne, maximizing Russian losses through artillery and strike systems, and then storming the village with the battalion's airborne units to secure its hold — a mission that was successfully accomplished.

The video shows how artillery first targeted Russian forces to block their movement in Kotlyne, where over a hundred Russian soldiers had gathered. Then, two assault group attacks followed: one from the southwest and the other from the southeast. Units on infantry fighting vehicles swiftly cut off the Russians on the village's western outskirts. The operation lasted some time, resulting in over 275 Russian soldiers killed, more than 203 wounded, and some captured, according to the video.

This operation highlights that despite Russia’s numerical superiority, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, through careful planning, are capable of liberating settlements. Now, we're talking about Kotlyne.

Looking at the map around Pokrovsk, several blue areas already mark where Ukrainian forces have pushed Russian troops from previous positions.

This includes Kotlyne, Pishchane, Uspenivka, and the highway east of Pokrovsk, where Russian forces tried to push toward the road leading to Kostiantynivka — now marked by a blue area. This indicates that smart tactics allow both holding and liberating territory occupied by Russia. It's worth noting that Ukrainian units specializing in long-range enemy destruction played a significant role. Various drones were used to prevent the redeployment of Russian troops and equipment from Selydove to the areas of counterattacks.

This also demonstrates a good synergy between different units and branches to carry out counterattacks and secure Ukraine's gains. However, despite these successes, the situation remains extremely difficult in the Pokrovsk sector. We know that Russian forces have made some progress on certain fronts, and there are other areas where they hold positions they have captured, particularly on the right bank of the Oskil River, where they maintain a foothold. The situation around Chasiv Yar is also complex. The situation to the north of Velyka Novosilka is similarly challenging, so combat operations continue. Nevertheless, the situation around Kotlyne confirms that the Ukrainian Armed Forces have the potential, capability, and training to carry out effective counterattacks.

Russian guided bombs lose effectiveness

Meanwhile, there is another interesting piece of news. We know that Russian forces are actively using guided bombs. Last year, 44,000 guided aerial bombs were used, and this year Russia aims to produce as many as 70,000 guided bombs for use on their aircraft. They drop these bombs from bombers or aircraft capable of carrying this payload at distances of up to 70 kilometers.

Interestingly, yesterday I was following some Russian public forums, including a leading Russian channel that analyzes the use of Russian guided bombs. They are now discussing how Ukrainian EW (electronic warfare) systems are so powerful that, as they themselves admit, hitting a target is simply impossible. They claim that they need to switch from using a single guided bomb to using 8 to 16 guided aerial bombs just to hit a target considered a priority.

However, the Russian Aerospace Forces command is not ready to adopt this approach. So, this confirms the effectiveness of Ukrainian EW systems against Russia. But I think we need to go further and explore ways to destroy Russian aircraft before they can use these guided bombs on Ukrainian towns, military, and civilian targets.

Security guarantees for Ukraine

These are the realities on the battlefield, but we also know that geopolitical factors are starting to influence the prospects of combat operations, despite the agreement draft regarding Ukrainian raw materials, which mentions security guarantees but lacks clear formulation. We understand that the main guarantors of security remain the Armed Forces and Ukrainian enterprises developing weapons and technology used on the battlefield. However, geopolitics and the attitude of Ukraine's partners toward fighting Russia indirectly influence the battlefield.

We have an interesting week that is still ongoing, and of course, the significance lies in the options for building a new security format in the Europe-United States-Ukraine triangle. There was a visit by the French president to the United States, and on Thursday, we are expecting the results of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer's visit to the United States.

In any case, the question of forming security guarantees and plans arises, which are now somewhat consolidated between leading European countries regarding the formation of a military contingent that could be deployed to Ukraine.

Oleksiy Yizhak, an expert at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and co-founder of the Defense Information Consortium, which brings together several analytical structures in Ukraine, spoke about how realistic all this is and whether the American side would agree to these proposals.

"It seems to me that the more or less consensus in Europe is to extend to Ukraine the procedures that were created in 2014 for Eastern Europe. Essentially, it's the same model, but with slightly different implementations. The goal is to strengthen the European rear when looking at the threat from Russia. And to do this mainly without the United States. What's the idea behind these forces? It's not about deployment, as if during a war, creating the necessary balance. For example, if we lack a million troops, we need to make it one and a half million, and then deploy another half a million Europeans to defeat Russia. The model is such that during a decrease in combat activity on the front, conditions would be created in which guarantees would be inevitable, as is now considered for Eastern Europe," he said.

According to the expert, there are several tools that provide such a guarantee.

"The first is the presence of NATO troops on the ground. And this is an interesting presence. It's not the kind of presence we know about NATO, where there are headquarters, multinational divisions, and corps. These are forces that, in the event of external aggression, would integrate into national forces, international forces. It's like an international corps, though it's smaller than a corps, it's at the brigade level, but it would integrate into the national Armed Forces, thus creating the inevitable involvement of other countries providing these units. This should happen automatically. Plus, there's air patrol and immediate responses. These are measured in minutes: 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Ultimately, it all relies on the rear, on a large-scale deployment that should happen automatically after an attack. But to make this large-scale deployment is very difficult without the United States, because, first of all, there’s communication and intelligence, secondly, there’s air transportation and military transport. And thirdly, there are nuclear weapons, without which all other calculations become uncertain. So, if it comes to deployment against Russia, nuclear weapons must be behind it," the expert said.

Oleksiy Yizhak believes that this option is realistic: "If one of the Eastern Europe models is extended to Ukraine, because there are no massive deployments, well, maybe up to 100,000, but currently 30,000 is being discussed. But if 30,000 immediately integrate into Ukraine’s defense system in the event of aggression, it means that all countries providing these 30,000 are almost automatically involved. Well, in principle, this is realistic, but for now, it’s impossible to do this completely without the United States."

Europe's shift in approach to nuclear weapons

The potential new Chancellor of Germany states that negotiations should begin with France and the United Kingdom regarding a nuclear umbrella over Europe, and the French President’s statement about the possibility of using French aircraft for missions related to nuclear security for Europe.

"When this was discussed in Olaf Scholz's government last year, it seemed like a bit of a joke, an alternative opinion. It seemed like the Minister of Ecology or the Minister of Economy mentioned it. And then Poland always stated that if Germany didn’t need it, let’s move it to Poland. But now, unfortunately, Poland's vision of what to do with American nuclear weapons seemed correct, but it now looks like the United States actually wants to withdraw and significantly reduce, and as a result, there is a loss of faith in American nuclear weapons in Europe. And here’s what’s important to understand: after all these discussions and visits that are currently taking place in the United States, it seems that a certain agreement has been reached with the U.S. that the set of tools created by NATO – and NATO is not a collective army, but a set of very useful tools – the United States will not destroy this set of tools. They may just remove some of their own tools from this box and allow Europeans to add their own," noted the analyst.

He noted that the French multi-role fighter Rafale with the French nuclear bomb fits best into NATO's extended nuclear deterrence system as it is.

"Currently, there are F-16s, F-18s, and various American aircraft with American bombs. Similarly, logistics and infrastructure have been created for this, and in principle, the weapons system is the same, with similar size and mass characteristics, so I think this is a real option and it is being considered. I just don’t think the United States is ready to immediately hand over this nuclear system to France and say, 'Go ahead and do it.' Although, there is no other option. The British cannot do this because they do not have tactical nuclear weapons, only a maritime component that is heavily dependent on the United States. In fact, it’s the same weapon used by the United States and the United Kingdom on submarines. It is produced with the same design, there are very close links, so it’s France. And France has complete autonomy in this regard, and it is similar to the F-35 with the B61 bomb, although slightly less effective, the Rafale with their French tactical nuclear bomb," said Oleksiy Yizhak.

In his opinion, when this is being discussed, it means that the conversation is about funding, pace, and procedures. He suggested that this issue might have also been discussed during the talks between Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron.

“A new NATO forms before our eyes”

Oleksiy Yizhak explained what benefits Ukraine might gain from this.

"I think new negotiations are definitely starting because, apart from the infrastructure, there are procedures involved. And in general, all NATO countries are involved in nuclear procedures. Some countries provide non-nuclear components, such as escorting aircraft with nuclear weapons or offering EW support, logistics, and airfields. So, without any fuss, Ukraine could join this process. The important thing is that a new NATO is emerging before our eyes. A new NATO, possibly without the United States. And in this new NATO, we need to figure out how to join - it may be easier for us, but it’s still the old NATO, where there are countries that, for political reasons, do not want our membership. However, overall, this is a good signal that NATO remains the most successful alliance, but possibly without the United States, and in this new NATO, I think it will be easier and quicker for Ukraine to join," said the expert from the National Institute for Strategic Studies and co-founder of the Defense Information Consortium, Oleksiy Yizhak.