Pokrovsk is a smoldering pile of rubble. Blasted into economic irrelevance by over a year of artillery, drone and tank fighting. It is no longer a logistics hub nor a defensive bulwark nor a city. It will takes millions of dollars or rubles or hryvnia - and years - to rebuild and resuscitate.

But Putin remains fixated on it because his failure in Ukraine has been so profound and public - and is military’s victories so few and unnecessarily bloody. He is desperate to prove that he is still a threat, a dominant figure who must be feared. But the length of time it has taken his army to achieve one of his top priorities speaks both to their incapability to deliver - and his need for them to do *something *to help redeem his reputation. JL

Phillips O’Brien reports in his substack:

The Ukrainians still hold most of what they had last weekend (a week ago). The most recent Deep State maps have not registered any change since then. It is not clear if the Ukrainians are planning to pull out of Pokrovsk or whether they intend to hold on longer to bleed the Russians. W*hy is Russia throwing everything it has to take it? *The answer lies in desperation-driven optics. Putin needs a trophy. Russian “victories” have been rare, limited, and paid for in truckloads of blood. Pokrovsk offers him a symbol of progress before winter, with its mud and frost, locks the front in place. “What’s remarkable about Pokrovsk is that Russian forces have taken so long to achieve a top priority for Putin. This throws cold water on any forecast of a quick conquest of Donetsk.“

After last weekend’s piece on Pokrovsk talked about how the battle there might be ending, this week the Russians continued to take small slices of the town.

The Ukrainians still hold most of what they had last weekend, but reports are that the Russians are constantly attacking and trying to infiltrate Ukrainian lines—with some success. Here is the most recent Deep State map (actually from Friday as they have not registered any change since then).

And here was the situation last Saturday.

There is a debate about what is happening. It is notclear if the Ukrainians are actually planning to pull out of Pokrovsk or whether they are intent to try and hold on for longer to try and bleed the Russians. One other story said that Russian losses had been so great and the need to take Pokrovsk had become so important to Putin, that the Russians were taking time to build up a large, new force to try and end the battle.

One thing that is worthy of note is that the reporting about the meaning of the Battle of Pokrovsk now is materially different in many quarters than it was last year, when analysts were constantly stressing how important the town was. There was an excellent summary of the situation by Shaun Pinner (who has appeared on a Substack Live with me) in this CEPA paper. Shaun puts things into perspective very well.

Before Russia’s full-scale invasion, Pokrovsk was a transport hub and an administrative center for its area. Now it’s a shattered shell. What remains is not a city but a position: roads, supply routes, and terrain that shape the wider fight.

So the real question isn’t why Ukraine is defending Pokrovsk. It’s why Russia is throwing everything it has to take it?

The answer lies in desperation-driven optics. Now, as always, Putin needs a trophy. Russian “victories” have been rare, limited, and paid for in truckloads of blood. Pokrovsk offers him something to point at on state TV: a talking point, a symbol, a narrative of progress before winter, with its mud and frost, locks the front in place.

And his kind of measured understanding is much more the norm this year. Here was how the main New York Times story of the week discussed the strategic importance of Pokrovsk.

Beyond the geopolitical messaging, the military significance of losing Pokrovsk may be relatively small for Ukraine. Russia’s incremental advances have come at an immense cost. While Ukraine wants to hold on to Pokrovsk, military commanders argue that the large losses it is inflicting on the Kremlin’s troops there will hurt the Russian war effort more broadly.

“What’s remarkable about Pokrovsk is that Russian forces have taken so long to achieve what was a top priority for Putin,” said Laura Cooper, a senior official in the Pentagon during the Biden administration who was responsible for Russia and Ukraine. “This throws cold water on any forecast of a quick conquest of Donetsk.”

Now, there were exceptions to this story, such as the BBC alarmist report which included a meaningless map of roads.

For the life of me, I have no idea what this means. Are the Russians now supposed to advance all the way to Dnipro or Zaporizhzhia if the Ukrainians pull out of Pokrovsk? At present advance rates, that might take decades.

However the key thing is that there has been a narrative change that sees some reporting putting the battle in its proper context. Long may it continue.