Zelenogorsk Pravda
September 24, 2025
Page A3: Defense & Analysis
By Svetlana Golikova, Defense Analyst
ZELENOGORSK – A recently disclosed summary of military operations in the North Zagoria region paints a picture of a grinding, high-intensity conflict where tactical successes are being achieved at a significant and sustained cost. The after-action report, covering the activities of the 10th Separate Tank Brigade from September 4 to 14, details a series of fierce engagements that halted separatist advances but revealed concerning patterns in the conduct of the war.
The document, a sanitized version of which has been obtained by this publication, acknowledges the "high resilience" of frontline units. However, a careful reading points to a conflict that is rapidly consuming both material and junior leadership at an alarming rate.
Throughout the reported period, Brigade task forces were consistently engaged by a well-equipped adversary, identified as a mix of Russian militias, international mercenaries, and what the report terms "international regulars" from Spain, North Korea, and Serbia. This composition underscores the complex, hybrid nature of the threat facing Chernarus.
The chronology of battles—from Panteleimonovka to Mikhailovka—follows a disturbing rhythm. In four of the five detailed operations, the initial commanding officer was killed in action, with command repeatedly devolving to junior sergeants or squad leaders. While the adaptability of these junior ranks is noted as a positive, the frequency of such command disruptions suggests that enemy forces are capable of effectively targeting leadership elements from the outset of an engagement.
Furthermore, the report highlights a persistent vulnerability to pre-planned enemy fire. The operation in Chervonopopovka on September 12th saw two main battle tanks destroyed by accurate mortar fire during the approach march. Similarly, the engagement in Khromovo began with the immediate loss of friendly vehicles. These repeated instances indicate a potential deficiency in counter-battery radar coverage or reconnaissance, leaving advancing columns exposed.
On a tactical level, the Brigade’s missions were successful. Enemy attacks were repelled, and key villages were denied to the separatists. The recovery of intelligence, including hit lists and informant networks, is noted as a significant achievement, potentially disrupting terrorist campaigns against local authorities.
Yet, the strategic picture remains opaque. The report concludes that these brutal, company-level battles likely "disrupted" a larger enemy offensive. While this is a positive tactical outcome, it does not address whether the underlying initiative remains with the separatist forces, who appear to have the resources to sustain such high-end, multinational attacks repeatedly.
The recommendations within the report are telling. They call for enhanced forward deployment of anti-tank and counter-drone assets, and a review of tactical approaches to reduce vulnerability to indirect fire. These are prudent suggestions, but they read as reactive measures to problems that have already extracted a heavy price.
In essence, the account from the North Zagoria front suggests our forces are fighting with tenacity and courage. They are achieving their immediate objectives. However, the consistent narrative of high casualties, decapitated command structures, and destructive opening blows from the enemy raises critical questions about the long-term sustainability of such a defensive posture. A war of attrition, even when tactically favorable, is a costly affair. The resilience of the soldier is undeniable, but one must ask if the current strategy fully accounts for the caliber and backing of the forces they are facing.
