Russian troops advanced near Viymka, Novoselivka, Poltavka, and Sichneve in October 2025
Executive summary
Open-source battlefield reporting and multiple Institute for the Study of War (ISW) assessments show Russian forces conducted incremental advances and infiltration-style attacks across several Donetsk–Pokrovsk and Kupyansk-area axes in October 2025, with specific ISW entries documenting operations and localized penetrations near Novoselivka, Pokrovsk-area settlements, and small-group advances elsewhere [1] [2] [3]. ISW emphasizes Russia’s predominant use of small infantry infiltration and limited mechanized assaults in October rather than broad, sustained breakthroughs, and it records urban fights in Pokrovsk and localized advances such as in Myrnohrad and Bolohivka that month [4] [2] [3].
1. What the reporting actually says: incremental and infiltration-focused advances
ISW’s October assessments consistently describe Russian forces in October 2025 making limited, local gains and using small-group infiltration tactics rather than large, decisive mechanized offensives. Attacks and advances were reported near settlements including Novoselivka, Shakhove/Dobropillya sector, and the Pokrovsk agglomeration; Ukrainian units reported Russian penetrations into towns in small teams and fighting in urban basements and shelters [1] [2] [3]. ISW’s October 28 assessment noted Russian advances in southeastern Myrnohrad but stressed these were unlikely to produce an immediate operational collapse of Ukrainian defenses [4].
2. Specific place names in your query — what the sources cover
ISW reporting in October documents operations "near Novoselivka" in the Lyman direction and multiple attacks around Pokrovsk and its neighbors; Bolohivka (southeast of Velykyi Burluk) is explicitly cited as subject to infiltration by small groups of up to ~200 personnel [1] [3]. ISW also reports Russian penetration and concentrated firefights in Pokrovsk itself, with platoon-level Ukrainian reporting of ~200 Russian troops accumulated inside the town during late October [2]. The dataset does not include separate, explicit geolocated passages mentioning Viymka or Sichneve by name in the supplied snippets; available sources do not mention Viymka or Sichneve (not found in current reporting).
3. Scale and tactics: why “advanced near” can be misleading
ISW emphasizes that much of Russia’s October activity consisted of small-unit infiltration—fireteams and squads—intended to seize forward positions, probe defenses, or infiltrate urban areas, not large battalion- or division-level breakthroughs [5] [3]. Where mechanized assaults occurred, ISW notes they were comparatively rare and limited; the organization recorded a mix of small infantry infiltration and occasional larger mechanized attacks in priority sectors such as Dobropillya–Kostyantynivka [5] [1]. Thus “advanced near” can describe everything from transient probes to temporary penetrations waiting for reinforcement; ISW cautions against interpreting every localized penetration as sustained operational success [4].
4. Urban fighting and contested towns: Pokrovsk as a spotlight
ISW and Ukrainian accounts highlight intense urban fighting around Pokrovsk in October, with reports of Russian forces penetrating built-up areas and Ukrainian units contesting control; one Ukrainian platoon said roughly 200 Russian troops accumulated within Pokrovsk and sheltered awaiting reinforcements, while later ISW reporting and Ukrainian commands described Russian forces becoming bogged down in urban combat [2] [6]. ISW frames these as costly, attritional engagements rather than clear, strategic captures [4] [6].
5. Reporting caveats and competing perspectives
ISW frequently flags the difference between Kremlin or pro‑Russian claims and open-source verification; it documents examples of Russian or milblogger assertions that later proved exaggerated or unverified and stresses that some Russian claims of seizure have been refuted by Ukrainian spokespeople [4] [6]. ISW uses geolocated footage and Ukrainian unit reports but also notes unconfirmed milblogger claims; where claims lack independent geolocation, ISW treats them cautiously [5] [1].
6. What to watch next — indicators of operational change
ISW highlights indicators that would signal a genuine operational shift beyond tactical penetrations: sustained mechanized assaults with supporting fires, verified consolidation of captured settlements, and disruption of Ukrainian logistics hubs such as Pokrovsk/GLOCs [5] [7]. In October, ISW observed limited mechanized assaults in some sectors but mainly saw small-group tactics and localized urban fighting rather than broad operational breakthroughs [5] [3].
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on ISW assessments and the supplied snippets; available sources do not mention Viymka or Sichneve, so no confirmation can be offered for those specific names (not found in current reporting). All factual assertions above are drawn from the ISW reports cited [5] [4] [2] [3] [1] [6].