Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Withdrawal from Siversk — not a defeat but a shift to maneuvering: what happened and what actions are being prepared

Having withdrawn from the city under pressure from the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian Armed Forces preserved their personnel and combat capability. We examine the tactical and technical reasons for the retreat and what it means for the front and defensive strategy.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

December 29, 2025 · 2 min read

Withdrawal from Siversk — not a defeat but a shift to maneuvering: what happened and what actions are being prepared

What happened

Under pressure from Russian forces, Ukrainian units left the city of Siversk in Donetsk Oblast. The decision was made not for symbolic reasons but because of specific tactical and technical circumstances — to preserve the lives and combat capability of the units. This was reported by the commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU) in an interview with Channel 24.

Why the withdrawal was a rational move

According to the command, the key factor was the loss of operational air cover. The concentration of drone control over fiber-optic channels with a range of more than 20 km forced crews to withdraw to depth, leaving the infantry without cover. Under these conditions, keeping forces in the city would have meant unjustifiably high losses.

"Unfortunately, the concentration of drone units under fiber-optic control channels, especially with a range of over 20 km, led to our units, teams, and drone crews gradually withdrawing to depth, thereby leaving the infantry without cover"

— Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, interview with Channel 24

Tactical context: terrain and history

The Siversk area and neighboring settlements (Serebriansky Forest, Bilohorivka) traditionally feature complex terrain — dominant heights and chalk ridges that give an advantage to those who control the high ground. As the commander reminds, these fortifications and defenses have been used repeatedly in the past, and they remain a factor shaping combat tactics today.

Facts and timeline

On December 11, 2025 the AFU confirmed that Russian infantry groups had entered Siversk, but there was no official recognition of full enemy control at that time. On December 23 the General Staff officially confirmed the withdrawal of our units — the decision was justified by the need to preserve personnel and combat capability.

What it means and next steps

Withdrawal to the dominant heights is a standard maneuver that provides time to regroup, reinforce air defenses and logistics, and plan countermeasures. The command has already stated that appropriate actions are planned in this direction. Military analysts note that keeping units in a combat-capable state now is more important than symbolically holding a city at the cost of heavy losses.

Brief conclusion

This is not about "losing face" but about priorities — the lives and combat capability of the forces. The coming weeks will show how quickly the planned actions will allow for restoring control or forcing the enemy to change tactics. For now the key question is whether defensive logistics and air cover support can adapt in time to the new realities in this sector.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026