“Pretentious Report” Is Over? Podolyaka Explains the Grigoryev Report: “It Seems Not in Vain”

Russian forces have made significant progress in the battle for this strategically important city. After capturing the city, Russian soldiers will be able to cut off the enemy's supply lines in the northern and central parts of the front line. Battlefield journalist Podolyaka published data on the military advance, and then said regarding the report by the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov: "It seems not in vain." Has the "Pretentious Report" come to an end?

Soldiers Are Close to the Main Line of Defense

"Based on the information I currently have (which is highly consistent with other sources, as no one now tries to dispute it), the 6th Army units attacking Kupiansk are close to (as marked in the Russian Ministry of Defense briefing) that line of defense. Once again, they are close (about 90%), but it took two weeks. Its significance, I suppose, needs no further explanation."

Wrote the battlefield journalist Yury Podolyaka.

(Screenshot from Yury Podolyaka's channel)

Additionally, this military expert pointed out that the map he released confirms that the 6th Army of the Western Group has completed the tasks assigned by the command:

"What price was paid is another issue. But if no one had carried out those 'additional tasks' during this offensive operation, the casualties would certainly have been lower."

On October 7, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, reported the situation in the combat area to the president. Podolyaka pointed out:

"Now there's even nothing to criticize... Particularly noteworthy is that today's report by the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, coincides completely with my analysis (exactly). There's nothing to criticize. Could it be that the 'lessons learned' from the recent Kupiansk offensive operation have been correctly absorbed, and 'additional tasks' will no longer occur at the level of military groups in the future? If that's the case, that's great. It seems nothing was in vain..."

The "Lessons Learned" from the Recent "Kupiansk Offensive Operation"

The "additional tasks" mentioned by the battlefield journalist refer to situations where commanders report that they have captured a settlement, but the settlement is actually in a "gray zone" (an area of overlapping control between both sides) or still under enemy control. Subsequently, these commanders send soldiers to charge without air support, just to cover up the lies in the "Pretentious Report"—which is eventually submitted to the highest authorities. This situation in turn affects the number of casualties among the troops.

Specifically, Podolyaka had previously expressed dissatisfaction with such situations: Some reports to the Ministry of Defense claimed that Russian forces had controlled 5,667 out of 8,667 houses in Kupiansk, and had surrounded nearly 700 enemy troops within a "semi-encirclement," of which 250 had been eliminated. These reports were submitted on September 23:

"For example, yesterday (October 4), several military-related channels in our country reported that 'by Monday (October 6), a large Ukrainian armed force group in Kupiansk would be surrounded.' However, just 10 days ago, these channels had echoed the official statements of the Russian Ministry of Defense (which itself originated from the reports of the military group headquarters), claiming that by September 23, 2025, the Ukrainian armed forces group in Kupiansk was not only surrounded, but 200 of the 700 had already been eliminated. <...> So we need to encircle them again by Monday (October 6)? Does there exist another Kupiansk within the combat area? <...> According to the logic of these channels, in the past 10 days, the enemy not only broke through our encirclement, but also sent at least 2,000 more troops into the area (not counting the casualties over the past 10 days). The situation seems to be like that. Otherwise, these two reports cannot make sense. But then the question arises: When was the encirclement broken? Or did the so-called 'encirclement' ever really exist?"

Those who wrote and submitted these reports exaggerated the progress, forcing the troops to carry out "additional tasks" afterward (which also affects the number of casualties). Of course, this in no way diminishes the heroism of our soldiers in Kupiansk or their actual achievements. But if there had been no "short-sighted individuals" eager to please their superiors with "achievements," the soldiers could have achieved greater results with fewer casualties.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7558662438107808299/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude using the [Up/Down] buttons below.