Ukraine’s Operation Vivaldi disrupted Russian advance near Lyman, ISW assesses

Ukraine’s Operation Vivaldi has disrupted the northern arm of a planned Russian advance toward Ukrainian-held cities in Donetsk, according to an Institute for the Study of War assessment reported by Euronews on October 9. The fighting around Lyman matters because that route threatened the northern approaches to a network of Ukrainian defenses and supply lines.

The assessment concerns an operation that began before this week. Ukrainian commanders disclosed it in September, while reports published on October 8 and 9 provide accounts of its methods, reported gains and Russian reactions. The conclusion that Russia’s wider plan has been disrupted is an operational assessment, not a settled outcome of the campaign.

How the fighting near Lyman affects Donetsk’s defenses

Euronews describes the Russian plan as a pincer aimed at the Ukrainian-held portion of Donetsk region. One arm would advance from Lyman in the north and another from the Pokrovsk–Dobropillia area in the southwest, with the intended link-up near Barvinkove in Kharkiv region. The target was the defensive and logistical network often called the fortress belt.

According to Euronews’s account of ISW’s analysis, Ukrainian forces advanced along two lines around Lyman: Ridkodub–Nove–Novomykhailivka and Yarova–Drobysheve–Stavky. ISW assessed that those advances broke up a Russian salient threatening Sloviansk from the northeast and forced Russian units in that sector onto the defensive.

The cities behind the front are central to the significance of the fighting. Sloviansk and Kramatorsk are part of the Ukrainian-held urban area that a Russian advance from Lyman would threaten. The supplied reports do not quantify what this operation has meant for civilian safety, displacement or access to services.

How much territory has Ukraine retaken?

Andrii Biletskyi, commander of Ukraine’s 3rd Army Corps, said the first three phases of Operation Vivaldi liberated 176 square kilometres in mid-to-late September, according to Euronews. The Kyiv Independent also reported that the corps put the figure at 176 square kilometres by late September. It remains a Ukrainian military claim, rather than an independently verified total.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave a lower range of 125 to 140 square kilometres as of October 3, Euronews reported. Al Jazeera’s October 9 account described about 175 square kilometres reclaimed around Lyman. The figures refer to different reports and cutoffs, and the available accounts do not provide one consistent measurement of territory held.

The Kyiv Independent reported that the counteroffensive ran under a news blackout for weeks before Biletskyi publicly described it on September 15. That delay helps explain why accounts of when particular areas were retaken can differ. Maps and announcements published later should not automatically be read as gains made on their publication dates.

Al Jazeera reported that Zelenskyy described the operation to Reuters as successful but incomplete. That description leaves open both the extent of any further Ukrainian objectives and whether all reported gains can be held. Neither the territorial figures nor the assessment of a disrupted pincer resolves those questions.

What reporters and Russian sources have observed

The Kyiv Independent’s Diana Delyurman reported from the Lyman sector after accompanying drone operators of Ukraine’s 66th Mechanized Brigade in August. Her account describes operators preparing fixed-wing strike drones and coordinating with other units. It offers firsthand detail on how Ukrainian units worked, but does not independently establish the total area retaken.

That reporting describes infantry, air defense, electronic warfare, aerial drones and unmanned ground vehicles operating together under the 3rd Army Corps. Drone crews worked from positions near the front, where Russian shelling could delay rotations. These details help explain the operation’s methods without proving that every claimed advance remains under Ukrainian control.

Al Jazeera cited the Kremlin-aligned military-blogger channel Rybar as acknowledging on October 7 that Russian forces were losing villages south of Lyman. Rybar said Ukrainian attacks were making Russian troops defend positions and spend resources on restoring control instead of mounting their own offensive. This is a reported Russian-source reaction, not an independent survey of the whole front.

What remains unresolved around Lyman

Rybar blamed premature Russian announcements of captured villages for helping Ukrainian forces gather and counterattack, according to Al Jazeera. That is Rybar’s explanation of events, and the available reporting does not establish it as the cause of the reversals. The acknowledgement of losses is narrower than a conclusion that Russia has abandoned its broader Donetsk campaign.

Euronews reported ISW’s view that Russian gains elsewhere, including around Kostyantynivka and east of Sloviansk, have been limited and difficult to sustain. It also reported the assessment that Russian forces could adapt. The immediate development is a reported setback to one route of advance; the durability of Ukraine’s gains and the next phase of the campaign remain open.