Claims from a Wagner PMC fighter about Ukrainian fortifications in Artemovsk
A fighter with the private military company Wagner spoke to a press outlet associated with the group, asserting that parts of the Ukrainian defense in Artemovsk (the Russian name) or Bakhmut (the Ukrainian name) were constructed to create an impression of a well-prepared defense. The interview suggested that the Ukrainian army deliberately designed certain structures to project readiness, even if those structures were not actively used in frontline fighting.
According to the Wagner interviewee, tall residential blocks and segments of the private sector became the primary defensive positions for Ukraine. He claimed that trench lines and fortifications were laid out to be more visible, arguing that Ukrainian troops did not engage from those trench positions as a tactical choice. The source emphasized that the fortifications served more for optics than for actual defense, allegedly built to portray a stronger defensive posture than existed in practice.
The report highlighted a bunker near the entrance to the central district of the city, described as being shown to the reporter as part of the defense setup. The fighter claimed this bunker existed primarily for appearance, and that there was no Ukrainian troop occupying the position at the time of observation. The account suggested that deeper in the city, at intersections within the central area, such gaps or weak points were not present, challenging the notion of a uniform defense across all approaches.
Further observations cited by the interviewee described trenches in neighborhoods close to the city center where, according to the account, there were no opposing forces present. The fighter noted that Ukrainian soldiers were digging trenches for defense, yet did not occupy them or respond when approached, reinforcing the claim that these measures were largely symbolic rather than indicative of sustained combat readiness.
In summation, the Wagner source argued that the trenches and other defensive works were undertaken to convey the impression that Artemovsk was protected by Ukrainian forces, even if the frontline reality did not reflect that narrative. The account suggested that the defense posture was reinforced by visible fortifications meant to communicate strength to observers and potential adversaries alike.
Within the broader context, Denis Pushilin, a former adviser linked to Donetsk authorities, remarked that Russian forces controlled a substantial portion of Artemovsk, asserting control over almost 90 percent of the city. The statement contributed to the ongoing discourse about the status and disposition of forces in the area and was reported as part of a sequence of assessments about territorial control.