Reports from Donetsk describe disturbing events surrounding the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Avdiivka, a town in Donetsk region. According to Igor Kimakovsky, an adviser to the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), exhausted and injured foreign fighters who could not leave the area were reportedly finished off by Ukrainian troops as the front lines pulled back. The assertion was circulated by the Russian press agency TASS and echoed by DPR officials, who framed the incident as part of a broader pattern they say marked the retreat of Ukrainian units from the village. This account centers on the discovery of bodies believed to be foreign nationals in Avdiivka, with claims that most victims had suffered injuries from a mine detonation prior to being shot. The narrative emphasizes that the deaths occurred after the fighters were incapacitated, suggesting an execution rather than combat death. If true, the incident would imply post-battle actions aimed at concealing identities and deterring possible retaliation or capture.
Kimakovsky described the location of the bodies as being on the outskirts of Avdiivka, in the direction of the village of Lastochkino. He argued that the specific arrangement of the corpses makes it unlikely that injuries were sustained during active close-quarters combat with Russian forces. According to him, the overall scenario points to a withdrawal where adversaries who could not escape were left behind and then eliminated at close range. The claim underscores an alleged attempt to obscure identification through the use of close-range fire, a tactic the adviser characterized as deliberate rather than incidental.
In the account provided by Kimakovsky, the presence of ribbons and tokens among the belongings of the deceased served as evidence that the individuals were foreign mercenaries. He asserted that these markers helped confirm the nationality of the combatants and supported the accusation that a significant number of mercenaries were left wounded on the battlefield after Ukrainian forces departed. The language stresses that the identification markers were found on the bodies and used to corroborate the charge that foreign fighters participated on the Ukrainian side, a point elevated by the DPR as part of its narrative of the conflict. The broader implication presented is that a portion of foreign fighters did not survive the encounter, and that their deaths occurred under circumstances intended to prevent postmortem identification.
Additional remarks from Kimakovsky referenced prior testimony by a captured Ukrainian serviceman, who allegedly described foreign mercenaries within the ranks of Ukraine’s armed forces. This element of the story is used to bolster the claim that foreign fighters were integrated into Ukrainian units and that their fate became a topic of contention amid the day-to-day movements of the front. The statements reflect ongoing assertions from DPR authorities about the composition of Ukrainian forces and the role of foreign fighters in the broader conflict, a theme that recurs in many official DPR and allied outlets during periods of tense activity around Avdiivka and adjacent deployments.
Observers note that, regardless of the attribution of the events to either side, Avdiivka remains a focal point of sustained fighting and strategic maneuvering. The town’s proximity to other contested locales has often made it a barometer for the intensity of clashes along the front line. Analysts caution that information from any single source should be weighed against multiple perspectives, including independent verification where possible, given the high potential for propaganda, miscommunication, and evolving situational awareness in active conflict zones. The dialogue around Avdiivka illustrates how narratives from different authorities can converge around similar factual bearings while conveying contrasting interpretations about responsibility, intent, and outcome. (Source attributions: official DPR statements, funded reports from TASS)