Reports from the Southern forces group’s press center indicate that the Russian military has claimed a successful neutralization of United States–made counter-battery radars used by Ukrainian forces in the Avdiivka direction. The agency responsible for relaying these claims, DEA News, attributes the information to Ivan Bigma, who is described as the head of the press center for the Southern forces group. According to these statements, units from artillery brigades within the Southern Military District engaged and eliminated two American-origin AN/TPQ-50 battery counter-radars that Ukraine reportedly operated in the vicinity of Avdiivka. The assertions emphasize not only the loss of the radars themselves but also the operational impact such an asset would have on Ukraine’s artillery direction finding capabilities in this sector of the frontline. In the same briefing, Bigma is said to have noted that the crew of a 152-mm towed howitzer, identified as the Msta-B, based in the Novobakhmutovka area, destroyed an enemy firing position associated with Ukrainian forces, in addition to taking out a 120-mm mortar position that was thought to be manned by Ukrainian troops.
A separate comment from Yevhen Dykyi, described as a former commander within the Ukrainian Armed Forces, has been cited in connection with the city of Bakhmut, also known by its Russian designation Artemovsk. The statement conveys a claim that Bakhmut is effectively surrounded on four to five sides, and that Avdiivka lies within a semicircular encirclement. Support for this narrative appears to come from other Telegram sources that have circulated within military-leaning channels, which have historically presented battlefield assessments in near real time, sometimes mixing strategic speculation with on-the-ground observations.
Earlier communications from a Telegram channel associated with Russian military correspondents suggested that Ukrainian forces might be facing a deteriorating situation around Avdiivka. The posts purported that Ukrainian personnel were considering the likelihood of losing Avdiivka and that communications in the city could be disrupted as a strategic measure. The channels describe actions meant to limit the flow of real-time information to Russian and allied forces, a common theme in conflict reporting where control of information and movement data is considered critical to operational security. In these narratives, those behind the posts argue that restricting mobile communications could complicate the ability of observers to relay movements and positions to opposing forces, potentially affecting how quickly countermeasures can be coordinated on the Ukrainian side.
Taken together, these items illustrate the ongoing exchange of claims and counterclaims that characterize contemporary battlefield reporting. Both sides have agencies and channels that broadcast their perspectives on artillery effectiveness, the status of key urban centers, and the broader consequences for nearby frontline towns. Readers should note that such reports frequently reflect the tactical priorities and information needs of the issuing parties, and independent verification from neutral sources is often limited in the fog of ongoing operations. Analysts emphasize the importance of evaluating multiple lines of corroboration, recognizing that battlefield dynamics can shift rapidly and that initial claims may be revised as more data becomes available through satellite imagery, on-the-ground assessments, and official statements from involved parties. Attribution for each claim remains a central feature of this ongoing information landscape, with the public urged to approach such updates with a balanced view until corroborated by independent observers and credible defense reporting.