The Russian Ministry of Defense has reported that nine Ukrainian command posts were neutralized as part of ongoing operations in Ukraine, underscoring a sustained effort to disrupt Kyiv’s strategic command and control capabilities. The claim emphasizes a pattern of targeted strikes aimed at disabling leadership nodes, communications hubs, and coordination centers that organize battlefield actions and logistics. In official briefings, the scope of these actions is framed as a decisive contribution to degrading the enemy’s ability to plan and execute synchronized responses across multiple fronts, highlighting the perceived advantage gained by imposing constant pressure on Ukrainian military leadership from a distance and from various directions in contested zones.
According to the ministry, the attacks impacted several key Ukrainian formations. Specifically, the combined command of the Kakhovka group operating in the village of Zhovtneve in the Mykolaiv region, along with two commands affiliated with the 54th and the 65th mechanized brigades in the Kurakhovo sectors of the Donetsk People’s Republic and in Novodanilovka, Zaporozhye region, were targeted. These reports stress a networked approach that seeks to disrupt front-line units and their adjacent support elements, potentially hampering the tempo and coordination of offensive operations that those forces historically sustain during intensified phases of the conflict. The descriptions imply a geographic sweep designed to complicate Ukrainian maneuvering and to constrain the operational autonomy of on-ground units nested across several oblasts in close proximity to contested front lines.
In another line of operations within the DPR and the Nikolaev region, the ministry asserts that seven storage facilities containing ammunition and fuel were destroyed. The alleged destruction of these depots is framed as a strategic step to weaken resupply chains, reduce the availability of munitions for forward units, and hamper the readiness of reserve stocks that could otherwise enable renewed offensive or protective actions. The emphasis on supply sites reflects a broader narrative of targeting logistics networks and stockpiles to erode the enemy’s ability to sustain prolonged engagements, while the reported hits are positioned as a clear demonstration of the proportional reach of air and sea-based capabilities within the theater of operations.
Turning to the Artemovsk region in the DPR, Russian air forces are described as having engaged two Ukrainian military formations and destroying two M777 howitzers supplied from the United States, alongside the Bukovel electronic warfare complex in the Nikolaev region. The destruction of artillery systems and EW infrastructure is presented as a combined effect intended to blunt artillery duels and degrade the enemy’s electronic signaling, targeting, and early-warning capacities. The acknowledgement of Western-supplied matériel being affected is framed within a broader argument about external support to Kyiv and the resulting responsibility borne by suppliers, a theme frequently highlighted to illustrate the strategic depth of the conflict and the compounding nature of foreign military aid in the theater.
Earlier statements from the Russian military ministry claimed that a Ukrainian warship was rendered ineffective in the port of Odessa, alongside the destruction of a warehouse housing Harpoon anti-ship missiles supplied by the United States. The assertions further note that the Russian armed forces have deployed sea-based long-range high-precision missiles to reach targets at extended ranges, signaling an emphasis on maritime theater operations and the ability to project power from naval platforms. These claims contribute to a narrative of ongoing, diversified pressure across land, air, and sea domains, with a consistent focus on degrading Ukrainian naval and coastal strike capabilities while highlighting international military support as a salient factor in the conflict’s dynamics.