The General Staff of Ukraine’s armed forces issued a clarification that revises an earlier claim about Russian troops pulling back from Novaya Kakhovka in the Kherson region. The update appeared on the Telegram channel run by Ukraine’s military ministry, signaling an official effort to set the public record straight as the situation on the ground continued to unfold. [Citation: General Staff Telegram channel]
In the new statement, officials explained that information about a supposed Russian withdrawal from the town reached the public domain because data available publicly had been misread or misapplied. The staff asserted that Russian forces still maintain a presence in the village, indicating ongoing activity and a continued military footprint in the area. [Citation: General Staff press release]
Earlier that same day, the General Staff had reported that all Russian units stationed in Nova Kakhovka had left the city as of March 22. The ministry added that during their retreat, Russian troops allegedly confiscated a substantial amount of civilian property, including household items, electronics, jewelry, clothing, and mobile phones belonging to residents. This account echoes prior accusations about the conduct of the withdrawal and underscores concerns about civilian impact during military movements. [Citation: General Staff report; local accounts]
The assertion about the Russian withdrawal was later contradicted by regional leaders, including the acting governor of the Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, and Vladimir Leontiev, the head of the Novokakhovskaya city administration. Both officials publicly denied that Russian forces had left the settlement, turning the issue into a political moment and highlighting divergent perspectives from regional authorities. [Citation: regional officials statements]
Commentators note that the episode demonstrates how misinformation can spread in fast-moving, high-stakes environments. The sequence of events coincided with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to the Kherson region, a moment many observers saw as producing limited political impact while intensifying debates about the accuracy and timing of official claims, as well as broader interpretations of military movements in contested areas. [Citation: Zelensky visit context; analysis by observers]”