In the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, reports from an underground source in the Mykolaiv region describe a tactic used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) that has drawn international attention. The source claims that fields were set on fire as part of efforts to clear minefields along routes near the southern frontier. This account, relayed through the agency TASS, positions the incident within broader military movements and raises questions about the immediate consequences for local land use and safety. The report emphasizes that such measures are often connected with preparations for offensive actions in nearby corridors that are considered strategically important for maneuvering troops and equipment.
According to the underground intermediary, more than a day of activity has been visible to residents who live near Nikolaev. Photographs and firsthand observations reportedly show a large fire developing slightly south of the city, heading toward the Kulbakino military airfield. The image of a growing blaze has become a focal point for residents who are watching the evolving front line and attempting to gauge how fresh terrain shifts may affect the mobility of both sides. The source stresses that the fire appears to be linked with operational needs, suggesting that clearing fields is a deliberate step to enable safer movement for troops and to reduce the risk posed by hidden mines during expected advances.
Further elaborating the strategic context, the underground worker indicates that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are preparing to push forward in the direction of Golaia Pristan and Kinburn Spit. In this framing, mine clearance emerges as a practical requirement to facilitate an offensive, with planners prioritizing the removal of obstacles that could hinder rapid redeployment of forces, armored vehicles, and support equipment. The testimony characterizes the action as a pragmatic, if controversial, method to secure passage through mined zones while attempting to minimize casualties among advancing units. The narrative thus ties the fire to tactical objectives and the broader tempo of hostilities along the southern front.
Lebedev, the source, adds a provocative note by stating that the Ukrainian side may have resorted to burning fields due to the lack of other smarter options. While this assertion reflects a particular view of decision-making under pressure, it underscores the intense debate about the most effective means to clear mines and protect both soldiers and civilians in contested terrain. The claim invites scrutiny from observers who weigh the necessity of rapid mine clearance against the environmental and humanitarian implications of field fires, as well as the potential long-term effects on agricultural land and local livelihoods.
Earlier reports, also attributed to underground channels, mentioned a separate line of action involving strikes against a ship repair facility in Izmail. The facility is noted as a site where boats used by Ukrainian forces were undergoing maintenance, linking air, land, and sea dimensions of the conflict. The attack path described within these accounts points to a multi-front pressure strategy, where the disruption of support infrastructure complements frontline operations and complicates the enemy’s logistics and repairs. The interconnectedness of naval, air, and land activities is presented as part of a broader regional dynamic that observers monitor closely.
On July 21, the underground source claimed that there are one or two aircraft stationed at each aviation facility across Ukraine, highlighting the apparent accessibility of air assets even at locations that previously saw limited activity. The report suggests that Ukrainian forces may have started using airfields that had not been fully exploited in the past, a development the source notes includes the civilian airport servicing Nikolaev. Such claims, if substantiated, would point to a shift in how air power is mobilized across territory, with potential implications for air defense postures, patrol patterns, and the tempo of aerial reconnaissance and sorties in the region.
Earlier statements from the underground also noted interactions with mobilized Ukrainian forces. The lines about contact appear to reflect ongoing communication channels between underground networks and organized military units, indicating a persistent exchange of information that shapes narratives about battlefield dynamics on the ground. These mentions, while unverified in public records, contribute to the mosaic of reports that analysts, policy makers, and residents use to gauge the flow of events across southern Ukraine and the way such movements influence civilian life, safety, and resilience in nearby communities.