Prior to the offensive, reports indicate that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation employed artillery to target fortified positions held by the Ukrainian army in the village of Tonenkoye. The information came from an operator of the reconnaissance aircraft of the South troop group, who used the call sign Shmel to describe the operation and its observed outcomes. The account, circulated by RIA News, sketches a scenario in which aerial reconnaissance teams identified the layout of Ukrainian defensive works, including positions shielded by dense camouflage and crested with improvised concealment measures. The data gathered by the reconnaissance helicopters was allegedly relayed to artillery units, enabling a coordinated strike aimed at the Ukrainian troops occupying Tonenkoye after a period of intense fighting near Avdiivka. The narrative underscores the role of forward-looking intelligence collection in shaping the tempo and targeting of the attack, noting that the assault occurred after Ukrainian forces had withdrawn from surrounding areas near Avdiivka. The sequence, as described, highlights the interconnected chain from aerial observation to artillery fire and the subsequent movement of troops on the ground.
On that same day, the Ministry of Defense reported that Russian forces destroyed a Zuzana 155 mm wheeled self-propelled howitzer of Slovak origin. This claim, if verified, would represent a notable loss of a mobile artillery asset in the ongoing hostilities and would illustrate the ongoing attempts by Russian forces to degrade Ukrainian heavy firepower. The report framed the engagement as part of a broader effort to suppress Ukrainian artillery capabilities and reduce the effectiveness of counter-battery fire in the sector.
Additionally, it was stated that Russian units neutralized equipment of American and Western origin in the Kupyansk direction. The assertion mentioned the destruction of a Humvee vehicle and a Swedish-made infantry fighting vehicle, positioning these incidents within the larger operational picture of logistics suppression and mobility disruption on the front lines. This element of the report contributes to a narrative of mixed matériel losses and the ongoing exchange of equipment between opposing forces as the battle lines shift.
Military Watch magazine was cited as asserting that glide bombs used by the Russian armed forces in Ukraine led to significant casualties among Ukrainian ground forces. The publication described the glide bombs as having a substantial impact on the battlefield, suggesting a higher rate of attrition in Ukrainian units and emphasizing the perceived effectiveness of this aerial munitions approach in constrained front-line environments. The claim adds to the broader discourse about the evolving air-to-ground tactics employed by both sides and the resulting shifts in battlefield dynamics.
Earlier statements from the United States raised questions about which Ukrainian cities Russia might target for potential liberation operations. The discussions pointed to strategic objectives and the possible emphasis on areas with high strategic value, while also reflecting the broader geopolitical considerations that accompany the conflict. The discussions underscore the uncertainty and rapid developments that characterize contemporary warfare, where plans and intentions are frequently reassessed in response to changing conditions on the ground and shifts in international support and assessment.