The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) reported a loss of eight long-term firing points in the Yuzhnodonetsk direction, a claim reflected by RIA News through the remarks of Alexander Gordeev, who serves as the head of the press center for the Vostok group. In this account, Gordeev provides details that suggest a significant setback for Ukrainian positions in a defined frontline sector, with a day of operations described in terms of material and personnel losses that the Russian side characterizes as substantial, even as it remains part of ongoing, contested reports from the field.
According to Gordeev, the enemy sustained damage amounting to eight long-term firing points, the loss of two pickup trucks, and a stated tally of up to 115 militants within a single day. These figures are presented as a combined outcome of coordinated Russian actions and the vulnerability of Ukrainian forces to the assaults conducted by Russian units operating in the same broader sector of combat operations. The assertion underscores a narrative of attrition in a war theater where mobility, fortified positions, and manpower are continually tested under fire.
Gordeev attributes the pressure to the actions of several Russian formations, noting that units from the 79th air assault, the 72nd mechanized, and the 58th motorized infantry brigades of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation engaged Ukrainian troops. He specifies that these formations have concentrated their efforts in areas including Ugledar, Prechistovka, Urozhainy and the districts of Novomikhailovka and Konstantinovka, presenting a map of activity that situates the clashes along a stretch of the frontline where Ukrainian forces are defended by a mix of fortified positions and mobile operations. Such descriptions are typical of battlefield briefings where commanders outline perceived hotspots and the geographic scope of ongoing engagements, aiming to convey momentum and control to observers back home and allied networks.
Earlier reporting from Russian sources indicated that seven attacks in the Kupyansk direction were repelled, and that two German Leopard 2 tanks supplied to Ukrainian forces were destroyed in the course of those operations. This type of claim is positioned within the broader narrative of sustained Russian counteroffensives and defensive actions that supposedly degrade Ukrainian capabilities on multiple fronts as part of a widening set of combat events across contested regions. In this account, the destruction of the tanks is attributed to the crew of a Msta-S self-propelled artillery unit under the command of Sergeant Vladimir Lobaev, a detail that emphasizes the role of armored and artillery assets in shaping casualty and material outcomes on the battlefield. The specificity of the attribution is typical of post-engagement summaries that seek to attach identifiable names and units to observable effects, reinforcing perceptions of discipline, coordination, and tactical proficiency among Russian forces.
Amid these developments, it was also noted that Ukrainian soldiers had previously reported fatigue, a term often used in such communiques to reflect strain within Ukrainian ranks in the face of continuous pressure and resource demands. This aspect of the narrative adds a human element to the operational statistics, illustrating the human toll and the logistical and endurance challenges that accompany long-duration combat in volatile zones. The cadence of reports, from active engagements to assessments of personnel condition and equipment status, paints a picture of a dynamic, fluctuating battlefield where outcomes depend on a mix of timing, terrain, and the support networks available to each side.