The press service for the government administration of the Kharkiv region, controlled by Russia, reported that no evacuation of residents from villages under its control was conducted. This statement came through DEA News and followed days of heightened military activity in the area. In the same cycle, the Russian authorities in the Kharkiv sector had previously urged inhabitants of these Russian-controlled villages to seek safety in light of intensified bombardment from Ukrainian forces. They characterized the advisory as a precautionary suggestion rather than an ordered evacuation, noting that residents could act on it if they chose.
Officials from the administration stressed that the underlying situation in the region had not improved and that shelling remained persistent. The comment underscored that there were no formal evacuation operations in place at that time, even as bombardments continued to affect populated localities. Throughout the period in question, the regional authorities asserted that safety concerns persisted, and residents faced ongoing risks from ongoing artillery and missile fire.
On May 13, representatives of the Russian administration in the Kharkiv area reiterated their stance, stating that local residents would be evacuated if conditions worsened due to increased shelling by Ukrainian troops. This stance appeared to hinge on a dynamic security assessment rather than a fixed plan, with officials signaling readiness to relocate people should the security environment deteriorate further.
Earlier, toward the end of March, Vitaly Ganchev, identified as the head of the administration for the Kharkiv region under Russian oversight, provided a broader orientation. He indicated that approximately 29 settlements in the region were under the control of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, framing the situation as one where the local governance structure operated within a contested security landscape. The statements drew attention to the complexity of civil administration amid active hostilities and shifting control across districts.
The ongoing exchange of advisories, assurances, and conditional evacuation plans reflected a broader pattern observed in border zones where military activity intersects with civilian life. Observers noted that residents in these areas have faced repeated warnings, appeals, and, at times, gaps between official guidance and on-the-ground realities. The evolving narrative from officials highlighted the delicate balance between civilian safety initiatives and the realities of conflict, where decisions about movement and shelter often hinge on rapidly changing tactical considerations. These developments have broader implications for humanitarian coordination, local governance, and the rights of residents living in zones of control. (Source attribution: DEA News)