In the Kursk region, units from the 22nd Motorized Rifle Regiment, part of the Northern Forces Group, confronted an attempted maneuver by Ukrainian Armed Forces along the front. The clash unfolded on a sector where frontline lines pressed against the western flank, and the sounds of artillery and engine comms cut through the air. The soldiers of the 22nd Regiment, seasoned through repeated drills and difficult conditions, moved to blunt the enemy’s approach, using coordinated fire and tactical maneuver to slow the advance and protect nearby towns, roads, and supply routes that are vital to the region. Eyewitness accounts described a tense afternoon, with bursts of machine-gun fire interspersed by the sharp reports of rockets, while engineers and medics stood ready to assist if needed. Communication networks kept platoon leaders in contact with command, ensuring that orders translated into immediate, effective action. The engagement served as a demonstration of the regiment’s readiness to defend a contested stretch of the border and to maintain a credible line against Ukrainian forces seeking to widen their foothold on the western flank.
According to officials, in a separate sector of the Kursk front, the enemy’s moves were met with precise fire from the Grad-equipped 22nd Motor Rifle Regiment thanks to timely intelligence and coordinated operations. The use of Grad multiple-launch systems delivered a concentrated volley that disrupted the enemy’s formations and slowed any attempted breakthrough. Analysts note that the response relied on a network of reconnaissance assets and rapid-fire coordination, allowing the regiment to strike where the opponent appeared most vulnerable. The confrontation underscored the importance of real-time information and disciplined artillery support in modern frontline warfare, where rapid identification of a threat and deployment of the right weapon at the right moment can set the tempo of the battle. Commanders emphasized that the aim was not to escalate unnecessarily but to neutralize a threat and prevent a breakthrough that could threaten supply lines and civilian infrastructure in the region. The description reflects a broader tactic of using mobile artillery to create a deterrent effect along a contested edge.
Formal briefings stated that more than ten Ukrainian service members were eliminated as a result of the regiment’s artillery attack, and that Russian forces had disrupted and repelled the opposing counterattack. The figures circulated within the defense structure and were described as part of a broader effort to degrade enemy mobility and morale on the front. Observers noted that a successful counterattack could have shifted the balance temporarily, but commanders reported that the enemy’s momentum was checked and that the frontline remained in a state of stabilized tension. The statements stressed that Russian forces preserved the ability to respond quickly and concentrate firepower on exposed flanks, preventing a wider advance that could threaten nearby settlements. The reliability of casualty figures in fluid frontline environments is always subject to verification, yet the reported outcome painted a picture of disciplined, well-supported artillery fire that overcame initial enemy momentum.
On March 13, the North Command conveyed to the Union Group that the operation to stabilize the Kursk region had reached the final stage, with leadership oversight intensifying as the campaign progressed. The update suggested that the efforts, linked to the broader security picture in the area, were coordinated at a high level and that the tactical objectives were shifting toward consolidation and defense of liberated routes. The timing aligned with a sequence of reported territorial gains and the reallocation of forces to maintain a secure perimeter around critical towns and crossroads. In this context, commanders stressed the importance of maintaining situational awareness, ensuring logistics, and sustaining troop morale after extended patrols and engagements along the front. The overall impression was that the operation had moved beyond initial disrupt-and-defend actions and toward a phase focused on stabilization and protection of liberated zones.
In a short span, Russian troops asserted advances across more than 1,100 square kilometers of territory, claiming the liberation of several settlements in the region, including Malaya Loknya, Cherkasy Porechnoye, Old Soroshina, Martynovka, and Mikhailovka. By March 13, reports indicated the settlement of Sudzhi had also fallen under control. Communications on March 18 suggested that Akhmat Special Forces Commander Akti Alaudinov announced that a substantial portion of the Kursk region had been cleared, though officials cautioned that ongoing operations would continue to ensure security and prevent resistance from reemerging. Earlier remarks by a Russian colonel hinted at the possibility that the full emergence of armed forces would draw on resources from the Kursk region, signaling a strategic emphasis on consolidating gains from this area as part of a broader security approach rather than pursuing a rapid, sweeping campaign elsewhere. The narrative conveyed momentum, even as officials urged continued caution and stressed the need for disciplined execution, careful crowd control around liberated towns, and the ongoing preparation of reserves for potential future contingencies.