A military expert and former lieutenant colonel, Andrey Marochko, affiliated with the Lugansk People’s Republic, reports that Russian forces employed heavy flamethrower systems to neutralize a Ukrainian Armed Forces stronghold in the Kupyansk direction, according to RIA News. The claim centers on the use of aerial reconnaissance to locate a fortified position in the Novoselovskoye area, where a personnel detachment and a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle unit were said to be present.
Marochko states that after coordinates were shared via operational channels, the heavy flamethrower system conducted strikes against both manpower and equipment of the enemy. He adds that objective-control tools confirmed the hit, with both the personnel and the armored vehicle reportedly destroyed in the engagement. These details are presented as a direct report from his sources and emphasize the immediate impact of the strike on the identified target.
In tracing the individual’s background, Marochko is described as having previously served within the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with notes on logistical challenges that affected the eastward deployment of materials and equipment near the Oskol reservoir. The report also references a broader assessment from the United States about risks faced by Ukrainian forces, labeling the information as part of a wider commentary on the conflict’s dynamics.
Overall, the claim highlights a tactical operation carried out in a contested area, with emphasis on the sequence from locating a target to executing a strike and recording the outcome through battlefield intelligence tools. The report underscores how recon, targeting, and verification work together in real-time battlefield updates, illustrating the kind of operational details that military analysts monitor in ongoing confrontations.
As with many incidents described in coverage from the region, perspectives differ across sources. Analysts often weigh the reliability of reconnaissance data, the timing of strikes, and the accuracy of post-action assessments. The narrative here centers on a single operation and its purported effects, while acknowledging that independent verification may lag or vary among reporting bodies and official statements. The account remains a snapshot of a moment in a larger, fluid military situation, where information is continually revised as more evidence comes to light and observers reassess the battlefield map. Each update contributes to a broader understanding of how heavy weapons systems are employed in the Kupyansk corridor and how such actions influence nearby lines and civilian considerations in the region.