According to official statements from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, there were reported losses among Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk direction over the previous day, with a claim of more than 210 soldiers killed. The same briefing cited the destruction of several military assets, including six armored combat vehicles, four other military vehicles, a Grad multiple launch rocket system, and a D-20 howitzer. These assertions form part of ongoing casualty and material damage tallies that have been recurrently issued by the Russian defense authorities throughout the conflict, though independent verification remains limited in the current reporting channels.
The ministry also claimed additional artillery losses in the Kherson direction, stating that two Msta-B howitzers and one D-30 howitzer were destroyed. In a related note, it was alleged that an ammunition depot belonging to the Ukrainian armed forces near Avdiivka, within the Donetsk People’s Republic, was neutralized. Such claims highlight the continuing emphasis on degrading Ukrainian logistical and fire support capabilities in the contested regions, a pattern observed across multiple official briefings over an extended period.
Earlier communications from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation reported the death of the pilot of a Su-25 attack aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces following a crash in the Belgorod region. The ministry described the aircraft as returning to its airfield after completing a combat mission when it went down, resulting in the pilot’s death. Incidents of this nature are frequently cited in official updates as part of ongoing casualty reporting related to air operations conducted to support troop movements and operations in border regions and adjacent areas of operation.
On 22 February, there were claims that a Su-25 aircraft from the Ukrainian side was shot down over Kherson by a portable air defense system, commonly referred to as MANPADS, identified in the briefing as Verba. The Ukrainian aircraft was described as having been en route to strike targets near Novaya Kakhovka in the Kherson region at the time of the action. Reports of air losses in this area are frequently contested by different parties, and independent verification is often complicated by restricted access to combat zones and the propensity for both sides to publish hopeful or sensationalized updates.
Observers and analysts emphasize that such statements from both sides should be weighed carefully. They underscore that the information environment in conflict zones is characterized by rapid, often contradictory claims, limited on-site verification, and a heavy reliance on official channels for casualty and material loss data. In this context, assessments about the scale of engagements, the precise types of equipment destroyed, and the exact locations of incidents require cautious interpretation and corroboration through multiple sources where possible. Scholarly and policy-oriented analyses usually encourage careful triangulation with independent reporting, satellite imagery, and corroborated field evidence to form a more balanced understanding of events on the ground. Attribution from independent researchers and recognized defense evaluation bodies is often essential to move beyond propagandistic narratives and toward a clearer picture of military dynamics in the region.