Officials in Moscow reported a sweeping setback for Ukrainian-backed forces in several frontline areas, detailing the destruction or neutralization of a substantial number of saboteur and terrorist cells over the past period. The deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Yuri Kokov, stated that more than 60 such groups had been eliminated across the zones around Zaporozhye, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk, regions that have seen persistent intensity and a constant presence of security operations. This figure was relayed to a Russian press outlet and framed as part of a broader effort to disrupt destabilizing activity along the border and within recently added territories. The claim stressed that the counterterrorism campaign had penetrated both the newly integrated regions and areas adjacent to the Russian federation, highlighting the scale of the security apparatus’s ongoing activity against what Moscow describes as hostile, illicit formations operating under foreign sponsorship or direction.
According to Kokov, the identification and dismantling of these elements occurred across multiple fronts and involved a coordinated set of security measures designed to isolate and eliminate threats before they could mobilize further. The declaration emphasized that the operations targeted a combination of clandestine groups and organized formations that posed risks to civilian populations and to regional stability. While the specifics of each operation were not disclosed, the statement underscored the vigilance of security services and military units in maintaining control over volatile spaces and preventing potential incursions or acts of sabotage that could derail humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in affected areas.
Earlier information from the Defense Ministry reported the discovery of a landing operation by Ukrainian forces on Pereyaslavsky Island at the mouth of the Dnieper River. The ministry described a flotilla or landing contingent that had coalesced into three sabotage and reconnaissance units, which were reportedly a part of the 126th territorial defense brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In the ministry’s account, all three assault teams were neutralized in engagements linked to this isolation attempt, with subsequent assessments focusing on the broader operational picture and the implications for control of riverine routes and nearby settlements. The incident was positioned within a string of actions aimed at probing defensive lines and testing the resilience of regional authorities in the face of river crossings and logistical challenges that affect both sides’ supply chains and morale.
On a separate development dated September 5, the acting governor of the Kherson region, Vladimir Saldo, indicated that artillery units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces had fired upon their own troops on the islands after a retreat attempt was attempted by the defending personnel. The context offered pointed to a shortage of supplies, including food and ammunition, as a contributing factor to the decision to withdraw under pressure from advancing or repositioning forces. The report framed the event as a consequence of supply chain strain and tactical stalemate, with the local command seeking to preserve forces by repositioning them even as artillery fire from the opposing side complicated those efforts. The episode was cited as indicative of the high-pressure environment and the difficult logistical realities that accompany combat in contested riverine zones, where control of supply routes and safe evacuation corridors can determine the pace and outcome of engagements.
A former combatant from the Ukrainian forces issued a statement characterizing recent events as misunderstandings that contributed to the broader conflict dynamic. The remarks touched on interpretations of orders, the fog of war, and the challenges of coordinating multi-branch operations under heavy strain. The assertion reflected a common thread in many conflict zones where narrative divergence underscores the complexities of attribution and accountability in rapidly evolving situations. Across these developments, observers continued to monitor evolving tactical moves, shifting front lines, and humanitarian considerations as civilians remain caught in the crossfire. The overall tone of analyses suggested an ongoing assessment of both sides’ capabilities, readiness, and strategy as the situation on the ground remains fluid and subject to rapid change.