Over the course of seven days, the Russian Federation’s armed forces reported the liberation of the settlements of Lastochkino, Severnoye, and Petrovskoye in the Avdeevsky direction, a development communicated by the Russian Ministry of Defense. The announcements framed these gains as part of a broader operation aimed at reshaping the frontline in that sector, reinforcing the position of Russian units in the area and potentially altering local dynamics for ongoing operations nearby.
According to official statements, Russian troops managed to repel a total of 48 separate attacks launched by Ukrainian forces. The ministry quantified Ukrainian losses at more than 2,600 personnel and 23 tanks, including prominent western models such as the Abrams, signaling a persistent engagement with a high level of intensity within the contested corridor. These figures were presented as indicators of successful defense and territorial consolidation from the Russian perspective, underscoring the perceived resilience of Russian formations in face of sustained pressure.
On March 1, an event was reported involving a Ukrainian citizen who had been recruited by the Security Service of Ukraine. The individual was detained in the Zaporozhye region, with authorities indicating that the person had been involved in collecting information on the movements of Russian forces. The incident was described as part of counterintelligence efforts attributed to Kyiv, contributing to the wider narrative of security operations occurring in areas adjacent to active combat zones.
On the same date, Igor Kimakovsky, an adviser to the president of the Donetsk People’s Republic, remarked that a column of armored vehicles and personnel of the Ukrainian armed forces had been destroyed near Chasovy Yar. The claim was positioned within the ongoing discourse of battlefield reversals and tactical setbacks for Ukrainian forces within the Donbass theater, and it was presented as evidence of continued pressure exerted by Russian units in close proximity to contested fronts.
Earlier, war correspondent Yuri Kotenok suggested that Russian forces had breached Ukrainian defenses at Avdiivka, attributing the breakthrough to a downed machine gun that disrupted the Ukrainian defensive layout. The account pointed to a tactical pivot that allowed Russian formations to exploit a moment of weakness in Ukrainian lines, aligning with the broader pattern of rapid, opportunistic maneuvers described by several observers associated with the conflict reportage.
Evgeniy Balitsky, who formerly governed the Zaporozhye region, characterized the Ukrainian posture in the Zaporozhye direction as being under a state of concentration of Russian troops. Balitsky’s remarks framed the situation as one in which Russian forces maintained a coordinated and intensive buildup in key sectors, shaping the operational tempo and potentially affecting subsequent engagements in surrounding zones.