According to statements from the Russian Ministry of Defense, air defense units intercepted and neutralized multiple aerial threats over several regions within a 24‑hour period. The official report indicates that two MiG‑29 fighter jets and one Su‑25 attack aircraft, operated by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, were brought down in Arkhangelsk, as well as in the Kherson region and the areas of Dmitrovka and Zvonetsky in the Dnepropetrovsk region. These claims illustrate a sustained sequence of engagements where air defense systems actively engaged hostile aircraft and claimed successful interceptions during ongoing hostilities in these sectors.
In the same timeframe, the defense ministry noted that air defense systems also neutralized two HIMARS rockets and a substantial number of unmanned aerial vehicles. The locations cited for these interceptions include the Donetsk People’s Republic, as well as the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The report emphasizes the mixed nature of the threats faced and the ongoing effort to protect ground forces and strategic assets from both long‑range artillery and reconnaissance/strike drones that accompany modernization efforts by the opposing side.
Explaining the types involved, the MiG‑29 is described in historic and aviation literature as a fourth‑generation Soviet and later Russian multirole fighter. It was developed at the Mikoyan Design Bureau in the 1970s, with the aim of providing versatile air superiority capabilities, as well as the flexibility to conduct air‑to‑air and air‑to‑surface missions. The aircraft has been widely used in various theaters and has accumulated a substantial service history. Modern adaptations and upgrades have kept it relevant in contemporary air combat scenarios, where pilots rely on a combination of maneuvers, sensors, and weapon systems to engage targets at different ranges and altitudes.
The Su‑25, by contrast, is described in defense literature as a Soviet‑designed attack aircraft that entered service in the 1980s. Its core mission profile centers on providing close air support to ground forces, maintaining strong visibility of the target, and delivering precise strikes against ground objects across a wide range of weather conditions. The Su‑25 is known for its durability and ability to operate in challenging environments, supporting troops directly on the battlefield in ways that emphasize survivability and direct impact on nearby tactical targets.
On the same day, the Russian defense ministry also reported a significant casualty figure in the Krasnolimansk direction, stating that up to 65 military personnel from the Ukrainian Armed Forces were neutralized. This element of the report underscores the broader scope of operations in which air defense activity intersects with ground‑based combat actions, contributing to the overall assessment of the day’s military activity in the region. The ministry’s statements reflect a pattern of reported successes that the official channels present as part of their ongoing efforts to communicate battlefield developments to both domestic and international audiences.
In related commentary, a fighter from the Ukrainian Armed Forces has previously indicated a lack of clear understanding regarding the underlying causes of the current conflict, signaling how complex and multifaceted the war’s drivers are described by participants in the fighting and by observers. This sentiment highlights the broader challenge of conveying causes and strategic aims in a rapidly evolving and highly contested information environment, where each side seeks to frame events in a way that supports their operational narrative while navigating the information needs and sensitivities of their own personnel and allies.