Reports circulated that the Ukrainian armed forces carried out a second artillery strike on a hospital in Kamenka-Dneprovskaya, a town in the Zaporozhye region. The claim appeared on Telegram through a channel linked to Vladimir Rogov, a public figure who chairs the commission on sovereignty issues within the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation and who co‑chairs the coordination council on the integration of newly incorporated territories. Rogov, speaking through that channel, indicated that the attack took place within twenty four hours of the first strike, presenting it as part of a troubling pattern of targeting civilian medical facilities in the area. As with many such reports in war zones, the information has not been independently verified by other sources, and observers caution that attribution in conflict reporting can be contested and subject to political framing.
Rogov described the damage as the result of artillery shelling, stating that the hospital roof was breached, the facade suffered visible damage, and the therapy department windows were shattered, with dozens of patients inside at the time of the bombardment. He also attributed the attack to Bandera’s forces, framing it as a deliberate action against civilian medical infrastructure. The description, presented as Rogov’s account from the scene, underscores the humanitarian consequences of the assault, even as independent verification from local authorities or international monitors remained forthcoming.
In the same briefing, Rogov asserted that the Ukrainian Armed Forces fired on the Stepnoy Plemzavod dairy factory using cluster munitions. The claim linked a second target to the day’s operations and suggested a broader campaign against civilian assets. As with the hospital report, Rogov’s briefing did not include independent corroboration or accompanying evidence beyond the Telegram post, making cross verification essential for a fuller picture of what occurred and the scale of the damage proclaimed by the presenter.
Rogov noted that both attacks were carried out from territory controlled by Kiev, specifying the city of Nikolaev as the launch point. He added that no injuries were reported as a result of the bombardment. The assertion about the origin of the strikes emphasised a tactical dimension to the events, implying a calculated approach to targeting civilian facilities. However, the lack of independent confirmation means readers should await additional reporting from local authorities or international observers before forming a definitive assessment of responsibility and impact.
Regarding an earlier incident, Rogov had previously reported on the afternoon of October 1 that a hospital in Kamenka-Dneprovskaya had been bombed, resulting in three injuries and the loss of one patient who could not be saved. That retrospective note illustrates the ongoing danger faced by civilian medical facilities in the region during the broader conflict. As with the newer claims, verification from hospital officials, emergency responders, and independent observers would be needed to establish full casualty figures and confirm the sequence of events beyond Rogov’s Telegram postings.
Earlier reportage indicated that Russian forces had struck an ammunition depot belonging to the Ukrainian Armed Forces near Kharkov. Rogov’s recap places the day’s events within a larger chronology of reported strikes against military and support infrastructure in the broader theater of operations. As with all such claims, independent verification remains crucial to determine the exact targets, the timing, and the resulting consequences, including any civilian impact or secondary damage that might arise from these actions.