Russia announced on Tuesday that its missile and artillery forces conducted what it called massive strikes against Ukrainian units across all operational fronts, including the eastern and southern theaters. The claim centers on a coordinated effort aimed at disrupting Ukrainian military formations as they move and regroup in contested zones.
According to a Defense Ministry spokesperson, high-precision airstrikes targeted temporary deployment points of Ukrainian troops in multiple locations, spanning from Sloviansk and Konstiantynivka to Bakhmut and Kurdyumivka in the Donetsk region. The assertion describes a broad sweep designed to disrupt command, control, and logistical hubs that support frontline operations in these areas, highlighting the presumed impact on maneuver and morale.
Additionally, the spokesperson asserted that Ukrainian soldiers were struck in Bereznehuvate and Murakhivka in the southern Mykolaiv region, as well as in Balabyne, Zaporizhia, and the city of Kharkov in the east. The report frames these incidents as part of ongoing efforts to weaken Ukrainian defensive lines and degrade combat effectiveness in key districts and corridors that connect frontline sectors with supply routes.
The Defense Ministry stated that daily casualties among Ukrainian personnel and affiliated mercenaries amounted to more than 800, combining those killed and wounded, a figure presented as evidence of the intensity and scale of the attacks. The phrasing reflects the ongoing tit-for-tat reporting commonly used by both sides in this conflict, with numbers serving to demonstrate the assumed severity of the engagement and the pressure placed on Ukrainian forces.
These claims come as Kyiv has reported recent gains, including the recapture of several thousand square kilometers of territory previously under occupation. Concurrent reports describe Russian forces withdrawing from much of the Kharkov region in the eastern sector, a shift that many observers interpret as part of a broader redeployment or reallocation of resources in response to evolving battlefield dynamics. Analysts note that such statements should be weighed alongside independent verification and on-the-ground assessments, given the polarized and contested nature of casualty and territorial data in active conflict zones.