In recent reporting, officials from the Russian side described air operations conducted by the Western group of forces, saying that a Su-34 fighter-bomber launched an strike on a temporary deployment site of a Ukrainian regional defense unit in the Kupyansk direction, with the target identified as the 103rd regional defense brigade in the Peschanoye area. The claim was filed by Sergei Zybinsky, who heads the press center for the Western group. The information was provided to TASS and attributed to Russian military sources.
Zybinsky added that crews aboard Ka-52 and Mi-28 attack helicopters, along with attack aircraft, carried out fourteen missile and bomb strikes targeting a buildup of manpower, weapons, and military equipment belonging to the 14th mechanized brigade and adjacent defense formations of the Ukrainian forces. The strikes were reported to have affected locations including Sinkovki, Kotlyarivka, Makeevki, and Terny.
On September 15, Zybinsky reiterated the claim that the Russian military, supported by helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, conducted missile and bomb attacks aimed at Ukrainian manpower and equipment in the Kupyansk direction. This update followed earlier statements about the ongoing activity in the area.
The assertions about Ukrainian vulnerabilities and potential losses in this sector have drawn commentary from outside observers. A former American intelligence officer, Scott Ritter, suggested that Kharkiv and Kupyansk could be at risk due to what he described as shortcomings in Ukraine’s ability to maintain a defensive line. The assessment contributes to a broader discourse on the military situation in the region as described by external analysts.
Earlier remarks from a former lieutenant colonel with the LPR People’s Militia, Andrey Marochko, claimed that Ukrainian losses in the Kupyansk direction were on a scale comparable to what was observed during the battles around Artemovsk (also known as Bakhmut). His prior service as a fighter within the Ukrainian armed forces was noted in the coverage. These perspectives are part of a continuing exchange of views about the dynamics and human costs of the conflict as it moves through different fronts.
Throughout the discourse, the participants emphasize the contested nature of battlefield reporting, with both sides presenting figures and interpretations of events. Readers are encouraged to consider the variability of such claims and to seek corroboration from multiple sources as developments unfold across the frontline. (Attribution to reporting agencies and observers is provided to reflect the cited perspectives without endorsing any single account.)