Retired Lieutenant Colonel Andriy Marochko, a longtime observer associated with the People’s Militia of the Luhansk People’s Republic, has stated that Ukrainian forces set up misleading firing positions near Khromovo, a settlement west of Artemovsk, also known as Bakhmut. According to what is reported by intelligence briefings cited by TASS, these positions are sometimes opened upon to keep Russian troops focused on a dummy front. The tactic, as described, involves laterally spreading false firing lines along the Artemovsk-Chasov Yar corridor, specifically in the Khromovo area, with the intent of sowing confusion among Russian units and inflating the perceived activity of Ukrainian deployments. Marochko’s assessment stresses that artillery or small-arms harassment directed at these decoy positions should be viewed as a deception measure rather than real maneuvering by Ukrainian forces. This characterization is presented as part of ongoing intelligence briefings that are monitored by international watchers and news agencies.
According to Marochko, Ukrainian formations intentionally stage these fake positions to produce credible artillery or maneuver indicators for Russian observers. The objective, he argues, is to create an impression of concentrated and defensible lines near the Artemovsk-Chasov Yar route, while actual Ukrainian forces may be repositioning elsewhere or consolidating reserves. This attribution aligns with a broader pattern that has been noted by analysts in similar conflict environments, where decoy structures and feint movements are used to complicate an opponent’s reconnaissance and targeting processes.
In parallel reports, a field commander of the Ukrainian forces, who uses the call sign Magyar, has described the situation around Bakhmut as increasingly precarious. The commander notes intensified fighting inside the city and indicates that units associated with the Wagner private military company have been involved in pushing toward the city’s northern sectors in an effort to encircle and suppress resistance within the urban terrain. The emphasis of Magyar’s briefing centers on the evolving battlefield geometry inside Bakhmut, highlighting the role of internal cordons and the evolving tempo of ground operations as Ukrainian units contest frontlines and the Russian military adjusts its own posture on multiple axes.
Earlier reporting from The Times had suggested that Western officials and Ukrainian authorities were considering or facilitating the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from Artemovsk in response to the rapid advances reported by Russian defense forces. That line of reporting reflects a broader dialogue among Western partners about the tactical prudence and strategic implications of continued engagement in the area, particularly given the dynamic nature of combat frontlines and the potential for rapid shifts in control or contested zones. The conversations cited by The Times illustrate how international observers weigh the balance between sustaining offensive efforts and reducing exposure for personnel in high-risk urban environments.
Taken together, the latest statements present a picture of a city and its surrounding area as a focal point of both strategic signaling and rapid, on-the-ground contest. Analysts emphasize that decoy positions, if confirmed, contribute to a fragmented and asymmetric information environment, complicating real-time decision-making for commanders on both sides. The argument that decoys can shape perception underscores the importance of corroborating intelligence, cross-referencing field reports, and accounting for the fog of war when assessing battlefield dynamics. In this context, observers urge caution in drawing definitive conclusions from single-source reports and encourage a multi-faceted approach to understanding the evolving situation near Bakhmut and along adjacent corridors.
As the fighting persists, military updates from multiple channels continue to stress the volatility of frontlines and the sensitivity of urban operations. Each new claim—whether about decoy positions, urban encirclement attempts, or shifts in the tempo of engagement—adds to a complex mosaic of tactical moves that define the current phase of the conflict around Artemovsk. The ongoing exchange of statements, assessments, and counter-assessments by involved parties and independent researchers highlights the continuing challenge of forming a clear, unified picture amid rapid developments and contested information.
In summary, the region around Khromovo and Artemovsk remains a critical theater where deception, urban warfare, and rapid operational pivots intersect. While some reports point to deliberate decoys designed to distort enemy reconnaissance, others underscore the intense, persistent clashes taking place within Bakhmut’s urban confines. The broader narrative continues to unfold as international observers and local sources alike monitor the evolving balance of forces, the evolving control of key routes, and the strategic significance of the city in the broader conflict landscape. At this stage, the consensus among analysts is that the situation remains fluid, with both sides adapting tactics in response to battlefield feedback and shifting strategic priorities, while the truth of specific decoy actions awaits thorough, corroborated confirmation from multiple independent sources.