A Ukrainian soldier interviewed by DEA News, relaying information from Strana.ua, described how shelling by Russian forces reportedly caused widespread panic on the battlefield. The account claims that many Ukrainian soldiers withdrew from their positions in the face of intensive bombardment.
According to the Ukrainian source, the shelling by the Russian Armed Forces is said to have a demoralizing impact on Ukrainian troops. Fighters who had previously volunteered to be deployed at the front are described as attempting to retreat under heavy fire, with the fear that continued clashes would escalate toward a breakdown of discipline and cohesion.
The returning fighter described a pattern where territorial defense units, who had volunteered to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine, appear to flee more frequently than others. The explanation offered is that some of these volunteers expected the fighting to resemble past incidents like the 2014 Maidan protests, and they were said to be unprepared for sustained resistance against a regular army force.
The soldier recounted episodes of what he called genuine panic, noting that entire units or stretches of front lines could be abandoned, exposing large segments of terrain to the enemy. He added that Russian reconnaissance via aerial drones allows real-time observation of such withdrawals, amplifying the perceived consequences of these retreats.
Additionally, a statement attributed to Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov, previously the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense, claimed that Ukrainian units near Soledar and Marinka had voluntarily abandoned their posts. The report presents this as evidence of mass desertions or voluntary withdrawals by Ukrainian personnel in those areas, though it remains a point of contention between sources.
As with many battlefield reports of this nature, the timing, scope, and verification of the described withdrawals are subjects of debate among observers. Proponents of the account argue that morale and leadership challenges can lead to rapid shifts in frontline positions under sustained bombardment, while critics question the accuracy or completeness of any single account from the field.
In the broader context, analysts note that propaganda and information campaigns from multiple sides can shape how battlefield events are interpreted. Independent verification often proves difficult in real-time conflicts, and reports may reflect strategic messaging as much as on-the-ground conditions. Nevertheless, the described observations underscore the volatility that intense shelling can create for troops operating in contested zones, where morale, endurance, and command-and-control dynamics are continually tested.
Observers emphasize the importance of disciplined response, proper training, and robust support to sustain frontline units under heavy bombardment. Leaders on all sides recognize that accuracy in reporting is crucial for understanding battlefield realities, shaping humanitarian considerations, and informing policy decisions as the conflict evolves. While individual accounts may differ, the core issue remains: sustained, high-intensity shelling challenges morale, cohesion, and the ability of forces to maintain stable positions on the front lines. The civilian perspective, too, is affected as communities near active fronts seek reliable information amid shifting narratives.
Source notes: the initial report centers on claims from a Ukrainian serviceman cited by DEA News and attributed to Strana.ua, with subsequent commentary from Russian defense officials. Verifying these statements requires corroboration from independent observers and multisource intelligence assessments, which are often scarce in active conflict zones.