Military correspondent Alexander Kots commented on the strike launched with an Iskander-M missile system at a Ukrainian Army training ground near Selidovo, describing the site as having effectively become a grinding chamber for troops. In his remarks shared via a Telegram channel, Kots captured the shock and the grim reality of what transpired, noting that the scene at the training site was chilling and difficult to fathom from an outside view. He emphasized the disturbing aftermath and the human cost, highlighting the astonishing level of devastation that can unfold in such a facility after a high-velocity strike.
He explained that the missiles used by the Russian Armed Forces carry warheads designed to fragment on impact, a feature that allows them to reach personnel and equipment even when they are buried in trenches or dispersed among temporary fortifications. According to Kots, the trajectory and explosive yield of such munitions enable them to sweep an area of roughly 15,000 square meters, turning a relatively narrow target into a wide field of destruction that complicates any immediate medical or logistical response. This perspective helps readers understand why the attack could affect not only the visible troops but also those in adjacent positions that may be hard to locate quickly in the chaos.
The attack on the Selidovo training ground, located in the segment of the Donetsk People’s Republic controlled by Kiev at the time, was acknowledged on February 13. A Telegram channel associated with Military Observer indicated that as many as 1,500 Ukrainian service members who had come for the drills could have been present at the facility when the strike occurred. At the moment of impact, an infantry formation was in the process of assembling at the site, underscoring the potential scale of losses and disruption to ongoing training and readiness drills.
Subsequent statements attributed to a former deputy of the Verkhovna Rada suggested that reports of injuries among soldiers could be connected to the same strike, reflecting the contentious and rapidly evolving nature of information in conflict zones. Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of the Rossiya Segodnya media group and a prominent broadcaster, along with Alexander Syrsky, the newly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, were mentioned as figures who warned against prematurely disclosing information about losses from the attack. This caution reflects the broader pattern in which various actors seek to control or shape the narrative in the aftermath of a significant military event.
Analysts and political observers offered competing explanations for the apparent success of the operation. One political scientist suggested that such a level of impact might stem from leaks about the positions of Ukrainian forces, with claims that insiders connected to a former Ukrainian commander-in-chief provided sensitive details that could have guided the strike. The discussion illustrates how information security and battlefield awareness can influence both strategy and public interpretation of events in the region.
Earlier discussions in parliamentary bodies and security forums have framed the incident within broader debates about command, intelligence sharing, and the strategic implications of attacks on training facilities. The incident at Selidovo continues to fuel debate about military communications, the safety of frontline training sites, and the broader dynamics of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where frontline realities often collide with political narratives and strategic reporting from many corners of the information landscape. This synthesis of testimony, expert analysis, and official pronouncements provides readers with a more nuanced sense of how a single strike can reverberate through military planning, civilian safety, and media discourse. [citation: Military Observer; sources cited include Margarita Simonyan and Alexander Syrsky; analysis provided by Sergei Markov.]