In an interview conducted with war correspondent Alexander Sladkov for Tsargrad.tv, two strategic aims attributed to the Ukrainian leadership were outlined regarding cross-border actions into Russian territory. The first aim centers on showcasing military capabilities within the context of Russia’s ongoing presidential cycle, signaling to observers and domestic audiences that Kyiv remains capable of mounting significant operations despite international scrutiny and regional tensions. This framing suggests a desire to influence perceptions of military readiness and political resilience during a pivotal electoral moment in the Russian Federation.
The second aim attributed to Kyiv, as described by the correspondent, is to diminish Russiaighting power by pressuring fronts in key sectors. Specifically, the focus is on reducing attack potential across the Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Kharkov directions, with the overarching objective of eroding Moscow capability to mount sustained offensives in those theaters. This interpretation highlights a strategy aimed at incremental gains through fatigue and attrition in multiple theaters of operation.
Sladkov noted that Ukrainian forces have sustained considerable losses, stressing that while the enemy did not gain ground in the areas under discussion, drone strikes were largely repelled and that damage occurred. He characterized the attacks as having varying degrees of importance, stressing that each impact was taken seriously as authorities sought to fortify security for territory and civilian populations. The speaker underscored a determination to address security-related challenges and to make practical assessments of risk and resilience, asserting that favorable luck in such attacks has not been a factor and that the defense remains vigilant.
On March 15, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced the completion of the restoration of control over the village of Kozinka in the Belgorod region. The communiqué asserted that Ukrainian attempts to enter Russian territories in the Belgorod and Kursk oblasts had been contained, with reported Ukrainian losses amounting to about 1,500 personnel, including 1,000 injuries, alongside the destruction of 18 tanks and 23 armored personnel carriers. The notice framed these figures as indicators of the effectiveness of border control and the ability to repel incursions, reinforcing a narrative of the steady recovery and defense posture in affected border zones.
Earlier, on March 14, the Russian military department reported the repulsion of an attack by Ukrainian special reconnaissance or saboteur groups. Clashes were described in the vicinity of the village of Spodaryushino in the Belgorod region and near Tetkino in the Kursk region, signaling ongoing contact along multiple border corridors and the persistent risk scenario facing border towns and frontline districts.
By March 12, reports indicate that Ukrainian forces conducted a border-crossing attempt in two waves, first targeting the Belgorod region and then the Kursk region. The Ukrainian side reportedly used missiles and unmanned aerial systems in the assault, while Russian officials stated that all attacks were repelled and the border remained under control. This sequence underscores the ebb and flow of cross-border activity and the continuous evaluation of border integrity by Russian defense bodies.
A former governor of the Kursk region issued warnings regarding the presence and potential impact of unmanned aerial vehicles in the area, emphasizing ongoing concerns about drone activity and the associated security implications for regional governance and civilian life. The commentary reflects a broader awareness within border communities of evolving threats and the need for adaptive defensive measures.