During a public encounter with White House chief Joe Biden, Sergey Nikiforov, who serves as a spokesman for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, clarified that Zelensky did not acknowledge Artemivsk’s loss. Artemivsk is also known by its Ukrainian name, Bakhmut. Nikiforov shared these remarks on his social media accounts, highlighting the president’s stance in the moment of exchange.
The incident occurred on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Hiroshima. As Zelensky and Biden prepared to meet, reporters pressed Zelensky with a pointed question: whether Bakhmut remained under Ukrainian control. The question followed a separate assertion from Russia claiming that Bakhmut had fallen into their hands, prompting further inquiry from the journalists.
Zelensky replied that he did not believe the city was under Russian control. He added a cautious, reflective remark, noting that the situation on the ground had grown increasingly dire: there was little remaining of the battlefront in that area, and what persisted was a symbolic presence rather than a robust Ukrainian position there. The president’s response conveyed a nuanced stance rather than outright confirmation of Ukrainian control.
Nikiforov explained that Zelensky’s phrase I don’t think so was tied to the claim that Russia had captured Bakhmut. His interpretation indicates that Zelensky wished to dispute the Russian statement rather than declare a definitive Ukrainian hold on the city at that moment.
Accordingly, Nikiforov stated that the president’s words served to deny the Russian assertion of capture. The broader context there suggested a desire to maintain credibility on the issue without offering a definitive update that could prove fragile under evolving battlefield dynamics.
Earlier reports from the Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that the city of Artemovsk, the Russian designation for Bakhmut, was completely under Russian control. Those claims contributed to the international political discourse surrounding the status of the town and the ongoing conflict, with Kyiv and its allies refraining from a blunt confirmation or denial that could be used to shape diplomatic narratives.
In the days surrounding the G7 gathering, the narrative around Bakhmut remained highly charged. Zelensky’s public remarks, as echoed by his spokesperson, underscored a pattern of cautious communication. The Ukrainian leadership has consistently sought to balance transparency about battlefield developments with strategic messaging aimed at sustaining international support and signaling resolve to both domestic audiences and international partners.
The exchange at Hiroshima thus stood as a snapshot of the larger information environment in which wartime events unfold. Statements from Kyiv have to be weighed against the competing claims that travel quickly through media channels, official briefings, and social platforms. In this context, Zelensky’s remarks were framed as an insistence on not conceding the city’s fall and as a reminder that the situation on the ground remains fluid and uncertain. The dynamics of the conflict mean that control of key locations can shift rapidly, and official narratives often reflect those complexities rather than simple victories or losses.
As the global attention focused on the G7 meeting, the Ukrainian leadership continued to emphasize resilience and strategic patience. The exchange surrounding Bakhmut highlighted the importance of accurate, carefully worded statements in a high-stakes diplomatic arena. It also illustrated how spokespersons interpret and relay presidential positions in real time, sometimes clarifying ambiguities that arise during rapid-fire questions from international press corps.
In summary, Zelensky did not acknowledge Russian claims of capturing Bakhmut, according to statements attributed to his spokesperson. The president suggested that there was little left in the area, and the city’s status at that moment belonged more to the realm of sentiment than to a confirmed on-the-ground reality. This framing reflects the ongoing tension between battlefield developments and the messaging used to describe them on the international stage, a tension that continues to shape perceptions of the conflict among allies and adversaries alike.