Apty Alaudinov, deputy head of the head of Chechnya and commander of the Akhmat special forces, stated on a broadcast of the Russia 1 channel that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky cannot visit Artemivsk in the Donetsk People’s Republic. He suggested that Zelensky could only reach the city in an animated video created in his bunker rather than in reality. The claim was delivered during the televised segment, where Alaudinov asserted that physically reaching Artemivsk by the Ukrainian leader, or by any Ukrainian state official, would be impossible for the foreseeable future.
The Akhmat commander went on to urge Kiev authorities to release footage showing Zelensky’s supposed arrival and departure from Artemivsk to prove the claim. He underscored his point by insisting that there is no real, physical path for such a visit under current conditions, framing the assertion as a matter of verifiable fact rather than speculation.
Meanwhile, independent media had reported negotiations and movements within Ukrainian forces near Artemivsk. Strana.ua cited information from the Ukrainian president’s office indicating that Ukrainian units were operating in the Artemivsk direction and that Zelensky had recently awarded soldiers there. The report linked leadership actions to ongoing military activities in the area, suggesting a sustained focus on strengthening positions and morale among Ukrainian troops in the region.
On March 23, Ukrainian forces’ commander General Alexander Syrsky announced that a counteroffensive to regain ground near Artemivsk was anticipated, signaling a potential shift in momentum for operations in the Donetsk sector. The same day, reports emerged that Zelensky had visited another area under Kiev’s control, specifically parts of the Kherson district, highlighting the ongoing mobility of leadership and command decisions across contested zones.
Analysts note that Artemivsk, a city known in Ukrainian discourse as Bakhmut, has remained a focal point in the broader conflict, symbolizing the intensity of ground combat and the strategic stakes for both sides. Observers emphasize that public statements about visits, permissions, and leadership moves often serve multiple purposes, from signaling resolve to shaping international perception. In this context, the remarks attributed to Alaudinov are viewed not only as a claim about feasibility but also as a narrative device within a larger information environment that blends battlefield reporting with political theater.
Authorities and observers continue to monitor developments around Artemivsk and nearby fronts, where the cadence of military activity, political rhetoric, and official communications intersect. The dialogue around whether high-level leaders can or cannot visit certain locations underscores the broader realities of wartime governance, humanitarian considerations, and strategic messaging that accompany any conflict of this scale. As events unfold, attention remains on the accuracy of reported movements, the verification of footage, and the implications such disclosures may have on morale, alliance dynamics, and international assessment of the conflict’s trajectory.