Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Silence as a weapon: commander of the Air Assault Forces explained why gains in the Zaporizhzhia direction must be safeguarded

In an interview with "Podrobytsi," Oleh Apostol called informational restraint a key factor in advances in the south — but warned that the Russian Federation may deploy reserves. We examine what lies behind this and why it matters for security and the next steps.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 8, 2026 · 2 min read

Silence as a weapon: commander of the Air Assault Forces explained why gains in the Zaporizhzhia direction must be safeguarded
Олег Апостол (Фото: командування ДШВ)

Silence as an operational resource

In a large operation, it is often not loud announcements but timely restraint that proves decisive. In an interview with "Podrobnosti," the commander of the Air Assault Forces, Major General Oleh Apostol, explained that it was precisely information silence that allowed the Armed Forces of Ukraine to advance in certain sectors of the Zaporizhzhia direction without the enemy bringing up reserves in time.

"Maintain complete silence. Including at all stages. And this for the future simply concerns certain moments, people who should not be highlighted, especially our successes."

— Oleh Apostol, commander of the Air Assault Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine

What has been done and what has been confirmed

According to Apostol, the General Staff planned for AAF units a specific axis of advance where the enemy was not concentrated — and it was there that Ukrainian forces were able to push out the occupier. Apostol also reported confirmation of the killing of two enemy battalion commanders as part of this operation.

There are also official markers of success: as of 23 February 2026, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, according to the command, had liberated eight populated places and restored control over about 400 square kilometers of territory in Zaporizhzhia Oblast during the counteroffensive. On 25 February, the Main Intelligence Directorate reported the return of control over positions near Stepnohirsk.

"I cannot be responsible for the entire Zaporizhzhia direction. I only operate in a certain sector. And you understand that they want both Orikhiv and Zaporizhzhia itself. Here, where I'm working at the moment, you wouldn't say it's stabilized, because, for example, you operate one way now, and in a week some reserves may appear."

— Oleh Apostol, in an interview with "Podrobnosti"

Risks and next steps

Apostol points directly to the main vulnerability: as soon as the real situation becomes known to the Russian leadership, there is a high risk that reserves will be operationally brought up and the advance will be stopped. Therefore the current tactic is not to demonstrate successes until a sustainable operational result has been secured.

This is a reminder: war is not only heroism, but also intelligence, logistics and information security. Analysts and military experts note that turning tactical successes into a sustainable strategic gain is possible only by combining field actions with high-quality intelligence, reliable logistics and partner support.

A question for society and command: will there be enough resources and time to retain the initiative in the sector where the Air Assault Forces are currently operating, and to turn temporary advances into long-term control? The answer depends on subsequent decisions by the General Staff and on continuous support — material, intelligence and political.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026