Rare New York Times report from Russia’s Kursk region draws praise from Chechen special forces commander and fury from Ukraine
Last weekend, The New York Times published a report from the part of Russia’s Kursk region that was occupied by Ukrainian forces from August 2024 to March 2025. The piece, titled “A Landscape of Death: What’s Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia,” is an unusual example of a Western outlet reporting on the ground from the Russian side of the front. The article sparked outrage from the Ukrainian government, which accused Heitmann of promoting Russian propaganda. Meanwhile, it was praised by Apti Alaudinov, commander of Russia’s Akhmat special forces unit.
German photojournalist Nanna Heitmann lives and works in Moscow. She’s previously published pieces in The New York Times about life in Russia during wartime, including stories on the growing popularity of Chinese goods and the rehabilitation of soldiers returning from the front.
Heitmann visited Russia’s Kursk region in March 2025, shortly after the town of Sudzha was retaken from Ukrainian forces. She spent six days there.
In her report, Heitmann describes destroyed homes, unburied bodies, unexploded ordnance scattered across the landscape, bullet-riddled cars, and the sounds of gunfire and explosions. She notes that local residents blame not only the Ukrainian army but also the Russian authorities for the area’s ongoing devastation.
In addition to her interviews with civilians, Heitmann spoke with fighters from Chechnya’s Akhmat special forces unit who had taken part in “Operation Stream,” which saw Russian soldiers crawl through part of a defunct gas pipeline to get behind Ukrainian lines. Apti Alaudinov, the Akhmat unit’s commander, told Heitmann that one of his fighters died from gas poisoning, two were discharged from service after developing tumors, and others were undergoing long-term medical treatment.
The NYT report does not explain how Heitmann was granted access to the frontline zone. However, Heitmann writes that she was escorted “at times” by Akhmat fighters and exchanged audio messages with Alaudinov. Later, in an appearance on Russian state television, Alaudinov praised Heitmann’s report, saying it gave Western readers “the true picture” of what was happening in the Kursk region.
Most information from the Russian side of the frontline, including human-interest stories, comes from state propagandists and pro-war bloggers. Independent journalists working inside Russia, including Western reporters, rarely receive accreditation to visit the front or even get close to it. In 2022, correspondents from the state-controlled newspaper Kommersant traveled to Donetsk and Mariupol, but their reports were later criticized for omissions and deference to censorship.
As for the Kursk region, Governor Alexander Khinshtein said in March 2025 that 93 foreign media outlets had visited during or shortly after the Ukrainian occupation. None of them published detailed reports.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has openly acknowledged that Russia is currently operating under “wartime censorship.” Since 2022, laws on “fake news” and “discrediting the army” have carried penalties of up to 10 years in prison for disseminating any information about the war that contradicts the authorities’ official version.
Even though we’re outlawed in Russia, we continue to deliver exclusive reporting and analysis from inside the country.
Our journalists on the ground take risks to keep you informed about changes in Russia during its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Support Meduza’s work today.
Ukraine also introduced wartime censorship measures following Russia’s 2022 invasion, with laws criminalizing the justification or denial of Russia’s aggression or occupation. Nonetheless, international journalists are still able to work in the country. In the early months of the full-scale war, even reporters from independent Russian outlets were on the ground. Ukrainian journalists Evgeniy Maloletka and Mstyslav Chernov, both with the Associated Press, received a Pulitzer Prize and an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2023–2024 for their coverage of Russia’s seige of Mariupol.
NYT’s publication of Heitmann’s article drew outrage among Ukrainian officials. Heorhii Tykhyi, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry, said on X: “Whoever at @nytimes thought it was smart to report alongside Russian war criminals made the dumbest decision. This isn’t balance or ‘the other side of the story.’ This is simply letting Russian propaganda mislead the audience.”
The Ukrainian government’s Center for Countering Disinformation stressed that the article doesn’t mention that Russia invaded Ukraine and makes no reference to the suffering of Ukrainian civilians as a result of Russian aggression. “In a war where one side is clearly the aggressor, neutrality without context becomes disinformation,” the agency said.
A spokesperson for The New York Times shared the following response with Meduza:
Our work documenting Russia during its invasion of Ukraine has offered a vital window into a country where reporting has become increasingly dangerous. It’s not propaganda to document the Ukrainian incursions into Kursk, or how the fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces devastated a community. This story shows the experience of civilians and the consequences they face in war. Our role is to bear witness to the human toll of war and pursue the truth no matter where it leads.
The newspaper posted the same statement on X in English and Ukrainian.
Sign up for Meduza’s daily newsletter
A digest of Russia’s investigative reports and news analysis. If it matters, we summarize it.