Ukrainian company Robotic Complexes is developing CASEEVAK, an armored module that lets the Murakha unmanned ground vehicle carry wounded soldiers off the battlefield, the company told Militarnyi on 28 October. The casualty rides in a closed capsule with ventilation, heating, lighting, and a first-aid kit, and side and rear doors let medics load and reach the soldier from any side.

Drones that can fly long distances pose a threat to both wounded soldiers and the crews evacuating them, making transportation the main challenge, said Ukrainian military medic Daryna Boiko, The Independent reported. Developers are looking for new ways to counter this threat. The current Murakha model is being equipped with passive anti-drone protection elements, the developers say.

An armored capsule that keeps the wounded connected

After a wounded soldier is loaded onto an evacuation platform, it is important not only to transport them to a safe location but also to protect them and monitor their condition during transit.

The module is built around a closed armored capsule made of 3.5 mm-thick Armox 500T steel with an inner lining of HDPE 1000, the media outlet reports. Side and rear doors allow the wounded to be loaded from different directions and accessed during evacuation.

To enable the operator to monitor the person inside and maintain contact with them, the capsule is equipped with a camera with day and night channels and two-way audio communication. The system can be controlled via ELRS, LTE, Starlink, or fiber-optic communications. Militarnyi reports that even if the capsule is detached from the main platform, it retains two independent communication channels.

The developers are also working to integrate vital-signs monitoring systems intended to provide medical personnel with information about the wounded person’s condition during transport.

An electric platform and protection against FPV drones

The evacuation module requires a platform capable of carrying it as it moves through dangerous areas. The Murakha is equipped with two electric motors, delivering a combined torque of 1,600 N·m, and a 35 kWh battery. The system’s stated range is up to 80 km, according to the media outlet.

Another area of development is protection against drones. Measures intended to protect the system include net launchers and electronic warfare (EW) equipment. However, work on a protective cage against FPV drones is still ongoing, according to the report.

The company has already conducted ballistic tests of the armor steel at a distance of 50 meters, using ammunition of various calibers, Militarnyi reports.

The Murakha-Mini logistics platform

The same company previously developed the Murakha-Mini logistics platform. Ukrainian military personnel began using it on the front line to deliver equipment, provisions and other supplies, Militarnyi reported on 24 October 2025.

The UGV can carry up to 250 kg and travel up to 40 km on a single charge, the media outlet reported. During one combat mission, it transported 150 kg of cargo and towed a six-metre platform carrying another drone and provisions, covering 16 km in one direction, Militarnyi reported.

A Russian drone struck a train platform in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro region on Thursday, killing at least 14 civilians, according to Ukrainian officials, as Ukrainian forces fired more than 1,200 drones toward Russia. Ukrzaliznytsia, Ukraine’s state railway company, said a jet-powered drone hit the platform as commuters waited to board a train. The […]

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Russian forces have damaged 165 schools in Sumy Oblast and destroyed 21 beyond repair, according to the head of the regional administration. The administration’s answer is to move classrooms underground. Design documentation for 14 new underground schools has already been prepared, Oleh Hryhorov, head of the Sumy Oblast Military Administration, said in an interview with Ukrinform published on 28 October 2026. In addition, 13 such schools are already operating in Sumy region, while nine more are under construction, the media outlet reported.

Sumy region is one of the areas regularly shelled by the Russian military, making it dangerous to hold classes in above-ground school buildings. Of the region’s 280 schools, 225 have shelters, mostly basic ones, while more than 70 have radiation-protective shelters, Hryhorov noted.

“The process is ongoing and is being scaled up as much as possible,” he said, adding that the region is bringing in partners.

Underground classrooms provide a safer learning environment in Sumy Oblast

The construction of new underground schools is primarily focused on the larger cities of Sumy Oblast, where most schoolchildren are concentrated, Hryhorov explained.

The learning process at such a school differs from the usual format. This was explained by Oleksandr Vaniushenko, the principal of one of the first underground schools in Sumy, Suspilne reported on 23 December 2025.

“We have the first shift—entirely younger children, and fifth- and sixth-graders also go out to the open locations. The second shift brings in just as many more children. The total number studying per day is 360–370,” Vaniushenko noted.

The shelter has backup power supplies, allowing children to continue their lessons during air raid alerts and power outages, according to the project, media reported.

Currently, 22 schools operate entirely in person, while 193 use a hybrid learning format, the head of the regional administration said. A total of 75,000 children are currently attending school in Sumy Oblast, he noted.

A Russian bomb hit a Sumy school during lessons in September

On 29 September, Russia struck a school in Sumy with a 250-kilogram aerial bomb while children in grades 1 to 4 were there, Serhii Kryvosheienko, head of the Sumy City Military Administration, reported. He said the Russians aimed the bomb at the school on purpose. About 40 students were in the school’s shelter when the bomb hit, a school employee told Suspilne.

"With no pity or compassion whatsoever, they strike at children? There is nothing human in the enemy! He is not fighting on the battlefield—he is destroying a nation," Kryvosheienko said.

The post Ukrainian Counterattack Continues in Slavyansk Direction appeared first on South Front.

Zaporizhzhia experienced a record number of Russian FPV drone attacks on 29 October, injuring 14 people, including a 14-year-old boy, regional authorities said.

Russian forces used FPV drones and multiple-launch rocket systems to attack civilian infrastructure, targeting municipal transport and damaging residential buildings, warehouses, and cars, prosecutors said.

Zaporizhzhia reports record FPV drone attacks

Zaporizhzhia Regional Military Administration head Mykhailo Semikin said Zaporizhzhia had experienced a record number of FPV drone attacks on Thursday. After meeting with military officials, he said the authorities were aware of the situation and relevant services and Ukrainian defenders were responding.

He said Russian forces had “changed their tactics and modified their drones,” adding that Ukrainian military personnel were working on countermeasures to address the new threats.

Semikin urged residents to remain calm, heed air raid alerts, and exercise particular caution.

Russian forces launched a record number of FPV drone attacks on Zaporizhzhia on 29 October, repeatedly targeting civilian public transport.

Drones struck a municipal bus, a minibus, and a trolleybus. Four people were injured in the bus attack alone. Across the city, at least 14… pic.twitter.com/WfemZSh7yr

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) October 29, 2026

Russian drones target municipal transport

The attacks included strikes on a municipal bus, a minibus, and a trolleybus, according to Semikin.

In the morning, a Russian FPV drone struck a municipal bus, injuring four people.

In a separate attack, Russian forces struck 15 vehicles, a warehouse building, and a power line, sparking a fire and damaging a nearby apartment building. Two men, aged 41 and 66, were injured.

At around midday, another FPV drone hit a minibus in central Zaporizhzhia, injuring one person. 

Later, a Russian drone struck a municipal trolleybus, critically injuring a 56-year-old woman and lightly injuring two other women, aged 71 and 66.

Russian attacks on Zaporizhzhia injured two men, aged 41 and 66.

The strikes set four cars and an open area on fire, damaged a warehouse, and damaged four cars and four buses.

Ukraine’s State Emergency Service pic.twitter.com/oqRfYvMa7T

— Euromaidan Press (@EuromaidanPress) October 29, 2026

Zaporizhzhia’s proximity to the front line

Zaporizhzhia lies relatively close to the front line in southern Ukraine, leaving the city exposed to Russian attacks with weapons that can be used at shorter ranges, including FPV drones and multiple-launch rocket systems. 

The proximity allows Russian forces to threaten civilian infrastructure more easily without relying solely on long-range missiles or drones.

Prosecutors investigate suspected war crime

The Zaporizhzhia Regional Prosecutor’s Office said it had opened a war crimes investigation. Investigators from the Security Service of Ukraine’s regional directorate are conducting the pretrial investigation.

The casualty count and damage reports were preliminary, and authorities said information was still being updated as the attacks continued.

Russian attacks kill civilians in several Ukrainian cities

Zaporizhzhia was not the only major city hit by Russian attacks on 29 October. In Dnipro, a Russian strike on the railway station killed at least 14 people. 

In Chernihiv, two teenage girls were killed and 23 people injured, including four children. In Kremenchuk, Poltava Oblast, three people were killed and 15 injured, including three children. 

The attacks damaged residential buildings and civilian infrastructure in all three cities.

Egg prices go up 2.1% on Sunday; flour is reportedly set to rise by as much as 14%, with bread, pasta and other staples likely to follow, in fresh blow to households stretched thin by cost-of-living crisis

Key developments on Oct. 28:

• 'Russia's mass murder:' Drone strike on Dnipro station kills 14 amid deadly daytime attacks on Chernihiv, Kremenchuk
• Ukraine destroys 2 Russian Su-34 bomber jets in Neptune missile strike on airfield, Navy says
• Route demining completed in Russian-occupied Oleshky as humanitarian convoy

The convoy is expected to arrive at the city's central hospital, where humanitarian assistance will be provided to residents, Lubinets said.

A temporary ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine has held for a third day around the occupied town of Oleshky, allowing preparations for food deliveries and civilian evacuations. The agreement, mediated with the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump, represents a limited diplomatic development in a war where attempts to establish broader ceasefires have repeatedly failed.

Russia and Ukraine have maintained a localised ceasefire around Oleshky in the southern Kherson region, creating an opportunity to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians who have spent months effectively isolated from regular supplies of food, medicine and drinking water.

Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said on 29 October that neither side had reported violations of the agreement and that teams were continuing to clear mines from roads intended for humanitarian convoys.

According to Associated Press, the six-day arrangement began on 27 October and is expected to remain in force until 1 November.

The first substantial humanitarian delivery is scheduled for Friday, 30 October.

An estimated 1,700 to 2,000 civilians remain in Oleshky, many of them elderly residents whose health, mobility or personal circumstances have prevented them from leaving.

The town is situated on the Russian-occupied eastern bank of the Dnipro River, opposite Ukrainian-controlled Kherson.

Its geographical position has made it particularly vulnerable to the consequences of the fighting, while damaged infrastructure, mines and military restrictions have complicated access for humanitarian organisations.

Melania Trump’s Unusual Diplomatic Role

The agreement has attracted attention because of the involvement of US First Lady Melania Trump.

In a White House statement issued on 23 October, her office announced that she had worked with Russian and Ukrainian representatives to secure arrangements for a temporary cessation of military activity.

The statement described her as the intermediary in the negotiations, covering the timing of the ceasefire, humanitarian access, evacuation procedures and operational coordination.

Lubinets subsequently acknowledged her involvement and said communication with his Russian counterpart, Yana Lantratova, had helped maintain the arrangement.

The White House originally announced 29 October as the starting date, but Ukrainian officials later reported that the ceasefire had taken effect at 3am on 27 October.

By Thursday, both sides were describing the agreement as holding without recorded violations.

The participation of the American First Lady is an unusual feature of international humanitarian diplomacy, which is more commonly conducted through governments, international organisations or specialist humanitarian agencies.

However, the immediate significance of the agreement will be determined by whether assistance reaches residents and whether those wishing to leave can do so safely.

A Town Cut Off from Essential Supplies

Oleshky has experienced prolonged humanitarian difficulties under Russian occupation.

The town suffered extensive disruption following the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023, which caused severe flooding across communities along the Dnipro.

Subsequent fighting, damage to infrastructure and restrictions on movement further complicated access to essential goods.

According to Ukrainian officials, normal deliveries of food to the town have been effectively interrupted since late May 2026.

Residents have faced shortages of medicines and clean water, while the presence of mines has made movement beyond residential areas hazardous.

The remaining population is believed to consist largely of older people and residents requiring medical attention.

For these civilians, humanitarian access is not simply a matter of replenishing household supplies.

It may determine whether individuals can receive essential treatment, obtain prescription medicines or leave areas where normal medical and social services have ceased functioning.

The Evacuation Challenge

The ceasefire provides for humanitarian teams to assess residents’ needs and arrange transport for those who wish to leave.

The White House has indicated that residents should be able to choose their destination, including Ukrainian-controlled territory or Russia.

Ensuring that such decisions are genuinely voluntary is particularly important in occupied territory.

International humanitarian law provides protections for civilians under occupation, including restrictions concerning forcible transfers and deportations.

A credible evacuation process therefore requires clear information, freedom from coercion and practical arrangements allowing residents to travel safely.

The presence of journalists accompanying the mission may provide additional documentation, although media access does not replace independent humanitarian monitoring.

Russian and Ukrainian representatives have also been coordinating mine clearance along routes intended for humanitarian vehicles.

Until those routes are confirmed safe, the delivery of assistance and movement of civilians remain dependent on operational conditions.

A Ceasefire That Does Not Extend Beyond Oleshky

The agreement remains geographically limited.

Russian strikes continued elsewhere in Ukraine on 29 October, killing civilians in several cities, including Dnipro.

The continuing attacks demonstrate that the localised humanitarian arrangement does not represent a broader change in Russian military operations or the strategic direction of the war.

Nevertheless, the pause has also brought some relief to residents of nearby Ukrainian-controlled Kherson, where repeated attacks have disrupted daily life.

The absence of reported violations around Oleshky suggests that the two sides retain the ability to coordinate narrowly defined humanitarian measures when political and operational arrangements are in place.

That does not necessarily imply an increased willingness to compromise over territory or broader security questions.

What Happens After 1 November?

The agreement is scheduled to expire on 1 November, leaving only a limited period for delivering aid and facilitating departures.

Its effectiveness will depend on the quantities of assistance delivered, the number of residents reached and whether evacuation arrangements operate as intended.

It will also be necessary to establish what protection, if any, is available to civilians who remain after the ceasefire ends.

A successful operation could provide a model for similarly limited humanitarian arrangements elsewhere along the front.

However, extending such cooperation would require further political consent and practical security guarantees.

For Oleshky’s remaining residents, the immediate question is more urgent: whether several days without fighting can provide the assistance and safe passage that months of war have denied them.

For more than 300 years, since Peter I's 1708 script reform, Ukrainian lettering has been shaped by imperial Russian norms. Zakon, presented on 29 October 2026, aims to break that pattern and decolonize the letters of Ukraine's state acts and awards.

The national font for official state communication draws on the work of Ukrainian artists, including Heorhii Narbut, who designed a 1918 banknote for the Ukrainian People's Republic, the short-lived independent state that fell to the Bolsheviks. It is meant to replace Izhitsa, Petersburg, and other Russian-origin fonts still often used on honor certificates, letters of thanks, diplomas, battle flags, and signs, adding a visual touch to the country's push to boost its national culture amid the fifth year of Russia's full-blown invasion.

Verkhovna Rada Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk presented Zakon on 29 October, nine months after parliament adopted a resolution that called for a national font and said Russian-origin fonts had no place in official acts or on state awards. The Ministry of Culture developed it with money from the job site Work.ua and its co-owner Artur Mikhno, and the font is still in beta testing, the ministry says.

“The letters in which the word ‘Ukraine’ is written are also part of our state identity,” Stefanchuk wrote. “Decolonization should also concern how Ukraine presents itself.”

“The creation of a national typeface is an important step toward ensuring that state institutions represent Ukraine through our artistic tradition and contemporary Ukrainian design. [...] We want Ukrainian design to shape the image of our country, and for our cultural heritage to become a source of new solutions,” said Tetiana Berezhna, Deputy Prime Minister for Humanitarian Policy and Minister of Culture.

Three typefaces, one of them free for anyone

Zakon comes in three versions. Zakon Text is designed for everyday official paperwork and is free for anyone to use; it's available for download here. Zakon Decor, for ceremonial inscriptions, and Zakon Letterpress, for printing the originals of legal acts, have closed licenses.

Zakon Text has four styles: regular, italic, bold, and bold italic. The ministry asks users to test it and send feedback before a wider rollout, which Stefanchuk said will be gradual.

The designers are Oleksii Chekal, Hennadii Zarechniuk, Dmytro Rastvortsev, and Andrii Shevchenko, with Taras Ishchyk leading the project.

Built on the lettering of six Ukrainian artists

Zakon brings Ukrainian letter forms back to Cyrillic. The Ministry of Culture says that its developers “generalized most of the characteristic features” of six Ukrainian graphic artists’ lettering.

Heorhii Narbut (1886–1920) is credited with 13 of the 24 banknotes issued in 1917–1920, the first Ukrainian postage stamps, and an illustrated Ukrainian alphabet he never finished. His letters drew on Cossack baroque motifs and floral ornament.

Vasyl Krychevskyi (1873–1952) drew the trident that became the coat of arms of the Ukrainian People’s Republic in 1918, along with its seals and banknotes.

Robert Lisovskyi (1893–1982), a follower of Narbut, made prints, book covers, and emblems, and later led the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain.

Vasyl Khomenko (1912–1984) created New Ukrainian, a typeface he worked on from 1963 to 1970. Zakon co-designer Zarechniuk is one of the authors of Homenko, a typeface based on his work.

Yakiv Hnizdovskyi (1915–1985) emigrated to the United States in 1949, later settling in New York, and made close to 250 woodcuts, along with book covers and bookplates.

Vasyl Chebanyk (1933–2025) began studying the Ukrainian alphabet in 1971 and in 2001 launched the Rutenia project to restore older Ukrainian forms in a modern shape. Rutenia later grew to more than 60 fonts and won him the Shevchenko National Prize. One of them is on the cover of the ceremonial copy of Ukraine’s Constitution.

How Ukraine's state started dropping Russian fonts

Russia's full-scale invasion turned fonts into a state matter. On 29 September 2022, days after Russia's sham "referendums" in four occupied Ukrainian oblasts, Anna Yakupova, CEO of ParaType, the Russian studio whose Cyrillic versions of Petersburg and other fonts Ukraine's state institutions still use, congratulated colleagues in a chat that "our country got bigger," prompting a campaign to shun the fonts.

In August 2023, MPs from three factions registered bill 9606 to ban the Russian font Izhitsa from Verkhovna Rada documents and move parliament's honor certificates to Volja, a Ukrainian font made in 2022 by Marchela Mozhyna from the lettering of artist Nil Khasevych. A month later, the culture ministry announced plans for a bank of Ukrainian fonts to replace Russian ones.

In July 2026, the fight reached Ukraine's money. The National Bank of Ukraine said it would redraw the lettering on its new 2,000-hryvnia note featuring poet Vasyl Stus, after type designer Bohdan Hdal said the denomination lettering resembled an unofficial Cyrillic adaptation of Bickham Script made by a Russian designer. “No Russian shadows on a banknote with a poet whom Russia killed,” NBU Governor Andrii Pyshnyi said.

Some readers balk at the Z

Not everyone liked the name. Among the top comments under Stefanchuk’s post, readers objected that the Latin spelling starts with Z, the letter Russia painted on its vehicles for the full-scale invasion. Others welcomed the font itself.

Engagé depuis des années dans le sauvetage d’animaux à travers le monde, Jesse Adams a perdu la vie en Ukraine, dimanche 25 octobre, lors d’une mission d’évacuation de chiens et de chats. Le bénévole canadien a été...

By William Dunkerley | Ron Paul Institute | October 29, 2026

It’s been said that truth is the first casualty of war. What about the Ukraine war? I’ve followed the news closely, and have found ample evidence in headlines and storylines that the old adage holds true today. Too often the Ukraine news stories we see are misleading instead of informative.

For instance, in March 2014 CNN reported that Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution was “standing up on behalf of democracy.” A month earlier, The Week cited many pundits and policymakers also characterizing events as a victory for democracy. It was a clear and compelling news theme.

But what’s misleading about that? It creates an impression that is contrary to reality. The truth is that the immediate result of the revolution was an abrupt end to constitutional democracy, not a victory for democracy.

The uprising totally dismantled the constitutional democracy that Ukraine had operated under since its independence from the USSR in 1991. The sequence of events makes it clear. Out went the democratic constitution; in came rule by force under the unelected revolutionaries. That’s what Ukrainians were stuck with for months. The stories about a boost for democracy were completely misleading.

This is a good example of truth being a casualty of war. The news celebrated an advance of democracy while in reality democracy itself had been lost.

Media distortion like that is not unique to the Ukraine war. Here’s an example dating back to the Cold War.

The issue was Soviet missiles showing up in Cuba in 1962. Upon discovery, President Kennedy railed against their presence.

On national TV he demanded that en route Soviet ships presumed to be carrying still more missiles be turned around. And Khrushchev complied.

Still there was the issue of removing the missiles from Cuba. How did that turn out?

“We’re eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked,” reportedly said Secretary of State Dean Rusk. News reports characterized JFK as staring down the menacing Soviet leader and winning this round with the communists. The imagery seemed to play upon the title of Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage. It all was emblematic of the American Way. The story was almost poetic.

Indeed, this story seems so perfect that it is hard to believe it was actually a hoax. True, there were missiles. But here is a factual account of how that crisis really unfolded:

In late 1961 President Kennedy began placing nuclear missiles in Turkey, strategically close to the Soviet border. Full deployment was completed in 1962. It would take less than 15 minutes for the missiles to hit Moscow.

Then in July of that year Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev sealed a secret agreement with Cuba to deploy Soviet nuclear missiles there, just 90 miles from Florida. It would take them less than 15 minutes to hit Washington DC.

What ended this standoff was something far less poetic than the Kennedyesque example I cited earlier. Khrushchev proposed a quid pro quo: He would remove his missiles from Cuba if Kennedy would remove his from Turkey. Kennedy privately agreed. But he insisted on a significant proviso: the quid pro quo must be kept secret. Khrushchev conceded and Kennedy’s fanciful story of standing tall in the face of a threatening adversary prevailed.

The Cuban missile story thus joins the Ukraine democracy story as another example of truth being a casualty of war.

Now consider this next example from back in Ukraine.

“Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych” reported the Kyiv Post on February 23, 2014. A day earlier the New York Times claimed, “Ukraine’s Parliament voted to remove President Viktor F. Yanukovych from office hours after he abandoned his office.”

Both reports further demonstrate how truth becomes a casualty of war. Neither accurately portrays what really happened.

Radio Liberty was quick to set things straight. In a report titled “Was Yanukovych’s Ouster Constitutional?” staffer Daisy Sindelar presented an in-depth analysis showing that parliamentarians tried to remove Yanukovych from the presidency but failed to achieve a sufficient vote.

She also pointed out that Yanukovych’s alleged abandonment of the presidency was not even a possible basis for declaring the office vacant. Radio Liberty’s corrections are backed up by Constitutional Coup in Ukraine in 2014, a thorough academic study published under the auspices of the Polish Parliament.

Clearly all the examples cited above represent fabricated stories masquerading as the truth. But the news stories are also examples of something much more insidious: the collective impact that a persistent manufactured narrative can have on a given public.

They paint a picture, a vivid narrative, that shapes the cultural schema through which people understand and interpret future events.

This can be seen in how the media have portrayed the fates of Crimea and Donbas. At issue is the question: Did the revolutionary government automatically inherit all the territorial authority of the constitutional democracy they had overthrown?

Crimea, for example, has been a significant stumbling block in discussions of a peaceful settlement of the war. In March 2014 Secretary of State John Kerry told CNN, “Crimea is part of Ukraine. Crimea is Ukraine.” But how is that true? What made Crimea part of revolutionary Ukraine?

Before the revolution, Crimea’s place within Ukraine was established by the democratic constitution. But the revolutionaries abandoned that constitution and claimed authority through force. Their rule by force never extended into Crimea. What, then, was the basis for their claim to Crimea? There was none that holds up to scrutiny. Even the eventual election of Poroshenko as president did not undo the constitutional destruction caused by the revolutionaries.

Why didn’t CNN challenge Kerry’s story? The assumption behind his statement illustrates how an ongoing series of fabricated stories can predispose us to interpret each new story in a particular way. If one can believe that a takeover by force is an advancement of democracy, why question an unsupported claim regarding Crimea? This shows that a lack of scrutiny can lead to creating or reinforcing a cultural schema that impedes our understanding of what is really happening.

The same principle applies to Donbas, but the words are different. Here Ukraine news stories portrayed the situation as “Russia invading Donbas.” But the facts show that notion to be a sensationalized misdirection from the truth.

The actual story can be understood by asking this question: What made Donbas, meaning the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk, a part of revolutionary Ukraine?

The logic that clarified the status of Crimea applies here too. Donetsk and Luhansk were not part of revolutionary Ukraine for the same reason. Additionally, their populations actively rejected revolutionary rule. They fought against it when the revolutionaries attacked them. If there were, as reports claimed, Russian volunteers, mercenaries, or regulars helping the population defend their territories, it does not alter the basic scenario.

Calling the territories breakaway regions is a misnomer, as is calling the people separatists. It is not possible to break away or separate from something to which one was not attached in the first place. The Russia invades Donbas story is just sensationalistic fabrication.

What’s worse is that this obscures what really happened there. February 2022 is often cited as the start of the Ukraine war. The facts tell a different story. The hostilities in Donbas beginning in 2014 marked the actual start of the Ukraine war, years before the massive escalation in 2022. Reports say that this Donbas phase of the conflict claimed over 14,000 lives and displaced roughly 1.5 million people.

“Truth is the first casualty of war?” Once again we see that axiom is borne out. The mainstream story about Donbas leaves out the critical parts of the truth. But who will notice that? The facts are obscured from view by the now well-established, yet fundamentally misleading cultural schema.

The false claim of a democratic revolution. The lie about how Yanukovych was dismissed. The false and misleading narratives about the status of Crimea and Donbas. These and other stories have given the American public and our leaders a politically contorted view of the entire Ukraine war dilemma.

These narratives — and the false cultural schema they help create — can also lead people to draw unwarranted conclusions about the reasons behind political leaders’ decisions. As peace-treaty talks approach, there is a danger that proposals and decisions about ending the war might be built on a house of cards — that is, the series of misleading Ukraine news stories and the dysfunctional cultural schema that they helped to create. Together they distort perceptions of how the war began and what is at stake. If negotiators fail to break free of that schema, any resulting peace could prove unsustainable for Ukrainians and their country. What a waste that would be. Haven’t the Ukrainian people suffered enough?

Tankers, tracked by Greenpeace, are first phase of Trump-Putin deal – but there is uncertainty over whether they will unload

Seven oil tankers carrying an estimated 288,000 tonnes of Russian diesel are now sailing towards the US, though it is uncertain if the vessels will be able to unload amid a political row about the legality of the shipments.

The transport, tracked by the pressure group Greenpeace, is the first phase of a contentious supply deal negotiated between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin earlier this month, reversing years of sanctions on Russia oil.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

Tankers, tracked by Greenpeace, are first phase of Trump-Putin deal – but there is uncertainty over whether they will unload

Seven oil tankers carrying an estimated 288,000 tonnes of Russian diesel are now sailing towards the US, though it is uncertain if the vessels will be able to unload amid a political row about the legality of the shipments.

The transport, tracked by the pressure group Greenpeace, is the first phase of a contentious supply deal negotiated between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin earlier this month, reversing years of sanctions on Russia oil.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

© Photograph: Martin Witte/Alamy

Moscow has indicated that European governments will not participate in the next round of negotiations over the war in Ukraine, despite their central role in financing Kyiv, supplying military assistance and shaping the continent’s security arrangements. The Kremlin’s position raises questions about whether any agreement negotiated principally by Washington, Moscow and Kyiv could be implemented without substantial European involvement.

Russia has ruled out European participation in the next round of trilateral talks with Ukraine and the United States, while suggesting that the negotiations could be delayed by developments on the battlefield and the continuing conflict in the Middle East.

Yuri Ushakov, foreign policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said on 29 October that Moscow had not agreed to a specific date for further consultations and that European representatives were not being considered for inclusion.

Ushakov maintained that preparations concerned representatives of Russia, Ukraine and the United States.

His remarks followed statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky indicating that the next round could take place in Abu Dhabi between 6 and 10 November.

The Kremlin has not confirmed those dates.

The disagreement comes as European governments seek a more substantial role in diplomatic efforts concerning a conflict whose eventual settlement would have direct consequences for their security, defence expenditure and relations with Russia.

Moscow Sets Its Conditions

Ushakov’s position was particularly explicit when discussing European participation.

Speaking to Russian media on 28 October, he suggested that European representatives were free to travel to the proposed venue but would not be invited to join the negotiations.

His remarks were subsequently reinforced by a statement that European involvement was not under consideration.

The Kremlin adviser also linked the timing of the next meeting to developments in the Middle East, where the US-Israeli conflict with Iran has complicated Washington’s diplomatic and military priorities.

Ushakov said that conditions on the Ukrainian battlefield would also influence when negotiations could resume.

These explanations give Moscow considerable latitude over the timetable while leaving uncertainty about the practical arrangements for the next meeting.

They do not, however, establish that Washington and Kyiv have accepted Russia’s preferred arrangements for every subsequent stage of negotiations.

Technical consultations between three parties and broader discussions over a European security settlement are not necessarily the same diplomatic process.

Europe Wants a Place at the Table

The Russian position contrasts with statements from the leaders of Britain, France and Germany, who have maintained that European governments must participate in discussions concerning Ukraine’s future security.

Their argument rests partly on the responsibilities that European countries would be expected to assume after any agreement.

European states have provided substantial financial, military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

They have also introduced successive sanctions against Russia, expanded defence expenditure and debated arrangements for security guarantees intended to discourage renewed hostilities.

Any settlement that required changes to European sanctions, military deployments or financial assistance would therefore depend on decisions taken by European governments and institutions.

Neither Moscow nor Washington could independently commit the European Union to lifting sanctions or authorise European states to deploy forces.

This distinction limits the practical significance of excluding European officials from a negotiating session.

An agreement could be discussed without European participation, but implementing provisions that require European action would demand further negotiations.

The Donbas Question Remains Unresolved

The principal obstacle continues to concern territory and the conditions under which military operations would end.

Russia has maintained its demand that Ukraine relinquish territory in the eastern Donbas region, including areas remaining under Ukrainian control.

Kyiv has rejected the surrender of territory as a precondition for ending the war.

The proposed negotiations are consequently expected to concentrate on technical issues where limited agreements may be more achievable.

These include possible arrangements concerning energy infrastructure, maritime security, the exchange of prisoners and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory.

Such measures could produce humanitarian or economic benefits without resolving the central territorial dispute.

However, their implementation would require monitoring arrangements and sufficient confidence that the parties would honour their commitments.

The temporary humanitarian ceasefire around Oleshky, in the Kherson region, offers a narrowly defined example of cooperation between Russian and Ukrainian representatives.

It does not demonstrate that a broader political agreement is within reach.

The American Role

Washington remains the principal external mediator in the current negotiating format.

That position reflects American diplomatic influence and its capacity to engage directly with both Moscow and Kyiv.

However, the United States is simultaneously managing military commitments in the Middle East and domestic political pressures ahead of the 3 November congressional elections.

These competing priorities may affect the pace of diplomatic engagement.

For Russia, a negotiating framework centred on Washington offers the possibility of addressing wider bilateral issues alongside the conflict in Ukraine.

For Ukraine, American participation remains important because US decisions concerning military assistance and security commitments could influence the durability of any settlement.

Europe’s position is more complicated. Its governments possess substantial economic leverage, but their influence over the negotiating agenda depends on coordination with Washington and Kyiv.

Negotiating Without Europe Has Practical Limits

The immediate dispute concerns who participates in the next round of talks.

The longer-term question is which parties would be responsible for implementing a settlement.

A ceasefire might initially involve arrangements agreed by military and diplomatic representatives of Russia and Ukraine, supported by the United States.

A more comprehensive agreement could involve sanctions, reconstruction finance, security guarantees, troop deployments and Ukraine’s future relationship with European institutions.

Those issues cannot be settled on behalf of European governments without their consent.

Moscow’s attempt to restrict participation may therefore succeed at the level of an initial negotiating format while proving more difficult to sustain during discussions about implementation.

For the moment, neither the date nor the outcome of the proposed Abu Dhabi meeting is certain.

What has become clearer is the divergence between Russia’s preferred negotiating structure and Europe’s determination to influence the security arrangements that would follow the war.

• Russian strikes hit targets in the Sumy, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson, Vinnytsia, Volyn, Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Poltava, Rivne, Cherkasy, Chernihiv regions, and the DPR;
• According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russian forces attacked Ukraine with 112 strike UAVs;
• Russian forces struck a dry cargo ship in the port of Odesa;
• Russian forces struck industrial enterprises in Kharkiv;
• Russian forces struck industrial enterprises in Dnipropetrovsk;
• Russian forces struck targets in Sumy.

---

• Russian forces advanced near Raiskoye;
• Fighting is ongoing in Druzhkovskoye.

---

• Russian forces advanced northwest of Sergeyevka toward Shilovka;
• Russian forces advanced in the area of Nadiya and Novofedorovka.

---

• During the past night, Russian air defenses destroyed 1,214 Ukrainian drones in the rear regions;
• Russian air defenses intercepted UAVs in the Bryansk, Belgorod, Kursk, Kaluga, Tula, Smolensk, Lipetsk, Voronezh, Tver, Oryol, Ryazan, Vladimir, Samara, Saratov, Penza, and Rostov regions, in the Moscow region, in Bashkortostan, and in Udmurtia;
• Ukrainian drones reportedly attacked Bashkir Soda Company in Bashkortostan;
• Ukrainian drones reportedly attacked Marino military airfield in the Volgograd region;
• Ukrainian forces attacked the Kursk region with 153 drones. 5 people were injured;
• Over the past 24 hours, Ukrainian forces attacked the Belgorod region 114 times. One civilian was killed, and 7 were injured.

---

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• Ukraine Forced Into Concessions Ahead Of Putin, Trump And Xi Summit
• Russian Army Advances Towards Konka River in Zaporozhye
• Russia and Ukraine Exchange Strikes: Railway Infrastructure, Energy, Metallurgy, and Chemical Industry Targets Hit

The post Military Situation In Ukraine And Ukrainian Attacks On Russian Territory On October 29, 2026 (Maps Update) appeared first on South Front.

In a key indication of improving ties between Poland and Ukraine, Warsaw has reportedly agreed to provide two additional MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters, badly needed 20x102mm rounds for Ukrainian Air Force F-16s and artillery shells. Relations between the two countries soured this summer over a political spat between their respective leaders, however they appear to be restoring once-close ties.

The aircraft transfer will occur “in the near future,” Lt. Gen. Dariusz Łukowski, director of the Strategy and Defense Planning Department at the Polish Ministry of National Defense, told the Polish Rzeczpospolita (Rz) media outlet. “The decision has been made, and two MiG-29s will be handed over.”

Of the two Fulcrums, one has reached the end of its service life and may be used for parts while the other is still flying, Rz added. Deputy National Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski confirmed the MiG-29 agreement to another Polish media outlet, TVP Info.

“There is an agreement regarding the transfer of two MiG-29s to Ukraine,” Zalewski said. “As regards the remaining MiGs, the matter is ongoing.”

Poland had 14 MiG-29 aircraft as of December 2025, of which six to eight were nearing the end of their service life, a Polish official said at the time. It is unclear how many are still on hand.

In addition to the jets, Rz reported that “Poland will provide Ukraine with, among other things, a supply of 155mm and 152mm artillery ammunition; 20x102mm combat rounds for the six-barreled cannons on F-16 fighter jets—used, for instance, to shoot down Russian unmanned aerial vehicles—as well as missiles for the Piorun short-range anti-aircraft systems.”

Additional MiG-29s are always welcome, as they remain the backbone of Ukraine’s fighter force even though the country has received donations of more modern F-16 Vipers and French Mirage 2000 fighters. Meanwhile, the 20mm cannon ammunition is critically needed. 

As we have previously reported, Ukraine is struggling to maintain adequate stocks of air-to-air missiles for its fighters. AIM-9 Sidewinders and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) have been heavily used against Russian cruise missiles and drones.

As a result, Ukrainian F-16 pilots have reportedly had to ration their missile shots. This has forced them to increasingly rely on their internal 20mm cannon when suitable missiles are not available. Such a tactic is far from an ideal substitute, as you can read about here. Still, Kyiv has reportedly been seeking tens of thousands of additional rounds of 20mm ammunition.

So far, there has been no official Ukrainian response. We reached out to Zelensky’s spokesman and Polish officials for comment.

Reports about the planned Polish weapons transfers to Ukraine mark a turning point in relations between Warsaw and Kyiv, as we noted at the top of the story.

For much of this conflict, Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest allies, serving as a logistics hub and providing military assistance. Warsaw’s initial donation of MiG-29s opened the door for the transfer of dozens of others from several NATO nations. That was followed by the eventual provision of the aforementioned Vipers and Mirages. In addition, Sweden has agreed to provide 16 Gripen C/D fighters, with the first aircraft expected in early 2027, while a separate agreement covers the purchase of 16 new Gripen E fighters whose deliveries are not scheduled to begin until early 2029.

Relations between the two countries reached a nadir in June after Polish President Karol Nawrocki stripped Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of the Order of the White Eagle. It is Warsaw’s top award and was presented to Zelensky in 2023. That escalated a row between the allies over the memory of WWII. 

“Zelensky had infuriated Warsaw this month by naming a military unit after an insurgent army that took part in massacres against Poles in WWII,” AFP reported at the time.

After the stripping of the award, the rift grew more bitter, with Poland claiming Ukraine would not transfer drone technology needed to defend against Russian threats. The political kerfuffle culminated with Poland canceling the transfer of additional MiG-29s to Ukraine.

Relations between the two nations began to thaw earlier this month.

The first sign was Zelensky’s resuming use of Polish airports as a jumping-off point for overseas trips. Ukrainian officials have to travel by train to another country if they want to fly because airspace over Ukraine has been closed to non-military aircraft since the start of the all-out war.

After the medal incident, Zelensky opted to use airports in Moldova and Romania. However, on Oct. 14, the Ukrainian leader once again traveled to Rzeszów Airport in Poland.

Days later, Zelensky told reporters that stopping at Rzeszów was a signal that his relations with Poland were on the upswing.

“Our relations with Poland have indeed improved,” he said. “I’m very grateful for this to both Poland and our teams, and I’m grateful to the Prime Minister [Donald Tusk]. I’m grateful to the people of Poland for supporting Ukraine. It’s very important for us to be together right now. There is only one enemy – Russia, which is deeply concerned about a strong alliance between Ukraine and Poland.”

“Even very difficult things, we’ll resolve them, I’m sure of it,” the Ukrainian leader added. “These will be mutually beneficial relations, out of respect, because of the importance of security in Europe.”

Though Polish officials are telling media outlets that deals are in place, there is still a lot that can go sideways before the aircraft and ammunition are in Ukrainian hands. Still, for Kyiv, even suggestions of a future transfer are better than having deals being called off.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Polish MiG-29s, F-16 Cannon Ammo Reportedly Headed To Ukraine As Bitter Warsaw-Kyiv Rift Heals appeared first on TWZ.

Ukraine’s humanitarian mission to Russian-occupied Oleshky in Kherson Oblast has reached a key stage, with mine clearance along designated routes completed and a humanitarian convoy ready to depart, Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets said on 29 October.

The mission aims to deliver humanitarian aid to civilians trapped in the occupied city facing humanitarian crisis, and provide a safe way out for those who want to leave. The operation is taking place under a localized ceasefire coordinated with the help of US First Lady Melania Trump.

Lubinets said the ceasefire has held for 54 hours without reported violations.

Aid convoy prepared, civilian evacuations planned

Lubinets said the humanitarian convoy was ready to leave and was expected to reach Oleshky’s central hospital. Residents would receive the assistance they need, he said.

Civilians wishing to leave the city would have an opportunity to do so until 2 p.m. local time, with security measures organized for their departure. Distribution of humanitarian aid was scheduled to begin after 2:30 p.m.

Delegations from Ukraine, Russia, and the United States had gathered to coordinate the next steps in the mission. Journalists from all three countries were also present, Lubinets said.

Lubinets travels to occupied Oleshky

Earlier on 29 October, Lubinets said he was still traveling toward Oleshky.

He said he wanted to be on the ground to see the situation firsthand and report on the mission’s progress. Lubinets also asked the public to rely on official sources and wait until he returned before raising further questions about the negotiations.

The Ukrainian ombudsman said the negotiations had been difficult and lengthy, adding that the mission had reached only the halfway point toward its goals.

“If I had to go for the sake of one person, I would go again,” Lubinets said, describing the mission as his duty to help Ukrainians in need.

US-mediated ceasefire enables humanitarian operation

The mission is being conducted jointly by Lubinets and Russian human rights commissioner Yana Lantratova, with mediation and coordination by Melania Trump.

The localized ceasefire took effect on 27 October to allow mine clearance, humanitarian deliveries, and civilian evacuations. 

Oleshky, on the east bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast, has been under Russian occupation since 2022. Russian occupation and restrictions on access to the city have left civilians facing severe shortages of food, medicine, and other essential supplies, while access to medical care has become increasingly difficult. The humanitarian mission aims to deliver urgently needed aid and help residents who want to leave reach safety.

Lubinets thanked Melania Trump and the Ukrainians and US citizens who helped bring attention to the situation in Oleshky and support the negotiations. He said the mission’s priority remained delivering assistance and helping civilians leave safely.

Moscow's consent to a temporary ceasefire in Russian-occupied Oleshky seems like a long-overdue and welcome concession from a country that has repeatedly rejected or violated ceasefire proposals during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

So why is the Kremlin so on board with Oleshky? Experts, as well as information

"Moscow has mined the United Nations," Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi wrote on X on Oct. 29, criticizing the decision.