As a local ceasefire began around Russian-occupied Oleshky, Kyiv endured two waves of ballistic missiles, and from where I was in the capital, the explosions were incredibly loud.
Although the precise missile types used have not been confirmed in the reporting available at the time of writing, the bombardment followed Monday evening’s strikes on university grounds, residential buildings and the area around a metro station.
Responding to those earlier strikes, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: “Russia is showing nothing but a desire to kill and continue waging war.” It was a sobering backdrop to a humanitarian agreement that desperately needs to succeed.
For once, I am honestly unsure how this will work; obviously, I want it to succeed, but there are substantial reasons to remain cautious.
The local pause began at 3 am Kyiv time on 27 October, ahead of a humanitarian operation expected later this week. The White House’s original announcement identified 29th October as the starting date. Crucially, this is a geographically limited arrangement, not a nationwide ceasefire; attacks elsewhere don’t automatically breach its terms, but they hardly build confidence.
Read more related news:
‘Russian ships are being sunk’: Ukraine says Moscow’s Black Sea fleet has stayed out of open waters for five months
‘Root causes’: Putin reaches for the same old excuse to demand more from NATO
‘Take care of this problem’: Kremlin demands Trump has Zelensky assassinated
Thousands of NATO troops descend to Russian border in Latvia for the largest brigade deployment
Oleshky lies on the occupied eastern bank of the Dnipro, opposite Ukrainian-controlled Kherson. Captured during the opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, it suffered further devastation when the Kakhovka dam was destroyed in June 2023, flooding much of Oleshky, submerging homes and contaminating land and water across southern Ukraine. The disaster unleashed an environmental catastrophe on a historic scale, described by Ukrainian authorities as an ecocide, with Ukraine accusing Russian forces, who controlled the dam, of blowing it up to obstruct Ukrainian advances.
The White House estimates that between 1,700 and 2,000 residents remain from a prewar population of approximately 24,000, many of whom are elderly, with food, medicine and clean water desperately needed, while mines and dangerous roads additionally complicate the rescue, the proposed operation also delivering assistance and voluntary evacuations.
Much of the practical answers of who guarantees the route, who monitors compliance, and what happens if firing resumes remains elusive, while people too frail to walk, needing transport and medical support, must be able to choose their destination freely.
Russia’s record makes those questions unavoidable, with Mariupol obviously springing to mind.
In October 2025, the United Nations explicitly attributed an attack on a clearly marked humanitarian convoy in Bilozerka, Kherson region, to Russian forces. Its account described artillery fire followed by drones targeting two World Food Programme trucks during unloading, Humanitarian markings not protecting them.
Mariupol, my home, and where I fought for 7 weeks during the early days of the Russian invasion, defending that city in 2022 as civilians desperately sought a way out, then, announced corridors repeatedly failed while on the 6th March, the International Committee of the Red Cross said a second evacuation attempt had halted after hostilities resumed. Ukrainian authorities accused Russian forces of shelling an agreed route, and at that point, had complete air dominance and had practically encircled the city.
That history explains my caution, I’ve been down this road, literally.
There is also an uncomfortable dispute over political credit floating around online. The White House presented Melania Trump as instrumental in securing the Oleshky agreement, emphasising “single handedly”, when Vatican records establish that Pope Leo XIV called Putin on 16 October, seeking humanitarian access and safe, voluntary evacuation, Cardinal Pietro Parolin explicitly crediting the Pope with taking the initiative.
Critics have accused the First Lady of appropriating credit, with the Pope’s earlier intervention well documented, while Ukraine’s ombudsman has also publicly thanked Melania and her team, the available evidence supporting both contributions, rather than declaring one person solely responsible.
Previously announced prisoner-exchange promises demand similar scrutiny. On 8th May 2026, Trump announced a ceasefire accompanied by a 1,000-for-1,000 exchange on Truth Social, eagerly taking ownership.
Ukraine subsequently accused Russia of delaying implementation, although releases later took place in stages, allegedly under that arrangement, those returns must be measured against the full commitment. Several months after the announcement, families are still awaiting loved ones and deserve clear accounting of what was promised, what has been delivered and when those still held will finally come home.
As a former prisoner, I know those announcements carry enormous emotional weight.
Will Oleshky’s operation happen safely? I sincerely hope so, but success must mean aid reaching homes and civilians reaching destinations they freely choose.
Until that happens, caution is surely justified.
The people trapped there need protection that survives beyond announcements, and political point scoring.
Let’s see who takes ownership of it should it go disastrously wrong, I’m not sure we will see the same level of eagerness from The White House.
Leave a Comment