Ukrainians turn Oskil river into trap for Russians in Kupiansk: out of 10 soldiers, 7 are eliminated

[Starmix]

According to the report, the invader's artillery tries to paralyze movement across bridges, says Yurii Fedorenko, commander of the 429th Separate Unmanned Systems Regiment Achilles. In September, the Russian Ministry of Defense publicly confirmed its plans to expand military operations deeper into Kharkiv Oblast following any potential capture of Kupiansk. It also claimed the seizure will support Russian efforts to advance toward Sloviansk and Kramatorsk and seize Ukraine's fortress belt in Donetsk Oblast. In this area, the Russians have explicit orders to kill men and use children, the elderly, and women as human shields. The presence of civilian populations in the Kupiansk city itself makes the execution of combat tasks by the Ukrainian Defense Forces extremely difficult.

The report also stated that Ukrainian drones and counter-battery units are effectively hunting down Russian guns, preventing them from holding steady firing positions. Another challenge is the attempts of Russian saboteurs to infiltrate the northern outskirts of the city. After Ukrainian forces destroyed the gas pipeline used by Russian troops to sneak under Kupiansk, the enemy changed tactics. They’ve chosen areas along the Oskil River that are the most overgrown — swampy terrain and places where vegetation comes closest to the water, Fedorenko noted. But for now, Kyiv troops are effectively destroying Russian forces in transit.

This means that the Russian troops cannot easily defeat the Ukrainian troops. How much more in the US, Tomahawk arrives in Ukraine to attack Russia.

 

[gwolf666]

I find these reports deeply worrying but also revealing of how modern warfare now centers on logistics and countermeasures rather than just frontline clashes. Targeting bridges and supply lines aims to strangle mobility and civilian life, which raises serious humanitarian alarms. Ukrainian forces appear to be responding effectively with drones and counter‑battery tactics, showing how asymmetric tools can neutralize heavier artillery. The use of terrain, like swampy riverbanks, illustrates adaptive thinking by attackers, yet defending troops who know the area hold an advantage. Mentioning external weapons escalates the political stakes and risks wider confrontation; introducing long range systems would change the calculus but also the diplomatic consequences. My view is that protecting civilians and preserving supply routes must be the priority, alongside efforts to pressure for de‑escalation. Military success should not eclipse international efforts to limit harm and seek negotiated solutions that prevent further suffering. We must support diplomacy now.