Don’t believe Russian propaganda about Oleshky’s evacuation

Before Russian television cameras arrived in Oleshky, the occupation authorities had cleared the streets of corpses and trash. Residents told volunteers the curbs were painted for cameras. Before allegedly filming itself saving Oleshky, Russia first had to hide what life had become under his rule.

Across 400 Russian TV segments and Telegram messages from October 20 to November 2, the storyline barely changed. The crisis was a “man-made humanitarian disaster“made by kyiv, whose drones had mined the roads and blocked the city; the ceasefire was Russia refusing to let Zelensky take the stage”a second Bucha. Russia was the savior: engineers, doctors, 25 buses with at least 750 placesA separate bus for animalsand mediator Yana Lantratova works “24 hours a day”. The city wasthe Russian colony of Aleshki” in the Kremlin’s own display and anyone who spelled it with a Ukrainian “O” was copy “the Ukrops.”

Even the exit route, via Russia and Belarus, was presented as proof of the residents’ true identities: One pro-war channel asked whether evacuation through Russian-controlled territory made the civilians Russian.

What did not come out of the discussion is that Olechky has been under Russian control since February 2022. Before the invasion, approximately 24,000 people lived there; by fall, about 2,000 remained, mostly elderly people and those who care for them.

Russian media blamed the hunger on Ukraine. Matthias Schmale, UN humanitarian coordinator identified another obstacle: Ukraine had asked the UN to provide aid because Moscow had not ensured safe access to the area for humanitarian organizations. Russian sources themselves let it slip that the food had not been delivered”since May» and that the last medical evacuation it was in June.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian drones have been drop food in the city since March, around four tonnes in total. Russian soldiers shot down the drones, confiscated the packages and arrested the recipients as collaborators. Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power must ensure food and medical supplies for civilians under its control. This obligation appears only as a weakness exploited by kyiv: pro-Russian Belarusian analyst Yuriy Baranchik, recalled that the Council of Europe had held Russia responsible, seeing it as an image problem for Moscow rather than a duty.

What Russian television presented as a model operation was different from inside the city. Volunteers from Kryla, a Kherson-based charity whose founders are themselves from Oleshky, were collecting information on potential evacuees for the Ukrainian ombudsman’s office a few days before the convoy. They reported that occupation officials at the hospital persuaded those who showed up to register to be evacuated to Russia and told others not to register at all. Evacuees would undergo filtration; they would be taken “who knows where”, so they would be better off collecting food parcels and staying at home. Russian jamming cut off the only mobile signal from Kherson, which can usually be received across the river, so relatives were unable to obtain accurate information. The lists of bedridden residents, compiled for the Ukrainian side only, prompted phone calls from Russian officials asking for addresses, leaving people scared and confused about how Russia had their numbers.

The same morning, almost none immobile residents were picked up from their homes. Some families with children stayed because they were afraid of the organized itinerary; Kryla knows at least six of these children. The head of the military administration of Oleshky said people left thinking maybe it was a “one way ticket”. An evacuation doesn’t offer much of a choice when people can barely know what’s happening, let alone get there safely.

Russian commentators saw the danger coming. “The most unpleasant detail” wrote Baranchik, on October 24, “is the right of residents to leave for the Ukrainian side… The results will be interpreted precisely as an indicator of the attitude of the population.” Sergei Markov hoped “ours are ready” for the “political information struggle to know where the residents are going”.

This was not the case. Moscow has not published any figures on the number of evacuees who left for Russia and Baranchik himself request why there was no official information for two days. Ukrainian mediator Dmytro Lubinets said Russia has acknowledged that around 80% of those evacuated chose Ukraine.

Russian media coverage solved this problem by changing the question. More people remained in the almost destroyed city than left it, so the number that counted, Alexander Kots insistedwas the one that “no one names. Thus, remaining under occupation became a loyalty. Those who chose Ukraine were people waiting for Kyiv to save the situation, or for benefit seekers with “almost no children» among them.

Andrei Medvedev, state television journalist and Moscow city deputy, called the “population exchange” operation which left the left bank without “any Ukrainian patriot” and with “a ready-made demarcation line”. A destination chosen during a humanitarian emergency is not a referendum on sovereignty. According to Moscow, occupation becomes protection, the inability to leave becomes loyalty, and choosing Ukraine becomes betrayal of Moscow. Whatever civilians do, their actions are reinterpreted to serve Russia’s territorial claims.

The evacuation saved lives. During the same ceasefire, a Russian drone struck the main train station in Dnipro, killing at least 14 people. The humanitarianism that US envoy Steve Witkoff had recently discovered in President Vladimir Putin came with a flexible definition and strict geographic boundaries. During the break, according to the Ukrainian General Staff and the maritime brigade Across the river, Russia rotated isolated troops at Oleshky, recaptured abandoned positions, repaired artillery, and brought in more fuel for its positions. Images from Sky News showed soldiers taking away boxes of food intended for civilians. Nine hours after the truce expired, a Russian drone hit a hospital in Kherson.

Lantratova now propose monthly missions and separatist leader Oleg Tsarev greeted Oleshky as “a rehearsal for peace”. The rehearsal showed what Russia finds most unpleasant about peace: the freedom of Ukrainians to choose their destiny.