Recent media coverage showing hundreds of Ukrainians evacuating Russia-occupied Oleshky in southern Ukraine was profoundly moving. Thanks to a rare ceasefire agreement covering the city and the surrounding area, families were reunited and civilians who had spent years under violent occupation amid desperate conditions were finally able to cross back into Ukrainian-controlled territory.
The Oleshky ceasefire saved lives and was a very welcome development. But with so many more Ukrainian lives at stake, we must be careful about what we conclude. A humanitarian pause can save lives, but it can also create dangers if we mistake it for evidence of a more fundamental change in Moscow’s position. We must not allow the optics of a limited evacuation to obscure the bigger picture of Russia’s ongoing invasion and the threat posed to millions of Ukrainian civilians.
Stay updated
As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.
The first danger is celebrating the successful evacuation of Oleshky while forgetting what made it necessary. “We wanted Ukraine to come to Oleshky, not Oleshky to come to Ukraine,” commented one rescued resident. This point is worth underlining. The Ukrainians who left Oleshky last week did not want to abandon their homes, but were driven from their communities by rapidly deteriorating conditions due to Russia’s harsh occupation.
Oleshky is not simply a point on a map. The nearby forests, steppe, wetlands, and vast dunes shape a distinctive community that is part of Ukraine’s indelible cultural heritage. Renowned local artist Polina Rayko drew inspiration from that world, covering her home in Oleshky with images of birds, flowers, angels, and animals. The 2023 destruction of the nearby Kakhovka dam by Russian forces destroyed Rayko’s iconic cottage. Escalating Russian military attacks and extensive mining then made daily life increasingly dangerous, trapping Oleshky residents who could not safely leave until last week’s humanitarian ceasefire.
Approximately 24,000 people lived in Oleshky before Russia’s full-scale invasion, but the population had fallen to less than 2,000 by the time of the recent evacuation. This pattern extends across the Ukrainian territories Russia has occupied since seizing Crimea in 2014. Ukrainians are displaced, property and institutions are taken over, and Russian citizens are brought into communities emptied of their residents.
A Ukrainian settlement can be depopulated and made to look as though it was never Ukrainian at all. Displaced Ukrainians may seek to return, while Russian citizens who move into occupied areas become entangled in a struggle over their future. This is a ticking time bomb for conflict. The fate of Oleshky offers a glimpse of what Russian occupation means for millions of Ukrainian civilians. It changes who can live freely in a territory, what history can be taught, which language can be spoken, whose property is recognized, and whether the people who gave a community its meaning can remain.
Eurasia Center events
The second danger is allowing humanitarian optics to obscure responsibility for the crisis. Last weekend’s images were striking, with Ukrainian and Russian officials standing together and thanking one another. The Ukrainian side participated in this diplomatic theater for one reason: It gave them a chance to bring their people to safety.
Yet this does not mean they believed in the performance. The humanitarian outcome was real. The humanitarianism of the Russian state is a different question. That distinction was especially stark because Russia’s representative in the operation, ombudswoman Yana Lantratova, has been accused by Ukrainian authorities of facilitating the forcible transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia.
Language can also obscure responsibility. Media portrayals of Ukrainians civilians “caught in the crossfire” can cast doubt over who created the conditions in which they were trapped. If Russia emerges from this local ceasefire looking like a cooperative humanitarian partner, international actors may become less attentive to the need for independent monitoring and accountability after the cameras leave.
The third danger is assuming that because the Kremlin agreed to a temporary ceasefire in one location, Russia is willing to ease attacks on civilian populations across Ukraine. The Oleshky ceasefire was localized. Even as it was underway, Russian forces continued to target civilians across Ukraine. The day after the ceasefire ended, Russia bombed a school serving as a humanitarian aid point in southern Zaporizhzhia, killing dozens. Whatever humanitarian value the Oleshky ceasefire had for those who escaped, we have no evidence of Russia’s broader desire to stop attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
Humanitarian pauses require scrutiny because parties may have very different incentives. Staged images of cooperation cannot be the measure of success. The people of Oleshky deserved the chance to leave, to see their families again, and to bring their pets to safety. Each reunion should be celebrated. At the same time, we should not mistake these brief moments of humanity for evidence that the Russian system responsible for so much suffering has changed.
The Oleshky ceasefire was an unprecedented event that attracted the attention of the international media. But beyond the headlines, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population have continued. Meanwhile, millions of Ukrainians remain exposed to the daily horrors of Russian occupation.
Last week’s localized ceasefire was a rare humanitarian success story that demonstrated what can be achieved when Moscow chooses to cooperate. But this must not distract from Russia’s refusal to stop targeting Ukrainian civilians or to bring its criminal invasion to an end.
Kristina Hook is assistant professor of conflict management at Kennesaw State University and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.
Further reading
The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.
The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values, and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia, and Central Asia in the East.
Follow us on social media
and support our work
Image: A man and a woman wrapped in Ukrainian flags hold a cat during a welcome ceremony for Ukrainian citizens evacuated from the temporarily Russian-occupied city of Oleshky in the Kherson region, Ukraine, on October 31, 2026. Agreements for the humanitarian mission were officially confirmed on October 23. International humanitarian mediation was provided by U.S. First Lady Melania Trump and her team. The agreements were confirmed by Ukraine's Human Rights Commissioner Dmytro Lubinets and Russia's Human Rights Commissioner Yana Lantratova, who led the Ukrainian and Russian negotiating teams, respectively. The mission includes a ceasefire, mine clearance along transport routes to Oleshky, the delivery of humanitarian aid, and the evacuation of civilians to either Ukrainian government-controlled territory or the Russian Federation. Ukraine and Russia agreed to observe a ceasefire in the area around occupied Oleshky from October 27 until 10:59 p.m. on November 1. (Photo by Danylo Antoniuk/Ukrinform/NurPhoto)