Starvation and Landmines Trap Civilians in Russian-Occupied Oleshky as Residents Turn to Weeds to Survive

In the Russian-occupied southern Ukrainian town of Oleshky, a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding that residents and international officials describe as a deliberate strategy of attrition against civilians. The town, located in the Kherson region, has been under occupation for more than four years, and its remaining population of roughly 2,000 people has endured two and a half years without electricity, running water, natural gas, or access to healthcare. Food supplies have dwindled to the point where residents are reportedly eating weeds to stay alive, while those who attempt to reach the nearest functioning grocery store risk death from landmines and drone strikes.

The human cost of this isolation is starkly illustrated by the story of Vera Gulyaeva, a 64-year-old retired schoolteacher whose husband, Serhiy Gulyaev, was killed in March when a Russian drone struck a bread line in the town. The 63-year-old retired driver suffered severe cranial wounds in the attack, which also killed several other people. Gulyaeva’s first attempt to get her husband to a hospital 80 kilometers away in Skadovsk ended in failure when the ambulance struck a landmine on the road. A second attempt days later succeeded in reaching medical care, but Gulyaev died in the hospital. Gulyaeva recovered his remains, had them cremated, and returned home with his ashes before eventually fleeing to western Ukraine, where she now lives with her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren while her son fights in the Ukrainian military.

The attack that killed Gulyaev was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of targeting civilian infrastructure and food distribution points. According to a resident who fled Oleshky but remains in contact with those still there, people are regularly killed by Russian drones or landmines, and the bodies of those left in the open are consumed by feral dogs. On a single Thursday, four casualties were recorded when two people were killed and two injured as they attempted to reach the village of Radensk, 20 kilometers away, where the nearest functioning grocery shop is located. The injured were brought back to town on a wheelbarrow and a bicycle, underscoring the absence of any functioning medical or transport infrastructure.

Ukraine’s human rights ombudsman, Dmytro Lubinets, characterized the situation as an impossible choice imposed on civilians. In a Telegram post on Saturday, he wrote that Russia leaves residents with only two options: remain in Oleshky and starve to death, or attempt to leave and risk being killed by a landmine. The dilemma reflects what analysts describe as a systematic effort to make life untenable in occupied territories, driving out remaining residents while avoiding direct responsibility for their deaths. Those who have stayed behind survive on whatever they can farm, whatever food they had previously stored, or whatever they can scavenge from abandoned apartments and houses left by those who fled earlier in the war.

The Gulyaevs were initially reluctant to leave their home even after their children escaped to Kyiv-controlled areas. They had built a small house, cultivated a vegetable patch, and kept five hens, a water well, and a power generator that ran on overpriced gas purchased occasionally from middlemen. They also had an orchid. Gulyaeva told Al Jazeera that she almost never left the house, while her husband occasionally ventured out to buy bread. The couple had met at a friend’s wedding in 1985, and their 41st wedding anniversary came as Gulyaeva recalled both her husband’s life and the circumstances of his death. She left behind all her family photographs, friends, and neighbors, several of whom have since died.

The broader strategic context of Oleshky’s suffering has drawn commentary from European officials who argue that the town exemplifies why Ukraine should not cede territory to Moscow. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said on September 28 that calls to simply give up occupied territories ignore the reality of the people who would continue to suffer there. “When someone says: ‘Why don’t they just give up these territories?’ it sounds so simple. Right? But in reality, this is about the people who will suffer on those territories,” Kallas said. Her remarks reflect a growing consensus among Western officials that territorial concessions would not end the humanitarian crisis but rather entrench it under permanent Russian control.

Moscow has acknowledged the humanitarian disaster in Oleshky but blamed Kyiv for the situation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed on September 20 that problems with delivering food and medical supplies exist because “the Kyiv regime literally does everything to thwart these deliveries,” adding that drones always hover in the area. Russia has consistently denied targeting civilians throughout the war, despite widespread evidence of attacks on residential areas, food distribution lines, and critical infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and international observers reject the Kremlin’s framing, noting that Russia controls the territory and therefore bears responsibility for the welfare of civilians living under its occupation.

The isolation of Oleshky is compounded by its location along active front lines, where drone activity is constant and landmines contaminate roads and fields. The town’s pre-war population has collapsed from tens of thousands to approximately 2,000, leaving behind a largely elderly and impoverished community with no means of self-sufficiency. The absence of electricity for two and a half years has made refrigeration impossible, limiting food storage, while the lack of running water and natural gas has forced residents to rely on wells and alternative heating methods. Healthcare is nonexistent, meaning even minor injuries or illnesses can become fatal, and the nearest hospital is accessible only by roads that are mined and monitored by drones.

The bread line attack that killed Gulyaev is emblematic of the risks civilians face in simply obtaining basic necessities. Bread distribution points have been repeatedly targeted in occupied and contested areas of Ukraine, a tactic that human rights organizations have described as a violation of international humanitarian law. The use of drones to strike civilian targets has become a defining feature of the war, with both sides deploying unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance and combat. In Oleshky, residents report that drones are a constant presence, making any movement outside the home potentially lethal.

The story of Oleshky also highlights the challenges of documenting and responding to humanitarian crises in occupied territories. Access for journalists, aid organizations, and human rights monitors is severely restricted, meaning much of the information about conditions inside the town comes from residents who have fled and maintain contact with those still there. The Oleshky Telegram channel, which has provided photographs of destroyed apartment buildings and houses, serves as one of the few windows into the town’s reality. The images show collapsed structures and rubble-strewn streets, evidence of sustained shelling and aerial attacks that have left much of the town uninhabitable.

For Gulyaeva, the personal loss is inseparable from the broader tragedy of her community. After four decades of teaching in the same elementary school she had attended as a child, she said she still cannot understand how people can kill other people. Her husband’s ashes remain with her, a reminder of the life they built together and the violence that ended it. She left behind not only her home but also the neighbors and friends who chose to stay, several of whom have since died under circumstances that remain unclear to her. The decision to flee, made under the shadow of her husband’s death, was one that thousands of other residents of occupied territories have faced since the war began.

The international response to Oleshky has been limited to statements of condemnation and calls for accountability. The European Union has continued to support Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and Kallas’s remarks suggest that the humanitarian dimension of the occupation will remain central to Western policy. However, the practical options for alleviating the suffering of those still in Oleshky are narrow, given Russia’s control of the territory and its refusal to allow unrestricted humanitarian access. For now, the residents who remain face a daily calculation of risk: whether to stay and face starvation, or to venture out and face landmines and drones.