Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Sumy and Kharkiv Regions in the Crosshairs: Drones Change Attack Tactics and Raise Risks for Communities

State Border Guard Service spokesperson on the rise in drone strikes replacing artillery: why this matters for border towns and how defense rules are changing — short and to the point.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 5, 2026 · 2 min read

Sumy and Kharkiv Regions in the Crosshairs: Drones Change Attack Tactics and Raise Risks for Communities

In brief

The spokesman for the State Border Guard Service, Andriy Demchenko, notes: the enemy is increasingly using drones to strike border areas, primarily in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts. This is not just a change of weapons — it is a redistribution of risks for the population and infrastructure.

What is happening at the border

According to the State Border Guard Service (SBGS), the greatest pressure is being recorded along the border line in Sumy and Kharkiv oblasts. Chernihiv Oblast usually receives fewer shellings, but still remains under daily attacks.

New tactic: drones instead of artillery

Replacing artillery with drones is no small matter: unmanned aerial vehicles change both the trajectory of threat and the speed of response. Demchenko explains that until the end of 2024 — the beginning of 2025 artillery predominated, but now the enemy is more actively using drone drops, FPV strikes and FPV over fiber-optic channels.

"I will remind you again that the enemy is now using unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes. Because at the end of 2024 — the beginning of 2025 artillery predominated. The enemy uses drone drops, FPV and FPV over fiber-optic [channels] for attacks."

— Andriy Demchenko, spokesman for the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine

Consequences for communities and infrastructure

Drones make strikes more pinpoint, but also more unpredictable for civilians: damage to residential neighborhoods, destruction of critical infrastructure, and psychological pressure on residents of border communities.

According to media reports and official data, in December 2025 notable figures were recorded: for example, on December 24 it was reported that around 4,000 people refuse to evacuate from the border zone.

Context for the 2025 figures

Other data only underscore the broader trend: on December 28, 2025 it was reported that attacks on Ukraine's ports had doubled (approximately 90 combined strikes over the year), and on December 31 — about 19,000 air-raid alerts across the country. This indicates an escalation on many fronts, not just the border one.

What it means and what to do

The enemy's shift to drones requires two changes: strengthening counter-drone defenses and adapting civilian preparedness. This is a matter not only of military decisions, but also of logistics, protection of critical infrastructure, and communication with local communities.

Conclusion

The means of attack are changing, but the essence remains: protecting border communities and infrastructure must become systematic and timely. While foreign partners and Ukrainian services strengthen countermeasures, it is important to understand — the safety of specific towns and homes depends on this. What next steps can reduce the risks is a question for defense headquarters and communities together.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026