ANALYSIS: Russian Drone Strikes a Civilian Minibus in Nikopol — Two Dead, Twelve Injured Including Two Girls

A minibus as a deliberate target

On June 26, 2026, a Russian drone struck a public transit minibus traveling on the road entering Nikopol, in Dnipropetrovsk oblast. The result: two dead — a woman and a man — and at least 12 injured, including two 12-year-old sisters hospitalized for shrapnel wounds. According to the Ukrainian National Police, all victims were civilians — men aged 35 to 70 and women aged 41 to 46.

This is not an isolated incident. This is not a targeting error. It is the documented pattern of Russian operations against Nikopol: striking civilians, transit vehicles, public spaces with a regularity that turns death into routine and horror into banality. In April 2026, the UN ranked Nikopol among the Ukrainian cities with the highest monthly civilian casualties — short-range Russian drones alone killing 80 civilians and injuring 481 people in a single month.

One must resist the temptation to treat these numbers as mere statistics. Two dead in a minibus in Nikopol means two destroyed families, two lives torn from ordinary people who were simply trying to get around their own city. The normalization of these attacks in wire agency dispatches is itself a moral victory for Moscow — it habituates the world to the unacceptable.

A city facing the nuclear plant under Russian occupation

Nikopol is a city in Dnipropetrovsk oblast, situated on the shores of the destroyed Kakhovka reservoir — now a reduced body of water after the dam's destruction in June 2023. Across the water sit Enerhodar and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe, under Russian occupation since March 2022. That geographic proximity gives Nikopol a particular strategic profile: it is within direct strike range of short-range drones stationed on the Ukrainian-Russian shore of the reservoir.

Russian forces use this position to target Nikopol with lethal regularity: short-range FPV drones, as well as kamikaze drones of the Shahed type and artillery shells, strike the city and its surroundings on a near-daily basis. The proximity of the occupied nuclear plant adds an additional psychological dimension to this pressure: the inhabitants of Nikopol live not only under bombardment, but also in the shadow of a permanent nuclear threat.

The destruction of the Kakhovka dam and its lasting consequences

The destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023 — attributed by Ukrainian and Western investigators to Russian forces — transformed the landscape around Nikopol. The reservoir partially drained, creating a zone of mudflats and marshland between the two banks. That modified landscape affected drone attack trajectories, evacuation possibilities, and the daily lives of inhabitants who depended on the reservoir for drinking water and economic activities.

Three years after that environmental and human catastrophe, the inhabitants of Nikopol are still living with its consequences — difficult access to drinking water, devastated agricultural land, and a front line that now passes through areas once submerged. Russian drones did not wait for the situation to normalize before resuming their strikes.

The destruction of the Kakhovka dam is the most colossal war crime of this war in terms of lasting environmental and humanitarian impact. Three years later, Nikopol still bears its scars — and Russian drones are now targeting survivors in their minibuses. There are no words strong enough to describe this systematic strategy of civilian terror.

Ordinary civilians in their daily lives

The victims of the June 26 strike were ordinary civilians: men aged 35 to 70 and women aged 41 to 46, according to the Ukrainian National Police. Two of them are no longer alive — a woman and a man. The 12 injured received medical care. The two 12-year-old sisters hospitalized for shrapnel wounds are the most painful face of this attack: children struck in a public transit vehicle, with no uniform, no weapons, with no other reason to be targeted than being Ukrainian and living in a Ukrainian city.

The National Police confirmed that an investigation team was working at the site of the attack. The minibus was damaged. Anti-drone nets are visible on the road in available images — a local adaptation to the reality of daily strikes that inhabitants have had to invent out of necessity to survive in their own city.

Anti-drone nets: civilian ingenuity facing road terrorism

The image of anti-drone nets suspended over the roads of Nikopol is emblematic of a war in which civilians must adapt their daily environment to survive. These nets — built with improvised materials, cables, metal mesh — are designed to intercept low-altitude FPV drones targeting moving vehicles. They are both a protective measure and testimony to the absurdity of the situation: inhabitants cleaning their fishing nets to transform them into shields against war drones.

These ingenious adaptations have saved lives — reports document drones intercepted by these nets in several Ukrainian cities near the front. But they cannot intercept everything, especially when Russian drones come from unexpected directions, at varying altitudes, or in swarms. The June 26 strike is tragic proof: despite the nets, despite the vigilance, the minibus was hit.

These hand-made anti-drone nets fashioned by Ukrainian civilians are one of the most moving symbols of this war. This is not heroism — it is ordinary survival. People who refuse to flee their homes and jury-rig defenses with whatever they have. Facing an army that spends billions on its drones, this artisanal response is both admirable and outrageous.

Numbers that document a deliberate policy

The UN report of April 2026 is a document of paramount importance for understanding the situation in Nikopol. It ranked the city among those with the highest monthly civilian casualty counts in Ukraine. More specifically, short-range Russian drones alone caused 80 deaths and 481 injuries in a single month of April 2026 nationally — a figure illustrating the formidable lethal effectiveness of these cheap weapons systems against unprotected civilian targets.

That UN report is important for an additional reason: it objectively documents what Ukrainian authorities affirm and what Moscow denies — the deliberate targeting of civilians by Russian drones. When the UN establishes that Nikopol is among the most affected cities, it means that Russian forces are intentionally concentrating their strikes on this city and its inhabitants.

The comparison with Kherson: the documented "human safari"

The situation in Nikopol fits into a continuum documented by the Kyiv Independent: in areas close to the front, notably in Kherson, Russian forces conduct what journalists have called "human safari" operations — deliberately hunting civilian targets with short-range FPV drones in areas within range of any entry-level drone. These practices are not accidental errors — they correspond to a systematic modus operandi documented in numerous incidents.

Nikopol, while different from Kherson in its geographic configuration, suffers similar pressure from the opposite shore of the Kakhovka reservoir. The difference is that Nikopol is in Dnipropetrovsk oblast, administratively distinct from the Russian occupation zone — which does not prevent Russian drones from crossing the few kilometers of water separating the two banks.

The term "human safari" revolts me every time I read it — and I read it often in reports on Kherson. Yet it describes a reality that independent observers have documented, filmed, verified. Russian soldiers hunting civilians with drones as a pastime. Calling this a war crime is a legal obligation. Calling it a historical shame is a moral obligation.

A broader picture on June 26, 2026

The strike on the Nikopol minibus on June 26 did not occur in a vacuum. The same day, according to Ukrainska Pravda, Russian attacks killed 1 person and injured 44 civilians in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. In Kherson oblast, Russian forces damaged a public utilities company, a car service center, a post office, a farm, a warehouse, a garage and several vehicles. In Zaporizhzhia oblast, Russian forces conducted 924 strikes on 42 localities and launched a missile strike on the city of Zaporizhzhia.

These numbers — 924 strikes on 42 localities in a single day in Zaporizhzhia oblast — illustrate the industrial intensity of Russian violence against Ukrainian civilians. This is not war — it is the systematic destruction of a civil society. Three children were among the injured in Zaporizhzhia oblast that day, including two in the Nikopol area.

June 26 in the global casualty count

On June 27, according to the Kyiv Independent, Russian attacks had killed 7 people and injured 89 others across Ukraine in the preceding 24 hours — a single day. At this rate, Moscow inflicts hundreds of civilian deaths per month, thousands of injuries. These are not collateral effects — they are the results of a deliberate policy that systematically targets civilian populations to break Ukrainian resistance.

This policy fails in its strategic objective — Ukrainians do not yield under terror. But it succeeds in its criminal dimension: it produces deaths, trauma, displacement, infrastructure destruction. Every minibus struck in Nikopol is a documented war crime — and the list of these crimes grows by several pages each week.

924 strikes in a single day in one oblast. I have no words for that number. I can write it, bold it, analyze it — but it exceeds my capacity to truly grasp its horror. Each strike represents a tearing: a house, a car, a field, sometimes a human being. And the next day, it starts again. And the world keeps turning.

Terrorizing to discourage: a documented strategy

Russia's military strategy toward Ukrainian civilians is not accidental — it is documented as a deliberate policy by international humanitarian law researchers, human rights organizations, and United Nations investigators. The objective is multiple: reduce the population's will to resist, force Ukrainian authorities to mobilize resources for civilian protection rather than the front, create population movements that destabilize rear areas, and inflict suffering that will later serve as diplomatic leverage.

In Nikopol, this doctrine materializes through regular strikes on easily identifiable civilian targets: public transit, markets, public spaces. The regularity of these strikes — documented in monthly UN reports — is not compatible with the idea of isolated targeting errors. It corresponds to a systematic modus operandi.

The importance of documentation for future justice

Every strike documented by the Ukrainian National Police, every UN report, every article by the Kyiv Independent constitutes a piece of the dossier that will be submitted to international courts. The International Criminal Court (ICC), whose prosecutor has already issued arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials, relies on such documentation to build its cases.

The two 12-year-old girls injured in the Nikopol minibus — their names absent from dispatches, their broken lives just a line in a table — are victims of a war crime. Their injury, documented by police, may one day be part of an ICC dossier. That is meager consolation — but it is the only promise of justice that exists for them.

I think about those two 12-year-old girls. They were boarding a minibus. An ordinary vehicle, an ordinary day, a city they had known since birth. And now they are in hospital with shrapnel in their bodies. No analysis can make sense of that. There is only rage and the determination that someone must answer for these acts before justice.

FPV drones as civilian terror weapons

Russian FPV (First Person View) drones — guided by an on-board camera that the operator views in real time via a headset or screen — have become the weapon of choice for targeting civilians in areas near the front. Their manufacturing cost is between $200 and $500 per unit, they can be mass-produced, and their relative precision allows targeting of moving vehicles at distances of several kilometers.

The strike on the Nikopol minibus matches this profile: a remotely guided drone, capable of tracking a moving vehicle and striking with sufficient precision to hit it directly. This is not a blind weapon — it is a weapon that requires a deliberate decision by the operator to target that specific vehicle on that specific road at that specific moment. That deliberateness is central to the war crime classification.

Drone proliferation and its consequences

Russia produces and deploys hundreds of thousands of FPV drones each month, according to Ukrainian intelligence estimates. On the other side, Ukraine strives to develop its own mass production — with some success, according to figures published by the Ukrainian government indicating that Ukrainian drones struck more than 800,000 Russian military targets in the first half of 2026.

But this drone arms race is asymmetric from the perspective of targets: Ukraine uses its drones against documented Russian military targets, while Russia uses a significant proportion of its drones against Ukrainian civilians. This moral asymmetry — recognized by international human rights organizations — underlies the differentiated classification of the two sides in this conflict.

I refuse the false equivalence some commentators suggest: "both sides use drones." Yes, both sides use drones. No, it is not the same. Striking a tank or a munitions depot is war. Striking a civilian minibus in Nikopol is a crime. That distinction is not propaganda — it is international humanitarian law.

The limits of defense against short-range drones

Ukrainian air defense has made remarkable progress intercepting Russian cruise missiles, long-range Shahed drones, and ballistic missiles. But defending against short-range FPV drones poses a fundamentally different problem: these drones are too small, too slow and too numerous to be intercepted by conventional air defense systems like Patriot or NASAMS.

Defenses against small drones — electronic jamming systems, interceptor drones, directed energy weapons, or simply physical nets — are being developed and deployed, but they do not yet cover all exposed zones. Nikopol is one of the cities where this defensive gap translates directly into human lives lost. Every anti-drone system delivered by Western partners, every advance in defending against these small systems, can literally save lives in Nikopol.

Ukraine's request for specific systems

Ukraine has repeatedly asked its Western partners for systems specifically designed to counter small drones — jammers, adapted radar detection systems, and low-cost anti-drone munitions. This request is often drowned out in media coverage of tank or missile deliveries, but it is strategically as important as those major announcements.

Every drone strike on a civilian minibus in Nikopol is also a demonstration of defensive gaps that Ukraine's partners could help fill. This is not only a Ukrainian problem — it is a problem for the entire Western alliance, whose support for Ukraine includes responsibility for providing civilian protection capabilities adapted to the real threats on the ground.

Anti-drone systems are rarely discussed in press conferences on military aid to Ukraine. Yet for the inhabitants of Nikopol, an effective jammer may be more valuable than a Leopard tank. This gap between donor priorities and real field needs is one of the persistent blind spots of Western support.

The occupied plant as a pressure instrument

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, the largest in Europe, has been under Russian military occupation since March 2022. Its six reactors are shut down, but the spent fuel cooling pools must be permanently maintained. Repeated power outages, artillery fire near the plant, and uncertainty about Russian plans for the installation have maintained permanent anxiety among the inhabitants of Nikopol and the region.

The IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency — has maintained an observer presence on site, but its capacity for action is limited in the face of military occupation. For the inhabitants of Nikopol, the threat is double: drones striking the streets, and the shadow of a potential nuclear incident on the other side of the water. This combination of ordinary and extraordinary threats creates permanent psychological stress that adds to the physical trauma of strikes.

Implications for evacuation and maintaining the population

Despite the risks, a significant portion of Nikopol's population has chosen to stay. The reasons are multiple: attachment to home, economic impossibility of leaving, refusal to yield to terror, or simply the habit of a life under bombs that has normalized in tragic fashion. These civilians who stay require protection that Ukrainian armed forces and civil defense systems strive to provide.

Every person who stays in Nikopol is an affirmation of Ukrainian resistance — but also a responsibility for military and civilian authorities. The June 26 minibus attack is a reminder that this responsibility is permanent and that its failures are paid in human lives.

I will not be the one to judge Ukrainians who stay in cities like Nikopol. I will not judge those who leave either. In both cases, they face a situation no one should have to confront. What I say is that their presence or their absence are both dictated by Russian terror — and it is that which must be judged, not their survival choices.

Condemnations that change nothing

Every attack on Ukrainian civilians is followed by diplomatic condemnations — statements from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, communiqués from the Council of Europe, protest notes from embassies. These condemnations are important in their dimension of documentation and moral pressure — but they do not stop Russian drones above Nikopol.

What can change the situation is the increase in deliveries of anti-drone defense systems, the extension of authorizations for the use of Western weapons allowing strikes on Russian drone bases on Russian territory, and the creation of a denser air defense zone around the most exposed cities. These concrete measures require political decisions that Western partners are slow to take.

The International Claims Commission and the prospect of justice

The EU approved on June 17, 2026 the Convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine, configured as an administrative body of the Council of Europe. This body will have the mission of examining and deciding compensation claims for damages caused by internationally wrongful acts of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.

The families of the Nikopol minibus victims, the two 12-year-old girls and their relatives, the other injured — all are potential victims whose damages could be documented under this mechanism. International justice is slow — it will take years to produce concrete results. But it exists, it is being built, and every documented victim contributes to its evidentiary arsenal.

An International Claims Commission. That is good. Even important. But for the two 12-year-old girls in Nikopol's hospital with shrapnel in their bodies, international justice on a ten-year horizon is a very distant abstraction. What they need are doctors, psychologists, and days without drones. In that order.

On the same day, Ukraine was striking back massively

June 26, 2026 was not only the day when civilians died in a minibus in Nikopol. It was also the day when Ukraine launched one of its most intense drone offensives against Russian territory, according to reports from that week. Both realities coexist in this war: Ukraine strikes Russia deeply, and Russia systematically strikes Ukrainian civilians.

This asymmetry of targets is central to the strategic analysis of the conflict: Ukraine concentrates its strikes on high-value military targets — refineries, weapons factories, air defenses, logistics infrastructure. Russia, for its part, maintains a parallel campaign of civilian terrorism that does not contribute to its military victory but feeds its objectives of social decohesion and depopulation of border zones.

One day among many in the war of attrition

On June 27, the 7 deaths and 89 civilian injuries counted in the preceding 24 hours by the Kyiv Independent included the victims of Nikopol, but also victims of other strikes in other cities, other villages, other roads. That is the daily reality of this war: about a hundred civilian casualties per day, a silent hecatomb unfolding at the margins of the great battles for strategic cities.

This daily violence against civilians is a fundamental datum in the geopolitical analysis of the conflict — and it must be recalled each time voices suggest that Ukraine should "accept" any territorial compromise. Accepting the maintenance of Russian positions means accepting the maintenance of Russian drones above Ukrainian cities. Nikopol will only be safe if Russian weapons are driven far from it — not if a line on a map moves a few kilometers.

This is the point I find hardest to convey: a ceasefire on current lines does not protect Nikopol. As long as Russia occupies the opposite shore of the reservoir, as long as it maintains short-range drones a few kilometers from the city, the civilians of Nikopol will remain targets. The geography of Ukrainian security demands much more than a demarcation line.

Naming victims, not reducing them to statistics

Reports from the Ukrainian National Police and the Kyiv Independent provide essential information about the June 26 attack, but do not give the names of the victims. That is an inherent limitation of emergency coverage — victims have not yet authorized publication of their identities, or investigations are ongoing. But this absence of proper names creates a risk: treating victims as statistical abstractions rather than as individuals with histories, families, plans.

The woman killed in that minibus had a life. The man too. The two 12-year-old girls will now grow up with the memory of that day. This columnist's journalism has a responsibility to keep that human dimension alive — to refuse that war reduces every death to a number in a daily bulletin. This resistance to dehumanization is itself a form of resistance to the Russian strategy of terror.

Long-form coverage as an obligation

Most Western media did not cover the June 26, 2026 minibus strike in Nikopol. That silence is understandable — the world is saturated with information, and every drone hitting every Ukrainian civilian vehicle cannot make headlines. But that silence has consequences: it contributes to normalizing this violence, it reduces Western public pressure for concrete civilian protection measures, and it leaves Ukrainian victims with a sense of abandonment.

Long-form, documented, analytical coverage — like what organizations such as the ISW, the Kyiv Independent, or this columnist try to maintain — is a partial response to that silence. It does not save lives. But it maintains a collective memory that will one day serve as a basis for the demand for justice. It is insufficient. It is necessary.

I am not pretending this article will change anything for the victims of the Nikopol minibus. But I refuse to believe that words serve no purpose. Every article that documents, that names, that contextualizes — even without naming specific victims — contributes to the accumulation of evidence and pressure for justice. It is little. It is all I have.

The diversification of attack vectors against civilians

The strike on the Nikopol minibus used a drone — the most common vector against mobile civilian targets in areas near the front. But Russia's arsenal against Ukrainian civilians also includes ballistic and cruise missiles for strikes on distant cities, artillery shells for areas adjacent to the front, and FAB-500 and FAB-1500 glide bombs for strikes on cities in combat zones.

Each of these vectors requires a different defensive response — and Ukrainian defenses, while remarkably effective given available resources, cannot cover the entire territory. Decisions on where to concentrate air defenses involve painful trade-offs between protecting strategic cities, energy infrastructure, and civilian areas near the front such as Nikopol.

Delays in Ukrainian long-range armament deliveries as an aggravating factor

Delays in delivering anti-drone systems to Ukrainian forces and persistent restrictions on certain weapons systems have a concrete and measurable human cost. Every week without new anti-FPV systems in areas like Nikopol potentially means new civilian casualties. This equation must be stated clearly in discussions about military aid to Ukraine: delays are not merely logistical or political matters — they are decisions whose effects are measured in deaths and injuries.

On June 26, 2026, as a minibus was being struck in Nikopol, discussions about new anti-drone system deliveries were somewhere in the corridors of Western defense ministries. That simultaneity is not a coincidence — it is the reality of a war in which bureaucratic delays translate directly into human suffering.

I do not want to descend into a simplistic indictment of Ukraine's Western partners — they do a great deal, often at significant political cost. But the urgency of situations like Nikopol demands that anti-drone system deliveries be treated with the same priority as Patriot missiles or F-16s. A life is a life, whether threatened by a ballistic missile or by a $300 FPV.

The chain of command in the targeting of civilian areas

Russian strikes on residential neighborhoods of Nikopol do not occur randomly. They are the result of decisions made within a military chain of command — officers who authorize strikes, operators who guide drones, planners who define target zones. That chain of command is documented, at least partially, by investigations of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and by Ukrainian intelligence services.

Individual responsibility for strikes on civilian areas is a principle anchored in international humanitarian law — the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, the Rome Statute creating the ICC. Russian officers who order or carry out deliberate strikes on residential areas with no identifiable military objective are potentially committing war crimes. That legal reality does not change the fact that bombs fall on Nikopol — but it means these acts are being recorded, investigations are advancing, and impunity is not guaranteed.

Political decisions behind military decisions

Above the military chain of command, there is a political chain of command. The decision to systematically target Ukrainian civilian infrastructure — power grid, water supply, residential buildings — is not a decision by junior generals. It reflects a deliberate strategy approved at the highest level of the Russian state. The ICC's arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for the deportation of Ukrainian children — the first of its kind against a sitting head of state from a permanent Security Council member — establishes the precedent of direct presidential responsibility for war crimes committed during this conflict.

That legal dimension is important to keep in mind when analyzing the strikes on Nikopol: they are not targeting errors, inevitable collateral damage, or the acts of overzealous junior officers. They are deliberate political acts. And as such, they engage the responsibility of those who decided them, at the top of the Russian state.

The ICC issued an arrest warrant against Putin. Not for the strikes on Nikopol — but for the deportation of children. That precedent says something essential: the international community refuses, at least in principle, to admit absolute impunity even for heads of state. Nikopol deserves the same level of legal seriousness. Its victims deserve that attention.

A crime whose perpetrators are identified

The strike on the Nikopol minibus on June 26, 2026 is a war crime. Its perpetrators are not unknown — they operate under Russian army command, within a framework of deliberate civilian terrorism documented by the UN, the ICC, and dozens of human rights organizations. Vladimir Putin, as supreme commander of Russian armed forces, bears the political and legal responsibility for this policy.

That responsibility must be named, repeated, documented. It must find its conclusion before international courts — and that process is underway, slowly, but advancing. The two 12-year-old girls hospitalized in Nikopol deserve to live long enough to see the end of this war and the beginning of justice.

What Nikopol demands of the world

The situation in Nikopol demands a concrete response, not declarations. It demands anti-drone systems delivered quickly, weapons authorizations allowing strikes on Russian launch bases near the city, and continued support for war crimes documentation to fuel international judicial proceedings. This is not utopia — it is an achievable action program for Ukraine's partners.

Nikopol holds. Its inhabitants remain. Its defenders fight. That courage deserves a response commensurate with its dignity — not just condemnation statements followed by a return to diplomatic discussions about the terms of a ceasefire that would not stop the drones.

Nikopol has been burning since 2022. Families die in their apartments. Children are terrorized by explosions in their neighborhoods. And we keep talking about negotiations, ceasefires, processes. I am not against peace — I am for a peace that means something. A peace that puts an end to the strikes on Nikopol. A peace that gives these people the possibility of sleeping without waiting for the next alert.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.