# REPORT: Kherson’s Roads Turn Deadly as Drone Risk Reaches Civilian Routes - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Reportage - Published: 2026-08-10 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/report-khersons-roads-turn-deadly-as-drone-risk-reaches-civilian-routes ## Introduction ### Prokudin’s warning puts vehicles at the center On 8 August 2026, Kherson Oblast military administration head Oleksander Prokudin warned of intensified Russian drone free hunting against vehicles. **8 August 2026**, **Oleksander Prokudin**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The warning, reported by the Institute for the Study of War, places risk on roads and around daily civilian movement rather than in an abstract battlefield. a public warning about increased vehicle risk *Kherson’s roads are part of the war zone now.* The record behind **Prokudin’s warning puts vehicles at the center** adds **Russian drone operators** and **vehicle risk** to the public account. It is an official Ukrainian alert that deserves to be heard without being inflated into a complete independent map of every strike. That distinction keeps **Introduction** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The alert is public, not a full strike map **The alert is public, not a full strike map** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **8 August 2026**. The material provides no complete incident database or comparative count of drone strikes before and after the warning. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The alert is public, not a full strike map**. The public record stops where **The alert is public, not a full strike map** stops. For **Introduction**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The warning, reported by the Institute for the Study of War, places risk on roads and around daily civilian movement rather than in an abstract battlefield. The evidence supports **a public warning about increased vehicle risk**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## External military markings draw the stated priority ### A visible sign changes the danger nearby Prokudin said Russian forces were trying to strike vehicles with external military markings. **external military markings**, **Russian forces**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Even if that stated priority is accurate, it does not place civilian roads safely outside danger when such vehicles travel or stand near ordinary people. a reported targeting priority with civilian consequences *A marking can pull danger into public space.* The record behind **A visible sign changes the danger nearby** adds **targeting priority** and **civilian proximity** to the public account. The mechanism is proximity: a target search can expand risk beyond the intended object. That distinction keeps **External military markings draw the stated priority** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### No tally of marked vehicles is supplied **No tally of marked vehicles is supplied** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **external military markings**. No number of marked vehicles targeted or separate casualty count tied to them is given. The wording stays tied to the material available on **No tally of marked vehicles is supplied**. The public record stops where **No tally of marked vehicles is supplied** stops. For **External military markings draw the stated priority**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Even if that stated priority is accurate, it does not place civilian roads safely outside danger when such vehicles travel or stand near ordinary people. The evidence supports **a reported targeting priority with civilian consequences**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Markets and fuel stations enter the warning ### Ordinary errands become a security question The alert specifically identifies supermarkets, markets, and gas stations as civilian areas with increased drone-strike risk. **supermarkets**, **markets**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Those places matter because they gather daily traffic, purchases, and transit; the cited examples turn an operational warning into a civilian safety issue. an alert extending to everyday civilian places *The ordinary route is no longer ordinary.* The record behind **Ordinary errands become a security question** adds **gas stations** and **civilian areas** to the public account. They are risk locations named by the warning, not a list of confirmed attacks at each location. That distinction keeps **Markets and fuel stations enter the warning** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Examples are not confirmed strike sites **Examples are not confirmed strike sites** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **supermarkets**. The material does not attribute a specific incident to every supermarket, market, or gas station mentioned. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Examples are not confirmed strike sites**. The public record stops where **Examples are not confirmed strike sites** stops. For **Markets and fuel stations enter the warning**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Those places matter because they gather daily traffic, purchases, and transit; the cited examples turn an operational warning into a civilian safety issue. The evidence supports **an alert extending to everyday civilian places**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## A 77-year-old woman was killed on a Kherson road ### One reported death gives the warning a human cost Al Jazeera reported that a Molniya-type drone struck a car on a road in Kherson region on 6 August 2026, killing a 77-year-old woman. **6 August 2026**, **77-year-old woman**, and **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The reported death makes the road warning concrete while giving no basis to reconstruct her route, identity, family, or final moments. a reported civilian death on a regional road *A road can become lethal without becoming a storybook set.* The record behind **One reported death gives the warning a human cost** adds **Molniya-type drone** and **Kherson region** to the public account. The evidence supports the loss. It does not permit a manufactured scene around it. That distinction keeps **A 77-year-old woman was killed on a Kherson road** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The victim is not named in the dossier **The victim is not named in the dossier** turns on **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** and the status of **6 August 2026**. The fact block does not provide her name, the precise road, or independent technical verification of the drone type. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The victim is not named in the dossier**. The public record stops where **The victim is not named in the dossier** stops. For **A 77-year-old woman was killed on a Kherson road**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The reported death makes the road warning concrete while giving no basis to reconstruct her route, identity, family, or final moments. The evidence supports **a reported civilian death on a regional road**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Eight bus passengers appear among the injured ### A category is not the full casualty total Al Jazeera also reported that eight bus passengers were among dozens injured in other attacks in Kherson region that day. **eight bus passengers**, **dozens injured**, and **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The detail reaches beyond private vehicles to collective transport, while dozens is not a precise total and eight does not describe every person injured. a documented subset of a broader reported injury count *Eight passengers are not a substitute for the missing total.* The record behind **A category is not the full casualty total** adds **collective transport** and **reported injuries** to the public account. The distinction protects both the reported group and the larger, less defined casualty account. That distinction keeps **Eight bus passengers appear among the injured** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The broader tally remains imprecise **The broader tally remains imprecise** turns on **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** and the status of **eight bus passengers**. No exact total, medical condition, or complete incident breakdown is supplied for the wider group of injured people. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The broader tally remains imprecise**. The public record stops where **The broader tally remains imprecise** stops. For **Eight bus passengers appear among the injured**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The detail reaches beyond private vehicles to collective transport, while dozens is not a precise total and eight does not describe every person injured. The evidence supports **a documented subset of a broader reported injury count**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## The Inhulets crossing account is a Russian claim ### The Dnipro does not become settled fact A Russian military source claimed on 8 August that Ukrainian forces unsuccessfully tried to cross the Dnipro near Inhulets, northeast of Kherson City. **Inhulets**, **Dnipro**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Because the account comes from a belligerent party and has no Ukrainian confirmation in the assigned material, it must remain a claim. an unconfirmed Russian military assertion *A claim does not cross the river by itself.* The record behind **The Dnipro does not become settled fact** adds **Russian military source** and **8 August 2026** to the public account. The difference between claimed and confirmed is not cosmetic in an active war. That distinction keeps **The Inhulets crossing account is a Russian claim** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Kyiv did not confirm it in the dossier **Kyiv did not confirm it in the dossier** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **Inhulets**. No independent evidence, Ukrainian confirmation, or verified result of the alleged crossing is provided. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Kyiv did not confirm it in the dossier**. The public record stops where **Kyiv did not confirm it in the dossier** stops. For **The Inhulets crossing account is a Russian claim**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Because the account comes from a belligerent party and has no Ukrainian confirmation in the assigned material, it must remain a claim. The evidence supports **an unconfirmed Russian military assertion**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## A place name does not complete the proof ### Inhulets locates a claim, not a verified operation The alleged crossing was placed near Inhulets, northeast of Kherson City, on the Dnipro. **northeast of Kherson City**, **Inhulets**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That location tells readers where the Russian source said the event occurred; it does not authenticate the event or establish what happened there. a geographically specific but unverified allegation *A map pin is not proof.* The record behind **Inhulets locates a claim, not a verified operation** adds **Dnipro** and **unverified operation** to the public account. Precise geography is useful only when its evidentiary status stays equally precise. That distinction keeps **A place name does not complete the proof** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Geography cannot replace corroboration **Geography cannot replace corroboration** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **northeast of Kherson City**. The assigned material contains no imagery, Ukrainian statement, or independent report confirming the sequence. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Geography cannot replace corroboration**. The public record stops where **Geography cannot replace corroboration** stops. For **A place name does not complete the proof**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That location tells readers where the Russian source said the event occurred; it does not authenticate the event or establish what happened there. The evidence supports **a geographically specific but unverified allegation**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## The Barracuda operation is a Ukrainian brigade’s account ### A military source must retain its label A Ukrainian brigade reported that Barracuda uncrewed surface vessels breached Russian coastal defenses and landed near Zaliznyi Port. **Barracuda USVs**, **Ukrainian brigade**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The claim is significant enough to report, but it remains the account of a Ukrainian unit involved in the war rather than an independently verified operation. a Ukrainian brigade claim about Barracuda vessels *The source’s uniform stays on the sentence.* The record behind **A military source must retain its label** adds **Russian coastal defenses** and **reported landing** to the public account. Attribution preserves the report’s meaning and its limit. That distinction keeps **The Barracuda operation is a Ukrainian brigade’s account** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### No independent confirmation is given **No independent confirmation is given** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **Barracuda USVs**. The source gives no independent corroboration or precise date for the reported landing operation. The wording stays tied to the material available on **No independent confirmation is given**. The public record stops where **No independent confirmation is given** stops. For **The Barracuda operation is a Ukrainian brigade’s account**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The claim is significant enough to report, but it remains the account of a Ukrainian unit involved in the war rather than an independently verified operation. The evidence supports **a Ukrainian brigade claim about Barracuda vessels**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Zaliznyi Port is named in the reported landing ### The occupied coast frames the claim According to the brigade account, the Barracudas landed near Zaliznyi Port on the occupied southern coast of Kherson Oblast. **Zaliznyi Port**, **occupied southern coast**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The location gives the claim a maritime dimension distinct from the civilian-road danger around Kherson City, but it does not prove penetration, landing, or territorial effect. an attributed maritime claim near Zaliznyi Port *A coast named in a claim is not a coast recaptured.* The record behind **The occupied coast frames the claim** adds **Kherson Oblast** and **maritime claim** to the public account. A reported landing is not a certified change on the map. That distinction keeps **Zaliznyi Port is named in the reported landing** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The outcome is not established **The outcome is not established** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **Zaliznyi Port**. No independently verified position, landing imagery, or operational outcome is contained in the assigned material. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The outcome is not established**. The public record stops where **The outcome is not established** stops. For **Zaliznyi Port is named in the reported landing**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The location gives the claim a maritime dimension distinct from the civilian-road danger around Kherson City, but it does not prove penetration, landing, or territorial effect. The evidence supports **an attributed maritime claim near Zaliznyi Port**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## The brigade also reported strikes on landing craft ### Aerial drones are part of the asserted sequence The same Ukrainian brigade said aerial drones launched after the landing struck Russian landing craft. **aerial drones**, **Russian landing craft**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. This alleged sequence may be operationally important, but its date, number of craft, damage, and outcome are not independently established in the assigned account. an attributed claim of aerial-drone strikes *A claimed hit is not a verified fleet balance.* The record behind **Aerial drones are part of the asserted sequence** adds **Ukrainian brigade** and **reported strikes** to the public account. A reported strike does not authorize a reporter to write a naval scorecard. That distinction keeps **The brigade also reported strikes on landing craft** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### A naval balance cannot be inferred **A naval balance cannot be inferred** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **aerial drones**. No number of vessels hit, damage assessment, or external confirmation is provided. The wording stays tied to the material available on **A naval balance cannot be inferred**. The public record stops where **A naval balance cannot be inferred** stops. For **The brigade also reported strikes on landing craft**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: This alleged sequence may be operationally important, but its date, number of craft, damage, and outcome are not independently established in the assigned account. The evidence supports **an attributed claim of aerial-drone strikes**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Two Geran-4 attempts and one reported loss ### A technical ratio still belongs to its source The brigade said two Russian attempts using Geran-4 drones destroyed only one Barracuda vessel. **two Russian attempts**, **Geran-4 drones**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That contrast may suggest resilience, but the figures come from the same Ukrainian unit and do not measure the broader effectiveness of either system. a source-attributed technical claim *One ratio does not settle a weapons contest.* The record behind **A technical ratio still belongs to its source** adds **one Barracuda destroyed** and **technical claim** to the public account. The proper owner of the ratio is the brigade that stated it. That distinction keeps **Two Geran-4 attempts and one reported loss** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Effectiveness cannot be measured from one claim **Effectiveness cannot be measured from one claim** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **two Russian attempts**. No independent technical assessment validates the two attempts or the single reported loss. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Effectiveness cannot be measured from one claim**. The public record stops where **Effectiveness cannot be measured from one claim** stops. For **Two Geran-4 attempts and one reported loss**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That contrast may suggest resilience, but the figures come from the same Ukrainian unit and do not measure the broader effectiveness of either system. The evidence supports **a source-attributed technical claim**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Civilian harm and military claims have different proof levels ### The road report should not be buried under competing narratives The reported death of the 77-year-old woman and the bus-passenger injuries concern civilians, while the Inhulets and Barracuda accounts are rival military claims. **civilian routes**, **military claims**, and **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. They belong in the same geographic story but not on the same evidentiary rung. a clear distinction between reported civilian harm and unconfirmed military accounts *Civilians are not footnotes to competing claims.* The record behind **The road report should not be buried under competing narratives** adds **Kherson** and **evidentiary status** to the public account. A report that blurs them gives propaganda the same weight as documented civilian harm. That distinction keeps **Civilian harm and military claims have different proof levels** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Evidence has to keep its hierarchy **Evidence has to keep its hierarchy** turns on **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** and the status of **civilian routes**. The military sequences lack independent confirmation in the assigned material, unlike the reported civilian incidents. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Evidence has to keep its hierarchy**. The public record stops where **Evidence has to keep its hierarchy** stops. For **Civilian harm and military claims have different proof levels**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: They belong in the same geographic story but not on the same evidentiary rung. The evidence supports **a clear distinction between reported civilian harm and unconfirmed military accounts**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## The Institute for the Study of War attributes the accounts ### Analysis does not erase a claim’s origin The Institute for the Study of War report gathers and attributes statements from the Russian and Ukrainian sides. **Institute for the Study of War**, **belligerent statements**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Its role here is to organise the information and make the source of each account visible, not to convert every battlefield statement into independent proof. an analytical source preserving belligerent attribution *An assessment can clarify without certifying everything.* The record behind **Analysis does not erase a claim’s origin** adds **8 August 2026** and **source attribution** to the public account. That discipline gives the reader a usable map of claims without a counterfeit certainty. That distinction keeps **The Institute for the Study of War attributes the accounts** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The reader should see who is speaking **The reader should see who is speaking** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **Institute for the Study of War**. The report does not independently confirm the Inhulets crossing or the Barracuda operation in the material assigned. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The reader should see who is speaking**. The public record stops where **The reader should see who is speaking** stops. For **The Institute for the Study of War attributes the accounts**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Its role here is to organise the information and make the source of each account visible, not to convert every battlefield statement into independent proof. The evidence supports **an analytical source preserving belligerent attribution**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## The missing date matters for the Barracuda account ### Timing is part of operational proof The Ukrainian brigade’s reported Barracuda operation has no precise date in the assigned material. **no precise date**, **Barracuda operation**, and **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Without one, the article cannot merge it carelessly with the 6 August civilian incidents or the 8 August warnings and claims. an operation claim with an unresolved chronology *An undated operation cannot be forced into a timeline.* The record behind **Timing is part of operational proof** adds **assigned material** and **operational chronology** to the public account. Time is not a decorative detail in a war report; it is part of what makes a sequence testable. That distinction keeps **The missing date matters for the Barracuda account** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### Undated claims cannot be fitted to a timeline **Undated claims cannot be fitted to a timeline** turns on **Institute for the Study of War — Kherson assessment — 8 August 2026** and the status of **no precise date**. No precise date for the reported landing is provided in the fact block. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Undated claims cannot be fitted to a timeline**. The public record stops where **Undated claims cannot be fitted to a timeline** stops. For **The missing date matters for the Barracuda account**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Without one, the article cannot merge it carelessly with the 6 August civilian incidents or the 8 August warnings and claims. The evidence supports **an operation claim with an unresolved chronology**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. ## Conclusion ### Kherson’s civilian routes deserve the first look Prokudin’s 8 August warning, the reported death of a 77-year-old woman, and the injuries among eight bus passengers establish why Kherson’s roads demand attention. **Kherson**, **Oleksander Prokudin**, and **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The Russian crossing allegation and the Ukrainian Barracuda account can be reported, but each belongs to the party that made it until independent evidence changes its status. a civilian-centered report with disciplined attribution *Kherson’s roads are not an afterthought.* The record behind **Kherson’s civilian routes deserve the first look** adds **77-year-old woman** and **eight bus passengers** to the public account. The first duty is clear: protect the civilian record from being drowned by war claims. That distinction keeps **Conclusion** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome. ### The rest stays attributed until corroborated **The rest stays attributed until corroborated** turns on **Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes report — 6 August 2026** and the status of **Kherson**. No independent evidence in the assigned material resolves the military accounts around Inhulets and Zaliznyi Port. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The rest stays attributed until corroborated**. The public record stops where **The rest stays attributed until corroborated** stops. For **Conclusion**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The Russian crossing allegation and the Ukrainian Barracuda account can be reported, but each belongs to the party that made it until independent evidence changes its status. The evidence supports **a civilian-centered report with disciplined attribution**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### 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. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Institute for the Study of War — assessment — 8 August 2026](https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-8-2026/) - [Institute for the Study of War — attributed Russian and Ukrainian accounts — 8 August 2026](https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-8-2026/) - [Institute for the Study of War — Kherson context — 8 August 2026](https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-8-2026/) ### Secondary sources - [Al Jazeera — Kherson regional strikes — 6 August 2026](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/6/russian-strikes-kill-six-in-ukraine-as-moscow-intercepts-hundreds-of-drones) - [Al Jazeera — 77-year-old woman and bus passengers — 6 August 2026](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/6/russian-strikes-kill-six-in-ukraine-as-moscow-intercepts-hundreds-of-drones) - [Al Jazeera — reported injury count — 6 August 2026](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/6/russian-strikes-kill-six-in-ukraine-as-moscow-intercepts-hundreds-of-drones) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/report-khersons-roads-turn-deadly-as-drone-risk-reaches-civilian-routes