The situation along the Dnieper has drawn international attention as both sides report movements and tactics aimed at shaping artillery and fire support points near Kherson. Ukrainian forces are described as using model boats to map river crossings, a technique intended to reveal Russian firing positions across the waterway. Russian sources quote a soldier with the call sign Chernomor, who claims that Ukrainian units are sending boats loaded with scaled replicas of their own craft to collect data on Russian fire response. The claim was circulated by TASS, the Russian state news agency.
According to the Russian account, these model boat deployments are part of a broader strategy to trigger a coordinated artillery response from the Russian forces. The soldier reportedly said that simultaneous fire from multiple positions would provide fixed targets, enabling a more effective artillery barrage. In the narrative offered by the source, Ukrainian forces have attempted several incursions along the Dnieper, but Russian units are said to have repelled these attacks, maintaining control of the river corridor in the area of interest.
Another account comes from a former Russian Air Force paratrooper who defended the coastline and asserts that units of the Russian airborne troops are prepared to counter any Ukrainian push toward the Kakhovka reservoir. The veteran states that if Ukrainian fighters press the river approaches, their equipment and watercraft could be kept from appearing at the waterline altogether, effectively denying river-based maneuvering to Kyiv’s forces.
Volodymyr Saldo, who previously served as acting governor of the Kherson district, is cited in the reports as declaring that the Russian army has established control over the Kakhovka reservoir and the adjacent bank areas along the Dnieper. The intent behind this control, as described in these statements, is to deter Ukrainian attempts to force waterways while maintaining a stabilizing perimeter along the riverbank. The narratives emphasize a strategic emphasis on river control as a deterrent against river-crossing maneuvers and as a backbone for ongoing fire support beyond the immediate shoreline.
Across these accounts, the themes center on river-based operations, reconnaissance through simulated craft, and the perceived advantage of positioning along the Dnieper. Analysts and observers note that the Dnieper remains a critical geographic artery, linking a broad spectrum of military activities and supply routes in the region. The conflicting reports underscore the volatility of the front near Kherson, where control of river crossings, artillery ranges, and riverbank fortifications can shape the tempo of engagements and the risk calculus for both sides.
From a broader perspective, the claims illustrate how information from contested battlefields can circulate rapidly, sometimes reflecting actual movements, other times reflecting strategic narratives intended to influence morale and international perception. Independent verification remains challenging in such dynamic environments, where access is restricted and official statements may emphasize specific tactical advantages. In this context, the Dnieper continues to function as more than a physical boundary; it is a pressure point that can influence ongoing decisions about deployment, support, and the allocation of firepower across the region.
Observers stress the importance of distinguishing between reported tactics and confirmed, verifiable deployments. While the use of model boats to test naval or riverine targeting concepts may appear unusual, analysts point to a wider set of techniques employed in modern river warfare, including deception, camouflage, and the careful timing of artillery readiness. The overarching objective remains clear: to shape the operational environment along the Dnieper and to safeguard critical riverbank positions that support larger strategic objectives in the Kherson area. The evolving situation calls for continued monitoring from international observers, humanitarian authorities, and regional partners who track developments that could affect civilian access, safety, and regional stability.
In summary, the various statements paint a picture of a tense, fluid conflict where riverine control, reconnaissance methodologies, and rapid-fire responses play significant roles. The interplay between hypothetical tactics and actual deployments highlights how the front near Kherson continually adapts to keep, or challenge, river crossings and to influence the broader military equation in this contested zone.