Ukrainian troops walk more, spreading out to avoid drones: operator 45%

By Jake Epstein54%

7/22/2026, 11:37:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Pessimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.7% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 726 faulty-reasoning hits from 574 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,298 of 20,444 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.30% of the article peer group.

Rising Russian drone activity is forcing Ukrainian special operators to adopt new safety measures near the front, such as moving farther on foot and keeping their distance from one another. 
"Things have changed," a special operator in the 4th Ranger Regiment of Ukraine's Special Operations Forces told Business Insider. 
"There are many more FPV drones now, especially fiber-optic ones. 
So there are more drones that can hit our vehicles or our personnel from farther away." 
"We walk more now," said the operator, who is second-in-command of a small unit. 
"And we keep more distance between the soldiers in the group, usually around 10 to 20 meters." 
He requested to be identified only by his call sign "Gur" for security reasons. 
Gur said soldiers in his unit carry pump-action shotguns, which are a last-resort defense against Russian first-person-view (FPV) drones, specifically those controlled by fiber-optic cables that can't be jammed with electronic warfare systems. 
"Before, there just wasn't as much need for that," he said of the shotguns, per a translation of his remarks. 
Ukrainian special forces operate inside the "kill zone," an area of the front line that is heavily saturated with drones and ground robots able to target soldiers and military vehicles. 
Movement is very dangerous; troops often seek cover to increase their chances of survival. 
While the kill zone varies in width, it generally extends about 10 to 20 kilometers from the line of contact. 
However, Ukrainian officials and soldiers have said that it is expanding, stretching up to 40 or 50 kilometers in some areas of the battlefield. 
Ukrainian soldiers sometimes spend days advancing through the zone to reach front-line positions; in many cases, this difficult journey may be the most dangerous part of their mission, Oleksiy Vyskub, Ukraine's first deputy defense minister, told Business Insider in May. 
He assessed that the kill zone could double in size this year. 
Gur said that the missions might begin 50 to 60 kilometers from the line of contact, still well within Russian targeting range. 
Ukrainian special operators will cover half that distance in armored or light infantry vehicles and then walk the rest of the way to avoid potential drone strikes on their rides. 
Thousands of armored vehicles have been destroyed on both sides of the conflict by artillery, mines, rockets, missiles, and drones. 
Ukraine and Russia have outfitted tanks and personnel carriers with anti-drone cages for added protection, but they aren't impenetrable. 
Once dismounted, the special operators work in small teams, making them more maneuverable and harder for a drone to spot. 
"At the moment, we infiltrate in small groups  usually two, three, or four soldiers," Gur said. 
Ukrainian operators will rotate teams for infiltration missions so soldiers have time to rest, train, and prepare for their next round. 
One group might spend a week in the kill zone conducting search-and-strike operations before passing the baton to another group. 
The severe drone saturation in the kill zone has also pushed Ukraine's special operators to start using ground robots, primarily for logistics and casualty evacuations, missions that have become too dangerous for humans. 
"If someone is wounded, say, 500 meters from the line of contact or somewhere" inside the kill zone, a ground robot can evacuate them, Gur said. 
"It's still something new for us," he said, "but we're training more soldiers to operate these systems, and we're building up our experience." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 2.4%Business Insider: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Jake Epstein: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.2%This article: 1.7%Jake Epstein: 4.8%Business Insider: 3.3%Availability Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Jake Epstein: 4.2%Business Insider: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias7.8%This article: 1.7%Jake Epstein: 9.9%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 5.7%Jake Epstein: 1.1%Business Insider: 0.7%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 2.4%Jake Epstein: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.7%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Jake Epstein: 3.6%Business Insider: 2.6%Optimism Bias7.7%This article: 11.0%Jake Epstein: 2.1%Business Insider: 1.4%Pessimism Bias11.0%This article: 15.7%Jake Epstein: 7.7%Business Insider: 4.9%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 1.1%Business Insider: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 1.2%Business Insider: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 6.1%Business Insider: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 2.3%Business Insider: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.6%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.8%Jake Epstein: 5.7%Business Insider: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.8%This article: 3.3%Jake Epstein: 1.3%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 5.7%Jake Epstein: 1.3%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Jake Epstein: 5.2%Business Insider: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.9%Business Insider: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.7%Jake Epstein: 5.6%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion8.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.5%Jake Epstein: 4.8%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.5%Jake Epstein: 7.2%Business Insider: 3.5%Anecdotal10.5%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 1.6%Business Insider: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.1%Jake Epstein: 2.1%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote11.1%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.2%Jake Epstein: 9.2%Business Insider: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 5.7%Jake Epstein: 0.6%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination5.7%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Epstein: 1.6%Business Insider: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

574 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech381writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGur • 33 words • 100.0% coverageGur • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageOleksiy Vyskub • 40 words • 0.0% coverageOleksiy Vyskub • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGur • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGur • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageGur • 26 words • 0.0% coverageGur • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Oleksiy Vyskub

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words27% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%Oleksiy Vyskub: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Oleksiy Vyskub: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.