Russian responsibility for the strike and Ukraine’s duty to keep ammunition away from homes are under scrutiny after 38 deaths At least 38 people have been…
Russian responsibility for the strike and Ukraine’s duty to keep ammunition away from homes are under scrutiny after 38 deaths
At least 38 people have been killed and 52 injured after a Russian drone strike triggered secondary explosions at a military warehouse in Myla, west of Kyiv. As emergency teams continue working through the devastation, Ukrainian investigators are examining both the attack and the decision to store ammunition near a populated area.
What is known about the attack
The explosions began on the evening of 28 August after a drone struck warehouses in Myla, a village in the Bucha district of the Kyiv region. Ukrainian authorities said ammunition stored at the site detonated, spreading fire and explosive debris through surrounding residential areas.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that the death toll had reached 38. Fifty-two people were reported injured, including five children. The figures may still change as emergency workers search damaged buildings, identify victims and remove unexploded material.
Ukraine’s Security Service, the SBU, said approximately 130 homes and several other civilian buildings were damaged. It identified the weapon as a Russian Geran-4 drone, although the complete circumstances of the strike remain subject to investigation.
The SBU has opened criminal proceedings under provisions covering Russia’s crime of aggression and negligent performance of military duties. The two lines of inquiry reflect separate decisions that may have contributed to the scale of the loss.
Two duties towards civilians
Russia’s invasion created the conditions in which Myla was attacked. Launching a drone against Ukrainian territory was an intentional military act, and responsibility for that decision rests with those who planned and carried it out.
The presence of ammunition does not, however, remove the attacker’s obligations. Even when a site qualifies as a military objective, international humanitarian law requires an assessment of whether the expected harm to civilians would be excessive compared with the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Attackers must also take feasible precautions in their choice of weapons, timing and method.
Ukraine has a different but equally real precautionary duty. A defending force must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating ammunition and other military objectives in or near densely populated areas. That obligation is especially important when stored munitions could produce extensive secondary explosions after an attack, fire or accident.
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has emphasised both sides of this legal framework. Its investigators are gathering information from authorities and witnesses to establish the circumstances of the Myla disaster independently.
These obligations should not be collapsed into a false equivalence. Scrutiny of potentially unsafe Ukrainian storage does not excuse the Russian strike or dilute responsibility for the wider war. Equally, condemning Russian aggression cannot justify withholding answers from families whose homes were placed near a hazardous military facility.
An investigation with wider implications
Zelenskyy has acknowledged that the defence warehouse should not have been at that location. That admission gives the investigation political weight, but it does not establish who selected the site, what risk assessments were conducted or whether officials ignored storage and safety regulations.
Investigators will need to determine what was stored, in what quantities and for how long. They must also establish whether local authorities and residents knew about the risk, whether evacuation or emergency plans existed, and whether commanders had considered safer alternatives.
Individual blame should not be assigned before the evidence is examined. Wartime logistics are exceptionally difficult: ammunition must remain accessible to forces while depots face surveillance and repeated long-range attacks. Those pressures may explain decisions, but they do not eliminate the need for enforceable safety procedures.
Public confidence will depend on more than the prosecution of a convenient junior official. The inquiry should identify the chain of command, examine institutional practices and produce recommendations that can be applied to other storage sites. Families affected by the explosions also need prompt access to housing, medical treatment, compensation and clear information about contamination or unexploded ordnance.
Civilian harm is intensifying
The Myla deaths come during a sustained rise in civilian casualties. UN monitors said July produced the highest number of civilians killed and injured in Ukraine in any month since March 2022. Long-range missiles and drones have increasingly brought the war into cities and communities far from the active front.
European support for air defence remains essential, as earlier Russian attacks on populated areas have demonstrated. Yet interception systems are only one layer of protection. European assistance can also strengthen fire services, trauma care, explosive-ordnance disposal and secure military logistics designed to reduce danger to nearby communities.
Myla presents a difficult but necessary principle: protecting Ukraine and demanding accountability within Ukraine are compatible responsibilities. A credible investigation can honour those killed, reduce the risk of another preventable disaster and reinforce the distinction between defending a population and exposing it to avoidable danger.
