NPOV
I do not discuss the credibility of Solovyov. The problem is that the whole artticle is written in aggressively anti-Russian tone. The article does not use new works on the problem. So, yopu need to clean away these unproven and chauvinistic sentences:
 even overt instigation of a civil war 
 Under the new treaty Ukraine was to become an equal constituent nation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth along with Poland and Lithuania under a name of Principality of Rus, forming the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth. Brutal lies, because the treaty did not mention any ukraine.
 The latter were mercilessly exterminated along with wide-spread abuse and robbery of the civilian population Please leave this tone for nationalistic yellow pnewspapers.
 On April 21, 1659, after a morning prayer, Trubetskoy ordered an all-out assault on the fortress's fortifications. The city was shelled, a few incendiary bombs were dropped inside, and the huge army moved on to capture the city. At one point the troops of Trubetskoy even broke inside the city walls, but were thrown back by the fierce resistance of the Cossacks inside. After the fiasco of the initial assault, Trubetskoy abandoned his plans of a quick assault and proceeded to shell the city and to fill the moat with earth. The Cossacks stubbornly held on in spite of all the fire unleashed on the city: during the night the earth put to fill in the moat was used to strengthen the city walls, and the besieged even undertook several daring counterattacks on Trubetskoy's besieging army. These attacks forced Prince Trubetskoy to move his military camp 10 km away from the city and thereby split his forces between the main army at his HQ and the army besieging Konotop. It is estimated that in the siege alone the Trubetskoy forces suffered casualties up to 10,000 men.[4] Instead of a quick campaign the siege dragged on for 70 days and gave Vyhovsky the much-needed time to prepare for the battle with the Russian army. Please clean away this exaggerated and long tale about nothing. You must add information, that Trubetskoy negotiated with Gulyanitski and finally had to put siege. Gulyanitski just wanted to win time. You must give time schedule, dates of the events and clean away this heroisation of some coronel.
  Vyhovsky and his allies approached the area and defeated a small reconnaissance detachment of the invader's army near the village of Shapovalivka Why invaders? The Ukraine was part of Russia.
 The bloom of Moscow's cavalry, troops that happily accomplished campaigns of year 54 and 55 have perished in one day — the victors got only about 5000 captive. The unfortunate were led onto an open space and slaughtered like lambs — that was the agreement between the Crimean Khan and the hetman of the Zaporozhian Cossacks! Never again was the tsar of Moscow able to master an army that strong. In mourning clothes showed himself Alexei Mikhailovich to the people and the terror seized Moscow. The blow was so hard because it was unexpected, and it followed such illustrious successes! It was only recently that Dolgoruki brought to Moscow a captured Lithuanian hetman, only recently was everyone talking about successes of Khovansky — and now Trubetskoy, for whom everyone had hopes higher than for others, and who was "a man devout and graceful, in military affairs skilled and a fright for a foe" — has ruined such a huge army! After capture of so many towns, after capture of the Lithuanian capital the royal city trembled for its own security: in August by tsar's decree people of all ranks hurried to build fortifications around Moscow. Often the tsar and the boyars were present themselves during the construction; people from outlying areas, their families with meagre belongings filled Moscow, and a rumour spread that the tsar was leaving to beyond the Volga and Yaroslavl[1]. Clean away this quote or I will give other long quotes from other books concerning the battle. This is not a wikiquote. This citation is not appropriate.
 Then you must sit and read what modern authors write about the battle, different views about how it hppened. The only source is the Witness, and he did not gave many lies you put into the article.