WW3? Ukraine/US vs. Donbass/Russia

Re ‘ Bogdan Khmelnitsky’

Text:

🇺🇦❤️🇷🇺 Ex-Ukrainian soldiers who surrendered are now begging to fight along side the Russian army to defeat Zelensky.

The new volunteer battalion "Bogdan Khmelnitsky" will be incorporated into the DPR army.

Currently, the battalion is undergoing the procedure of obtaining Russian citizenship, signing contracts, combat coordination, and is preparing for further actions at the front.

https://x.com/Alex_Oloyede2/status/1717870351353274604

September 2022

https://x.com/ESSA_A1I/status/1573736983238791168

July 7, 2022
https://x.com/RWApodcast/status/1544949234566369281

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://x.com/jaccocharite/status/1621071531974758400

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://x.com/mazzenilsson/status/1733168989797314791

Re,
‘ A senior Russian official made a shocking statement revealing that the "annexation of the whole of Ukraine will be decided by a referendum"!’

Text:
BREAKING ⚠️ MAJOR DEVELOPMENT. SHOCKING STATEMENT

A senior Russian official made a shocking statement revealing that the "annexation of the whole of Ukraine will be decided by a referendum"!

It is the first time since the beginning of the war that such a thing has been officially heard, a fact that shows that Russia's goals have changed after the collapse of the Ukrainian Army and the cessation of funding from the US (and perhaps the EU).

FULL VIDEO: https://youtu.be/rp_KW64FOeE?si=iClUGIcecjq6_viI

#Ukraine #Russia #NATO

https://x.com/Therealgsns/status/1732937460525519321

https://x.com/YarisowJr/status/1483823559839526913

Published, January 13 2022

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia...vasion-ukraine

Russia’s Possible Invasion of Ukraine

The Issue

If peace talks fail, the Russian military has several options to advance into Ukraine through northern, central, and southern invasion routes. But a Russian attempt to seize and hold territory will not necessarily be easy and will likely be impacted by challenges from weather, urban combat, command and control, logistics, and the morale of Russian troops and the Ukrainian population. The United States and its European allies and partners should be prepared for an invasion by taking immediate economic, diplomatic, military, intelligence, and humanitarian steps to aid Ukraine and its population and shore up defenses along the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) eastern flank.

Introduction

Russian president Vladimir Putin continues to threaten an invasion of Ukraine with a major military buildup near the Russian-Ukrainian border and aggressive language. Russia has deployed offensive weapons and systems within striking distance of Ukraine, including main battle tanks, self-propelled howitzers, infantry fighting vehicles, multiple launch rocket systems, Iskander short-range ballistic missile systems, and towed artillery, as highlighted in Figures 1a and 1b. Putin has complemented this buildup with blunt language that Ukraine is historically part of Russia and that Kiev needs to return to the Russian fold.1 Russia’s threat is particularly alarming for at least two reasons. First, Russia could move its pre-positioned forces into Ukraine quickly. If fully committed, the Russian military is significantly stronger and more capable than Ukraine’s military, and the United States and other NATO countries have made it clear they will not deploy their forces to Ukraine to repel a Russian invasion. Even if diplomats reach an agreement, Putin has shown a willingness to dial up—and down—the war in Ukraine and threaten to expand the war, making the Russian threat persistent. Second, an invasion would mark a significant change in international politics, creating a new “Iron Curtain” that begins along Russia’s borders with Finland and the Baltic states and moves south through Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and finally to East Asia along China’s southern flank.

Consequently, it is important to understand how Russia could invade Ukraine, how specific political objectives may influence an invasion plan, the challenges an invasion may face, and what options the United States and its European partners have to respond. To help understand these dynamics, this brief asks several questions. What are Russian president Vladimir Putin’s objectives? What military options does Russia have, and what might an invasion look like? How should the United States and its allies and partners respond?

The brief makes two main arguments. First, if Russia decides to invade Ukraine to reassert Russian control and influence, there are at least three possible axes of advance to seize Ukrainian territory: a northern thrust, possibly attempting to outflank Ukrainian defenses around Kiev by approaching through Belarus; a central thrust advancing due west into Ukraine; and a southern thrust advancing across the Perekop isthmus. Second, if the United States and its European partners fail to deter a Russian invasion, they should support Ukrainian resistance through a combination of diplomatic, military, intelligence, and other means. The United States and its European partners cannot allow Russia to annex Ukraine. The West’s appeasement of Moscow when it annexed Crimea in 2014 and then orchestrated an insurgency in Eastern Ukraine only emboldened Russian leaders. In addition, Russian annexation of some or all of Ukraine would increase Russian manpower, industrial capacity, and natural resources to a level that could make it a global threat. The United States and Europe cannot make this mistake again.

The rest of this brief is divided into three main sections. First, it examines Russian political objectives. Second, the brief analyzes Russian military options. Third, it explores options available to the United States and its allies and partners.

Russian Political Objectives

The Kremlin wants what it says: an end to NATO expansion, a rollback of previous expansion, a removal of American nuclear weapons from Europe, and a Russian sphere of influence. However, Putin may accept less. The Kremlin’s primary goal is a guarantee that Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia will never belong to a military or economic bloc other than the ones Moscow controls and that Russia will be the ultimate arbitrator of the foreign and security policy of all three states. In essence, this conflict is about whether 30 years after the demise of the Soviet Union, its former ethnic republics can live as independent, sovereign states or if they still must acknowledge Moscow as their de facto sovereign.

Ostensibly, the demand for an exclusive sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the south Caucasus is to meet Russian security interests. The Kremlin has portrayed NATO expansion to the east as the original sin of post-Soviet international relations with the West that now must be rectified. Facts, alternate interpretations, and the security concerns of equally sovereign nations notwithstanding, Moscow claims that without such guarantees, it will use military force to protect its security interests.

Russian Military Options

Based on these political objectives, the Kremlin has at least six possible military options:

1. Redeploy some of its ground forces away from the Ukrainian border—at least temporarily—if negotiations are successful but continue to aid pro-Russian rebels in Eastern Ukraine.

2. Send conventional Russian troops into the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk as unilateral “peacekeepers” and refuse to withdraw them until peace talks end successfully and Kiev agrees to implement the Minsk Accords.

3. Seize Ukrainian territory as far west as the Dnepr River to use as a bargaining chip or incorporate this new territory fully into the Russian Federation. This option is represented in Figure 2a.

4. Seize Ukrainian territory up to the Dnepr River and seize an additional belt of land (to include Odessa) that connects Russian territory with the breakaway Transdniestria Republic and separates Ukraine from any access to the Black Sea. The Kremlin would incorporate these new lands into Russia and ensure that the rump Ukrainian statelet remains economically unviable.

5. Seize only a belt of land between Russia and Transdniestria (including Mariupol, Kherson, and Odessa) to secure freshwater supplies for Crimea and block Ukraine’s access to the sea, while avoiding major combat over Kiev and Kharkiv. This option is represented in Figure 2b.

6. Seize all of Ukraine and, with Belarus, announce the formation of a new tripartite Slavic union of Great, Little, and White Russians (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians). This option would involve operations represented in Figure 2a as “phase one,” with Figure 2c representing “phase two” of this option.

Of these six options, the first two are the least likely to incur significant international sanctions but have limited chance of achieving a breakthrough on either NATO issues or the Minsk Accords due to their coercive nature. All other options bring major international sanctions and economic hardship and would be counterproductive to the goal of weakening NATO or decoupling the United States from its commitments to European security.

Options three through six could achieve another goal—the destruction of an independent Ukraine—whose evolution toward a liberal democratic state has become a major source of contention among the Kremlin’s security elites. Option three would have Russia control a substantial amount of Ukrainian territory but still leave it as an economically viable state. Option four leaves only an agrarian rump Ukraine but precludes occupying its most nationalistic areas. Option five leaves more of Ukraine free but still cuts its access to the sea and incurs fewer occupation costs. Options four and five—seizing a belt of land from Tiraspol to Mariupol—are complicated by the fact that there is no east-west running natural feature, river, or mountain range that could serve as a natural line of demarcation for this occupied land. The new border along this territory would run across countless fields and forests and be difficult to defend. Option six means occupying the entire country and dealing with the assimilation of a population of 41 million that may resist occupation actively and passively for years. It would require an occupation force of considerable size to control the population and man the new borders with NATO countries. Ukrainians in any occupied territory can expect forced Russification that the nation experienced under such rulers as Catherine the Great, Alexander II, Stalin, and Brezhnev.

Possible Invasion Routes

Ideological preparation of Russian society for a conflict with Ukraine has been ongoing since at least 2014, with Kremlin propaganda portraying Ukraine as a proto-fascist, neo-Nazi state. In July 2021, a public letter by President Putin asserted that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people and castigated Ukraine’s authorities for justifying independence by denying its past.2 The Russian military made President Putin’s article compulsory reading for its soldiers.3 This was followed in October by a letter in the newspaper Kommersant by Russian Security Council vice-president Dmitry Medvedev, which used antisemitic tones to delegitimize the current Ukrainian leadership as extremist, corrupt, and foreign controlled.4

With an ideological basis for action in place, the next step is to create a casus belli—justification for war—consistent with the Kremlin-manufactured image of Ukraine. Pretexts for an attack could range from a straightforward breakdown of security talks to a stage-managed incident similar to the provocations at Mukden, Gleiwitz, and Mainila that provided justification for Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, Germany’s invasion of Poland, and the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland, respectively. This is why the bizarre claim of Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu posted on the Kremlin’s official website of American mercenaries preparing a “provocation” with chemical weapons in Ukraine is ominous and might foreshadow just the type of “incident” the Kremlin would prepare.5

Once there is a casus belli, cyberattacks will likely follow to degrade Ukraine’s military command and control systems and public communications and electrical grids. Next, kinetic operations will likely begin with air and missile strikes against Ukraine’s air force and air defense systems. Once air superiority is established, Russian ground forces would move forward, slightly preceded by special operations to degrade further command and control capabilities and delay the mobilization of reserves by conducting bombings, assassinations, and sabotage operations.

The scheme of maneuver of a Russian military invasion of Ukraine will likely be influenced by which of the above political goals the Kremlin wishes to achieve, the geography of the land and cities to be fought over, and the transportation routes to bring up logistics. If the Kremlin wishes to exercise options three, four, or six, and taking into consideration primary geography and logistics, there are three likely axes of advance to seize Ukrainian territory east of the Dnepr River, with the river as either a limit of advance or the first phase line of a larger invasion.

Northern Route: Russia could advance toward Kiev along two routes. The first would be 150 miles by road through Novye Yurkovichi, Russia; Chernihiv, Ukraine; and into Kiev, Ukraine. The second would be a 200-mile thrust through Troebortnoe, Russia; Konotop, Ukraine; Nizhyn, Ukraine; and into Kiev.6 If Minsk were to acquiesce to the use of its road and rail networks, the Russian army could outflank Ukrainian defenses around Kiev and approach them from the rear via a 150-mile axis of advance from Mazur, Belarus, to Korosten, Ukraine, and finally to Kiev.

Central Route: Russia could also advance due west along three routes. The first might include a 200-mile axis that moves through Belgorod, Russia; Kharkiv, Ukraine; Poltava, Ukraine; and finally to Kremenchuk, Ukraine. The second might include a 140-mile axis thrust through Donetsk, Ukraine to Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine; and possibly also another thrust from Donetsk to Dnipro, Ukraine. The third might involve Russian forces advancing along the coastline toward Mariupol, Berdyansk, and the Perekop isthmus connecting Crimea to Ukraine.

Southern Route: Russia could also advance across the Perekop isthmus to take Kherson and the source of freshwater for Crimea and simultaneously toward the vicinity of Melitopol to link up with Russian forces advancing along the coast of the Sea of Azov. If Russia was to attempt option five, this would be the main attack coupled with the assault along the coastline toward Mariupol and Berdyansk. But it would be hardest to sustain logistically due to the lack of a railway running along the Sea of Azov coast and the main direction of advance.
Figure 2 highlights possible invasion routes. All of these routes, except the coastal one, parallel existing rail lines. This is essential since Russian army logistics forces are not designed for large-scale ground offensives far from railroads.7 If Russia’s objectives include denying Ukraine future access to the sea, it will have to seize Odessa. Some predict that this would be accomplished via amphibious and airborne landings near Odessa, which link up with mechanized forces approaching from the east. If Russia intends to conquer the entire country, its forces would need to seize Odessa (whose port facilities would ease Russian logistics) and also cross the Dnepr River at several points to march and fight an additional 350 to 700 miles further west to occupy all of Ukraine up to its borders with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Moldova.

The rest of this article here,

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia...vasion-ukraine

¤=[Post Update]=¤

https://x.com/blackdiammon/status/1717669043115643020

¤=[Post Update]=¤

March 17

https://x.com/onlydjole/status/1636701889713561602

Quote:

---

Posted by Vicus

Vicus comment:
I really don't know what to make about this article...in RT, Sputnik and Pravda is nothing about...

---

(my own comment here as a reply to Vicus' post and several other similar reports as well)

Yes, I'm profoundly doubting that as well. I suspect this is misunderstood, invented, or possibly just some mischievous unofficial comment that doesn't represent the Kremlin's view at all.

Putin doesn't want to be managing a failed state and salvaging its economy, while all the remaining Ukrainians west of the Dniepr continue to hate Russia and everything it stands for.

But most Russians agree they should annex Odessa and Kharkov, which are both traditionally and historically Russian. And that's where the SMO would stop.

The Duran
Russia-NATO Domino theory to secure Ukraine money

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8xHj-D8WdLU

Text:
The Avdeevka stranglehold on the Ukrainian Armed Forces is tightening.

The enemy’s media resources admit that the position of the Kyiv regime troops in Avdeevka is deteriorating.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces units are under constant artillery fire and air strikes. At the same time, Western experts admit that our troops are successfully operating on the flanks near Avdeevka.

What’s interesting here is that even in the West, propagandists can no longer use the theme of “heroic defense.” Sooner or later, the Kiev regime will lose a strategically important area in close proximity to the capital of the DPR. The only question is at what cost. I am sure that the group of Western curators of the Kyiv regime, which is now shaking the chair under Zelensky, will in any case take advantage of the situation in Avdiivka to weaken the bloc of the current leader of the Kyiv regime. And here political technologies will do their job.

But Zelensky himself is actively helping to tighten his own noose.

Zin Note: Interestingly, the ISW seems more negative about the AFUs situation than the Russian reports.

#Source

@Slavyangrad

https://x.com/djuric_zlatko/status/1733256419015565795

Quote:

---

Posted by Tintin

I'll leave that to you, the observer, to decide either way: how else does the West try to sell a 'win' from an obvious military - and geopolitical - humiliation?

---

Except for Grenada 1983, I am not sure the west has won anything.

It was thrown out of Afghanistan by the Taliban it had a hand in starting.

Sort of like being thrown out of Africa by its trainees.

It has been successful with a few CIA coups and "breaking" places like Libya or Yugoslavia, but for the most part it is not a "winner" and whatever it may be saying is invalid.

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Quote:

---

Posted by Vicus

Vicus comment:
I really don't know what to make about this article...in RT, Sputnik and Pravda is nothing about...

---

(my own comment here as a reply to Vicus' post and several other similar reports as well)

Yes, I'm profoundly doubting that as well. I suspect this is misunderstood, invented, or possibly just some mischievous unofficial comment that doesn't represent the Kremlin's view at all.

---

It was another "shocking statement". I'm tired of hearing this. Means something is wrong with the reporter.

Stuff like this is an "opinion", maybe even a shared one, but the most direct thing we have heard is that the border will be pushed back until Russia decides it compensates for the longest-range weapons being used.

I am pretty sure that it is at least the two important provinces, possibly more, but no, of course Russia is not particularly interested in populations that are essentially hostile, meaning there is negative value in the hardcore Ukrainian areas. Similarly, this appears to be an overbearing CSIS opinion:

Quote:

---

The Kremlin’s primary goal is a guarantee that Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia will never belong to a military or economic bloc other than the ones Moscow controls and that Russia will be the ultimate arbitrator of the foreign and security policy of all three states. In essence, this conflict is about whether 30 years after the demise of the Soviet Union, its former ethnic republics can live as independent, sovereign states or if they still must acknowledge Moscow as their de facto sovereign.

---

What??

In essence, this conflict is about thirty years of military buildup that were about to invade Russia. With a sniper-inspired coup thrown in to ensure independence and sovereignty.

Being just the tip of the iceberg.

If someone wants to take the time to map it out, you would have clear examples of Ukraine trashing land rights, labor reform, "bio-research", and so on to every field of endeavor...if you can name it, it went sour...unless that is Ukrainian superiority, that lofty state that only exceptional people have, which means you should always get your way because you want to.

Russia will surely push it back across the river--which one, I am not sure yet--and I bet all of this NED hubris will go on auto-play long after no one is listening....

Polish Media Debunks Zelensky Narrative That Ukraine is Fighting for West's Freedom 19 minutes ago

https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/im...7eb5c87262.jpg

Ukraine’s president and his ministers have spent nearly two years parroting the line that Kiev is fighting for the West’s freedom, and that if Russia is allowed to win, it will attack other European countries. But some Poles no longer buy these claims.

Kiev’s “cunning propaganda” suggesting that a Russian victory in Ukraine will inevitably be followed up with attacks on NATO countries are little more than a form of “demagoguery” and “blackmail” completely detached from reality. That’s according to an editorial published in Polish politics journal Mysl Polska.
“An Estonian military officer has formulated the following thesis: that ‘there are only two options: either Ukraine will win, or there will be World War III’. This ridiculous proposition is probably shared by a large part of Ukraine’s supporters in our country,” the alternative conservative media outlet wrote, pointing to efforts by some actors to convince the public “that a Ukrainian defeat will mean we will definitely be attacked by Russia.”

But the latter claim is little more than a “cunning propaganda move by Kiev aimed at maintaining Western policy of unconditional military and financial support,” with these kind of “demagogic statements…often used by Ukrainian politicians as blackmail (for example, during the Polish truckers’ protests). This trick is also used by the failing administration of Joe Biden, which frightens the countries of NATO’s eastern flank with the prospect of an attack by Russia,” the journal emphasized.

The reality is the exact opposition, and “there is no country in Europe that should be more interested in ending the war than Poland, which will be the first to face the consequences if the military situation escalates. Poland should be among the first countries to demand an end to this war, just like the Hungarians are doing. However, no political force in our country will dare to formulate such a demand... Why? Because the dogma of ‘fighting to the end’ continues to applies. The fact that it means ‘to the last Ukrainian’ is something no one in Poland cares about.”

The political journal lamented that “no one in Poland is talking about the fundamental change in the West’s policy toward Russia towards dialogue and the creation of a security system in which all parties (Russia and the West) will feel safe. To achieve this, we will need to end NATO’s march to the east, clearly declare that Ukraine will be a neutral country, end the policy of endless sanctions and revive all institutions that could be a platform for dialogue between Russia and the Europe (e.g. The OSCE). Someone might say, but isn’t that impossible? If so, they will be admitting that the Estonian military officer quoted above is right – that the alternative is World War III,” Mysl Polska summarized.

Kiev leaders and their supporters in the West have said repeatedly over the past 20+ monhts that the proxy war against Russia is in Ukraine is actually a “fight for the West’s freedom,” with now ex-defense minister Oleksii Reznikov suggesting earlier this year that Kiev was “eliminating” the “threat” posed by Russia to the Western bloc. “We are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons,” he said, adding that Kiev was “defending the entire civilized world, the entire West” from the Russians.
Russian officials have indicated repeatedly over the past year and a half that there would be no proxy war in Ukraine today if Kiev took steps to end the Donbass crisis, and if the US and its allies refrained from crossing Russia’s red lines by trying to pull Ukraine into NATO.

https://sputnikglobe.com/20231209/po...115500113.html

The front collapsed: Dozens of forts fell - The Russians destroyed the Ukrainian defenses around Chasiv Yar - They are trapped in the Channel!

The Ukrainian front collapsed in Bakhmut: The Russians are advancing from two axes!

Russian forces register significant territorial gains on the Bakhmut front, three 24 hours after the start of the general offensive.

The Ukrainian front in the area appears to have collapsed as the Russians push the Ukrainians at high speed towards the Chasiv Yar channel formed by the Siverski Donets-Donbass River. The retreat of the Ukrainians at this point is expected to happen as soon as they lose the settlement of Ivanivske (Krasnoe).

The problems for the Ukrainians have multiplied and are now focused on 3 axes: the Klysifka front, the Bogdanovka front and the Ivanivske (Krasnoe) front that opened in the last few hours.

The Russians have swept dozens of Ukrainian strongholds from the right and left sides around Chasiv Yar.

It is worth noting that the Wagner forces tried during the siege of Bakhmut to occupy Ivanivske as it is considered a strategically important settlement, but they did not succeed.

https://warnews247-gr.translate.goog..._x_tr_pto=wapp

Russia to Target FrankenSAM Production in Ukraine as Soon as It's Up and Running

https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/im...c23f3.jpg.webp

Washington has announced the transfer of technical documentation for the localization of production of arms from the FrankenSAM program – the air defense ‘Frankenstein’s monster’ created by combining Western missiles with Ukraine’s Soviet-era launchers and radars. Veteran military expert Andrei Koshkin explains why the program is destined to fail.

The White House released a press ‘fact sheet’ Wednesday indicating that “the Department of Defense and industry partners” had “provided Ukraine with technical data to start local production of some of the FrankenSAM projects that seek to enable Ukraine’s legacy air defense systems by integrating certain Western munitions.”
“Parallel production of these systems in Ukraine and the United States will allow for faster fielding and enable Ukraine to contribute significantly to the sustainment of its air defense system,” the statement said.

“These initial deliverables,” combined with other US assistance, “will not only expand US-Ukraine cooperation and provide Ukraine with the capabilities it needs to be successful on the battlefield in the short term, but will support Ukraine’s long-term economic recovery and defense,” the White House assured.

The FrankenSAM program, revealed to media in October, is designed to kill two birds with one stone, compensating for losses taken by Ukraine’s NATO-sourced air defense systems to Russian missile and drone strikes, and presenting the Pentagon with a chance for some penny-pinching as resources allocated to Kiev run dry amid wrangling in Washington over US President Joe Biden’s request for over $60 billion in additional aid.

FrankenSAM consists of at least three projects – one involving the creation of a ground-based, short-range air defense system using AIM-9M Sidewinder missiles, a second involving fitting AIM-7 Sparrow missiles to early version of the Buk missile system, and a third involving the modernization of the HAWK medium-range SAM system.

All three American weapons systems are old, going back to the 1950s.

When fused with Ukraine’s stocks of old Soviet-era launchers and radars, FrankenSAMs promise to provide Kiev with a vintage air defense army, but will have difficulty fighting off modern Russian strike systems.
But in a situation where additional US funds for Ukraine remain stalled in Congress, and where NATO is forced to organize a global scavenger hunt to slap together new weapons and ammo assistance packages for Kiev, the FrankenSAM project makes sense, retired Russian colonel and veteran military expert Andrei Koshkin told Sputnik.

“When it comes to the relevance of creating some kind of monster, some kind of Frankenstein containing elements from Western weapons systems and Soviet weapons systems allowing for the use of available ammunition, this is very relevant today, given a situation in which the ‘dollar shower’ falling on Ukraine has dried up,” Koshkin said.

continue: https://sputnikglobe.com/20231208/ru...115485502.html

Military Situation In Ukraine On December 9, 2023 (Map Update)

https://s2.cdnstatic.space/wp-conten...ap-768x543.jpg


Russian strikes destroyed Ukrainian ammo depot near Volchansk;
Russian strikes targeted military infrastructure at Kulbakino airfield;
Russian strikes damaged an infrastructure facility in Kherson;
On December 8, Russian strikes hit targets in the Kiev region;
On December 8, Russian strikes hit targets in the Dnepropetrovsk region;
At least 11 Ukrainian boats with Ukrainian servicemen on board were reportedly destroyed and damaged in the Kherson region at night;
The AFU shelled the Donetsk city agglomeration 10 times over the past day;
Russian forces repelled Ukrainian attacks near Serebryansky forestry;
Clashes continued in Krynki;
Clashes continued near Kurdyumovka, Andreyevka and Kleshcheyevka;
Clashes continued near Pyatikhatki, Verbovoye and Rabotino;
Russian forces eliminated 105 Ukrainian servicemen, three motor vehicles, as well as one Gvozdika self-propelled artillery system in Kupyansk area;
Russian forces eliminated 155 Ukrainian servicemen, two armoured fighting vehicles and three motor vehicles in Krasny Liman area;
Russian forces eliminated 200 Ukrainian servicemen, two armoured fighting vehicles, two motor vehicles, one Msta-B howitzer, and one D-30 gun in Donetsk area;
Russian forces eliminated 80 Ukrainian servicemen, as well as two motor vehicles in South Donetsk area;
Russian forces eliminated 35 servicemen, two motor vehicles, one D-30 howitzer, one Gvozdika artillery system in Zaporozhye region;
Russian forces eliminated 50 Ukrainian servicemen and three motor vehicles in Kherson region;
Russian air defense systems shot down 11 Ukrainian drones over the past day.

https://maps.southfront.press/milita...23-map-update/

Vicus comment:
If you go to this page you can zoom on the map.
And you can see that those hyenas scum pack continue to shell Donetsk capital ...
I know... its just to attract the Russian attention, but civil people continue to die everyday !

Text:
🇷🇺🇺🇦AFU POW speaks about his service and ‘care’ of his commanders

‘They threw me into a minibus like a kitten,’ says Pyotr Shcherbaty, an AFU serviceman, about mobilization ‘like they do it in Ukraine’. – ‘They mobilize everyone, they don't even ask for their surnames. One guy was badly beaten and kept in the basement’. The prisoner of war complains that there was no medical examination at the enlistment office and he was sent to the troops in the evening.

Pyotr Shcherbaty assures that he did not undergo any training, he was only given an opportunity to fire a couple of rounds. Then Shcherbaty was taken to the front line, where were treated as ‘disposable’. Faced with supply problems, Ukrainian servicemen even had to steal food from local residents.

At positions in the forest, Shcherbaty's group stumbled upon the Russian units and surrendered. The serviceman says he does not want to go back. He is sure that it is better to stay in captivity. The POW urges Ukrainians not to join the army to avoid mobilization at all costs.

Russian Defense Ministry

https://x.com/dana916/status/1733501152199688693

https://x.com/arktinentuuli/status/1733389977642275107

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Text:
Kherson direction, news from the front:

🖋"Tonight 6 enemy boats were destroyed and 5 more were damaged.

From what we could see: 15 enemy personnel - 200, about 40 Armed Forces personnel - 300. Enemy ammunition and provisions sank.

Enemy personnel on another 7 boats refused to sail for rotation to our shore."

Two majors TG
https://x.com/GeromanAT/status/1733355068408074585

Quote:

---

Posted by Ravenlocke

https://x.com/arktinentuuli/status/1733389977642275107

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Text:
Kherson direction, news from the front:

🖋"Tonight 6 enemy boats were destroyed and 5 more were damaged.

From what we could see: 15 enemy personnel - 200, about 40 Armed Forces personnel - 300. Enemy ammunition and provisions sank.

Enemy personnel on another 7 boats refused to sail for rotation to our shore."

Two majors TG
https://x.com/GeromanAT/status/1733355068408074585

---

for rotation?

That must be lost in translation, surely?

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

for rotation?

That must be lost in translation, surely?

---

No, it's about the rotation of small units of men — one group being replaced by another so that they can rest, sleep, eat, recover, and so on. (And/or because the group needing to be replaced had suffered a large proportion of deaths or casualties.)

It appears that some of those scheduled for rotation (to go to the front lines to replace their beleaguered comrades) refused because they figured they were just being sent to their likely deaths.

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

for rotation?

That must be lost in translation, surely?

---

No, it's about the rotation of small units of men — one group being replaced by another so that they can rest, sleep, eat, recover, and so on. (And/or because the group needing to be replaced had suffered a large proportion of deaths or casualties.)

It appears that some of those scheduled for rotation (to go to the front lines to replace their beleaguered comrades) refused because they figured they were just being sent to their likely deaths.

---

Understood, but why would Ukraninan soldiers expect to find 'rotational' relief with the 'so called' enemy?

(Even if they understood it would be a route free from the trauma and horrors it wouldn't be 'rotational' relief).

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

for rotation?

That must be lost in translation, surely?

---

No, it's about the rotation of small units of men — one group being replaced by another so that they can rest, sleep, eat, recover, and so on. (And/or because the group needing to be replaced had suffered a large proportion of deaths or casualties.)

It appears that some of those scheduled for rotation (to go to the front lines to replace their beleaguered comrades) refused because they figured they were just being sent to their likely deaths.

---

Understood, but why would Ukraninan soldiers expect to find 'rotational' relief with the 'so called' enemy?

(Even if they understood it would be a route free from the trauma and horrors it wouldn't be 'rotational' relief).

---

No no no, read it again carefully. :thumbsup:

"Enemy personnel on another 7 boats refused to sail for rotation to our shore."

This is stated from the Russians' point of view, and the east shore of the Dniepr is 'their shore'. But the Ukrainians are defending small front line positions there, after small boats had already crossed the big river to establish them.

It's those Ukrainian units that need to be rotated with other Ukrainian units waiting in reserve on the west shore, and it's those Ukrainian units on the west shore that have refused to cross the river themselves to replace them.

It's like a substitution in football/soccer. But the replacement players don't want to get off the bench on to the field. (Understandably!! :))

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

for rotation?

That must be lost in translation, surely?

---

No, it's about the rotation of small units of men — one group being replaced by another so that they can rest, sleep, eat, recover, and so on. (And/or because the group needing to be replaced had suffered a large proportion of deaths or casualties.)

It appears that some of those scheduled for rotation (to go to the front lines to replace their beleaguered comrades) refused because they figured they were just being sent to their likely deaths.

---

Understood, but why would Ukraninan soldiers expect to find 'rotational' relief with the 'so called' enemy?

(Even if they understood it would be a route free from the trauma and horrors it wouldn't be 'rotational' relief).

---

No no no, read it again carefully. :thumbsup:

"Enemy personnel on another 7 boats refused to sail for rotation to our shore."

This is stated from the Russians' point of view, and the east shore of the Dniepr is 'their shore'. But the Ukrainians are defending small front line positions there, after small boats had already crossed the big river to establish them.

It's those Ukrainian units that need to be rotated with other Ukrainian units waiting in reserve on the west shore, and it's those Ukrainian units on the west shore that have refused to cross the river themselves to replace them.

It's like a substitution in football/soccer. But the replacement players don't want to get off the bench on to the field. (Understandably!! :))

---

Oh dear. I am so slow sometimes. Thank you Bill.

Quote:

---

Posted by Ewan

Oh dear. I am so slow sometimes. Thank you Bill.

---

Not slow at all! :bearhug: It was confusing, and all these reports are written assuming any reader is already fully up to speed with whatever the heck happened the previous day.

To add some more context, here's an extract from a BBC article I posted a few days ago. The relevant parts are in red.

Quote:

---

Posted by Bill Ryan

From the BBC, published today. The extracts below are worth reading. :flower:

• https://bbc.com/news/world-europe-67565508

Ukraine war: Soldier tells BBC of front-line 'hell'
...

"Everyone who wanted to volunteer for war came a long time ago - it's too hard now to tempt people with money. Now we're getting those who didn't manage to escape the draft. You'll laugh at this, but some of our marines can't even swim."

[...snipped...]

"I got out after getting concussed from a mine, but one of my colleagues didn't make it - all that was left of him was his helmet.
|
"I feel like I escaped from hell, but the guys who replaced us last time got into even more hell than us.

"But the next rotation is due. My time to cross the river again is soon."

---