The Situation in the Ukraine. #26

Ukrops take casualties when they are in the open and engaged in small scale infantry attacks, raids really, and so are hit by fire from small arms, AGS and BMP. They are not taking artillery fire onto their prepared field positions, and VSN are only using artillery for counter battery fire, if necessary. If ukrops fixed field positions were being hit by VSN artillery then they can show the evidence to media and OSCE that VSN break Minsk, but nothing. Casualties from small arms fire don't have propaganda value to them as it shows that they can only have occurred because they have moved forward from their fixed positions and actively attacked, and so broke Minsk.

Ukrops reported to have launched attack in the south at Dzerzhinskoe with one infantry company supported by armored vehicles and fire from mortars and artillery. It is reported that the attack was beaten off and that at least five ukrops were killed and eight wounded and one BTR lost. No VSN casualties reported.

Khepesh wrote:Ukrops reported to have launched attack in the south at Dzerzhinskoe with one infantry company supported by armored vehicles and fire from mortars and artillery. It is reported that the attack was beaten off and that at least five ukrops were killed and eight wounded and one BTR lost. No VSN casualties reported.

the HaHols are up to something with their probing VSN positions it's as if they are looking for possible weak spots

Russian MoD Summons Ukrainian Military Attache Over Missile Drills Near Crimea

The Russian Defense Ministry has summoned the Ukrainian military attache over Kiev's intention to hold missile firing exercises near Crimea.

"The attache was given a document which includes a protest against illegal restrictions introduced by the Ukrainian side on the use of airspace over the Black Sea during December 1-2 missile firing drills to the west of the Crimean peninsula coastline," the ministry's statement read.

Earlier on Friday, Russia's Federal Agency for Air Transport (Rosaviatsiya) said Ukraine had decided to hold missile firing exercises in Russia's airspace near Crimea.

The statement noted that "Ukraine-declared south-eastern boundaries of the danger zone violate the territorial waters of the Russian Federation, which is a breach of international law and Russian legislation."

Source: https://sputniknews.com/military/201611251047852437-russia-ukraine-crimea-missile-drills/

---

Well, if the Kiev junta would screw over everyone, and order their Tochka missiles close to Novorossiya instead of Crimea, they would fire them from at least 90-100 kilometers away from the main frontline.

So let's imagine a hypothetical missile strike on DPR:

If they would fire the missiles from the vicinity of Berdyansk, they could hit the villages of Trudovskoye, Kominternovo, Telmanovo, where heavy clashes are taking place (Donetsk is safe BTW). Of course, missiles could come from everywhere near the border.

My thoughts on this might seem very radical, but I cannot believe a single word of the Kiev junta. Plus sometimes I'm a bit susceptible to assume the worst in some cases.

Edit: BTW I hope that this is just provocation, or a "real drill".

Ukrainian Junta General Ordered The Shootdown Of Passenger Plane Boeing MH-17, That Killed 300 !

On July 15, 2014, the AFU Colonel-General Viktor Muzhenko of the Ukraine Junta gave the order to shoot down the passenger Boeing MH-17.

The information about this has «surfaced» on a portal dedicated to collecting. Electronic trading platform got an interesting lot, traded for 900 thousand rubles, which was sold on September 30. The lot contained documents from which it follows that the order to shoot down the passenger plane, had been given by Muzhenko.

It was the general of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Muzhenko who ordered to deliver the 3rd anti-aircraft missile division of the 156th anti-aircraft missile regiment to the area of Zaroschenskoye. According to Colonel General, the complex was needed in Zaroschenske to cover the line of Amvrosievka – Snezhnoye. The next order of Muzhenko was to prevent, by any means, the penetration of the enemy aircraft into the area of responsibility.

Precisely two days after Muzhenko’s order, MH-17 was shot down in this area.

Source: http://novorossia.today/150721-2/

---

This is still crazy as f**k. If they were really the ones who ordered the shootdown of the plane, at the cost of 300 innocent lives, they should stand before a judge in The Hague, and then they should be sentenced to life for this heinous crime.

Benya wrote:[b][u]This is still crazy as f**k. If they were really the ones who ordered the shootdown of the plane, at the cost of 300 innocent lives, they should stand before a judge in The Hague, and then they should be sentenced to life for this heinous crime.

That article is very little to go off of. As much as i believe the Ukrainians are responsible for MH17's downing (whether they actually shot it down or not, the responsibility is still de-facto on them for not closing the air space), without links to, or evidence of the mentioned collection of documents, this is nothing more than hearsay. Not to mention the title is pure sensationalism, and already gives off anti-Ukrainian sentiment regardless of whether it is deserved.
The third paragraph says that the orders given were to "prevent, by any means, the penetration of the enemy aircraft into the area of responsibility". This is in stark contrast to the article's title and as such it doesn't really give off vibes of objectivity.

Understand that i am not disregarding this information, at least not yet. I just hold that it is not enough to go off and isn't backed up with anything other than words, not to mention the website has a clear bias against Ukraine (once again, whether it is deserved or not is irrelevant).

I'd hate to start that argument, but I'm not the one to think Ukraine would shoot it down. Nor would Russia of course. God knows what happened. That link doesn't really provide much evidence about anything, we already knew there were Ukrainian BUKs in the area. If we go by most likely, probably the rebels mistakenly shot it down lacking an actual air defense network. But I'd never rule out a Ukrainian false flag, the Ukrainian government is a ******* wouldn't be surprised.

I don't think we've seen solid evidence that the Novorussian rebels operated a Buk. Besides the usual online geolocation "activists". But we know for sure Ukraine's Armed Forces did and in-theater. Also Ukraine has previous record of shooting down passenger aicraft, by mistake.

There is a lot, and I mean a lot of speculation that we could all make on the topic. Indeed there seems to be nothing but speculation, but we have to stick with what is solid. First of all, there is no excusing the fact that Ukraine allowed civilian air traffic to continue their flights over the area in spite of the ongoing civil war. As much of a bummer as it is, unofficial war time rules usually take up in a time of conflict. Either side has a chance of making a mistake, which is why, where possible, decisions should be made to limit the chance of civilian casualties as much as possible. Ukraine had every opportunity to do just that, and what a stupid excuse it is to say that the DPR/LPR didn't have air defence systems, and therefore there was no need to divert air traffic, because sure as we all make mistakes, it is just as likely that some Ukrainians with a BUK system thought they'd locked an intruding Russian fighter.

On the prospects of it being a false-flag. It is possible, but it is also speculation, so I'll stick with what I've said above

Cheetah wrote:That article is very little to go off of. As much as i believe the Ukrainians are responsible for MH17's downing (whether they actually shot it down or not, the responsibility is still de-facto on them for not closing the air space), without links to, or evidence of the mentioned collection of documents, this is nothing more than hearsay. Not to mention the title is pure sensationalism, and already gives off anti-Ukrainian sentiment regardless of whether it is deserved.
The third paragraph says that the orders given were to "prevent, by any means, the penetration of the enemy aircraft into the area of responsibility". This is in stark contrast to the article's title and as such it doesn't really give off vibes of objectivity.

Understand that i am not disregarding this information, at least not yet. I just hold that it is not enough to go off and isn't backed up with anything other than words, not to mention the website has a clear bias against Ukraine (once again, whether it is deserved or not is irrelevant).

Well, yes. Similar situation with Fort Russ. I'm affraid that these two sites will become a counterpart of Informnapalm.org (Ukrainian, Euromaidan press website, heavily biased towards Ukraine).

VladimirSahin wrote:I'd hate to start that argument, but I'm not the one to think Ukraine would shoot it down. Nor would Russia of course. God knows what happened. That link doesn't really provide much evidence about anything, we already knew there were Ukrainian BUKs in the area. If we go by most likely, probably the rebels mistakenly shot it down lacking an actual air defense network. But I'd never rule out a Ukrainian false flag, the Ukrainian government is a ******* wouldn't be surprised.

You are right. There is a significant lack of additional info about this incident on this article. There is also a high chance of that this is just a pure bias/hate article.

BTW whoever did shot down Flight MH17, deserves a punishment

It's not the Russian government so all that russophobe over it is for cold war cry babies. I mean seriously all the hate kicked in when an airliner was shot down, but the West was no where when Ukraine was using a heavy hand in its ATO. Double standard in its truest form, but you know obviously the West really cares about Ukraine. Especially the U.S... I'm sure they have warm fuzzy hearts for Ukrayina.

Benya wrote:

Cheetah wrote:That article is very little to go off of. As much as i believe the Ukrainians are responsible for MH17's downing (whether they actually shot it down or not, the responsibility is still de-facto on them for not closing the air space), without links to, or evidence of the mentioned collection of documents, this is nothing more than hearsay. Not to mention the title is pure sensationalism, and already gives off anti-Ukrainian sentiment regardless of whether it is deserved.
The third paragraph says that the orders given were to "prevent, by any means, the penetration of the enemy aircraft into the area of responsibility". This is in stark contrast to the article's title and as such it doesn't really give off vibes of objectivity.

Understand that i am not disregarding this information, at least not yet. I just hold that it is not enough to go off and isn't backed up with anything other than words, not to mention the website has a clear bias against Ukraine (once again, whether it is deserved or not is irrelevant).

Well, yes. Similar situation with Fort Russ. I'm affraid that these two sites will become a counterpart of Informnapalm.org (Ukrainian, Euromaidan press website, heavily biased towards Ukraine).

In any event, i think it would be ideal to be critical of articles originating from both sides. All the mentioned sites have an agenda to boost the image of their respective governments/sides and as such, we cannot immediately assume they have any merit unless actual sources are linked. Still they are interesting articles and can occasionally strike on something important

Benya wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:I'd hate to start that argument, but I'm not the one to think Ukraine would shoot it down. Nor would Russia of course. God knows what happened. That link doesn't really provide much evidence about anything, we already knew there were Ukrainian BUKs in the area. If we go by most likely, probably the rebels mistakenly shot it down lacking an actual air defense network. But I'd never rule out a Ukrainian false flag, the Ukrainian government is a ******* wouldn't be surprised.

You are right. There is a significant lack of additional info about this incident on this article. There is also a high chance of that this is just a pure bias/hate article.

BTW whoever did shot down Flight MH17, deserves a punishment

No body is questioning that those who shot down MH17 are deserving of punishment. In light of this though, it is important that we don't jump the gun. Sooner or later - though most likely the latter - Information will surface about who actually pulled the trigger, and we can only hope that at such a time, those rightly accused will serve a befitting punishment, regardless of whether they are Ukrainian or part of the DPR/LPR.

Yes, it is quite silly to assume that Russia had any part in the aircraft's downing. All the sensationalist headlines here in the west were nothing but a political opportunity to degrade Russia's image to the general public. And what can i say, it worked like a charm. I know people personally who actively regurgitate the same old lines from major media and Belingcat's (however you spell it) "report", about the stray BUK from Russia.

Interestingly enough that leads me onto a question. I noticed something a while back but didn't know exactly who to ask. Perhaps some of you gents know.

In belingcat's "report", he followed around a BUK launcher on the back of a white truck that was supposedly originating from Russia. Regardless of the red flags this already raises, it is not the subject of my question. To my knowledge, the BUK launcher requires a minimum of 3 vehicles to function as designed. That is a launcher vehicle, a radar vehicle, and a command vehicle. So in hind sight, could that "Russian" BUK on the back of the white truck theoretically been able to acquire and consequently shoot down MH17 by its self? and if the answer is no, were there systems in the DPR's arsenal that could have bridged the gap and made such an occurrence plausible? if the answer is still no, doesn't that immediately debunk belingcat's claims?

Cheetah wrote:Yes, it is quite silly to assume that Russia had any part in the aircraft's downing. All the sensationalist headlines here in the west were nothing but a political opportunity to degrade Russia's image to the general public. And what can i say, it worked like a charm. I know people personally who actively regurgitate the same old lines from major media and Belingcat's (however you spell it) "report", about the stray BUK from Russia.

Interestingly enough that leads me onto a question. I noticed something a while back but didn't know exactly who to ask. Perhaps some of you gents know.

In belingcat's "report", he followed around a BUK launcher on the back of a white truck that was supposedly originating from Russia. Regardless of the red flags this already raises, it is not the subject of my question. To my knowledge, the BUK launcher requires a minimum of 3 vehicles to function as designed. That is a launcher vehicle, a radar vehicle, and a command vehicle. So in hind sight, could that "Russian" BUK on the back of the white truck theoretically been able to acquire and consequently shoot down MH17 by its self? and if the answer is no, were there systems in the DPR's arsenal that could have bridged the gap and made such an occurrence plausible? if the answer is still no, doesn't that immediately debunk belingcat's claims?

Since you know of the bellingcat obfuscations you know enough about internet research to indicate you are trolling. We've been over this event ad nauseum. Simply search this forum amongst others and all your little specious questions will be answered.

Auslander

auslander wrote:

Cheetah wrote:Yes, it is quite silly to assume that Russia had any part in the aircraft's downing. All the sensationalist headlines here in the west were nothing but a political opportunity to degrade Russia's image to the general public. And what can i say, it worked like a charm. I know people personally who actively regurgitate the same old lines from major media and Belingcat's (however you spell it) "report", about the stray BUK from Russia.

Interestingly enough that leads me onto a question. I noticed something a while back but didn't know exactly who to ask. Perhaps some of you gents know.

In belingcat's "report", he followed around a BUK launcher on the back of a white truck that was supposedly originating from Russia. Regardless of the red flags this already raises, it is not the subject of my question. To my knowledge, the BUK launcher requires a minimum of 3 vehicles to function as designed. That is a launcher vehicle, a radar vehicle, and a command vehicle. So in hind sight, could that "Russian" BUK on the back of the white truck theoretically been able to acquire and consequently shoot down MH17 by its self? and if the answer is no, were there systems in the DPR's arsenal that could have bridged the gap and made such an occurrence plausible? if the answer is still no, doesn't that immediately debunk belingcat's claims?

Since you know of the bellingcat obfuscations you know enough about internet research to indicate you are trolling. We've been over this even ad nauseum. Simply search this forum amongst others and all your little specious questions will be answered.

Auslander

That was hardly my intention. It is a genuine question.
I've actively read this forum among others for quite some time -obviously predating the creation of my account - , following up on any subject that interests me. MH17 just happens to be one of those subjects.
Having said that, in my long time spent on this forum, I've never come across the answer to my question - which by the way, has very little to do with Bellingcat, and is more aimed towards the BUK's functionality, something I'd think a Russian Defence forum would be apt at answering. In any event, I would not have even thought of asking the question if I'd found the answer, and understand that this forum, like many others, has loads of information laying around, some of it buried deep in some archive or locked discussion.

In the event that I've missed some such information, and have asked a Question that seems tedious to you, perhaps you could not immediately dismiss me as a troll. I apologies if my question is out of place, and ask kindly if you, or someone else knowledgeable, could simply point me towards the discussion that has the answer I am looking for. even if it is just a ballpark location or discussion title.

thank you

Records of attack are pulverised.

Yesterday the two thousand mark was reached

https://dninews.com/article/donetsk-defense-situation-report-28112016

Any word from people in the frontlines about what it is like? Seems there is an increase in infantry attacks, the proportion of shelling attacks is decreasing.

The Ukrops have just 2 months left before Trump blows the whistle.

On casualties during 2015-2016:

I was going through the tedious and time consuming task of adding up all the attacks since August.

On this weekly report there's an interesting excerpt

https://dninews.com/article/donetsk-defense-weekly-situation-report-120816

The regular data on the number of the injured people taken to the hospital of Kharkov were published by the Ukrainian mass media. The number amounts to 50 servicemen this past week. This number,  funnily enough, coincides with the data published by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry official representatives. However, it is referred to only one hospital. Therefore, the logical question appears why the sanitary losses from tens of other military hospitals located both in the “ATO” zone and in the rear area are concealed from the community?  

About 10 wounded per 10 hospitals would easily yield the 100 daily casualties predicted for this low-medium intensity positional warfare.


A google search yielded this interesting confirmation from the enemy propaganda machine


http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/10/11/two-years-of-war-in-donbas-through-the-lens-of-one-hospital/

relevant excerpts.

during these two years there were 560 wounded who came only through our department,” says Ihor Yovenko, Deputy head of the Department Of Intensive Treatment Of Polytrauma.


Over more than two years of war, the hospital has treated injuries of over 2,000 people. According to Yuriy Skrebets, 98.5% of them survived. Now, only soldiers with the most serious wounds are taken to the Mechnikov Hospital in Dnipro, as military medicine started to improve after 2014, and there is a network of mobile hospitals on the frontline. After treatment in the Mechnikov Hospital, soldiers go to military hospitals elsewhere to receive further rehabilitation.

Notice the proportion, 1 serious non recoverable wounded for every 3 wounded. This is interesting. In my  attempt last year at calculating casualties, I estimated a mere 10% of non-returning wounded. Proportion may be higher in this case since Dnipro hospital is well to the rear and serious wounded are overrepresented, but we can safely assume 1 in 5 wounded will be disabled and unfit for duty.

https://guerraenucrania.wordpress.com/2015/12/06/500-dias-de-guerra-50-000-muertos/

So to 24.000 dead, , 9.000 missing,  2,000 dead in non combat losses we have to add 54.000 wounded, of wich 1 in 5 will not fight again.

so the total of irrecoverable losses for the Ukranian army up to end of 2015 was at the very least 45.000,
without taking into account more than 15,000 deserters. I guess most of them end up out of the country or in prison, it's doubtful that the Ukrainian army can catch many of those deserters and return them to the front.

Given the Ukranian army has maintained a force of about 100,000 of wich half in the frontlines, and the succesive discharges of the one-year levvies, we can say that though most of the killing was done in 2014, there indeed has been a real war going on for the past 2 years of "Minsk truces", and combat attrition is indeed a significant factor.

Now, what about the attrition during 2015-2016? We have one sample of casualties in the Novorussian report quoted above for 12/08/2016. The Dnipro hospital admits 2,000 wounded in 2 years, so that's about 2 or 3 wounded a day on average. Compare that to the Kharkov hospital during a month of intense fighting, wich received double casualties, half a dozen a day.

In addition, Dnipro is just one hospital that treats serious cases and is in the rear 250 km away from the frontline. We have to add at least about half a dozen other hospitals in the major cities, like Kharkov, Kiev and even as far away as Odessa. So at the very least you have 20 serious wounded on average taken to major hospitals. Add at least the same amount of wounded, and 1 dead for every 3 wounded and we can be fairly certain the daily casualty average is about 50.  Wich does not sound like much, but the days turn into weeks and months, and that means 15,000 casualties a year.

In addition, the Head doctor of the Mechnikov Hospital, and Yuriy Skrebets confirms the words of the Novorussian report:

"there is a network of mobile hospitals on the frontline."

The hospitals at the major cities in the rearguard receive less wounded after 2014 because field hospitals were stablished. At the lowest estimate, there's a dozen hospitals, half near the front, and the other half in the major cities in the rear for serious cases. With just a daily average of a couple wounded a day on each place, the inescapable conclusion is that the casualties are a thousand each month, between 10.000-20.000 a year.

What is interesting is that the volume of casualties is such, given that daily average, that just one major hospital near the front, like Kharkov cannot centralize and receive all wounded. The fact that wounded are evacuated to hospitals all over Ukraine indicates that there are dozens of casualties daily, and in periods of intense combats hundreds, so the frontline hospitals are overwhelmed and casualties have to be evacuated to other places. There have been reports that the very same Dnipropetrovsk hospital during the fighting of the summer of 2015, after a major reverse for the Ukrainians it was full of wounded and the population was asked to donate bandages and medicines.

Going back, I missed this report from a week earlier

https://dninews.com/article/donetsk-defense-weekly-situation-report-050816

Thus, according to the official data of the representatives of the “ATO” headquarter in July 2016 the losses of the AFU amounted to 40 dead people and 182 wounded ones. However, only in the Kharkov hospital, in July 2016 year there were delivered over 300 servicemen with different kind of wounds from the “ATO” zone. And the data deal with only one hospital that is located well to the rear.
Even in the official statement of the Chief Military Procurator of Ukraine, non battle losses of the Ukrainian army amounted to over 1300 servicemen as on July 30, 2016.

A daily average of 10 casualtiess over a month in a single rearguard hospital is triple of what is to be expected, and there was nothing inusual about July. Thus , adding all hospitals, that would indicate the daily casualty average for 2016 is about a hundred casualties.

It all happens off screen, but the Ukrainian army is being bled white, slowly but inexorably.

Ispan thanks for the info ... it is obvious that the oligarchs are using their troops as cannon fodder ... it can't be good for moral for their troops or the civilians when they see their troops crippled in growing numbers

franco wrote:Just a FYI but the root of the 2 Russian servicemen being conned into going into the neutral zone to supposedly receive their records of higher education.

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161128/1482289191.html

????