What did I call you?
The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
personaldesas
Active Member
There seem to be some voices in russia concerned about the economic impact of the war.
The former deputy economy minister and now chief economist of VEB was recently quoted as saying:
www.aljazeera.com
He was fired for those statements.
Not sure if he's an outlier or if this reflects wider unease within Russian institutions, but it's interesting how much this war increasingly comes down to which side can inflict more economic pain on the other.
The former deputy economy minister and now chief economist of VEB was recently quoted as saying:
Andrey Klepach said:
Andrey Klepach said:
Andrey Klepach said:
Andrey Klepach said:
Andrey Klepach said:
Top Russian economist ousted after warning of growing costs of Ukraine war
Andrey Klepach, top economist at Russia's state development bank VEB, had warned Russia was lagging behind rivals.
He was fired for those statements.
Not sure if he's an outlier or if this reflects wider unease within Russian institutions, but it's interesting how much this war increasingly comes down to which side can inflict more economic pain on the other.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15,103
I think he's correct about many things. In general this war is bad for Russia. This isn't news. I'm of the opinion, and I've written it before, that this war would have been bad for Russia no matter what, it was a no-win scenario to start it. Even a victory lap to cheering from local populations would still have ultimately been bad. And it's not that, it's a long, dirty, expensive, war of attrition. The prizes aren't even regions of post-Soviet industrial-urban decay with a population that has lukewarm feelings about Russia (the way they would have been had Russia seized these areas back in '14). The prizes are increasingly just piles of rubble with a trickle of tired and traumatized civilians that often as not require a lot of assistance before they can become productive members of the Russian economy. Lithium deposits and coking coal are all good and well, but they won't be economically usable until the front line moves much farther, and even then it's years of investment into development. More agricultural land helps, but isn't that valuable. So what is Russia getting to offset the costs of the war? Very little, realistically, and far less since '22.There seem to be some voices in russia concerned about the economic impact of the war.
The chief economist of russia's VEB was recently quoted as saying:
Top Russian economist ousted after warning of growing costs of Ukraine war
Andrey Klepach, top economist at Russia's state development bank VEB, had warned Russia was lagging behind rivals.
He was promptly fired for it. Not sure if he's an outlier or if this reflects wider unease within Russian institutions, but it's interesting how much this war increasingly comes down to which side can inflict more economic pain on the other.
On the economic pain, I don't think this is necessarily completely true. I think Ukraine is using that as a lever to push on Russia. But I don't think for Russia causing economic pain to Ukraine really accomplishes all that much. Ukraine's government and war effort are largely dependent on foreign funding. So you can shut down all maritime traffic to Odessa and yet still have Ukraine be able to continue the fight with fairly limited impact. Russia's problem is that much of Ukraine's "rear" is outside of the country, and can't be readily struck. The body count in this war isn't high enough to cause a collapse all by itself, and the territorial gains are too slow to decide the conflict by themselves. So it's quite plausible that nothing changes for another ~2 years, even as Russia secures the rest of the Donbas, takes over eastern Kharkov region, and gains ground in Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, and the Sumy border areas. Even the fall of cities like Kharkov or Sumy, something that isn't likely in the next 2 years, wouldn't take Ukraine out of the war. So for Russia the problem is, it isn't clear how they can get Ukraine to take a deal that Russia wants. They're using a combination of economic pain, demographic damage, physical attrition, and territorial gain, but so far it hasn't been enough. Economic pain is only one relatively small component of this.
I think there's a big question about whether Russia is willing to go as far as Ukraine has, and the answer is probably not. Russia has taken a small fraction of the damage Ukraine has across all areas. But Russia started the war much better off and remains so. This matters because Russia has more to lose, has lost less, and we have these kinds of concerns being raised. While Russia isn't normally associated with prosperity, everything is relative, and propaganda about stolen toilets aside, Russia was, is, and will remain significantly more prosperous than Ukraine. Russia has more to lose, and is likely less willing to lose it. Russia also doesn't appear to be ready to take a defeat in the war. Neither is Ukraine. There's also no sign that either side is running of ability to continue to fight. So it's really hard to say when or how these factors will lead to an end. Basically all the main trend lines for Ukraine appear to be negative, so I think in the long run Ukraine still loses, assuming Russia is willing to keep going. But how long that is, remains an open question. This isn't a forever war yet, but it's heading in that direction. The Iran-Iraq war lasted ~8 years. This one could potentially go longer.
rsemmes
Active Member
Al-Jazeera was also talking about the will to fight of Ukraine...
In a memorandum published on July 8, 2025, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights raised alarm over mobilisation practices, including beatings, harsh detentions, denial of access to lawyers, and the conscription of men with disabilities, citing Ukraine’s parliamentary human rights commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, who had described the violations as “systematic and large-scale”.
More than 600 attacks on enlistment officers have been recorded since the start of the war, with assaults nearly tripling in 2025. The first four months of 2026 alone saw 117 – more than 20 times the five recorded in the war’s entire first year.
www.aljazeera.com
In a memorandum published on July 8, 2025, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights raised alarm over mobilisation practices, including beatings, harsh detentions, denial of access to lawyers, and the conscription of men with disabilities, citing Ukraine’s parliamentary human rights commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, who had described the violations as “systematic and large-scale”.
More than 600 attacks on enlistment officers have been recorded since the start of the war, with assaults nearly tripling in 2025. The first four months of 2026 alone saw 117 – more than 20 times the five recorded in the war’s entire first year.
In Ukraine, forcible military recruitment efforts escalate into violence
'Busification', the term describing being captured on the street, is engulfed by abuse and corruption.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
The irony in the expectation of “inevitable” political turmoil in Russia, while one hits Ukraine is solid. But who would have thought, right?!
The reality is that Ukraine lives in the context of constant political struggle, even if not obvious to a less familiar outside observer. Anything and everything is used to gain political advantage. Only “in your face” statements and actions are noted. It is coming to a boil, however, and the kettle will whistle, sooner or later. Fedorov’s ambitions were clear post-letting go, as opposed to many suggesting it had nothing to do with personal desires. As I briefly discussed earlier, he is a populist, talks a lot while saying nothing, takes credit for things that likely were not his accomplishments, etc. In my opinion, no other type of individual can succeed in replacing Zelensky today (if it were legally possible or widely desirable).
Fedorov’s push, at the same time, reveals his lack of ability to see the forrest among the trees, or see the situation more broadly, which shows his unsuitability for the position he was removed from. Like I also said previously, a few thousand people that came to the streets waving cardboard signs in his support mean nothing. Like literally, they are completely irrelevant. There is no broader support while competing with Zelensky in the current environment. More importantly, as today’s Rada vote (appointing the FM and MoD) clearly showed, he has no wide political backing from the elites (extremely important). Notably, Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence voted unanimously to appoint Zelensky’s proposed candidate as the new MoD, while in Rada, 312 MPs voted in favour, 2 against, with 11 abstentions/not voted (325 MPs were present out of about 390 in total). Also notable, the FM candidate, where there is less controversy, was voted in with 266 in favour. I believe this shows what’s what as clear as can be. This probably does too:
Fedorov’s revolt is completely immature. He got it completely wrong (and lost the battle) when he put forth his ultimatum to be reinstated as the MoD (in my opinion, his actions reveal plainly that it was the right decision by Zelensky on many different levels). Even if he had the power he thinks (thought?) he does, there was no way for Zelensky to bring him back in that capacity (yet, he still tried to accommodate, which showed weakness). To think otherwise is a delusion. It would mean that he can manhandle the president of the country, giving him an enormous power. To compare this circus with thriving democracy is also crazy talk - in no democratic society would a fired minister dictate ultimatums to the president (where the society agrees to his legitimacy) and act as he did. More reminiscent of an African “democracy”, where this is a normality (and even works from time to time).
Another point. Fedorov advertises his “relationship” with Musk as something epic. While there is likely no “relationship”, Musk’s views are also quite clear and well-known, including in Ukraine itself. It’s not an asset in the political context where absolute majority is presumably in favour of continuing the war until some form of victory; it’s a liability.
Anyway, another guy full of ego and lack of strategic thinking. Not sure what all the hype is about. What’s funny is that he ran digital strategy and online outreach for Zelensky during his campaign in 2019. He was doing the same for his own self here, but he could not see the broader implications of his actions. Like I said, just another clown. What he did do though is put it out in the open in the biggest way yet and tested the water. He is not the only one calling for elections, there are many others. Another prominent example from just a few days ago:
Here is another funny thing though, from the same ^ man. Looks like we found another/new Churchill:
Well, maybe not:
At least they agree on the elections bit.
Another interesting tidbit. The head of the presidential administration is the former head of HUR. MoD is now headed by the former head of SBU department responsible for “special operations, counterterrorism activities, and the protection of participants in criminal proceedings and law enforcement officials”. Neat, right?
Something else I wanted to say… Ah, well… Probably irrelevant, like the rest of it.
The reality is that Ukraine lives in the context of constant political struggle, even if not obvious to a less familiar outside observer. Anything and everything is used to gain political advantage. Only “in your face” statements and actions are noted. It is coming to a boil, however, and the kettle will whistle, sooner or later. Fedorov’s ambitions were clear post-letting go, as opposed to many suggesting it had nothing to do with personal desires. As I briefly discussed earlier, he is a populist, talks a lot while saying nothing, takes credit for things that likely were not his accomplishments, etc. In my opinion, no other type of individual can succeed in replacing Zelensky today (if it were legally possible or widely desirable).
Fedorov’s push, at the same time, reveals his lack of ability to see the forrest among the trees, or see the situation more broadly, which shows his unsuitability for the position he was removed from. Like I also said previously, a few thousand people that came to the streets waving cardboard signs in his support mean nothing. Like literally, they are completely irrelevant. There is no broader support while competing with Zelensky in the current environment. More importantly, as today’s Rada vote (appointing the FM and MoD) clearly showed, he has no wide political backing from the elites (extremely important). Notably, Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence voted unanimously to appoint Zelensky’s proposed candidate as the new MoD, while in Rada, 312 MPs voted in favour, 2 against, with 11 abstentions/not voted (325 MPs were present out of about 390 in total). Also notable, the FM candidate, where there is less controversy, was voted in with 266 in favour. I believe this shows what’s what as clear as can be. This probably does too:
Fedorov’s revolt is completely immature. He got it completely wrong (and lost the battle) when he put forth his ultimatum to be reinstated as the MoD (in my opinion, his actions reveal plainly that it was the right decision by Zelensky on many different levels). Even if he had the power he thinks (thought?) he does, there was no way for Zelensky to bring him back in that capacity (yet, he still tried to accommodate, which showed weakness). To think otherwise is a delusion. It would mean that he can manhandle the president of the country, giving him an enormous power. To compare this circus with thriving democracy is also crazy talk - in no democratic society would a fired minister dictate ultimatums to the president (where the society agrees to his legitimacy) and act as he did. More reminiscent of an African “democracy”, where this is a normality (and even works from time to time).
Another point. Fedorov advertises his “relationship” with Musk as something epic. While there is likely no “relationship”, Musk’s views are also quite clear and well-known, including in Ukraine itself. It’s not an asset in the political context where absolute majority is presumably in favour of continuing the war until some form of victory; it’s a liability.
Anyway, another guy full of ego and lack of strategic thinking. Not sure what all the hype is about. What’s funny is that he ran digital strategy and online outreach for Zelensky during his campaign in 2019. He was doing the same for his own self here, but he could not see the broader implications of his actions. Like I said, just another clown. What he did do though is put it out in the open in the biggest way yet and tested the water. He is not the only one calling for elections, there are many others. Another prominent example from just a few days ago:
Here is another funny thing though, from the same ^ man. Looks like we found another/new Churchill:
Well, maybe not:
At least they agree on the elections bit.
Another interesting tidbit. The head of the presidential administration is the former head of HUR. MoD is now headed by the former head of SBU department responsible for “special operations, counterterrorism activities, and the protection of participants in criminal proceedings and law enforcement officials”. Neat, right?
Something else I wanted to say… Ah, well… Probably irrelevant, like the rest of it.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
A little context for this widely reported stuff:
This is, of course, important. Link to the transcript (in Russian, obviously): https://nikitskyclub.ru/wp-content/...оссии-и-геополитические-вызовы.pdf?utm_source
The article you cited says “marked a rare public critique by a senior figure at a state institution”. This is not the case. The Forum is not a public avenue (hence, see the post I cited above).
Also, regarding “Klepach also criticised governance in Russia.” What he actually said, via Google translate (hence, refer to the tweet above):
Shortly before leaving the Ministry of Economic Development in late 2007, German Gref said that we were experiencing a management crisis.[…]
My opinion is that the quality of management is simply deteriorating almost constantly. Oddly enough, in the conditions of recent years, in my opinion, the quality of management has rather declined. That is, compared to 2008, even 2009, 2010, the quality of management is an order of magnitude worse in almost all departments, except perhaps the Ministry of Finance, although last year was a disastrous one for the Ministry of Finance, in my opinion. Each has its own examples. This is a result not so much of the quality of our management, but rather of the viability of our business and people, because despite any challenges, or in spite of them, they still do what they think is necessary, and this allows us to survive.
So this neither new nor “to the top” stuff and has been discussed previously by various individuals since almost two decades ago (definitely earlier).
Regarding rising income inequality mentioned/quoted in the article:
Inequality problems are growing. After a significant decline in 2023–2024, everything has now gone in the opposite direction.[…]
It [GINI coefficient] has indeed declined,
as has poverty, thanks to the SVO and the growth of the economy and incomes.
In regard to loosing economic competition to Ukraine, in some ways:
Ukraine's economy, of course, is partially destroyed; it's a demographic catastrophe.
But, once again, the Ukrainian economy, despite everything, is surviving. Of course, there's enormous financial assistance; without it, everything would collapse. With such assistance, military spending and its their own expenses account for nearly 50% of our budget. And if we take all the aid they receive as a whole, it's many times greater than our capital outflow. In other words, we're funding the world, and the world is funding Ukraine. At least the Western world, the unfriendly one. Therefore, we won't win the competition in this war of attrition.
And so on. Another note is that the article says “the speech”, while almost everything quoted (or misquoted) was said in question and answer period, not his report (the speech) itself (hence, see the tweet cited). The report is actually much more interesting, in my opinion.
The article cited appears to have been written from bits and pieces of other reporting built to promote a specific narrative. It isn’t clear if the authors of the original reports read the entire publication themselves, the Al Jazeera journos clearly haven’t, which is a shame.
The weirdest thing is that if I were to write an article having read the full report and about half of the Q&A section, I would certainly quote/misquote some parts of the actual report to make it more doom and gloom than what I read in the media so far. Of course, unlikely many people went through it in detail. I guess enough did though to get the guy fired. Laughing.
personaldesas
Active Member
Funnily enough, I originally read it in the FT and only shared Al Jazeera to avoid a "Western media = propaganda" response. I thought Al Jazeera might be more respected by a certain kind of crowd. I guess that didn't hold true.
Last edited:
personaldesas
Active Member
@KipPotapych Thanks for the context!
I am not buying "not public." though. Q&A's in the same PDF, same Выпуск 145, one editor credit at the back. Page 3 lists it as one session with every participant, not report-plus-appendix. Same document. Published by the club itself.
The quotes and the overall sentiment do check out when reading the report AFAICT. He does throw in a "we'll survive" and an "optimistic note" right at the end, which Privalov himself calls thin. In any case, it doesn't change the throughline. From all I can tell, nobody reading this comes away thinking Klepach himself isn't worried. Hence I remain curious about my original point:
I am not buying "not public." though. Q&A's in the same PDF, same Выпуск 145, one editor credit at the back. Page 3 lists it as one session with every participant, not report-plus-appendix. Same document. Published by the club itself.
The quotes and the overall sentiment do check out when reading the report AFAICT. He does throw in a "we'll survive" and an "optimistic note" right at the end, which Privalov himself calls thin. In any case, it doesn't change the throughline. From all I can tell, nobody reading this comes away thinking Klepach himself isn't worried. Hence I remain curious about my original point:
Last edited:
personaldesas
Active Member
Very much agreed. Terrible timing.
vikingatespam
Well-Known Member
Results of the Ukrainian August 12 strike on Novorossiysk:
Satellite imagery suggests that the Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen are out of action with significant damage.
Satellite imagery suggests that the Admiral Makarov and Admiral Essen are out of action with significant damage.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
To address the last, shortly: I doubt it’s an outlier (quite sure it is not, rather).
As for public… I fully agree with Alexander there, it was a semi-private setting. It is a private club and attendance is quite restricted. To simplify my own rather extensive writing, laughing, here is an AI generated response to attendance requirements:
Now my long writing, lol… It’s far from public. It is a very closed debate. The transcript appeared three months after the discussion took place and was made public by media outlets by reporting bits and pieces as if to confirm correctness of their previous reporting. This is a theme in general, by the way. Like going soft on and quoting Loomer for self-validating or something (whatever happened with that, by the way? Some short-lived forgettable stuff).
Something else to note. As you saw, the transcript is rather long. It is about 54 pages worse of report and Q&A discussion after the presentation. The parts quoted in the media outlets are more or less the same and represent very small bits of 6-7 paragraphs located on 3 pages, two of which are consecutive (bottom quarter of page 33 and top half of page 34). All these are from the Q&A section of the publication. The only bit that came from the report itself is the following, and I quote the entire paragraph (not because it changes the meaning of anything, but for completeness):
On the other hand, the conflict in Ukraine, involving NATO, has already lasted longer than the Great Patriotic War, and its end is not yet in sight. Both sides are escalating the intensity of their attacks, including on each other's economies. Losses from Ukrainian air strikes on our infrastructure—ports, oil and gas, chemical plants, and logistics—are mounting and are already becoming a significant macroeconomic barrier to the growth of the Russian economy.
This is on page 13. So something to ponder. Like I said in my previous post, there are much juicier conclusions that can be made here after reading. And it can be presented both ways, as well the third - actual author’s opinion and analysis of what was said in an honest manner. And, like I also said, the feeling is really strong here that no one actually read it.
By the way, I don’t look at any particular outlet as a propaganda medium (and don’t believe I gave any such vibe that I do?) Well, there are exceptions, of course (like obvious examples would be Ukrinform or RIA Novosti). What I meant, if I wasn’t clear, is that Al Jazeera did a lazy copy-paste thing without any thought given or looking at the source. The authors of what they copied, however, did a lazy report, in turn, to follow with the existing narrative (call it propaganda) to keep consistency, their own, as well as readers’ perspective. For example, when I did that AI inquiry posted above, I tapped on the sourcing just to see what it was reading. Here it is:
Both of those headlines are idiotic, no? Neither represents the reality of what actually happened. Selective presentation of (presentation of selective) quotes to shape the narrative, no? I honestly do not see how it could be any clearer than it is.
Furthermore, I do not think sentiment actually checks out. For example… Rising income inequality (and poor management) is a broader context than implied (I touched on the management part in the previous post). In fact, he clearly says that income inequality improved due to the war, but there was some drawback in the previous year or so (he says the trend reversed, to paraphrase). Moreover, at the same time, he later said that the GINI coefficient has declined - that is, decrease in inequality - as a direct consequence of the war, economic growth, and increase of income.
Losing to Ukraine “in some ways” is clearly out of context as well. I quoted above his context.
And so on.
Last note is that the entire thing is presented as some new development and “zomg! They are crumbling!” “Dissent!” (with implication of “we said so previously!”). None of this is new stuff. If people think these conversations are not taking place in the environment (mis)reported, or otherwise, people are… well, I will be polite and say not sufficiently informed
Like… Do people think everyone just tells each other (and Putin!) that everything is great and dandy? We are coming on top no matter what? That the top is completely deluded and insane, while the middle and bottom just say yes and no one is allowed to say anything else? Seriously, let’s get a little reasonable and real. Google and read Oleg Deripaska’s consistent comments on war since the very beginning. Search for German Gref’s numerous cautions and calls to end the war, as recently as about a month ago. Numerous others. All (truly) publicly talk about economic strains and potential consequences. Nabibulina herself talked about costs of war being the biggest economic constraint, as well as sanctions, etc. Numerous examples of public debate and warmings. I am actually not even sure why in this case the guy was let go. Appears to me that someone insured his own ass and acted “just in case, cause you never know”. That’s probably the most reasonable explanation I can think of. Or, perhaps, the guy is not high enough on the ladder, so an example was made that minions do not have the luxury to “publicly” converse their thoughts that can make western media headlines?
I think I have a post (or even more than one) on propaganda here somewhere. I will cite it/them later.
personaldesas
Active Member
Will go through his post in detail later, but curious about this one.
Not claiming membership, participation, or even live attendance is open to anyone. I mean: what was said, by whom, and how it concluded was made public by the club itself, right away. And for this series it has done so for many many years.
It's literally called public discussions: "Цикл публичных дискуссий «Россия в глобальном контексте»".
Published by the club itself right after the event. Newspapers picked it up later, but the URL you linked shows it was uploaded by the club itself, the same month as the event. And that's not a one-off, the club's done this for every session, all 145 issues, for 20 years or so.
So a document from something called "public discussions," published by the organizer itself, same month, every single time this event happens. That's public to me. Anyone speaking and debating there knows it'll be out in the open. These weren't private statements by anyone attending.
To me it's so obviously public that I suspect we mean different things by the word.
Not claiming membership, participation, or even live attendance is open to anyone. I mean: what was said, by whom, and how it concluded was made public by the club itself, right away. And for this series it has done so for many many years.
It's literally called public discussions: "Цикл публичных дискуссий «Россия в глобальном контексте»".
Published by the club itself right after the event. Newspapers picked it up later, but the URL you linked shows it was uploaded by the club itself, the same month as the event. And that's not a one-off, the club's done this for every session, all 145 issues, for 20 years or so.
So a document from something called "public discussions," published by the organizer itself, same month, every single time this event happens. That's public to me. Anyone speaking and debating there knows it'll be out in the open. These weren't private statements by anyone attending.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
We probably do.
Let’s put it this way. Have you ever heard of the “Club” before? i gather the answer is no. Have I? Yes. Is the fact that suddenly there are media reports three months after the event suggestive? Probably yes. Therefore, semi-private is as good a description as any, or better.
Interested in “in detail later” part.
personaldesas
Active Member
I think that's basically the crux: you're saying "the club is (semi-)private," I'm saying "Klepach's statements there were public." Those aren't the same claim, and we might both just be right.
rsemmes
Active Member
"More than three hundred gas stations have been damaged or destroyed in literally the last six months." Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal.
ua.news
But there are fuel restrictions only in Russia.
I read that in Al-Jazeera, I don't think it's about "respect" but about bias. The Indian Times doesn't have to shout that Russia blew up the Nord Stream and doesn't have to keep repeating it. It's not its circus, not its monkeys.
More than 300 gas stations in Ukraine have been damaged or destroyed by shelling, according to Shmyhal
Over the past six months, more than 300 gas stations in Ukraine have been damaged or completely destroyed as a result of Russian shelling. According to Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal, this has caused significant damage to the Ukrainian economy.
ua.news
I read that in Al-Jazeera, I don't think it's about "respect" but about bias. The Indian Times doesn't have to shout that Russia blew up the Nord Stream and doesn't have to keep repeating it. It's not its circus, not its monkeys.
You should read the Russian press no bias and lots and lots of respect there, or maybe the North Korean press?"More than three hundred gas stations have been damaged or destroyed in literally the last six months." Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal.
But there are fuel restrictions only in Russia.More than 300 gas stations in Ukraine have been damaged or destroyed by shelling, according to Shmyhal
Over the past six months, more than 300 gas stations in Ukraine have been damaged or completely destroyed as a result of Russian shelling. According to Energy Minister Denys Shmyhal, this has caused significant damage to the Ukrainian economy.
I read that in Al-Jazeera, I don't think it's about "respect" but about bias. The Indian Times doesn't have to shout that Russia blew up the Nord Stream and doesn't have to keep repeating it. It's not its circus, not its monkeys.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15,117
There are unconfirmed reports that Russian forces have taken Malaya Tokmachka and have begun an full assault of Orekhov. Note the north-eastern supply route is effectively unusable, so Russian command may feel they have enough pressure on Ukrainian logistics to make an attempt on the city. If they are correct, this could mean more problems for Ukraine in this area, just as things are heating up more and more in the Donbas.
t.me
ZOKA's Channel
❗️ Российские войска начали штурм Орехова — крупнейшего района обороны ВСУ в Запорожской области. Фронт прорван в населенном пункте Новоданиловка на юге. Сначала российские малые штурмовые группы, а затем и передовые подразделения начали активно прорываться на окраины Орехова. Наступление...
t.me