Expert: Russia will not abandon Odessa to the enemy

February 20 2026 25 951 83

Russia will never agree to hand over Kherson and Odesa to Ukraine. This is the view expressed by military expert Alexander Artamonov. According to him, no significant breakthrough should be expected from the Geneva talks.

We will definitely not agree to any scenario without the liberation of Odesa. I would understand if the discussion was about leaving Orlovka, Izmail, or the port of Reni to the Ukrainians. But we can't say we'll freeze the border and leave Kherson and Odesa in enemy territory.

– said Artamonov.

He added that the negotiation process to resolve the conflict does not inspire much confidence, since the parties are stuck in their positions and are not prepared to make real concessions to each other.

In my opinion, it's a tug-of-war. It's not just sitting across from each other, trying to see who can break down first. It's part of military diplomacy, like in a Western, where two cowboys stare into each other's eyes, their hands on the butt of their revolvers.

- the expert emphasized.

As a reminder, Moscow is currently citing the complete withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the territory of the DPR as a condition for resolving the conflict in Ukraine. However, Kyiv refuses this, calling Russia's proposal an ultimatum.

According to the now-defunct Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, any voluntary withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from Donbas is out of the question. Meanwhile, Kyiv continues to demand security guarantees similar to NATO's Article 5 and accelerated accession to the European Union.

83 comments

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

goncharov.62

-3

20 February 2026 14: 00

Well then Medinsky must feel like "Dirty Harry".
Perun61

+6

20 February 2026 14: 03

Russia will never agree to hand over Kherson and Odesa to Ukraine. This is the view expressed by military expert Alexander Artamonov.

"Expert" is a bit slow.
Russia left Kherson back in November 2022.
They didn't plan to take Odessa; there was no mention of it in the "NVO goals", only of Donbass.
1. Olives
  
  +4
  
  20 February 2026 14: 35
  
  This expert is not an expert
2. Wandering
  
  +2
  
  20 February 2026 14: 43
  
  Exactly. The initial objectives of the SVO included nothing about the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. Not a word. Only later did they stipulate that these oblasts, following the referendum results, were already part of the Russian Federation. Kherson had to be retained, I had to. But at that point. The only problem is that the oblast wasn't removed from the Russian Federation, and we're counting it based on administrative borders, not actual ones. And since the situation is developing very curiously, and not in the West's favor in Ukraine, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the unplanned Odesa will hold a referendum on joining the Russian Federation.
3. Botrops
  
  -5
  
  20 February 2026 16: 43
  
  Well, during the Great Patriotic War they also abandoned a lot of things, and then they reached Berlin.
  1. Perun61
    
    +8
    
    20 February 2026 17: 02
    
    That's right, during the Great Patriotic War Wars, and now Operation.
    1. Botrops
      
      -1
      
      21 February 2026 10: 15
      
      De jure, there have been no wars since 1945. The USSR declared its last war on Japan. Since then, from a formal standpoint, there have been no wars.
      1. Perun61
        
        +1
        
        21 February 2026 11: 26
        
        Why did you provide this information? Do you believe that no one else has access to this information?
        The given fact does not relate to this situation in any way.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        24 February 2026 10: 04
        
        And to show that there's not much difference between a war and a special operation. Just because a war isn't declared de jure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        24 February 2026 12: 34
        
        If the difference had been small, war would have been declared; there would have been no need to invent the SVO. It was precisely because of the vast difference between them that the Operation was declared, and simply because of the enormous number of miscalculations and mistakes by the Russian leadership, the Operation turned into a war.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        25 February 2026 11: 00
        
        Let me repeat, there hasn't been a war declared on the planet for 80 years. Therefore, the fashion for officially declaring war has passed. For example, what was it in Vietnam for the US? A war or a special operation? Besides, wars come in different forms. Some require the mobilization of all resources (like the Great Patriotic War). And others are fought with only a fraction of a country's resources, like the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 or the Caucasian Wars. The nobility and common people in St. Petersburg and Moscow learned news from the battlefields only from newspapers.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        25 February 2026 12: 46
        
        Let me repeat: the fact that no wars were declared has nothing to do with the fact that the Central Military District was conceived as an operation very different from a declared war. There's a big difference between an Operation and a War.
        
        Like the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 or the Caucasian Wars. The nobility and common people in St. Petersburg and Moscow learned news from the battlefields only from newspapers.
        
        Why didn't you remember the Stone Age?
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        25 February 2026 13: 08
        
        Wars have not been declared on the planet for 80 years.
        
        There is a big difference between a war and something incomprehensible, that is why they did not declare it, but instead invented all sorts of ATO, SVO, KTO, etc.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        27 February 2026 10: 22
        
        Take Vietnam, for example. The United States fought there. Many people in those same states were living perfectly normal lives. Meanwhile, the downed pilot, the future Senator McCain, was held captive in Vietnam.
        No one disputes that the SVO was conceived as a special operation. They're telling you something else: that there's a very fine line between a special operation and war. Answer this yourself: did the United States fight in Vietnam or not?
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        27 February 2026 11: 55
        
        There's a huge difference between the planned SVO and the declared war. Between the war and the SVO that actually happened, there's a smaller difference, but it's still huge, and the SVO is far from a war. Aside from the enormous losses on our side, there's little in common.
        
        But you're being told something else: comparing WWII and the Central Military District is impossible. WWII wasn't conceived as an Operation, and its goals aren't even remotely similar to those of the Central Military District. And the fact that the Russian leadership made mistakes in conducting the Central Military District, resulting in enormous losses exceeding those of all previous Operations and conflicts worldwide, still doesn't allow for a comparison between WWII and the Central Military District.
        Or do you think that if the losses are huge, it means it’s war?
        Goals, objectives, methods of warfare, ideology, economics, logistics, foreign policy, negotiations, information delivery, and civilian attitudes toward conflict are all different, and legally, after WWII, attempts were made to regulate wars around the world through the UN Charter.
        The only similarities between the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet Military District are the enormous losses on our side and the command errors in the early stages of both. There may be something else, too.
        
        The US-Vietnam conflict has nothing to do with our Central Military District. Mentioning it is out of place. Although, if you want to compare the Central Military District and the Vietnam conflict, go ahead and compare them; you'll find common ground.
        
        The comment was deleted.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        28 February 2026 15: 10
        
        Is there anything to answer in fact?
        In your writing there is nothing about “there is not such a big difference between a war and a special operation”, only an attempt to get off topic.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        28 February 2026 15: 29
        
        That's the answer you got. Specifically, the goals of both war and special operations are virtually identical (based on a comparison of Russia's goals in 1914 and 2022). Therefore, it's impossible to determine whether we're dealing with a war or an operation based solely on the goals.
        You were asked to identify the conflict between the USA and Vietnam - is it a war or an operation (you see the difference between them, right?) - you faltered in answering this question.
        
        You were asked where you got your data on losses? - Again, you did not answer the source of the information, obviously suggesting that we take your word for it.
        Thirdly, you were rubbed in the nose with your false statement - "And the fact that the leadership of the Russian Federation made mistakes in conducting the SVO, which led to
        to enormous losses, exceeding the losses of all previous ones
        Operations and Conflicts Around the World" citing casualty figures from the US-led wars in Vietnam and Iraq. In these two conflicts alone, total losses amounted to approximately 3 million killed on both sides.
        You've been slapped with facts, but it turns out you're blind to them.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        28 February 2026 16: 47
        
        They didn't answer. You didn't mention anything in common between the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War, but instead tried to escape to the Vietnam War, and now to WWI. Will you escape to the Second Punic War next?
        A talking head from the Ministry of Defense gave you the casualty figures. If you missed it, please contact them and have them repeat it for you.
        We don't know who you were slandering in your fantasies; you didn't provide a single fact confirming that "there isn't that much of a difference between a war and a special operation," especially since the conversation was about comparing the Soviet Military District and the Great Patriotic War.
        And since you are asking me for official data, please provide official data for all the nonsense you have written, but for some reason it seems to me that you will not provide anything, but will again escape into your fantasies.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        1 March 2026 11: 24
        
        Regarding the talking head from the Ministry of Defense))) That's funny. Especially for me, who dedicated 25 years of my life to serving in the Russian Navy. Data on casualties during combat is immediately classified. So, I can't imagine a "talking head" from the Ministry of Defense voicing such figures, sorry. Considering the Ministry of Defense press service representative holds at least the rank of colonel, it would cost him his career. So I can confidently say that this is just your imagination.
        Once again, you haven't answered a single question. You haven't provided a single reference to your statements that would cite an official Ministry of Defense source. And yet, based on this supposedly known information, you draw far-reaching conclusions.
        My advice: open a military history textbook and read what it says. You'll discover a lot. I speak as someone who, as a cadet, studied and took exams in this subject at the Naval Academy.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        1 March 2026 11: 57
        
        I can't imagine a "talking head" from the Ministry of Defense voicing such figures, sorry
        
        So how can you ask me for official loss data? You can't provide it yourself, so you're asking others?
        However, Shoigu himself clearly and distinctly announced the losses of the Russian Armed Forces in the first months of the Second World War, and they are enormous.
        
        You have not answered any of the questions asked.
        
        And I won't answer, because the conversation is about the Central Military District and the Great Patriotic War, and you cowardly run off to the Vietnam War and WWI, asking questions that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You don't even cite any official sources, only your own fantasies about the Russian Empire's goals in WWI. I simply have nothing to answer.
        
        My advice
        
        My advice is to keep your advice to yourself.
        
        to me, who dedicated 25 years of my life to service in the Russian Navy
        
        You've already told us how you cleaned the latrines, but no one is interested.
        
        As I understand it, you have no intention of providing official data to support your fantasies? And you won't acknowledge the difference between the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War, despite the fact that you couldn't come up with anything to the contrary?
        I'm not even asking you for links to official sources. Unlike you, explain in your own words why the difference between the Soviet Union and the Great Patriotic War is so small. Don't run away to WWI.
        
        Quote: Botrops
        There's not much difference between a war and a special operation.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        3 March 2026 19: 27
        
        So how can you ask me for official loss data? You can't provide it yourself, so you're asking others?
        
        So, unlike you, without any data on losses, I don’t draw the same conclusions as you. You wrote this, after all—
        
        And the fact that the Russian leadership made mistakes in conducting the Second World War, which led to enormous losses, exceeding the losses of all previous Operations and conflicts around the world, still does not allow us to compare the Second World War and the Second World War.
        
        If you claim that the losses are enormous and exceed everything that has happened so far, provide figures as proof. But if you don't know them and are just making such conclusions out of thin air, they're not worth a dime. That's precisely why the figures should be presented by the person making such claims, not by someone who refrains from making such statements without precise data.
        Shoigu, yes, in September 2024, announced the figure for Russian casualties (two hundredths)—a figure in the region of 6,000. However, he immediately cited Ukraine's losses as well—around 60,000.
        Russia lost 5937 people in the special operation, Shoigu said - RIA Novosti, September 21, 2022.
        Total losses of the Russian Federation in the initial period of the Central Military District, when the losses of the Russian Armed Forces were at their maximum-
        About 1000 people per month. Even if these figures are extrapolated to the entire Central Military District, that's about 48,000 people. The US lost about 211,000 people in Vietnam.
        
        As a result of the Vietnam War, the US suffered irreparable losses of more than 211 military personnel, as well as 9 aircraft and helicopters, and wasted $352 billion.
        
        - The US defeat in Vietnam and 50 years of "dancing on a rake" - January 27, 2023, Sputnik Georgia
        According to American sources, the figure is around 58,000 people. That is, as we see,
        The Russian losses did not even exceed the American losses in Vietnam, which refutes the above statement.
        
        resulting in enormous losses, exceeding the losses of all previous Operations and conflicts around the world
        
        I hope it's clear now why I'm bringing up Vietnam - precisely to refute your fantasies with numbers.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        3 March 2026 19: 28
        
        As for the questions about the history of other military conflicts that you refused to answer, that's precisely why I asked the questions: there's no clear line between armed conflict and war. Incidentally, even in military science itself,
        Opinions on this matter have changed over time. Now about our SVO. Let's
        Let's classify - what is it - war or armed conflict?
        Let's start with why our leadership announced the SVO. Why? Because
        A state's declaration of war carries legal consequences, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, if war is declared, organizational measures must be taken, that is, the population must be mobilized. Once again,
        I'll give you the figures you're sorely missing: during WWII, 24% of the population was mobilized; now, it's less than 1%. Secondly, in the event of war, the economy must be converted to a wartime footing. That is, producing guns instead of butter. Naturally, the population's standard of living declines. The entire working population is conscripted into labor—some to dig anti-tank ditches, others to produce ammunition, others to grow potatoes in the fields. Strict military censorship is introduced. Attempts to evade conscription and travel to the Upper Lars region result in a penal battalion at best. At worst, execution.
        Attempts to destabilize the country through various provocative propaganda are punishable by criminal penalties, and that's at best. As we can see, this isn't even close in Russia. But in Ukraine, it's pretty close. In other words, from a legal and economic perspective, the internal affairs of the Russian Federation are subject to the regime of the Central Military District.
        What do we see on the battlefield? Armed conflict (and this is precisely what the Central Military District is) is characterized by its locality. That is, a situation where it occurs within one or the other country (or both) and involves two participants. This was precisely the case in the initial period of the Central Military District. Then the conflict began to transform into a regional one, primarily due to the list of participants. North Korea joined us. On the Ukrainian side, NATO has committed itself with all its resources. This primarily includes providing intelligence, command and control systems, and communications. Remove these from NATO, and it would become an army like the one from the First World War. And then there are mercenaries of various types, weapons, ammunition, money, advisers, and "vacationers from the NATO armed forces." Military science, when the number of participants significantly exceeds two, elevates an armed conflict to the regional level. And when it ceases to be local, it becomes a war, not a special operation.
        That is, as we see, in the SVO at the moment, there are signs of both war and armed conflict.
        
        You've already told us how you cleaned the latrines, but no one is interested.
        
        - I did have to clean latrines during my cadet days. But after graduating from the Higher Naval Academy, people like you cleaned the latrines on my ship.
        
        Perun61
        
        +1
        
        4 March 2026 08: 08
        
        You haven't written anything relevant. In fact, you couldn't respond.
        
        That is, as we see,
        Russia's losses did not even exceed American losses in Vietnam.
        
        What can we talk about after such stupidity of yours?
        
        The United States lost about 211,000 people in Vietnam.
        
        Where is the link to Medinsky's novel from which these numbers are taken?
        
        Sputnik Georgia
        
        "Is that the source? If you're stupid enough to cite "this" as a source, then you could also cite the Russian Armed Forces' casualty data from the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Their level of honesty is precisely the same."
        
        After graduating from the Higher Naval School, the latrines on the box were cleaned by people like you
        
        Go see a psychiatrist, get treatment for your delusions of grandeur. People like you still clean toilets for 70.
        
        Even if these figures are extrapolated to the entire SVO, it will be about 48,000 people.
        
        Even these underestimated losses are enormous. Thank you for confirming my words about the enormous losses of the Russian Armed Forces.
        
        I'll give you the numbers you're missing so much - during WWII...
        
        And immediately again you present data that contradicts your own words about the similarity between the Second World War and the Second World War, and you confirm mine.
        Confirm yours, at least come up with something to justify your stupid words about WWII and the Central Military District.
        Try to digress less and focus only on the similarities between WWII and SVO.
        No success so far.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        4 March 2026 10: 32
        
        What can we talk about after such stupidity of yours?
        So go to elementary school and learn to use a calculator. Four years of the Second World War multiplied by the number of months equals 48. Let's take Shoigu's estimates of Russian losses for the first six months: 1000 per month. As you yourself noted, these are the maximum losses during the entire Second World War. We get 48,000. And, I repeat, this is the maximum. Not satisfied with Sputnik's data? I've provided you with the Americans' own data for the Vietnam years: 60,000. - https://warconflict.ru/rus/new/?action=shwprd&id=1284
        The data cited here is taken from American sources (the last hyperlink in the article). I hope you can still compare 48,000 and 60,000? If so, you'll correctly conclude that the losses of Russian troops, taken at the maximum, based on the first months, are less than American data on losses during the Vietnam War. Which again proves the falsity of your assertion: "And the fact that the Russian leadership made mistakes in conducting the Central Military District, leading to enormous losses, exceeding the losses of all previous Operations and conflicts around the world, still does not allow us to compare the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District."
        It's so good that you're asking me to compare the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet Military District. So, the Red Army's losses during the Great Patriotic War, according to estimates by the Krivosheev Commission, were about 9 million. Plus the civilian population of 18 million. Total - about 27 million. Are we going to compare it with the Soviet Military District?
        "Go see a psychiatrist and get treatment for your delusions of grandeur. People like you still clean toilets for 70."
        )))) Well, if I clean toilets for such exorbitant fees, then you can only be compared to the stinking substance that is being fought in these very toilets)))
        Which of your words confirm the figures that under the USSR, during the Second World War, 24% of the population was mobilized, and during the Second World War, 1%?))) They wrote to you in Russian, in black and white, that the expansion of the Second World War to the level of a regional conflict immediately takes it out of the scope of an armed conflict.
        I hope you know the difference between a military conflict and an armed conflict. So, I have only one word to say: you're incompetent when it comes to military development. Sorry, but I'm telling it like it is.
        
        Perun61
        
        0
        
        4 March 2026 10: 51
        
        It's good that you ask me to compare the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet Military District))) So, the losses of the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War, according to the Krivosheev Commission, were about 9 million. Plus the civilian population of 18 million. Total - about 27 million. Are we going to compare with the Soviet Military District?
        
        I told you about this, that the difference between the SVO and the WWII is huge!
        And you were talking nonsense about
        
        There's not much difference between a war and a special operation.
        
        Didn't get it right away? Good thing it did now!
        Got it?
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        4 March 2026 11: 33
        
        Once again, read your military history textbooks. Casualties don't determine whether a military conflict is a war or an armed conflict. The primary criterion for determining this is the locality of the conflict. Turn the switch ON in your head, please. I've already said this several times. Based on the degree of involvement of several countries in a military conflict, both the Central Military District and the Great Patriotic War are classified as wars according to modern views on military history. There is certainly a difference between the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District (by the way, no one has claimed otherwise), but both are wars. Despite the difference in casualties and the scale of the conflict.
        
        Perun61
        
        0
        
        4 March 2026 11: 54
        
        read military history textbooks
        
        Before giving such advice, take care of your own education.
        And don’t consider yourself smarter than those around you, this is impossible for you, rather the opposite, everyone around you is smarter than you.
        
        There is certainly a difference between WWII and the Soviet Union.
        
        You can at least admit your stupid mistakes sometimes. Admitting a mistake is a step towards preventing future mistakes.
        
        By the way, no one claimed otherwise.
        
        One admission of error from you is enough for today, no one expects a second.
        
        but both are war
        
        The official opinion, the links to which you like to ask, is different.
        
        Putin: This is not a war...
        
        So tell him that the SVO is war, and since your opinion is very important to him, go out to Red Square with a poster that says "SVO is War" so that he can see it from the window of his armored limousine.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 10: 51
        
        You are a funny person)))) I am curious myself - what mistake should I admit. )))
        First, you attribute words to me that I did not say (that SVO and VOV are one and the same).
        On the contrary, the difference was emphasized to you.
        For example, this one - “I’ll give you the figures that you’re missing so much - during the Great Patriotic War, 24% of the population was mobilized, now - less than 1%. "
        Or this: "How good that you ask me to compare the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet Military District. So, according to the Krivosheev Commission, the Red Army's losses during the Great Patriotic War amounted to about 9 million. Plus the civilian population of 18 million. A total of about 27 million. Are we going to compare this with the Soviet Military District? )))" And it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the Great Patriotic War differs greatly from the Soviet Military District in terms of the degree of population mobilization, the level of economic transition, and the level of casualties. But in some ways they are similar. Specifically, according to current views, both are classified as wars based on what is happening in the theater of operations.
        As for your incompetence, you've had it pointed out to you several times.
        
        And the fact that the Russian leadership made mistakes in conducting the SVO, which led
        to enormous losses, exceeding the losses of all previous ones
        Operations and conflicts around the world
        
        With numbers in hand, they showed you the falsity of your statement, using the example of, at least, the Vietnam War.
        
        The only things in common between the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District are the enormous losses on our side and the mistakes of the command in the first stages of the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District.
        
        Based on the data from the Krivosheev Commission and the words about the losses of the Russian Federation during the first months of the conflict, you were shown that the losses are not even close.
        
        There is a big difference between a war and something incomprehensible, that is why they did not declare it, but instead invented all sorts of ATO, SVO, KTO, etc.
        
        When asked what the military conflict in Vietnam was, you didn't dare answer. On the one hand, war wasn't declared. On the other, it wasn't called a special operation or anti-terrorist operation either. In the United States itself, the conflict is called a war. Using the modern classification of military conflicts—specifically, based on their escalation from the local to the regional level—you demonstrated that both Vietnam and the Central Military District were wars.
        And that is why it was suggested that you sit down with military history textbooks, so that you would not get lost in the woods, not distinguishing a military conflict from an armed conflict, and would be able to classify this or that event.
        
        Putin: This is not a war...
        
        That's why you were told at least this
        
        In the event of war, the economy must be converted to a war footing. That is, producing guns instead of butter. Naturally, the population's standard of living declines. The entire working population is conscripted into labor—some to dig anti-tank ditches, others to produce ammunition, others to grow potatoes in the fields. Strict military censorship is introduced. Attempts to avoid conscription and travel to the Upper Lars region are punishable by a penal battalion at best. At worst, execution.
        Attempts to destabilize the country through various kinds of provocative propaganda are punishable by criminal penalties, and that's at best. As we can see, in Russia, there's nothing even close to that.
        
        The Supreme Commander may well have had in mind the state of Russia's internal life.
        Here, indeed, there is still room for improvement before the country is mobilized to wartime levels. But at the same time, he also noted...
        
        Russia has to fight with all countries that are members of the North Atlantic Alliance, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated at a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
        
        "All NATO countries are at war with Russia," Putin noted. The Russian army is currently the most combat-ready in the world—that's no exaggeration, the president emphasized.
        
        Putin stated that all NATO countries are at war with Russia.
        
        RBC
        
        What you were told, in fact, is that the Central Military District, from the perspective of Russia's domestic policy, cannot be considered a war, as it lacks the military-level mobilization of forces and resources. On the other hand, given the nature of the combat operations in the theater of military operations, the stated objectives, and the involvement of countries in the conflict, it is a full-fledged war, according to the existing classification system for military conflicts.
        
        Perun61
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 11: 40
        
        In fact, you admitted your mistake; there is a big difference between the war, especially the Great Patriotic War, and the Central Military District, and again you cite data confirming this difference, although at first you claimed a small difference.
        All clear.
        
        When asked what the military conflict in Vietnam was, you did not dare to answer.
        
        Why do I need this? Why do I need your conflict in Vietnam?
        If you're interested in the Vietnam War or any special operations, take your own advice and read history textbooks, preferably not Medinsky's.
        I have no need to catch up with you about the Vietnam conflict and WWI, where you tried to escape to.
        There's a big difference between a war and an operation, especially between the Great Patriotic War and the Soviet Military District. You've pointed this out many times yourself.
        Once again, everything is clear.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 12: 29
        
        In order to admit a mistake, you have to make one.))) The most I said was, "And to show that there's not that much difference between a war and a special operation. Just because a war isn't declared de jure doesn't mean it doesn't exist." And I agree with that again.))) Because I meant any war in general, not the Great Patriotic War specifically. If we look at a healthy mastiff and a miniature pinscher, you can see a big difference between them, in appearance. But both belong to the canine family.))) Therefore, I repeat for the hundredth time: both the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District, despite the existing differences in mobilization measures, the transfer of the economy to a war footing, the standard of living of the population, and losses on the battlefield, in both cases, war nevertheless takes place. I repeat once again: according to the modern classification.
        
        Perun61
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 13: 15
        
        Quote: Botrops
        Well, during that time Patriotic They also left a lot of things behind, and then reached Berlin.
        
        The conversation started with this message.
        Following
        
        to show that there is not such a big difference between a war and a special operation
        
        Because I meant any war in general, and not specifically the Great Patriotic War.
        
        Are you hoping someone will credit you for the drain?
        The conversation began with a comparison between the Soviet Military District and the Great Patriotic War.
        In your messages, you provided a large number of comparisons between the SVO and the WWII, confirming their differences.
        That's why there was talk about them; you later ran away to other wars.
        
        I'll repeat once again - according to the modern classification
        
        Where's the link to this modern classification, the official one, preferably with the Chief of the General Staff's signature and seal? You like to ask for everything official.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 14: 24
        
        Well, during the Great Patriotic War they also abandoned a lot of things, and then they reached Berlin.
        
        So what? This only goes to show that in any war and in any victory, no one is immune from defeat. And in Russian history, this has happened more than once, when defeat was followed by a series of resounding victories. And the result was ultimate triumph over the enemy.
        
        Are you hoping someone will credit you for the drain?
        The conversation began with a comparison between the Soviet Military District and the Great Patriotic War.
        
        Honestly, whether anyone will count anything or not is the least of my concerns. I'm interested in the discussion itself, the opponent's arguments. Because when arguing with a competent interlocutor, you yourself will learn something new. Or maybe you'll see things differently. So, unfortunately, I didn't gain anything useful from arguing with you.
        I repeat again that I've cited other military conflicts with one goal: to demonstrate the difference between a military conflict and an armed one. And I've never once said that the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District are the same thing. In fact, I've repeatedly emphasized the differences between them. So far, it's only from your words that I've assumed I've equated the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District. Although, when citing the goals of both the Great Patriotic War and the Central Military District, I emphasized their commonalities, but I never forgot the differences.
        
        Where's the link to this modern classification, the official one, preferably with the Chief of the General Staff's signature and seal? You like to ask for everything official.
        
        I love it. But I realized long ago that I won't get any links to reliable sources from you. So, as the Arabic proverb goes, I won't put another sack on the donkey.
        Regarding the signature and seal from the Chief of the General Staff, I have to disappoint you: classifications of military conflicts are not the province of the Chief of the General Staff. They are the domain of military historians, whose works I've repeatedly referred you to. There you'll find the signature and seal, and much more interesting information. All the best.
        
        Perun61
        
        0
        
        6 March 2026 14: 43
        
        I'm not putting another sack on the donkey
        
        That's right, you don't need to take on an unbearable burden.
        
        All the best
        
        Same to you.
        
        The comment was deleted.
  2. UAZ 452
    
    +1
    
    20 February 2026 21: 51
    
    We were in Berlin less than four years after "a lot of things were left behind," and now four years have already passed. However, there have been thirty-year wars, and hundred-year wars... Why should there be, or not be, a hundred-year special operation?
    1. Botrops
      
      -1
      
      21 February 2026 10: 20
      
      Well, back then, the mobilization of the population and the country's resources was different. I'm not even talking about the well-being of citizens. Only 24 percent of the fit population fought. Now, it's only 1 percent. Although, I agree, the capabilities for destroying the Soviet Union's military forces are far from fully utilized.
      1. UAZ 452
        
        -1
        
        21 February 2026 10: 58
        
        Far more than 1% of the Russian population fought in the First World War. However, at some point, the majority of these combatants chose to turn their weapons against those they were told were the enemy. Those who advocate mass mobilization should not forget this chapter of our history.
        
        Botrops
        
        -1
        
        21 February 2026 11: 07
        
        During the First World War, the people who fought in the army were mostly peasants. In the villages, they had to plow, sow, harvest, and feed their families. And Bolshevik propaganda found traction. Now, those who fight in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are those who came to fight themselves. They earn good money and provide for their families. And in the future, hopefully, through national projects, they will (and are already) come to power.
        Honestly, I don't understand you. You wrote above that we've been fighting for four years and are making slow progress. And yet, to speed things up, you're against mobilization. So you want to both eat up the lobby and wage a full-scale war? That's not how it works. If you want victory, you have to be prepared for sacrifices.
        
        UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 11: 22
        
        How can I understand you? You write:
        
        Now those fighting in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are those who came to fight voluntarily. They earn good money and provide for their families.
        
        And right there:
        
        You wrote above that we've been fighting for four years now and are making slow progress. And yet, to speed things up, you're against mobilization. So you want to both eat up the lobby and wage a full-scale war? That's not how it works. If you want victory, you have to be prepared for sacrifices.
        
        Don't you really understand that if instead of volunteer contract soldiers we start sending those who wouldn't go themselves even for millions to be mobilized, then we'll get a situation where
        
        During the First World War, the army was made up primarily of peasants. In the villages, they had to plow, sow, harvest, and feed their families. And Bolshevik agitation found traction.
        
        Whether they're peasants, workers, or office workers is of secondary importance. The key point is: they'll send those who didn't want to fight, even for the 5 million rubles they currently pay for signing a contract. And, in my opinion, it's hard not to predict who they'll all consider their enemies.
        P.S. As for my desire to wage a full-scale war, take Kyiv by force, etc.... You've got me confused. I'm simply extrapolating that if the results over four years are near zero, then if the same people in the upper echelons, the same approaches, and the same methods of conducting business remain in place, then we shouldn't expect anything fundamentally different in terms of results and achievements over the next four, eight, or more years. And the second mobilization will yield the same military successes as the first—perhaps adding another one or two district centers—at the cost of yet another expansion of military cemeteries in every Russian city.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        24 February 2026 10: 02
        
        You underestimate the role of Comrade Mauser. Look at Ukraine – many don't want to fight, judging by the footage of the TCC, but nevertheless, they are brought to the front lines and the front holds. I have a colleague at work. A typical liberal in his views. He lives in a three-room apartment, inherited from his parents, who received it for free, back in the USSR. He has a higher education, already under the Russian Federation, which cost him nothing. He has a dacha 30 km from the city and his own car, bought on credit, but already paid off. In other words, he received everything he needs for life from the state. But he took the position that he is for peace, against war, and, if necessary, will not go to the front. Although the Constitution of the Russian Federation states that a citizen of the Russian Federation is obliged, if necessary, to stand up for the defense of his homeland. He tells me that he doesn't want to fight and what use would he be at the front? To which I reply that it would be of great help. He'll be good enough, at least, to be shot in front of the line for refusing to defend the country, according to its fundamental law. And thus serve as an object lesson to the others. So, with barrier detachments and SMERSH, all these white-collar workers, shouting "Hurray!!!" like sweethearts, will go on the attack.
        
        UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        24 February 2026 13: 01
        
        And in 1917, do you think they didn't shoot people in front of the formation? Were they embarrassed?
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        25 February 2026 11: 04
        
        No, they didn't shoot them. They only shot their own commanders, those who displeased the soldiers. And new ones were elected by vote. Read the memoirs of those years. Trotsky introduced a similar practice. When he could order every tenth member of an errant unit to be shot for cowardice and abandoning their positions.
    2. Dart2027
      
      -1
      
      21 February 2026 10: 28
      
      Quote: UAZ 452
      We were in Berlin less than four years after "a lot of things were left behind"
      
      Well, nowadays people don’t live in a “everything for the front” mode.
      1. UAZ 452
        
        -1
        
        21 February 2026 10: 53
        
        Exactly. And how the previous great war ended for the Russian state, when the people and the elites refused to live in a "everything for the front, everything for victory" mode, can be read in history textbooks. Until Medinsky rewrote the chapters about 1917.
        
        Dart2027
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 13: 21
        
        Quote: UAZ 452
        And how did the previous great war end for the Russian state, when the people and the elites did not want to live in the "everything for the front, everything for victory" regime?
        
        It would have ended well if they hadn’t been so coy with those who like to muddy the waters.
  3. aslanxnumx
    
    +4
    
    21 February 2026 08: 39
    
    That's how it was under Stalin and the communists.
    But now, under Putin and Let's Eat Russia, this is not realistic.
    1. Botrops
      
      -3
      
      21 February 2026 10: 58
      
      Why isn't it realistic? We solved the Ichkeria issue back in the day. Although there was a similar situation there, too. The West helped with militants, with organizing terrorist attacks, with weapons, and with organizing treatment for militants in Turkey. We managed it. And we even killed them in the toilets. We can manage this too. Although, I agree, we would like to see more toughness towards our Western "partners."
      1. UAZ 452
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 11: 31
        
        Compare the populations of Ichkeria, now re-established as the Chechen Republic, and Ukraine, and the size of their territories. And the big question is: did we resolve the Ichkeria issue by military force or by buying off some of their elite clans? This is, in principle, a viable approach, but it's unlikely to work with Ukraine—Russia is currently short on funds, the appetites of the Ukrainian elite are incomparably greater, if only due to the country's larger size, and there are competing offers from "respected partners" for the local oligarchs. Meanwhile, if anyone other than Russia ever needed Ichkeria, it wasn't to the point of investing comparable resources.
        So I would be very cautious in extrapolating the experience of the two Chechen wars to the North-Eastern Military District.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        24 February 2026 10: 26
        
        Well, in Ichkeria, we didn't just negotiate. We also eliminated many of the most stubborn, including their leaders. And we showed them an alternative. Grozny is now one of the most beautiful cities in Russia. So, the issue has been resolved. The West needs Ichkeria for the same reason it needs Ukraine—to be the tip of the spear, waging a proxy war against Russia. Therefore, the same must be done in Ukraine—eliminate militants from various sectors and those who lead them. So far, there are no signs of action in this direction, just as there are no strikes against those supplying weapons to Ukraine. Permissiveness leads to further escalation, and Russia, sooner or later, will have to respond. In my opinion, it's better to do this sooner rather than later. As Karaganov says, even to the point of launching a tactical nuclear strike against Ukraine's western regions. This will force Britain to reconsider whether to continue.
        As for the West's handouts, that's always been the case. They wanted real steps from us in exchange for commitments that they sooner or later reneged on. I'm sure those at the top understand this. Therefore, all these negotiations are nothing more than a sham, which will lead to nothing constructive.
      2. aslanxnumx
        
        +1
        
        21 February 2026 12: 23
        
        They didn't win there, they bought it.
        And Russia still pays money.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        24 February 2026 10: 52
        
        Really? Well, Russia destroyed both the core of the militants and their leaders. And yes, it did propose an alliance. And Grozny is now one of the most beautiful cities in Russia. So, the problem was solved.
VatnikRKKA

-8

20 February 2026 14: 36

I wish I could understand what it's needed for.
1. beeper
  
  +4
  
  20 February 2026 14: 52
  
  "Friend" VatnikRKKA, "your mustache has come unglued"!
  Regarding the "genesis" of your "writings" on Reporter, be honest and re-register with BushlatNATO!
  Because you are not the Red Army, but a disguised, "vatnik"-clad, AI-like provocateur-network bot like "dermidont" and the like.
  1. VatnikRKKA
    
    -4
    
    20 February 2026 19: 42
    
    What, Ukrainian? Keep squealing...
2. Nikolay Volkov
  
  +5
  
  20 February 2026 16: 16
  
  What is the purpose of the Hero City of Odessa??!! Seriously??!!
  
  Well, at least so that people can calmly lay flowers at the Monument to the Unknown Sailor and so that Bandera-style sabbaths don't take place there...
  1. Mister who
    
    +2
    
    20 February 2026 18: 59
    
    In Transnistria, our citizens are surrounded, plus in Odessa, like in Kaliningrad, there is a good rebound against the enemy, and also resources, land, people
    1. VatnikRKKA
      
      -3
      
      20 February 2026 19: 45
      
      Is it normal that residents of the PMR each have three passports? Doesn't that seem odd to you? And here's another interesting question: how many of them will be evacuated to Russia? About a quarter went in Kherson!
      The difference between Odessa and Kaliningrad is that Russians live in Kaliningrad.
    2. Švark
      
      +3
      
      20 February 2026 20: 03
      
      Well, after numerous and unsuccessful attempts to get away with it, we finally succeeded!
    3. aslanxnumx
      
      +5
      
      21 February 2026 08: 41
      
      And there's not enough land in Russia. There are already few people, and yet people are dying here.
      But don't worry, the Russian people are being replaced.
      1. twice-born
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 09: 33
        
        I agree that for 40 years now, since Perestroika, there has been a genocide of the Russian people in Russia and for almost 30 years we have been replaced by obedient chinks.
        But regarding land, yes, we have little land like the ones on the outskirts, almost none, especially with access to the sea. But I hope that's not why we got into this war!
        Although the Americans, yes, started this war because of this (land and the outskirts territory in general).
  2. VatnikRKKA
    
    -6
    
    20 February 2026 19: 43
    
    What nonsense they wrote. Are there any Russians in Odessa?
beeper

+4

20 February 2026 14: 40

If only Putin's mustachioed Kremlin deputy had said something like that, then one could somehow hope a little, fantasize with anticipation...
And this "expert opinion"... is a shot in the dark, or rather, a guess!
In the collection of "Murphy's Laws":

Mars Rule. Expert—anyone from outside our city.
Weber's definition: An expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less until he or she knows absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.
rotkiv04

0

20 February 2026 14: 52

Yeah, right, there are enough fools for another 100 years, and the roads are already in a better condition.
alovrov

-1

20 February 2026 15: 21

Odessa is definitely not in this watch. The front has stopped and hasn't moved for almost three months. We need to stop and prepare for a second Ukrainian war.
1. Nikolay Volkov
  
  +4
  
  20 February 2026 16: 18
  
  No one will prepare in the Russian Federation... They will declare a historic victory, compare the annexation of Selidovo to the capture of the Reichstag, and oppress and imprison those who doubt it.
  
  But the West, with the help of Banderov's followers, will be preparing for revenge... while in Moscow, shamans and Viki Tsyganovs will dance and act. And oh, how unlikely it is that their appetites will be limited to Donetsk or Crimea...
  
  Will anyone want to go to war next time for these dances, Sobyanin's tiles and Gundyaevshchina - that's a big question
2. Igor M.
  
  -2
  
  20 February 2026 17: 12
  
  It hasn't stopped, it's moving. Since the beginning of 2026, another 900 square kilometers and 42 settlements have come under our control, including the urban-type settlements of Ternovatoye and Zheleznodorozhne. And at the end of December, the city of Huliaipole in Zaporizhzhia was liberated. A week earlier, the city of Seversk in the DPR was liberated, and before that, Myrnohrad. Today, the Russian Ministry of Defense reported the liberation of eight settlements in recent days: Tsvetkovo, Krynychnoye, Zapasnoye, Magdalynivka, and Primorskoye in Zaporizhzhia, Pokrovka and Kharkivka in Sumy Oblast, and Minkovka in the DPR. I'm monitoring the situation on the map https://lostarmour.info/map
  1. aslanxnumx
    
    +5
    
    21 February 2026 08: 43
    
    Question: what was lost in the fall of 2022 was liberated.
    Not .
    Don't forget to throw in your caps.
    1. Dart2027
      
      -2
      
      21 February 2026 10: 29
      
      Quote: aslan642
      Question: what was lost in the fall of 2022 was liberated.
      
      Did the Ukrainian Armed Forces get back what they lost after the fall of 2022? No. Don't forget to throw in your caps.
      1. aslanxnumx
        
        0
        
        21 February 2026 19: 31
        
        In the autumn, Russia lost more than 40 thousand square kilometers of liberated territories.
        Liberated about 8 thousand km2
        
        Dart2027
        
        -2
        
        21 February 2026 22: 52
        
        Quote: aslan642
        In the autumn, Russia lost more than 40 thousand square kilometers of liberated territories.
        Liberated about 8 thousand km2
        
        In total, Ukraine lost about 20% of its entire territory. Don't forget to throw in your caps.
3. YES UZH
  
  0
  
  21 February 2026 10: 07
  
  Odessa is definitely not in this watch. The front has stopped and hasn't moved for almost three months. We need to stop and prepare for a second Ukrainian war.
  
  Only theft can save you from an audit.
  
  There remains hope in the Holy Mother of God, so that the notorious Anglo-Saxons will no longer have time for Mazepia... To help our soldiers, so as not to start everything from the beginning
  
  Disillusioned atheists can hope for aliens
4. YES UZH
  
  0
  
  21 February 2026 12: 16
  
  Each subsequent war will be increasingly sophisticated, there will be no safe rear, and where is the guarantee that the Mazepians won't hand over nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons or critical components? It's time to see who will use them more effectively and avoid overexertion. The likelihood of nuclear weapons being used is not decreasing. If we had escalated the nuclear war earlier, or perhaps even used them, leveling the foggy Albion, it probably would have been over, and the rest would have hunkered down to avoid getting involved. And now no one takes us seriously, quite the contrary.
Kiril

0

20 February 2026 16: 51

Why them specifically, and not Kyiv and other Russian cities?
S. Viktorovich

0

20 February 2026 17: 12

The front, extending hundreds of kilometers into enemy territory, is controlled by artillery ("Coalition"), supertanks (Armata), and swarms of AI-powered drones. All troop interaction and command is conducted through the Unified Control System (UCS). Each lieutenant has a tablet with the position of his own and the enemy's forces. Most importantly, space and air reconnaissance and targeting assets provide the position of all enemy assets in real time.
The Aerospace Forces control the entire territory of the enemy and suppress any activity of its Air Force and Air Defense, as well as destroy key targets.
The fleet struck the coastal defenses, mined the approaches from the west and carried out a landing.
Here, Odessa is before us! My relatives were already looking forward to meeting each other.
1. A.A.G.
  
  +6
  
  20 February 2026 18: 43
  
  Quote: S. Viktorovich
  The front, extending hundreds of kilometers into enemy territory, is controlled by artillery ("Coalition"), supertanks (Armata), and swarms of AI-powered drones. All troop interaction and command is conducted through the Unified Control System (UCS). Each lieutenant has a tablet with the position of his own and the enemy's forces. Most importantly, space and air reconnaissance and targeting assets provide the position of all enemy assets in real time.
  The Aerospace Forces control the entire territory of the enemy and suppress any activity of its Air Force and Air Defense, as well as destroy key targets.
  The fleet struck the coastal defenses, mined the approaches from the west and carried out a landing.
  Here, Odessa is before us! My relatives were already looking forward to meeting each other.
  
  Sorry.
  But people are tense - many no longer understand sarcasm... (especially those who can’t even always bring the bodies of their loved ones).
  And so, yes: Christmas trees, festivals, other celebrations...
  However, - as on UA...
Sergei Fonov

+5

20 February 2026 17: 58

Russia will never agree to leave Kherson and Odessa to Ukraine.

The question is not that Russia “will not agree,” but whether Russia is capable of returning Odessa, Nikolaev and Kherson to Russia, and indeed the whole of Novorossiya, which are historical lands of Russia.
1. Mister who
  
  -3
  
  20 February 2026 19: 01
  
  capable of taking Odessa
2. VatnikRKKA
  
  -5
  
  20 February 2026 19: 54
  
  The point is, Russia doesn't need Ukrainians. As soon as the Ukrainians leave Odessa, Russia will immediately take it back!
3. Švark
  
  +4
  
  20 February 2026 20: 05
  
  I'm not capable. So, let's go our separate ways.
Vox Populi

+5

20 February 2026 19: 26

Artamonov and other similar "expert" propagandists have already moved towards Odessa?!
VatnikRKKA

0

20 February 2026 19: 53

Most likely, it won't. The question is, what will remain of Odessa? Hopefully, not a pile of rubble.
Alexpan

+6

20 February 2026 22: 32

Some statements that are completely untrue. It's clear to everyone, both here and there, that Russia has overextended itself in this strange SVO and no longer has the strength to do more than hold on to what's been won.
twice-born

+1

21 February 2026 09: 10

These are all the dreams and desires of the common Russian people about Odessa, Kharkov, Sumy, Nikolaev, Kherson and even the original Russian city of Kyiv.
The authorities haven't even hinted at this and haven't given any indication that they intend to take them. Well, they're supposedly constitutionally obligated to fight for the transfer of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, but they haven't said a word about that either!
So, of course, it's nice for an ordinary Russian man to hear such words from an "expert" (who even is he?!), but, objectively, it's unclear what they're based on! Other than a desire to calm the people and curry favor with the authorities.
vlad127490

+1

21 February 2026 11: 31

We will not agree to any scenario without the liberation of Odessa.

We, who is this???
If these are the people of Russia, then we will return all of Ukraine to Russia.
If this is the bourgeois government of the Russian Federation, then it is alien, it will sell out, give away everything for its own personal interests.
Initially, there were no goals for the SVO in Ukraine. There was the Odessa uproar and numerous media statements, but everyone should understand that this is tantamount to writing on fences. No one will claim or believe this is true, and no one bears any obligations or responsibility for its content or implementation.