By Svetlana Golikova,
Investigative Reporter
Zelenogorsk Pravda – A classified Defense Ministry analysis obtained by Zelenogorsk Pravda reveals stark contrasts in the outcomes of two recent military operations against separatist forces. The Defense of Lembork (Operation 2503-28-6) and the Defense of Myro (Operation 2503-28-7), conducted under similarly dire conditions, ended in victory and disaster, respectively. The report, authored by Major General Vassily Chernyakov, underscores adaptability as the decisive factor in survival—and rigid doctrine as a fatal flaw.
Overview: Two Battles, Two Outcomes
On the surface, both missions shared common goals: repel separatist advances and hold strategic villages. Yet Lembork, defended by the 24th Light Mountain Rifle Brigade, became a testament to resilience, while Myro, entrusted to the 3rd Tank Brigade, collapsed into a “catastrophic” defeat. The key difference? Leadership’s willingness to adapt.
Lembork’s Success:
Objective: Deny separatists control of a ruined village (initially thought to hold intelligence documents).
Result: Separatists repelled after 12 hours, despite 60% infantry losses.
Key Factor: Commanders shifted tactics, prioritizing phased reinforcements over static defense.
Myro’s Collapse:
Objective: Defend a strategic village from armored incursions.
Result: Brigade decimated after advancing into a kill zone; all armor lost.
Key Factor: Blind adherence to orders despite compromised supply lines.
Tactics and Combat: A Study in Contrasts
1. The Defense of Lembork: Flexibility Under Fire
Friendly Forces: Deployed BRDM scout cars and T-72 tanks, later reinforced with T-55s and mechanized cavalry.
Enemy Composition: Chechen fighters, MRAPs, and special operations teams exploited mobility.
Turning Point: Ruined village structures offered little cover, but commanders consolidated forces on the southern edge, funneling in T-55s to blunt separatist assaults.
2. The Disaster at Myro: Doctrine Over Reality
Friendly Forces: Relied on T-72 overwatch and BMPs, later reinforced with T-55s (all destroyed).
Enemy Composition: North Korean and Spanish regulars with heavy armor ambushed reinforcements.
Critical Flaw: A brigade order to advance—ignoring exposed flanks and poor reconnaissance—led to annihilation in a choke point.
Command Decisions: Leadership Under the Microscope
Lembork’s Adaptive Leadership:
Rapid reinforcement stabilized collapsing lines, even as intelligence about “critical documents” proved false.
Gen. Chernyakov’s Note: “Tactical flexibility compensated for flawed intelligence.”
Myro’s Fatal Rigidity:
Brigade HQ insisted on advancing despite warnings, losing all T-55s and BMPs. Scouts failed to detect enemy T-72s.
Report Excerpt: “Reinforcements became target practice for separatist armor.”
Lessons for Future Survival
The report urges sweeping reforms:
Reconnaissance Overhaul: Integrate UAVs with scout teams to detect threats like MRAPs and hidden armor.
Reinforcement Protocols: Avoid bulk deployments; use multiple routes to evade ambushes.
Empower Field Commanders: Allow leaders to reject orders that jeopardize missions.
Anti-Armor Upgrades: Augment tank units with mobile ATGM teams to counter heavy armor.
Conclusion: The Cost of Learning
General Chernyakov’s analysis concludes bluntly: “Myro’s losses were preventable.” While Lembork’s victory came at a high human cost, its lessons—prioritizing adaptability over dogma—could save lives in future fights. For Chernarus’ military, the path forward is clear: trust commanders on the ground, not just plans on paper.
Major General Chernyakov’s full report remains classified, but excerpts have been verified by Defense Ministry sources.
Svetlana Golikova has covered military affairs for the Zelenogorsk Pravda since 2015. Contact her at svetlana.golikova@zelenpravda.crn.
