A Yardstick Over the Volga: Taking the Measure of Russias Lost Depth
By: Giorgio Provinciali
Live from Ukraine ??
Describing the war from the field, and even surviving, is becoming increasingly difficult. If weve somehow managed to do so in these 1,623 days,WE ARE DEEPLY GRATEFUL TO THOSE WHO MADE THIS POSSIBLE BY SUPPORTING US.
Kryvyi Rih The simultaneous takeoff of four A-50Us measures the strategic depth that Russia has lost.
After nearly a month of inactivity, from June 23 the Russian Federation went back to flying its A-50U long-range radar detection aircraft on a regular basis, and on July 7 itscrambleda full four of them at once. Nearly the entire operational fleet, as RBC-Ukrainereported. Watched closely, the orbits over Ulyanovsk, Samara, and Bashkortostan followed by the dispersal of the aircraft toward Perm, Orenburg, and Chelyabinsk describe a mission to protect Russias productive heartland the Volga region, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, the Urals well beyond any coverage of the Ukrainian front. Much of the Western media passed over the story entirely. Others read it as an aviation curiosity. We read it as a yardstick.
The specialized Russian source bmpd, tied to the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies,reportedin June that in recent years no more than four A-50Us had ever been observed in periodic activity. Eight airframes are believed to have been modernized in all, but two weredownedin 2024, at least two more are damaged or under repair, and several aircraft cycle through long maintenance periods.Four machines in the air at the same time therefore amount to an exceptional mobilization of the capabilities actually available.
The count comes from the OSINT group CyberBoroshnos analysis of communications, aviation reports, and Russian sources, and not from the official registers of the Russian air force. We therefore cannot know for certain whether all four aircraft were flying full radar missions, or whether one of them was engaged in transfers, training, or rotation. Yet the convergence between the OSINT data and the Russian estimate of the fleet makes the episode highly significant all the same.
Precisely:it puts a yardstick to Russias loss of strategic depth long the strong suit of imperial and Soviet Moscow a loss we have been documenting from the field for months.
For two centuries Russias depth was a passive endowment: geography did the defending on its own. No moreandno less than what we havedescribedon the Belarusian flank and among the Ukrainian trenches where the Second World War was fought. When that depth has to be bought back every night by committing nearly the whole of a vanishingly scarce fleet, thatdepth is conceptually already lost. Those takeoffs carry a historical rhyme: in October 1941 Kuibyshev, todays Samara, was designated the reserve capital, and more than fifteen hundred factories were evacuated beyond the Volga precisely because distance equaled sanctuary. Today an A-50U orbits over Samara to make up for that same sanctuarys disappearance. Eighty-five years later, the sanctuary needs a flying radar.
What exactly the Russians fear, the vectors themselves tell us.The main threat consists of low-flying Ukrainian cruise missiles the FP-5 Flamingo above all integrated with strike drones, decoys, reconnaissance platforms, and other long-range systems. According to official Ukrainian data the Flamingo has a declared range of up to 3,000 kilometers and a warhead of more than a ton: its importance lies in the combination of endurance, explosive mass, and the ability to fly indirect routes toward industrial targets far from the border. Kyiv also fields a growing family of other national systems: Liutyi, FP-1, Bars, Peklo, Ruta, Palianytsia, and the ground-launched versions of the Neptune.
The OSINTanalysisof the July 4 attack is particularly instructive. More than five cruise missiles, identified precisely as Flamingos, are reported to have followed the course of the Volga and exploited terrain, rivers, and route changes to cross areas where ground radar coverage runs into gaps. An A-50U that took off shortly after midnight is said to have contributed to detecting the vectors and coordinating the interceptors and antiaircraft batteries; according to that reconstruction, all the missiles were ultimately shot down. It is an OSINT account and not a result verifiable in every detail, but it explains perfectly the intensification of patrols that followed.Russias fear, then, concerns the loss of strategic depth: missile factories, refineries, depots, pumping stations, chemical plants, and industries across the VolgaUrals belt can no longer be considered automatically safe by virtue of distance.
The problem the A-50U solves is essentially geometric. A ground radar can be very powerful, but the earths curvature and the terrain drastically limit the distance at which it can see a missile flying a few dozen meters off the ground: an antenna mounted at twenty meters, against a target at fifty, has an ideal geometric horizon of roughly 4050 kilometers, which buildings, forests, hills, interference, and ground clutter can shrink further.Placing the radar at about 9,000 meters, the theoretical horizon against the same target rises to approximately 360420 kilometers, depending on the atmospheric refraction model adopted. Real-world performance depends on the missiles radar cross section, on electronic jamming, on terrain, and on processing capacity, but the geometric advantage remains enormous. To grasp the operational effect, a clock is enough: a missile traveling at 900 kilometers per hour covers forty-five kilometers in three minutes and three hundred in twenty. The A-50U can thus turn a few minutes warning into a window wide enough to activate batteries, hand off tracks, scramble fighters, assign interception sectors, and lay out multiple lines of fire. The aircraft does not shoot the target down itself: it does, however, reconstruct the air picture and feed the engagement chain, while the defense continues to depend on the quality of data links, the position of surface-to-air systems, fighter availability, and correct track identification.
The simultaneous presence of four A-50Us on July 7 coincided with the vast Ukrainian incursion on the night of July 78, a new chapter in the deep-strike campaign we havechronicledfrom its command. Russian reports collected by OSINT described hundreds of events across dozens of localities, while independent sources confirmed strikes on refineries, oil infrastructure, and pumping stations between Saratov, Tatarstan, and Bashkortostan. The coincidence suggests three possibilities, compatible with one another: a general early warning of a new large-scale incursion; sufficiently early detection of the first Ukrainian launches or movements; a reinforced alert posture now adopted on the nights judged most dangerous.We see no sufficient grounds to speak of a compromise of Ukrainian intelligence: detection can come through many indicators, from satellites to over-the-horizon radars, from electronic reconnaissance to radio activity, from sightings along the routes to the observation of takeoffs and the analysis of previous attacks.
Four aircraft make it possible to cover several axes at once and to create overlaps between the southern Volga, the central Volga, the southern Urals, and the approaches to Tatarstan; a single A-50U could not guarantee equally effective coverage that broad against targets flying low, divergent routes.
To critics who might object that this is an offensive posture, one line suffices:no mission profile in support of attacks on Ukraine places AEW orbits that is, airborne early warning over Perm, Orenburg, and Chelyabinsk, more than fifteen hundred kilometers from the front. The geometry of the orbits thus rules out, on its own, any alternative reading of that kind.
Tactically, the Russian decision is rational and may raise the number of interceptions considerably: the July 4 episode, if the reconstruction is correct, shows that using the A-50U can close some of the gaps Ukrainian missiles exploit. Strategically, this response reveals mounting pressure.An A-50U is an aging, complex, and costly platform to keep flying: every patrol burns airframe and engine hours and demands highly specialized crews, maintenance, fuel, spare parts, and ground protection. Roughly sixty takeoffs between June 23 and early August, as estimated by the OSINT analysis, represent remarkable intensity for so small a fleet; and when all four periodically operational aircraft are committed at once, Russia is left with very little slack for breakdowns, unscheduled maintenance, crew rotation, and other missions.
As we noted, the arithmetic of the orbits tells the rest. The standard planning factor for one continuous AEW orbit, twenty-four hours a day, is three to four airframes: transits, maintenance, crews. Four operational A-50Us therefore buy a single permanent orbit; covering the four axes just listed on a stable basis would take twelve to sixteen, more than Russia has ever had modernized on paper. July 7 was by definition a surge, that is, a spike in employment, and continuity at that intensity is arithmetically impossible: we will see intermittence concentrated on the nights judged dangerous.
The A-50Us certainly also serve to coordinate the offensive, to extend Russian situational awareness, and to sustain the use of long-range interceptors: their concentration over the Volga and the Urals reduces availability for missions along the Ukrainian theater, including directing the Su-35s and MiG-31s and protecting formations of tactical bombers. The effect should not be translated automatically into an immediate weakening of the front; it does, however, point toan internal competition for a resource Russia possesses in extremely limited quantity. The transfer to Perm, Orenburg, and Chelyabinsk serves to improve coverage and to avoid concentrating precious aircraft at the same base: dispersal raises the fleets survivability and at the same time complicates maintenance, logistics, protection, communications, and crew management. Two A-50Us were already shot down in 2024, others are damaged or in prolonged repair, and every further loss would carry disproportionate weight.
The only Russian plant capable of maintaining and modernizing the A-50 is the Beriev TANTK in Taganrog, roughly 150 kilometers from the front, alreadystruckin March and December 2024, in July 2025, and again on November 25, 2025; that last attackdestroyedon the ground, according to satellite imagery, the A-60 and the A-100LL, that is, the flying laboratory of the successor program, whose serial production has been stalled for years by sanctions on electronics. Translated:the Russian fleet cannot grow, is repaired with difficulty, and every airframe hour consumed now is capital that does not come back. The episode thus locks into the variable we have beendocumentingfor months as the decisive one of this war: regenerative capacity, far more than any territorial metric.
The aircrafts presence, in any case, creates no impermeable shield. The A-50U can detect and classify tracks earlier; destruction, however, requires that a weapon system be in the right place, receive sufficiently precise data, and have the right interceptor available. A multidirectional salvo of drones, decoys, and missiles at different altitudes and speeds continues to pose problems of saturation, classification, and weapon assignment. Patrol orbits, moreover, tend to become recognizable: Ukraine can vary timing, routes, altitudes, the ratio of decoys to real vectors, and the directions of approach. The same July 4 analysisobservedthat part of the Ukrainian routes had become predictable, and the indication for Kyiv about the need to vary the geometry of its attacks is crystal clear.
But there is more.The Flamingo arsenal acts on Moscow like a fleet in being, that is, a fleet that weighs on the enemy simply by existing: it imposes near-total defensive mobilization even without launching. The operational corollary for Kyiv is that cheap decoys can deliberately trigger the scramble, that is, the takeoff on alert: thereforeUkraine can schedule the fatigue of Russias radar fleet, spending low-cost vectors to consume airframe hours, and strike when continuity gives way.
Perhaps someone will understand why we write thatwere prey. We, personally, have experienced so many situations like this that weve lost count copyrighted photoGiorgio Provinciali
The most important conclusion remains the strategic one.Russia fears a systematic campaign against its capacity to regenerate the war, waged with heavy missiles and drones able to reach the industrial belt of the Volga and the Urals.Which fits squarely within the war of volumes and flows we have beendescribingfor years. The use of the A-50Us may yield Russia a momentary tactical advantage, temporarily reducing the probability that Ukrainian missiles get through; yet it produces at the same moment a strategic result favorable to Ukraine, because it forces Moscow to consume nearly the whole of its vanishingly scarce airborne radar fleet to defend territories that until yesterday passed for a safe rear.
The main indicator to watch in the coming weeks will therefore be the continuity of the patrols. A reduction after a few days would point to an emergency posture tied to specific attack windows; prolonged daily patrols would confirm instead that defending Russias industrial heartland has become a new permanent mission for the A-50Us. The indicator we have proposed in this article is the same one Ukrainian planners are watching. It measures the same thing: the lost depth.
In 1.623 days of war, we recorded over 300 videos from ground zero and wrote more than 3,000 articles at least 1,600 in English, and over 1,400 in Italian.
Were doing our best to provide genuine, first-hand reports from zones where almost no press dares to go. This means living in a kill zone constantly. We take the risk, but without your invaluable support, our voices would remain unheard and silent. Without brave people sharing our articles from afar, they would remain unread. Our reports would go unseen, and our efforts would be lost. Theres still a lot of work to do here, as the people around us are also in no better situation.
Were renewing our fundraising campaign and thanking everyone who joins us in helping to restore what Russia is destroying. Moving forward, not even with a small reimbursement for each article we write, is extremely challenging. Thats why we are grateful to all the kind people who support us and trust in our mission.
Even a small donation helps.
Well keep you updated on developments.
Thank you all, dear friends ??
伏尔加河上的量尺：丈量俄罗斯失去的纵深
作者：Giorgio Provinciali
翻译：旺财球球
乌克兰前线报道??
从前线报道这场战争，甚至仅仅是活下来，正变得愈发艰难。如果说在过去这1,623天里，我们还能坚持做到这一点，那么我们由衷感谢所有通过支持我们而让这一切成为可能的人。
向Giorgio Provinciali捐款
通过捐款或与朋友分享来支持Giorgio Provinciali
向Alla Perdei捐款
通过捐款或与朋友分享来支持Alla Perdei
克里维里赫四架A-50U同时起飞，量化了俄罗斯已经失去的战略纵深。
在近一个月的静默之后，俄罗斯联邦从6月23日起恢复规律触动其A-50U远程预警机，并于7月7日一次性紧急起飞了整整四架。正如《RBC?乌克兰》报道所言，这几乎是整个现役机队。密切观察这些飞机在乌里扬诺夫斯克、萨马拉和巴什科尔托斯坦上空的飞行轨迹，以及随后这些飞机向彼尔姆、奥伦堡和车里雅宾斯克方向的分散部署，可以发现，这些轨迹描绘出一项保卫俄罗斯生产腹地的任务：伏尔加地区、鞑靼斯坦、巴什科尔托斯坦、乌拉尔，远超乌克兰前线的所有覆盖范围。多数西方媒体完全略过了这一情况，另有媒体将其视为一则航空趣闻。而我们将其视为一种量尺。
（图：俄罗斯A-50U预警机照片来源，Papas Dos）
专门的俄罗斯资讯平台bmpd（隶属于战略与技术分析中心）在六月报道称，近年来周期性活动中同时出现的不超过四架A-50U。据信，俄罗斯完成了现代化升级的总共有八架机体，但2024年有两架已经被击落，至少另有两架受损或正在维修，且若干飞机轮换进行为时颇长的维护周期。因此，四架飞机同时升空意味着对现存可用能力的异常动员。
这一统计来自OSINT组织CyberBoroshno对通信、航空报告与俄罗斯消息的分析，而非俄罗斯空军的官方登记。因此我们无法确证四架飞机是否全部执行了完整的雷达任务，抑或其中一架用于转运、训练或轮换。然而，OSINT数据与俄罗斯对机队规模的估计相互印证，使得这一事件仍具高度意义。
确切地说：它为俄罗斯战略纵深的流失提供了一个度量衡，而战略纵深长期以来是沙俄帝国与苏联莫斯科的优势。几个月来，我们一直在前线记录这一变化。
两个世纪以来，俄罗斯的纵深是天然禀赋：地理自身承担了防御功能。无异于我们在白俄罗斯侧翼和乌克兰二战战壕中所观察到的。当这种纵深必须每晚通过动用几乎一整支极度稀缺的机队来买回时，这种纵深在概念上已然丧失。这些起飞带有历史的回响：1941年10月，今天的萨马拉（当时的奎比雪夫）被指定为后备首都，正因距离等同于避难所，超过一千五百家工厂被撤离到伏尔加河以东。如今，一架A-50U在萨马拉上空盘旋，正是为了弥补那个避难所的消失。八十五年后，避难所需要一台飞行雷达。
（图：在乌克兰克里维里赫遭俄罗斯联邦两次打击的民用基础设施??版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
俄罗斯真正担忧的是什么，航迹本身告诉了我们。主要威胁来自低空飞行的乌克兰巡航导弹，尤其是FP?5火烈鸟，与打击无人机、诱饵、侦察平台及其他远程系统的配合运用。依据乌克兰官方数据，火烈鸟宣称射程可达3000公里，弹头重逾一吨，其重要性在于三项能力的整合：续航力、爆炸威力以及迂回航线攻击远离边境的工业目标的能力。基辅同时部署了日益庞大的国产系统：Liutyi（狂怒）、FP?1、Bars（雪豹）、Peklo（地狱）、Ruta、Palianytsia，以及海王星的陆基改型等。
对7月4日袭击的OSINT分析尤为有启发性。据报告，五枚以上被明确识别为火烈鸟的巡航导弹沿伏尔加河航线飞行，利用地形、河流与航线变换穿越地面雷达存在盲区的区域。据称一架在午夜后不久起飞的A-50U发现了这些目标，并协助协调拦截器与防空火力；按照该重建，所有导弹最终被击落。该说法源于OSINT，无法核验每一细节，但能够完美解释了随后为何俄罗斯大幅加强了巡逻强度。因此，俄罗斯的恐惧在于纵深的丧失：导弹工厂、炼油厂、弹药库、泵站、化工厂以及伏尔加乌拉尔带的各类工业不再能仅凭距离自动被视作安全。
A-50U解决的问题本质上是几何的。地面雷达虽可强大，但地球曲率与地形极大限制了其对低空数十米飞行目标的视距：若天线高度为20米、目标高度为50米，理论几何地平线约为4050公里，而建筑、林地、丘陵、电磁干扰与地面杂波会进一步缩短该距离。若将雷达置于约9000米高度，对同一目标的理论视距则上升至约360420公里（视采用的大气折射模型而定）。实际性能还取决于目标的雷达散射截面、电子干扰、地形与处理能力，但几何优势显著。为把握作战效果，只需看一块表：一枚以900公里/小时飞行的导弹，三分钟覆盖约45公里，二十分钟可达300公里。因此，A-50U能将数分钟的预警转变为足够开启电池、交接航迹、出动战机、划定拦截扇区并布设多道火力线的时间窗口。该机并不亲自击落目标，但能重建空域态势并为作战链提供信息支持，而防御能否奏效仍依赖数据链质量、地对空体系位置、战机可用性及正确的航迹识别。
7月7日四架A-50U同时在空，恰逢7月78日夜间乌克兰大规模纵深突击，这是我们从指挥层持续记录的纵深打击行动的新篇章。OSINT收集的俄罗斯报告描述了数十城镇的数百起事件，独立来源亦证实在萨拉托夫、鞑靼斯坦与巴什科尔托斯坦之间对炼油厂、油气设施与泵站的打击。此一巧合指向三种可相容的可能性：对新一轮大规模突击的一般性预警；对首批乌克兰发射或行动的提前探测；或在被判断为最危险的夜间所采取的加强警戒模式。我们没有充分理由断言乌克兰情报被攻破：探测可以来自多种指标，从卫星、超视距雷达到电子侦察、无线电活动、途中目击报告，以及对起飞行为与既往攻击的分析。
四架飞机同时执勤使俄罗斯能够覆盖数个轴线，并在南伏尔加、中伏尔加、南乌拉尔与鞑靼斯坦方向形成重叠预警网；单架A-50U无法在对抗低空、路线多变的目标时保证同样广泛且有效的覆盖。
对可能批评此举属于攻势姿态者，只需一句反驳：若是为了支援对乌克兰的进攻任务，那么它们没有必要在距前线超过一千五百公里的彼尔姆、奥伦堡与车里雅宾斯克上空布设AEW（空中预警）轨道。轨道的几何位置本身就排除了那类替代解读。
（图：这就是加油站服务员如何继续工作的方式。这个特定的加油站已经被一架俄罗斯喷气推进的无人机攻击过。昨天，三名平民在克里维里赫遇袭被害，其中包括一名8岁儿童，另外六人受伤版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
战术层面看，俄罗斯的决定在是合理的，可能大幅提高拦截成功率：若重建属实，7月4日事件表明A-50U可填补乌克兰导弹所利用的部分空域漏洞。在战略层面看，该应对方式暴露出日益增长的压力。A-50U是一种老旧、复杂且维持成本高昂的平台：每次巡逻都会消耗机体与发动机小时，并需要高度专业化的机组、维护、燃料、零部件与地面防护。OSINT估算，从6月23日至8月初约六十次起降，对于如此小的机队而言是惊人的强度；而当四架轮换执勤的飞机同时出动时，俄罗斯几乎没有余地应对为故障、计划外维修、机组轮换及其他任务需求。
正如我们所言，轨道的算术说明了其余问题。一个全天候连续AEW轨道的标准规划系数为三至四架：运输、维护、机组轮换。因此四架现役A-50U仅能支撑一个持续的轨道；若要稳定覆盖前文所列的四个轴线，则需十二至十六架，远超俄罗斯名义上已现代化的数量。7月7日本质上是一次增派，即使用强度的峰值，该强度在算术上无法长期维持：我们将看到在被判断为危险的夜晚出现集中性的断续巡逻。
A-50U无疑也用于协调攻势、扩大俄方态势感知并支持使用远程拦截器：它们在伏尔加与乌拉尔的集中部署降低了在乌克兰战区执行任务时的可用性，包括指挥Su?35与MiG?31并保护战术轰炸机编队。此影响不应被机械地解读为前线的即时削弱；但它确实表明一种内部资源竞争：俄罗斯拥有极其有限的这一资源。向彼尔姆、奥伦堡与车里雅宾斯克的转移旨在改善覆盖并避免将珍贵飞机集中驻于同一基地：分散部署提高了机队的生存能力，同时也使维护、后勤、防护、通信与机组管理更加复杂。两架A-50U已于2024年被击落，另有多架受损或长期维修，任何进一步的损失都将带来不成比例的影响。
唯一能维护与改装A-50的俄罗斯工厂是位于塔甘罗格的别里耶夫TANTK，距前线约150公里，该厂已在2024年3月与12月、2025年7月以及2025年11月25日遭到袭击；据卫星影像，当次最后一次攻击在地面摧毁了A-60与A-100LL，即继任计划的飞行实验室，而该项目的量产因电子零部件制裁多年受阻。换言之：俄罗斯机队难以扩充，修复困难，当前消耗的每一小时飞行时间都是无法回收的成本。由此，该事件锁定了我们数月来将其视为本场战争决定性变量的问题：再生能力，远比任何领土指标更关键。
无论如何，飞机的存在并不构成不可穿透的盾牌。A-50U能更早地探测与分类航迹；但摧毁目标需要武器系统处于正确位置、获得足够精确的数据，并具备合适的拦截器。一波多向的无人机、诱饵与不同高度与速度的导弹齐发，仍会带来饱和、分类与武器分配的问题。巡逻轨道还倾向于被识别：乌克兰可通过变更时机、航线、高度、诱饵与真实航迹的比例以及进攻方向来应对。同一份7月4日的分析还指出，部分乌克兰路线已变得可预测，对基辅而言，改变攻击几何的必要性显而易见。
但还有更重要的一点。火烈鸟武库对莫斯科的作用如同一支舰队在役，即仅凭存在就对敌方形成压力：它在不发射的情况下，就能迫使近乎全部防御动员。对基辅的操作性推论是，廉价诱饵可刻意触发紧急起飞，即消耗雷达机队的出动时间，从而通过消耗机体小时来制造疲劳，并在连续性被打破时发动真正的打击。
你可能看过乌克兰警方发布的那段视频：一架FPV无人机追逐赫尔松的一名平民。我们不打算反复渲染，但视频中的人极可能就是我们在尼古拉耶夫的那位卖鱼的老朋友，我们已在赫尔松写过他的事迹；
（视频：让我们分享一下我们在类似情况下经历的众多时刻之一。我们在尼古拉夫卢帕雷夫，从赫尔松回来的路上，我们上方有一个FPV。这个男人多次在他家款待过我们。现在他不接电话了。我认出了他和那辆面包车。分享它，这样西方就可以看到我们每天遭受的一小部分，它购买了俄罗斯的恐怖。把它分享出去，让购买俄罗斯恐怖的西方看到我们每天所承受的一小部分。
也许会有人明白我们为什么把自己写成猎物。就我们个人而言，我们经历过很多这样的情况，以至于我们数不清了版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
最重要的结论仍是战略性的。俄罗斯担忧对其恢复战争能力的系统性打击，即通过重型导弹与无人机打击能够抵达伏尔加与乌拉尔工业带的能力。这完全符合我们多年所描述的空间与流动的战争逻辑。A-50U的使用或许能为俄罗斯带来短暂的战术优势，暂时降低乌克兰导弹突防的概率；但同时它也在战略上有利于乌克兰，因为这迫使莫斯科为保卫过去被视为安全后方的领土而动用其几乎耗尽的空中预警机队。
接下来数周需要观察的主要指标便是巡逻的连续性。若数日后即出现减少，则指向与特定攻击窗口相关的紧急应对；若持续每日巡逻，则表明保卫俄罗斯工业腹地已成为A-50U的一项新常驻使命。我们在本文提出的指标，正是乌克兰规划者所关注的同一指标。它衡量的是同一件事：失去的纵深。
（图：我在乌克兰克里维里赫现场报道??版权所有，Giorgio Provinciali）
***
在1623天的战争中，我们从前线录制了300多段视频，并撰写了3000多篇文章其中至少1600篇为英文，1400篇为意大利文。
我们尽最大努力从几乎没有媒体敢进入的地带进行真实的一手报道，这意味着我们长期生活在杀伤区。我们承担风险，但若没有你们宝贵的支持，我们的声音将无从传出。若没有远方的勇敢的人们转发分享我们的文章，它们将无人问津。我们的报道会被忽视，我们的努力将付诸流水。这里还有大量工作要做，周围的人们境况同样艰难。
我们正在更新筹款活动，感谢每一位加入我们、帮助修复俄罗斯破坏的人们。仅靠一家勇敢的报纸为我们每篇文章支付微薄稿酬以维持前线报道极为困难。因此，我们感激所有支持并信任我们使命的善良人们。
哪怕是小小的捐助也有助益。
我们会持续为你们更新事态进展。
谢谢大家，亲爱的朋友们??
向Giorgio Provinciali捐款
通过捐款或与朋友分享来支持Giorgio Provinciali
向Alla Perdei捐款
通过捐款或与朋友分享来支持Alla Perdei
