Omissions and additions are countered among the most invasive translation techniques. In this contribution we explore just how invasive they are and how often they occur in poetic translation. In search for answers an empiric study has been carried out on a small Russian-Dutch corpus comprising translated poetry of the Russian dissident poet Alexander Galich. The study also yields a typology for omissions and additions based on the cases found in the corpus. Trends concerning omissions and additions of repetitions have been discussed separately. The research shows that both translation techniques are actually less invasive than one would think. Omissions occur less often than additions and many omissions appear to be relatively neutral. In case of invasive omissions the translators are more prepared to sacrifice information rather than make the text more implicit. Additions with explicitation occur just as often as those with additional information. The use of both translation techniques may be motivated by poetic form, the translator’s personal preference but the main goal is to optimize the accessibility of the target text. A separate typology has been proposed for the omissions and additions of repetitions that mostly serve to preserve the source-text style or to boost lexical variation.