https://archive.li/Z0m5m

The Russian commander of the “Vostok” Battalion fighting in southern Ukraine said on Thursday that Ukraine will not be defeated and suggested that Russia freeze the war along current frontlines.

Alexander Khodakovsky made the candid concession yesterday on his Telegram channel after Russian forces, including his own troops, were devastatingly defeated by Ukrainian marines earlier this week at Urozhaine in the Zaporizhzhia-Donetsk regional border area.

“Can we bring down Ukraine militarily? Now and in the near future, no,” Khodakovsky, a former official of the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic, said yesterday.

“When I talk to myself about our destiny in this war, I mean that we will not crawl forward, like the [Ukrainians], turning everything into [destroyed] Bakhmuts in our path. And, I do not foresee the easy occupation of cities,” he said.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Russia does not have the resources for that. A reminder this isn’t a proxy war for them, even though it is for the West. Russia is there in person conventionally and is somehow losing to a minor Western ally.

    The Ukrainians aren’t going to run out of stuff within the next year for sure, and maybe not ever because even if the US gets bored Europe is highly invested. Russia has negligible productive capacity of it’s own, and is bound to have serious problems eventually, unless they convince China to help and China has so far been uninterested. They could theoretically win by population attrition, I guess, but nobody’s really talking about that yet. And, to do anything, they need political stability, after already having one mostly-failed coup.

    • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      is somehow losing to the minor Western allies

      How are you defining “losing” here? They’re occupying the separatist parts of Ukraine and can do so indefinitely.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev, and they’ve gotten fairly continuously further from that. Saying they’re winning has “Mission Accomplished!” energy at this point.

        They’re occupying Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea if that’s what you mean, although it’s in question if they can do that or anything else including exist indefinitely.

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev

          According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.

          Interesting you mention “Mission Accomplished” – would you say the U.S. and its media did a good job of accurately informing the public about the War on Terror? Would you say they had good intentions?

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What did they decide the Kiev thing was about? Was it a botched attempt at a decapitation strike to prevent basically everything else that happened?

            • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:

              • There’s a notable difference between the attack towards Kiev and the attack in the separatist regions (it also talks about attacks in southern Ukraine outside the separatist regions, but I think it says they’re basically similar to the Kiev attack).
              • The attack in the separatist regions were to hold territory with an amenable population. So you have a lot of troops, tons of artillery, and they dug in elaborate fortifications that they will actually stay and defend.
              • The attack towards Kiev was an opportunistic raid to divert troops from the main thrust of the attack in thr separatist regions. The article talks about similar raids the Russian Empire did in the Napoleonic Wars, the Union calvalry did in the U.S. Civil War, pretty sure it mentions a Soviet one in WWII, etc. It involved much less artillery because it wasn’t intended to hold ground and they wanted to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing civilians they didn’t want to govern anyway.
              • On that last point, the article also talks about how Russian missile strikes have largely avoided the most damaging civilian targets. It gives an example of striking an electrical substation that converts electricity into a type usable by trains instead of striking electrical infrastructure that is more general purpose (and would shut down broader civilian electricity, too).

              The Kiev attack’s goal appears to have been “disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them.” I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn’t happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.

            All I see is a chain of threads that go mostly nowhere. No, a wargame from 2002 is not relevant.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, there war goals were to protect Donbass, kill a shitload of Nazis, and de-militarize Ukraine. Plans change but it still looks like they’re doing what they set out to do.

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is funny how you critical thinkers uncritically regurgitate Putin propaganda without any hesitation.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                “Kill nearly every young man in Ukraine” is their main path to victory, but Russia has only about 4x the population of Ukraine, so they’ll have to mind their casualty ratios pretty well. And avoid any more coups.

                • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Presumably the young men of Ukraine will realize that throwing themselves on to the enemy guns is a losing proposition at some point before that but who knows?

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not though. Russia, even assuming continued political unity, may well run out of weapons to give to it’s troops, and then their K:D ratio will pass 4:1 easily.

                    Apologies if we already discussed this, I’ve spent way too much time in this thread already and it’s blending together.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Russia also has allies in China and India

        Press X to doubt.

        Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate.

        Could you link that? It goes against everything I’ve read and I can’t find it myself.

        • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Press X to doubt.

          India ramping up trade in oil and gas with Russia while refusing to even offer the most milquetoast condemnation of Russia’s invasion on the world stage haven’t clued you in?

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Call me when they do more than not get involved.

            India and China are fair-weather friends to Russia. India is also an increasingly close fair-weather friend of the West. Both the West and India see themselves as adversaries with China.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So you think the neutral action would be an embargo, then? Buying gas at a heavy discount doesn’t seem very political to me, or to the Western leaders for that matter.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization. Meanwhile, Russia losing the war would be an utter disaster for China. US is very openly trying to surround China militarily, and Russia acts as a shield in the west. The worst possible outcome for China would be the west managing to destabilize Russia and put a pro western government in power. If there was even the slightest chance that Russia could lose this conflict then China would step in.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree. The Cold War is ancient history and China’s probably just as happy carving up Russia as living beside it.

            • DPRK_Chopra [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Honestly it’s amazing to me coming out of the hexbear bubble for the last three years how uninformed westerners actually are about geopolitics. There no reason at all to belive this besides you want it to be true.

              • yata@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think I have ever seen such a clear cut example of projection as your comment.

              • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                For example, Joe Biden was literally born when the battle of Stalingrad of World War 2 was occurring. Biden’s literally old enough to have lived in the same era as the generation that lived during the American Civil War were dying out.

                Anyone that was born in the 70s, for a brief time, lived on the same earth at the same time as the last living emancipated American slaves still drew their breath.

                “Ancient history” is closer to us who are alive than we can truly perceive and comprehend. The past’s heavy hands rest on our shoulders, burdening the present with the acts performed hitherto each passing minute.

                A quote:

                ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.’

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              26
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren’t as smooth as yours.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                More territory is good, if the opportunity would present itself this would make China stronger. They also don’t want another Xinjiang they have to genocide, though, so I imagine they wouldn’t actually annex much. Maybe just take back the old Qing cities and puppet the rest.

                • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Like actual material evidence that China would want to do it and not just fantasy theory crafting in your mind

                  This is pure projection on what you’d do if you ran a country

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They fight over territory with India all the time. And some of their other neighbors too, I think.

                    If I ran China, I’d make nice with the West, accept immigrants, put in a low wealth cap and expand the size and scope of their basic income. I would get executed by a coup early in the processes. The guys that do run China are allowed to do so because they feed nationalist, protectionist ideas that actually appeal to both the masses and the elite. So yeah, if it advances China’s position with low risks, they’ll probably do it.

                    PS before anyone comes at me for being dictator of China, that was specified in the scenario.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                OP gave me their vibes, and I responded with my vibes. Actual facts about the future of geopolitics are hard to come by (until they happen).

          • yata@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization.

            Only if you believe your own propaganda, because none of that occurred at all.

    • Betty White In HD@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could theoretically win by population attrition

      I’m not a historian, but is that not how Russia approached every single war in recent history? Just throw bodies at the enemy until they run out of bullets?

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        77
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah. That was basically Cold War propaganda, partly spread by ex-Nazis covering their asses after losing to “subhumans”. Russia fought the same way every country did in it’s recent wars.

        Man I miss AskHistorians.

      • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, not at all; that’s a myth started by Nazi propagandists to explain why they were losing to the Soviets, and it was picked up by USA propagandists during the cold war.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, and Ukraine is also populous. It has a quarter of Russia’s population, about, so human wave wouldn’t win anyway.