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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare

The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon. IIRC, Ukraine has had a shortage of airplanes to use. Russia has been very reluctant to use the airplanes that they have because they keep getting shot down, and they simply can't replace them at the speed necessary (especially since their economy has crashed, and China is the only country that can supply them with the circuitry that they need).

A bigger problem is that Russia has air defenses and air bases inside Russia. NATO in general has been very reluctant to transfer offensive weapons to Ukraine that would make it possible to strike those--entirely legitimate--targets inside of Russia, because that would be an escalation. But to have air superiority, you need to ensure that those SAM batteries, RADAR installations, and forward air bases are not in the picture. So to break the stalemate, Ukraine has to be able to make strikes against Russia, in Russian territory. That's potentially very dangerous.

If it's allowed to grind on, Russia wins eventually, because they have a population many times the size of Ukraine, and can keep throwing bodies at them. So Ukraine needs to win air superiority, which means striking targets inside of Russia.

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US has just approved the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine. So that might change soon.

I am so hyped to see how long an F-16 lasts against the S-500 network. Whether or not NATO SEAD systems can counter the S-500 system is going to be one of the deciding factors in the course of the 21st century. It'll also be neat to see if NATO actually commits real weaponry or holds back the good stuff for fear of it failing and revealing that the Emperor has no clothes.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

I don't think there is even need to deploy the S-500 which are pretty rare still since it entered service not long ago. Especially when older systems are enough for outdated planes like F-16, especially ones piloted by raw pilots from regularily trashed infrastructure.

[–] catfish@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Regarding the F16, Ukrainian pilots are going to start testing the Gripen as well, although that path is obviously far behind the F16s given the glacial pace of such developments...

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"The ghost of Kiev is changing the game!" " HIMARS is going to be a game changer!" "Storm shadow is going to be a game changer!" "Leopards are going to be a game changer!" "Challengers are going to be a game changer!" "F-16s are going to be a game changer!"

How many Ukrainians need to be sent into minefields for you libs to fuckin learn.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, personally I'd support NATO troops directly opposing Russian aggression. If I had any skills worth a damn, I'd volunteer myself. Unfortunately, I'm nearly 50, and would be a greater liability to Ukrainian defenders than an asset.

And make no mistake, this is Russian aggression. Russia is to blame for NATO's existence, and for it's expansion. Sweden and Finland were both quite opposed to NATO membership prior to Russia's unwarranted invasion.

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You'd support World War 3?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes.

Just as I would have supported the second world war, had I been alive.

It is our moral duty to oppose evil, and what Putin is doing is unambiguously evil.

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I had any skills worth a damn, I'd volunteer myself. Unfortunately, I'm nearly 50, and would be a greater liability to Ukrainian defenders than an asset.

This is what you had to say about why you're not in a trench shitting your pants right now yourself, even though the war in Ukraine is such a crime that you're willing to start world War 3 over it. Of course you want war. You're bloodthirsty when it comes to the people the state has designated as the 'bad country'. You know who'd die in that war of yours? At first, it'd be the millions of people I teach now. Young people. They don't want to die over your ideals for which you're not even willing to lift a fucking finger but bitch and moan about it on the internet. When the working class recruits of that generation are coming home in coffins or disfigured and traumatized, it's my generations turn. And so on, so forth. In a war between two corrupt states where once again dumb fucks like you have managed to convince themselves AGAIN That THIS TIME, the state isn't lying about a war! They did it with Vietnam, they did it with Iraq twice, they did it with Afghanistan, with Yemen, with lybia and Syria, BUT THIS TIME what you're being fed is the unqmbiguous truth! THIS TIME you must be wanting the right things! Like a third world War!

And all that would be a best case scenario, because in that case both NATO and Russia have managed to not destroy the entire world in some nuclear armageddon. You're willing to sacrifice millions, if not billions, of people, for some fucking vague ideals you're not willing to do anything for yourself, over a country that's been embroiled in civil war for the past 8 years and you didn't give a fuck about until someone else told you to.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tried to join the military when I was 22, and was turned down. I was, and am, willing to fight and die when it's necessary to stop evil.

As I said, and you clearly ignored, I would be a liability to Ukraine where I am right now. I am old and slow, and that would put younger, fitter people at greater risk of being killed than if I wasn't there. What I can do is vote for politicians that will fund their military, donate money to specific units for things like buying drones or Hilux trucks to move fighters, and so on.

I'm aware that Ukraine has a corruption problem. That's not actually material to Russia invading and killing civilians. Louisiana has a corruption problem; that doesn't mean that Mexico should invade and bomb New Orleans' French Quarter.

We're not talking about Vietnam, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, or even Korea. I opposed our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, because I predicted--and quite rightly--that our invasion would cost tens of thousands of civilian lives. In Syria, we should have followed through with our commitment to the rebels when Assad used chemical weapons, and we didn't; the result has been that Assad has been free to wage war against his own people, and hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died or been displaced. But none of those are Ukraine. In Ukraine, Russia is the one killing civilians, and attacking civilians targets; Russia is the one that invaded, without provocation. There was no military attack against Russia or the people of Russia by Ukraine; Russia had stolen Ukrainian territory in 2014, but that does not make the Crimean region Russian.

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Surely you were pleading China and Russia to invaded Amerika and start world War 3 back when the US invaded any of the previously mentioned (and many, many more) countries.

Nah man most humane thing you ever did was getting rejected by the military

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

China did intervene to help Korea, and that's why we pulled out of Korea. And who do you think was helping fund and arm the VC forces that eventually ran us out of Vietnam? We weren't dumb enough to start WWIII over either of those then, and Russia probably isn't dumb enough to start WWIII over NATO helping fend off their aggression now.

[–] Tester@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The F-16s will need parts, logistics, and weapons, the pilots and ground crews will need extensive training.... those jets will do nothing this year. Perhaps next year though. I agree that Ukraine is fighting with one arm tied due to NATO fears of nuclear retaliation. Is that a reasonable fear? I think so. Putin is not a sane or reasonable person. And Ukraine has shown the capability to hit Russian targets within Russian territory. If the Ukrainians were allowed to hit harder, deeper, more sensitive targets in Russia, the war would escalate -- Russia would not want to be seen as beaten by its little neighbor. A shame, agree or disagree, but right now, those are the rules of war that Ukraine must abide by for continued support from NATO.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Russia has been beaten by most of the smaller countries that it's gone toe-to-toe against. The only particularly big win that Russia (or the USSR) has had in the past century was WWII, and that was because the USSR was getting an enormous amount of material assistance from... The US. source Russia's aggressive actions against the Baltic countries are precisely why Estonia, Latvia, etc. joined NATO. And countries have to ask to join NATO. Without Russian aggression, there is no NATO.