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

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

It's not a tangent. Even if Ukraine lost (and it didn't, and you made no actual argument on why I should believe so) with the kind of atrocities Russia is committing in occupied territories tons of people would, and, well, do, fight against the occupiers.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you made no actual argument on why I should believe so

Would anything convince you?

And yes, bringing up allegations of war crimes is a total non sequitur in a discussion about whether the war itself is winnable for Ukraine. No war crime is excusable, but every side of every war commits them.

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

Would anything convince you?

Yes. It would involve military analysis.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The front has not moved in most of a year, which includes the recent failed counteroffensive.
Russia views this as an existential threat. NATO will pay the bills but not indefinitely. Ukraine at some point will tire of a train of body bags with nothing to show for them.
Russia has much shorter supply lines than NATO.
NATO pulled out its economic Trump card at the beginning of the conflict and yet here we are.

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

The front has not moved in most of a year, which includes the recent failed counteroffensive.

That's not even close to a military analysis. What about artillery attrition? Logistics in the rear? What's the average time between Russians setting up an ammo depot and it getting blown to bits? Conscription getting riskier and riskier for Putin?

How many reserves have the sides committed to the front? Hint: Russia committed everything quite some time ago while Ukraine didn't and is rotating troops so they can get some well-deserved R&R.

Russia views this as an existential threat. NATO will pay the bills but not indefinitely. Ukraine at some point will tire of a train of body bags with nothing to show for them.

Putin does, certainly when it comes to regime stability. Russia? I very much doubt it because there's also sane Russian. Europe will continue support indefinitely don't confuse us for fickle yanks and you're severely underestimating the morale boost incurred by fighting a defensive war. For Ukraine, this indeed is an existential war. Read Clausewitz.

Russia has much shorter supply lines than NATO.

No. Much of Russia's production and stocks are in the east. Also that's like such a non-issue.

NATO pulled out its economic Trump card at the beginning of the conflict and yet here we are.

...at a state where Russia, Russia, is importing metals from China. Metals. Russia. Do I need to need to use more italics. I don't have any insight on the details but it's well-known that Russia is lacking workers because tons are either a) dead, b) on the front, or c) in hiding to not end up a) or b), and that seems to be so bad that it affects mining and refining.

Now China might be happy propping Russia up, but internally the Z-patriots are going to scream bloody murder incurring debts with China. Long story short: Russia's internal situation is becoming more and more volatile.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about artillery attrition? Logistics in the rear? What's the average time between Russians setting up an ammo depot and it getting blown to bits? Conscription getting riskier and riskier for Putin? How many reserves have the sides committed to the front?

Do you think you know the answer to any of these questions? I don't see any sources. The bottom line is that Russia has shown the ability to hold its territory for quite some time.

Europe will continue support indefinitely

Lol let's see if Europe's support will last another winter of higher energy prices. The U.S. is the big spender, anyway.

...at a state where Russia, Russia, is importing metals from China

This paragraph is so mind-meltingly stupid I hardly know where to start.

Countries regularly import metals, metals, from other countries. That's because whether to import is a business decision based on price, not whether you have domestic access to an item.
It is utterly preposterous to believe Russia is lacking workers. Soviet industrial capacity exploded during WWII, a far larger and more destructive war.

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

Do you think you know the answer to any of these questions? I don’t see any sources.

You'd know about it if you actually followed the war in military terms.

Lol let’s see if Europe’s support will last another winter of higher energy prices. The U.S. is the big spender, anyway.

Are you European?

Countries regularly import metals, metals, from other countries. That’s because whether to import is a business decision based on price, not whether you have domestic access to an item.

So you're saying that it's cheaper for Russia to import from China than keeping production inside? How is that supposed to work?

It is utterly preposterous to believe Russia is lacking workers. Soviet industrial capacity exploded during WWII, a far larger and more destructive war.

That was in a day and age where people still had children, and it's no wonder it exploded it was pretty much at zero during Tsar times.

Have Russian press reporting about the military shortfall, and that's before the war started, not counting the sky-high incurred losses. Sure, Russians per se still exist but they're increasingly I nearly said grandmas but the better term would be grandma age.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

No sources on all those questions, then.

So you're saying that it's cheaper for Russia to import from China than keeping production inside? How is that supposed to work?

Jesus Christ... Russia is a big country. Mines and mills are expensive and undesirable to live by so they don't build them everywhere unless it's necessary. Ore deposits are not spread evenly throughout countries, nor are mills. Unfinished products are not very economical to ship long distances. So Russia could have all the (for example) steel production capacity in the world, but if its capacity is mostly in Western Russia and you have a factory in Eastern Russia right across the border from a Chinese steel mill, it's probably cheaper to import than buy domestically.

That was in a day and age where people still had children, and it's no wonder it exploded it was pretty much at zero during Tsar times.

People have kids today you doofus, and not only running production capacity but building it all while fighting a war is an even greater indication of their labor availability than if they had started with a strong industrial base.