this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
632 points (93.2% liked)

World News

32394 readers
945 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tuga@hexbear.net 53 points 1 year ago (2 children)

has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion

Gotta have a highly specific definition of "victory" to say something like this

[–] Tester@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Well, let's use the Russian definitions... Did they take Kiev within 3 days? No. Did they hold Kherson? No. Are they able to stop the Ukrainians? No. There has not been any significant ground taken by the Russians in the last few months. Were they able to defend against Ukrainian attacks on the Black Sea? No. After losing their Moskva flagship, they still are suffering attacks on infrastructure, warchips, and bridges. So I am happy to use the limited in context term of victory, while not being so pendantic that it loses meaning.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Did they take Kiev within 3 days?

This was never a goal, as even American military analysts will tell you.

Did they hold Kherson?

This is outside the separatist regions.

Are they able to stop the Ukrainians?

The front has not moved appreciably in almost a year.

[–] Tester@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Assessment of Ukraine’s counteroffensive suggests it has retaken 253sq km (98sq miles) of its territory since June.

Less than 100 square miles.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah well since you quoted the actual number now the point is moot, good argument! Lol

[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

That was definitely the goal. Your link doesn't contain anything that supports your claim at all.

This is outside the separatist regions.

You seem to suffer from a very short memory, Russian literally annexed Kherson.

[–] Nightcastle@hexbear.net 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did they take back all the Russian speaking territories actually in question? Yes

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The city of Dnipro would disagree.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is Russian-speaking like OP specified, though, as well as Ukraine's 4th largest city.

If they only cared about Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk they had them and could have done nothing new, but they tried to take the whole country and so now here we are.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They never tried to take the whole country. That's just fantasy and doesn't make sense for a dozen reasons.

About two thirds of Dnipro speaks Russian at home, but ethnic Russians are only 25-30% of the population (see "Demographics"). I would imagine this is why the city is predominantly not separatists.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it used to be more pro Russian, but then Russia changed a lot of minds by actually showing up in 2014.

They never tried to take the whole country. That’s just fantasy and doesn’t make sense for a dozen reasons.

Riiight.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you acknowledge it's not part of the separatist regions. Why would Russia want to occupy hostile territory?

And don't take my word (and common sense) for Russia not trying to conquer the whole of Ukraine; that's what U.S. military analysts think. Or are they Russian propagandists?

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. .

I wouldn't trust those US Military Analysts!

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would Russia want to occupy hostile territory?

I don't know, ask the Chechens, or any number of similar ethnic minorities that are part of the last intact European empire. Also, hexbears stop linking me to the same weird compilation of illegible and irrelevant crap.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That link is perfectly legible and incredibly relevant. You just want to pull the "if you don't have sources I demand them and if you do they don't matter" bullshit.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never demanded sources, because you're right, it's incredibly easy to produce a shitty source. They're mostly useful for uncontroversial things where there's a lot of subject matter experts with no real stake in the exact answers.

If you actually wanted to convince me Russia wasn't trying to conquer Ukraine, I guess you'd have to convince me I don't remember the winter of '22 right. I saw the shit happen, and I can read behind the lines well enough to know that when someone launches a full-scale invasion of a smaller neighbor starting with their capital, they mean to put it under their control, one way or another.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't say you demanded sources; I said you're doing the reddit debatelord bit of "if you don't have sources I demand them and if you do they don't matter." I had already provided a source, so of course it didn't matter.

I see you're still refusing to read that source, which talks in detail about the various parts of the initial months of the war, including the northern attack towards Kiev.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I said you’re doing the reddit debatelord bit of “if you don’t have sources I demand them and if you do they don’t matter.” I had already provided a source, so of course it didn’t matter.

I'll admit I've done that before, but... yeah, it's useless and I found that out. Same story if I gave a source for my thing unprompted. You'd tell me it's just CIA propaganda or something.

I see you’re still refusing to read that source, which talks in detail about the various parts of the initial months of the war, including the northern attack towards Kiev.

I literally can't read it very well. Does it expand on hexbear or something? I guess I could download it and zoom in, but why? You know as well as I do that one magazine photo won't change either of our minds. If Biden himself came out and said it I'd say Biden was wrong. There are no special authorities on Putin's motives.

Now, if you want to avoid being a debatelord, we could just stop now. Debate is useless, I just didn't want to agree by silence.

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You'd tell me it's just CIA propaganda or something.

And you know this because...? It is actually possible to dismiss some unreliable/contradicted sources, accept others, and view more iffy sources with skepticism but not write them off entirely.

I literally can't read it very well.

It's extremely easy to read on your phone if you zoom in. You also mentioned that you could download it, like a PDF. You just don't want to read it for some reason.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

And you know this because…? It is actually possible to dismiss some unreliable/contradicted sources, accept others, and view more iffy sources with skepticism but not write them off entirely.

Yeah, I don't buy it. Even if I thought you were a big thinker and not just an internet person, what somebody meant by something is a judgement call, inherently.

[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

They definitely did try to take the whole country, but had to change goals when that failec spectacularly. Then Putin concocted a new narrative and desperately wanted everyone to forget about the original one. Based on the copy paste comments from the hexbear brigade, it seems like you guys did in fact uncritically swallow all of Putns koolaid and forget very recent history in favour of the new fictional reality.

[–] yata@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago

Russias referendum of annexation disagrees with your arbitrarily defined "separatist regions".

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But that's a relatively small number of people.

. To be fair they did get bhakmut... Lol

[–] radiofreeval@hexbear.net 10 points 1 year ago

Or what's left of it

[–] LeateWonceslace@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Russia's first failure was being a Fascist state that relies on Nazis for their openly imperialist agenda.

Your biggest failure is being a fascist that doesn't even realize it.

[–] tuga@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, you guys are basically doing nothing but projecting. One of you hexbear brigaders literally thought comparing the real world to video games made for a good example to back up your claims.