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

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm sorry no. Every time someone tries to say "oh well Russia was just pressured by NATO" that's all they leave it at.

How?

No really, explain. Explain how the only option for Russia was to invade their neighboring country and steal land. What negative effects would Russia be feeling right now if they hadn't invaded Ukraine?

"Well NATO was pushing up against their borders"

So fucking what?! Just because your country is so shitty that your neighbors choose to ally with someone else is not an excuse to invade them!

[–] Dr_Gabriel_Aby@hexbear.net 35 points 1 year ago

Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why did America freak out that Cuba was going to get missiles from the Soviet Union? What did the Soviet Union choose to do to stop the crisis? Could it be that it is entirely normal for a nation to not want an adversary’s missiles on their border? Has there been multiple examples of conflicts stemming from this issue all over the globe? Have you ever asked yourself a question about how conflicts start, and if other nations have ever behaved similarly?

[–] axont@hexbear.net 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Russia has no excuse and neither does NATO. The best case scenario is both countries lay down their arms and have socialists take power. Unfortunately we don't live in that kind of situation, so the only thing I can advocate is both NATO and Russia cease fighting. Ukraine shouldn't ally with NATO because NATO shouldn't exist.

What negative effects would Russia be feeling? I don't know, personally I thought Russia entering the war was a bad call and a strategic mistake. I can see the reason why it happened while still saying it's an open act of aggression. Russia probably could have negotiated with Ukraine about Donbas/Luhansk through better oil deals or something, no idea. Possibly could have tried straight up purchasing the land that Russian separatists occupied?

But Russia probably had reason to distrust diplomacy with Ukraine ever since 2014. For context, I believe that 2014 happened specifically because Ukraine's previous government was becoming too close to Russia and it made NATO nervous. I could easily ask, what negative effects would Ukraine be feeling if they hadn't had a western backed coup? Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych floated membership in the Eurasian Economic Union, which set off protests that were capitalized upon by western nations. Would it had been so negative had Ukraine entered a formal economic alliance with some former Soviet states? Who knows now.

The new president, Porochenko, was much harsher on Russian separatists in the east than his predecessors, which started the Donbas war in earnest. That's the moment above any I can point to that started all of this. Maybe if Yanumovych had remained president there could have been a more peaceful solution to Donbas. Who knows now

Yeah but this is all speculation and we live in reality. The reality is the war should cease immediately, for the benefit of people in Ukraine, Russia, and all refugees from the region. Only way I see that realistically happening is if NATO disengages and Ukraine loses territory.

Maybe once fighting finishes something new and better can get negotiated, but I'm not holding my breath that neoliberal countries like this know how to resolve long standing conflicts.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ukraine shouldn’t ally with NATO because NATO shouldn’t exist.

Maidan wasn't about NATO. Support for NATO membership of Ukraine only sky-rocketed once Russia invaded (after 2014, that is), and by now is overwhelming.

Maidan was about EU membership. Should the EU also not exist in your mind? And yes btw the EU is also a defensive alliance (it's a gazillion of things). Russia's invasion wouldn't have happened had Ukraine been a member. Hence why Russia's stooge Yanukovich was ordered to stop EU accession: Because then Russia wouldn't be able to invade, any more. Ukraine would be as safe as the Baltics and Finland have been all this time.

Oh and btw after the 2004 NATO enlargement (including the Baltics) Putin said that he saw no threat to Russia from that, and also that every country was free to choose their alliance.

[–] axont@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've come to realize I gotta preface a lot of what I say on other instances like this: Russia is an imperialist country and I'd laugh if Putin got forcibly removed from power. I'm a communist.

No, the EU should not exist either. No neoliberal institution should exist, including things like the IMF, World Bank, USMCA, NATO, the EU. Should all become memories. Yeah except that's not the world we've got quite yet.

I can't really talk much about what should happen. Money, bosses, landlords, and banks shouldn't exist either, but too bad, right? And yeah we can say all day what would have happened had Ukraine become an EU member nearly a decade ago, but it didn't happen and now we're stuck in this situation. It's all alternate history now. Best case scenario I see right at this moment is a ceasefire even if that means Ukraine loses territory.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

The EU isn't any more neolib than its member states, in fact, often much less so. It raised worker's rights and living standards pretty much everywhere, it's actually doing shit against anticompetitive behaviour because Berlaymont isn't nearly as caught up in national industry entanglements as, well, the national governments.

Is it without fail? No, no government is. But it's kinda telling that the forces behind Brexit wanted the UK out so that they could continue to park their assets in tax havens, regress on worker's rights, well, things nobs do.

All in all what you're seeing from the EU, overall, is European SocDem pan-continental compromise stuff. I can definitely fucking imagine worse, especially considering our history of being at each other's throat all the time.

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

Oh and btw after the 2004 NATO enlargement (including the Baltics) Putin said that he saw no threat to Russia from that, and also that every country was free to choose their alliance.

Lmao

As NATO Finally Arrives on Its Border, Russia Grumbles

Russia's lower house of Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on Wednesday denouncing NATO's expansion generally and the deployment of the F-16's specifically.

Echoing warnings in Russia's new military doctrine set forth last fall, the resolution called on President Vladimir V. Putin to reconsider Russia's international agreements with NATO and its own defense strategies, including its nuclear posture.

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

Ah fuck can't find the right snippet right now (it was a press conference with Schroeder) but have Putin saying the exact same thing about Ukraine, not the Baltics.

And the Duma says a lot of things, but it certainly doesn't dumat', not in this Russia.

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

I don't put a lot of stock in some YouTuber I've never heard of stiching together snippets of a lengthy diplomatic remark. That's a surefire way to lose context in an environment where there is tons of hedging and caveats as a matter of course.

But taking it at face value for the sake of argument: he said Russia's stance on NATO expansion hasn't changed.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Putin is saying in the snipped exactly what the subtitles say. My Russian is rusty and never was particularly good but it's still good enough to tell.

Also he's not any random youtuber. NFKRZ is Russian, and currently in Georgian exile (the other option would've been to get forced to fight in Ukraine). Probably the best (not excessively analytical like Vlad Vexler) source on Russia you can get in the west if you don't speak Russian.

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

I trust the translation, I don't trust that there is no important context lost (again, diplomatic speak is filled with hedging and caveats).

But taking it at face value for the sake of argument: he said Russia's stance on NATO expansion hasn't changed.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=m7MZs-QdrFI&

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.