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

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

Source on the thing about Nuland owning/running/operating the ISW? Not heard it before. Not saying you're wrong of course, just genuinely want to learn more!

With regards to the rest of the post, I don't think the conflict is as divided on ethnic lines as you have said. The invasion has been largely opposed by Russian-speakers in Ukraine from all data I've seen, e.g., in areas like Kherson there was massive anti-Russian resistance and a huge swing towards Ukraine. Plus I don't think supporting joining this or that economic bloc or voting for Yanukovych implies outright support for secession and DEFINITELY not invasion. Even if there is real support for Russia in the Donbas region, that still isn't a divide on linguistic/ethnic lines considering the rest of the Russian-speaking part of the country has rallied behind Ukrainian state leadership.

Honestly I don't know popular sentiment in the Donbass and I don't want to make claims beyond the limits of my knowledge, but I do know that the more independent-minded leadership of the D/LPRs were replaced by pro-Russian ones from the 2014-2018 period and that it's quite obvious Russia had a huge role in supporting them, propping up their political leadership, and militarily supporting them from the start. I think Crimea is different as there was way more genuine desire to secede to Russia even before 2014 (though I still think the referendum was rigged as polling beforehand showed a smaller percentage wanting to join-still way over 50% though).

In reality the war has frozen because the correlation of forces is balanced. Neither side will or can win or even move the front lines significantly. I just don't think either side has realised yet. Neither is close to breaking point atm. Russia couldn't even take Bakhmut, and Ukraine cannot make any ground even w/ new western tech in their supposed push towards Melitopol. No winners, only losers.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Source on the thing about Nuland owning/running/operating the ISW? Not heard it before. Not saying you’re wrong of course, just genuinely want to learn more!

they don't hide it https://www.aalep.eu/institute-study-war-isw

The forces are most definitely not balanced, and this whole idea of a frozen conflict is just the new narrative the west is pushing. You'll see what happens when Russia actually starts doing offensive operations.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That does not say she owns, runs, or operates it...

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why did Russia fail to take Bakhmut, do you think?

Also thank you for the link. ISW has posted some bad content in the past and this helps to explain it, I think. I appreciate it.

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Last I checked Russia took Bakhmut, and they managed to use a PMC to bleed Ukrainian army there in the process which delayed the offensive and gave Russia more time to build fortifications. Even US analysts are now admitting that they advised Ukraine against trying to hold it, and blame the losses there and the delays for the current debacle.

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah western intelligence didn't want Ukraine to die on the hill of Bakhmut (figuratively), Ukrainian leadership chose it for symbolic/domestic reasons rather than strategic. They never did take the whole city though and have since fallen back a bit, with the Ukrainian counteroffensive managing to take a few blocks back. Not too much, though. Ofc Russia has had the gradual advantage in Bakhmut for most of the last year but it was a grinding, incredibly slow, incredibly damaging battle for both sides. It was perhaps unwise for the Ukrainian leadership to make that move, though.

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have no idea where you got this idea that Russia didn't take the whole city, you can clearly see the whole city is under Russian control on the pro Ukrainian liveuamap https://liveuamap.com/

Meanwhile, the battle has been grinding for the Ukrainian military while it didn't even engage Russian military proper on the Russian side. It was fought by a private military company. This was easily one of the biggest blunders in the war that Ukraine has made to date.

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IIRC Ukraine still controlled part of the T0504 highway within the city at their worst point and since then they've taken back a couple of blocks.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean you can clearly see that the city is controlled by Russia on the map, saying that Ukraine took a couple of blocks in the suburbs is just pure cope. If anything, the fact that Ukraine is still wasting resources there months after losing the city they shouldn't have tried to contest in the first place, further shows how dysfunctional Ukrainian strategy is.

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you in terms of the dysfunction of Ukrainian political strategy surrounding Bakhmut. Politicians w/ no military planning experience intervening in what was previously a well-run campaign to achieve a symbolic victory against the advice of their own generals and even western advisors.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The west hasn't been much better. There was an actual article in WaPo that flat out said that the west knew that Ukraine didn't have enough equipment to do the offensive, but pushed them into it anyways because they thought their motivation and gumption would make up for it:

When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.

This is not how you fight a war.

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

If that's their actual justification rather than just what they tell the media then it is flabbergastingly incompetent.

Maybe they just didn't want to deplete their own stocks and don't really care how the counteroffensive goes as long as they can continue selling weapons but then there are flaws in that logic, too, since it degrades the idea of invincibility and total technological superiorty that the western MIC have tried hard to portray in recent years. I don't know, maybe there are just idiots in the top brass of the US political-military institutions but you'd think they'd be more smart than thinking "gumption" can carry the day.

[–] SeborrheicDermatitis@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago

Though it was a big blunder on the Ukrainian side, yes. Political leaders interfered in military strategy when they shouldn't have done. IIRC DW reported that some senior Ukrainian military leaders wanted to make a tactical withdrawal but the government vetoed it.

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

ISW is owned by Kimberly Kagan, not Vicky Nuland. It's in your link. They do appear to be in laws however.