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

[–] Tester@lemm.ee 31 points 1 year ago (49 children)

I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion. And only presents a problem because the 2 countries cannot reliably use air power to overcome 1st WW trench warfare. Russia has defenses, but no ability to move forward. They are just trying to hold on to what they took in those first few months and are very slowly failing at that. If Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose. I do not think Russia will use nukes -- any use of a nuke is basically on Russia's own land -- according to them -- and will affect them as much as Ukraine. But the question of ending the war is an interesting one. Do we see Russia continuing the war if they lose most of their ill-gotten territorial gains? What happens to those insecure areas? Are people going to rebuild, i.e. invest scarce resources in unstable areas? Or will they just become dead zones, DMZ borders?

[–] tuga@hexbear.net 24 points 1 year ago (32 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

load more comments (32 replies)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (31 children)

I think many people are forgetting that the larger army, vastly outnumbering Ukrainian resources in numbers, has spent the past 9 months creating multilayered defences that the Ukrainian army has been banging their head against for the past 10 weeks. Ukraine no longer has a functioning military industry of its own or even an economy to speak of. It's entirely dependent on the west at this point.

NATO scrounged up all they had for this offensive, and US even ran out of shells to give having to resort to cluster munitions. NATO also trained Ukrainian soldiers. Now all of this is being lost without any actual progress being made. Ukraine hasn't even managed to reach the first defence line being mired in the security zone.

What we will see is that once the offensive burns itself out, Russia will start an offensive of their own against a depleted and demoralized Ukrainian army. The west will not be able to send more ammunition and equipment because it doesn't exist, and Ukraine will have lost majority of their trained and motivated soldiers who can't be replaced.

Even western sources are now admitting that Ukraine is suffering far higher losses than Russia, and that this is primarily an artillery battle where Russia vastly outnumbers Ukrainian artillery. 80% of casualties were being caused by Russian artillery.

load more comments (31 replies)

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (77 children)

Ukraine can keep going, supported by the West, Russia will lose.

You have a whole entire counteroffensive that shows the exact opposite.

Also

has not won a victory since the beginning of the invasion.

Have you taken a look at a map of the current situation? That's just straight up bullshit

load more comments (77 replies)

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (13 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.

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] Annakah69@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ukraine will run out of material before they reach the Azov sea. You can calculate this yourself based on the verified losses and land gained. In addition manpower isn't infinite for Ukraine.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (44 replies)