‘We Cannot Win’ Says Top Russian Commander Alexander Khodakovsky
www.kyivpost.com
The leader of the Russian battalion defeated at liberated Urozhaine calls for “freezing the front” after his unreinforced troops were devastated in a rout.

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.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      154·
      1 year ago

      Except that Donetsk is not a legally recognized country. And Khodakovsky is a militant who has been responsible for destabilizing and destroying his own country by starting a civil war.

        • SeborrheicDermatitis [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
          4·
          1 year ago

          I suppose it hinges on democratic legitimacy. Taiwan obviously is supported (as a de facto state entity) by more or less the whole population. Is the same true for the D/LPRs? Do we think a majority wanted to then join Russia, and that the referendums were free and fair (especially given the ‘results’ in the Kherson and Kharkhiv regions which did not support Russia).

          I don’t know the answer to that question, but that is what hinges on whether one supports the existence of the D/LPRs as independent entities. Whether they are truly the reflection of their people’s right to self-determination and whether they, as pseudo-states, actually have democratic legitimacy.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            264·
            1 year ago

            Whataboutism is when your blatant hypocrisy and lack of logical, moral and ideological backbone is pointed out. Whataboutism is when it is made clear you do not actually hold the values you claim to hold.

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
            102·
            1 year ago

            Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              22·
              1 year ago

              Whataboutism is the redoubt of the intellectually impoverished and/or lazy.

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                12·
                1 year ago

                Almost every time I see it it’s used to mean, “Don’t you dare talk shit about my country, try that in a small town you liberal commie [slur]” but for the type of person who is just as nationalistic, but doesn’t want to admit it.