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.

    • xuxebiko@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Putin is a sadistic bastard. But his time will come and when it does I hope the Gadaffi-like death he fears most will seem like a picnic.

      • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meh, I’d rather he saw trial and the rest of his life in jail. Justice is important. More than revenge IMO.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      He’s a sadistic fuck, yes, but this blade cuts both ways. Ukraine is now and for the foreseeable future going to be staunchly and unrepentantly anti-Russia, and Ukrainian strategic leadership are taking the Finnish approach in the war and have more or less committed to shattering as much of the Russian military that Putin sees fit to throw at them as an overall strategy. It’s an existential struggle for Ukraine, and they are committed to either winning, or taking Russia down with them to the greatest degree possible.

      Even if support for Ukraine dries up and Russia is able to pull out an eventual “win”, it’s going to be a decade at least before Russia poses a credible threat in any meaningful sense (and realistically, I’m not sure Russia will recover from this in anything less than about a half century, considering how many unique points are contributing to their strategic failure).

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In some way yes. I would expect he’s more sadistic with Russians than Ukrainians at this point: imo the point is to hold as much as he can, especially crimea, until Ukraine ask for a cease fire, or even better a frozen front with a frozen war until everyone forget about it.

  • Tester@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • catfish@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Regarding the F16, Ukrainian pilots are going to start testing the Gripen as well, although that path is obviously far behind the F16s given the glacial pace of such developments…

      • Tester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The F-16s will need parts, logistics, and weapons, the pilots and ground crews will need extensive training… those jets will do nothing this year. Perhaps next year though. I agree that Ukraine is fighting with one arm tied due to NATO fears of nuclear retaliation. Is that a reasonable fear? I think so. Putin is not a sane or reasonable person. And Ukraine has shown the capability to hit Russian targets within Russian territory. If the Ukrainians were allowed to hit harder, deeper, more sensitive targets in Russia, the war would escalate – Russia would not want to be seen as beaten by its little neighbor. A shame, agree or disagree, but right now, those are the rules of war that Ukraine must abide by for continued support from NATO.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russia has been beaten by most of the smaller countries that it’s gone toe-to-toe against. The only particularly big win that Russia (or the USSR) has had in the past century was WWII, and that was because the USSR was getting an enormous amount of material assistance from… The US. source Russia’s aggressive actions against the Baltic countries are precisely why Estonia, Latvia, etc. joined NATO. And countries have to ask to join NATO. Without Russian aggression, there is no NATO.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Tester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, artillery is at the core of Russian military doctrine. But this only means the rest of its technology is not being used. Where is air superiority? Non-existent. Russia is afraid to put aircraft in Ukrainian sights. Where are the huge tank battles? Non-existent because the Western technology makes Swiss cheese out of even their heaviest armor. I am amazed that someone can still believe in the Russian military when despite overwhelming numbers, Russia has not been able to defend itself against its neighbor, 1/5th its size and certainly less prepared for war. You think it’s a sign of victory that Russia is now using WW2 era tanks they are pulling out of storage? If anything, that shows exactly who is running out of materiel to run the war. And NATO has plenty of munitions. I think you are confusing production and capacity. Are the production of artillery and war machines too low? Yes, and NATO is addressing those issues. However, NATO has huge reserves of munitions sitting in warehouses that it hasn’t even tapped yet. Most of the donations to Ukraine have not even been of NATO’s best stock. It just happened to be a way of clearing old munitions. In some cases, both the US and Germany were going to destroy or mothball equipment only to reroute it to Ukraine. NATO is not running out of stock, it is simply getting rid of old inventory and ramping up production on new munitions. This takes time, but they are not running out. Unlike Russia… What will Russia do next? Having their Cossacks go back to fighting on horseback when the WW2 tanks run out of parts?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where is air superiority? Non-existent.

          Did you somehow miss all the videos of Russian aviation taking out tanks on daily basis, or the fact that Russia does massive air strike campaigns against entire Ukraine weekly for many months now? Meanwhile, Ukraine has no air force to speak of, and at this point doesn’t even have much of air defence. What you’re saying is demonstrably false.

          Where are the huge tank battles?

          There aren’t huge tank battles because Russia is letting Ukraine blow up all their tanks in minefields and hunts them down with lancets. The battles we’ve seen so far are Ukrainian columns following a single mine clearing vehicle that gets taken out by a helicopter or artillery. Then the column ends up being stuck because it’s in a minefield, and the rest of the vehicles are systematically destroyed. These were the first two weeks of the offensive after which Ukraine abandoned the fabled NATO tactics and went back to sending penny packets of troops to get ground down by artillery.

          I am amazed that someone can still believe in the Russian military when despite overwhelming numbers, Russia has not been able to defend itself against its neighbor, 1/5th its size and certainly less prepared for war.

          That’s because you have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you’re opining on. Here’s what an actual expert has to say https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/whats-ahead-war-ukraine

          You think it’s a sign of victory that Russia is now using WW2 era tanks they are pulling out of storage?

          What this actually shows is that Russia doesn’t even feel the need to pull out its modern equipment, they’re clearing out their old inventory the exact same way NATO is.

          NATO is not running out of stock, it is simply getting rid of old inventory and ramping up production on new munitions.

          Biden literally admitted that US ran out of high explosive shells to send. This is also admitted by mainstream media. Meanwhile, this is what the "dramatic increase in production actually looks like:

          Army Secretary Christine Wormuth separately told reporters that the U.S. will go from making 14,000 155mm shells each month to 20,000 by the spring and 40,000 by 2025.

          That’s what Russia uses on daily basis, and Russia produces over a million shells a year

          You really should spend a bit of time educating yourself instead of spreading misinformation here.

          • rusticus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            lol get out of here with your Russian propaganda. No one believes you. Go back to lemmy.grad or hexbear. Lmao.

            It’s a proxy war dude. No one wins until one side exhausts their resources. And it’s the west v Russia. Yes, Russia whose GDP is about the same as the Uk. lol.

            Edit: Hi hexbear/lemmy.grad shills! So bizarre to get significantly more upvotes than the brigaded comments from dear comrades.

          • whataboutshutup@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            What this actually shows is that Russia doesn’t even feel the need to pull out its modern equipment, they’re clearing out their old inventory the exact same way NATO is.

            Why? Do they enjoy dragging this conflict for more than a year? Is there some reason to why they don’t use some sci-fi orbital blaster?

            If you lived there, Ukraine or Russia, doesn’t matter, and have served, you’d knew how deeply you are wrong. Bet you didn’t, and I did. Post-soviet army culture is what makes me suspect they don’t have anything breathtaking you think they have in worthy quantities.

            Opposing western propaganda is one thing. Not taking a moment to understand you are high on russian one is another. Just take a glance at this quote of yours and say it’s not copium.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because Russia realizes that this proxy war can escalate into a real war with NATO, and they’re obviously going to save their best weapons for that.

              Meanwhile, the whole war was sold as a special military operation in Russia, meaning that Russia is not on a war footing and life for a typical person in Russia hasn’t actually changed all that much. This is basically equivalent to when US went to destroy Iraq, and most people in US didn’t really connect the war with their day to day lives.

              Russian economy is currently growing at 4.9% as even western publications admit, they’ve managed to reorient their trade towards the east. On the other hand, many western countries are entering recession now, and there’s massive political unrest all over Europe.

              You don’t have to be high on Russian propaganda to know this because all of this is freely admitted in western media. The fact that you don’t understand any of this shows just how ignorant you are regarding the topic you’re attempting to debate here.

          • bazookabill@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Did you somehow miss all the videos of Russian aviation taking out tanks on daily basis

            These videos obviously exists from both sides, but neither side has aerial supremacy, if you know what that means.

            and Russia produces over a million shells a year

            Rheinmetall alone offers to produce up to 600,000 artillery rounds for Ukraine annually, and that’s just one company.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, those videos don’t exist from both sides. Ukraine doesn’t have a functioning air force that can attack Russian positions.

              Rheinmetall alone offers to produce up to 600,000 artillery rounds for Ukraine annually, and that’s just one company.

              [citation needed]

              we’re talking about 155 mm shells here specifically

              honestly, I don’t know why you keep trying to argue something that’s demonstrably false, even western media openly admits the problem https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/19/artillery-ammunition-ukraine-pentagon/

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I see you have poor reading comprehension, because the clearly says the plan to produce it. I plan to become a billionaire in the next couple of years. The reality is that it’s bullshit because here’s the actual reality of the situation:

                  Few people understand the remarkably protracted lead times necessary to increase arms production. Two or three years between commitment and delivery of even some basic munitions and materials is standard. Those NATO nations still accustomed to fight at all — meaning mostly the US, UK and France — have focused upon relatively small outputs. The factories do not exist to provide long runs of — for instance — conventional artillery ammunition any time soon.

                  You’re obviously not one of these few people. Furthermore, the article says the following:

                  Prices for raw materials used in arms production but not mined in EU countries have risen astronomically. The French government recently asked MBDA Missile Systems to increase its production of Mistral air-defense systems from 20 units per month, and has been offered only an increase to perhaps 40 monthly by 2025.

                  The German armed forces face an ammunition shortfall demanding €20 billion worth of new orders. At the current speed of contract placement, it will be 20 years before this is achieved. Susanne Wiegand, CEO of RENK Group, which makes drivetrains for tanks, said in February that only a trickle of new orders had come in.

                  Meanwhile, some manufacturers are obliged to struggle against the wider commercial difficulties of their owners. Britain’s Rolls-Royce has cut investment internationally following severe corporate difficulties. It owns the German-based mtu, which provides engines for tanks and armored vehicles. Yet mtu’s efforts to hire more staff and expand production are at odds with Rolls-Royce’s cutbacks elsewhere.

                  The IISS study concludes that belief in the permanence of America’s protective shield still causes Europe’s governments to shortchange defense. Despite all the fine words since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, “no major recapitalization of armed forces or large-scale procurement to address capability has yet materialized” — even in Britain, which beats its chest loudest in defiance of Moscow.

                  Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the US too struggles to produce munitions in credible quantities for sustained combat. In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill trumpeted the role of America as “the arsenal of democracy.” Today, Washington is struggling to make good on such a claim. Michael Brenes, a lecturer in history at Yale, has authored a new study that mirrors those of European critics of their own continent’s performance.

                  I do encourage you to try engaging with reality going forward.

      • bazookabill@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        In your dreams. Like your failed predictions of freezing Europeans running out of Russan gas and whatnot, lol, we gonna make this reality check later on, just to remind you.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, we’re definitely going to get a reality check sooner than later and you’re going to have to figure out how to deal with it. Meanwhile, last I checked Germany is now deindustrializing and all of Eurozone is in a recession, but hey I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Europe got cut off from cheap energy.

  • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    The entire world (with a few exceptions) is fighting a proxy war against Russia via Ukraine. Of course you can’t win, that’s the whole idea.

    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess then it becomes a scramble for anyone on their borders not already in NATO to get their applications in before they launch their next “special operation”.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Georgia, Aserbaijan. Then don’t forget the east, that is, the -stans and Mongolia. China and Japan are safe and who even wants NK.

          The stans traditionally looked towards China for protection (also see Silk Road initiative) but they’re making moves to make themselves more palatable to the west. Mongolia is the odd one out they’re actually a proper democracy, and very much NATO-aligned though they (just like Japan) don’t qualify because geography. They’ll continue being a buffer state between Russia and China as long as they’re west-aligned neither will suspect them to be in bed with the other.

        • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Last one in Europe other than those two. Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and North Korea all remain in Asia. None are likely to join NATO anytime soon. Georgia may be the most likely, but they have the same problem with outstanding Russian occupation that Ukraine has/had going into 2022. Azerbaijan is aligned with Turkey, who is a NATO member, but does not have contiguous borders with NATO. Kazakhstan has distanced itself from the Ukraine invasion, but is otherwise more similar to Belarus than Finland in terms of alignment. China and North Korea have nukes. Mongolia is up shit creek without a paddle hoping that China and Russia continue to rival each other enough to not want the other to expand into Mongolia really

    • MJBrune@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean they have kept it for the last 9 years. They had it before the war and everyone was fine with it until Russia invaded more. I don’t see how Russia doesn’t keep Crimea. It’s something they considered Russian territory before the current war. They’ve pledged to use nukes if Ukraine counter attacks on their soil. My logic says they will use nukes to keep Crimea.

      • Michal@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody is fine with Crimea - except Russia, but they want more. Crimea was the price to pay for peace, but peace was broken by Russia, so Russia does not get to keep it.

          • Michal@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Jumping to defend and being fine with are two different things. Let’s not forget Russia is a “nuclear power”.

            • MJBrune@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That didn’t stop them from supporting Ukraine in 2022, yet they didn’t in 2014.

        • MJBrune@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russia considers Crimea its soil. So it’s hard to say but Crimea is very important to Russia.

            • MJBrune@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure but the judgement is there to determine if Russia will use nukes to keep the land. Clearly, with Ukraine, they won’t. With Crimea, I think they would since that’s a key point in the oil exportation.

                • MJBrune@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It hasn’t been since 2014 though. It’s been firmly in Russian control since before 2022. Russia is not looking to lose any land before it started it’s 2022 invasion.

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’ve pledged to use nukes if Ukraine counter attacks on their soil.

        They have already ‘annexed’ oblasts they do not completely control so that threat is pretty hollow.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            While I agree that it is Ukraine’s, Russia does not since they have gone through their legal process of annexation. They are currently fighting in what Russia legally considers their soil.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We can [though] enter a phase that is most unfavorable for Ukraine in its ‘independent’ state: a phase of neither peace nor war. We could be in this phase if, instead of the special military operation, the [currently occupied] territories were recognized and officially taken under guardianship. But it would require a completely different twist of history,” Khodakovsky said.

    I find it consistently amazing and hilarious that Russian strategic leadership appears entirely incapable of recognizing that they can’t simply dictate geopolitics, warfare, and international borders to external parties. Ukraine - and to a lesser degree, its allies - get a vote too, and they’re not going to be “freezing” anything for the foreseeable future.

    • rammer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately there are those in the west that agree. Either because they are paid/blackmailed to agree. Or they have been misled by the former.

  • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    this thread is wild

    can we remember, everyone:

    1. discussion on who is winning has no bearing on discussion of who is in the right, and vice versa

    2. Russia, Ukraine, and NATO can all be evil and wrong for separate and true reasons

    3. criticizing NATO does not amount to supporting Putin

    4. criticizing Putin does not amount to supporting NATO

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can we also remember that Russia is a country and Putin is it’s head. You don’t even know the name of the top leadership of NATO. You don’t say this is Biden’s proxy war but you imagine every single decision is Putin’s.

      And also, stop psychologizing world leaders as though you have a parasocial relationship with them.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        A democratically elected president and a dictator don’t represent their people with the same legitimacy nor do they have the same concentration of powers at their personal disposal.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So the Russian Federation, a republic, built in the aftermath of the dismantling of the largest bureaucratic democracy in the world built under the eye of the West for the purpose of liberty and freedom and economic capitalism, that Russian Federation is so different than the West that we can attribute nearly all bad things done by Russia to Putin, but in the West it’s such a complex and nuanced situation that it’s really the whole system to blame?

          Keep huffing cope. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t imagine that every decision is Putin’s, and it’s just as much Biden’s proxy war as Putin’s except that Putin has been head of government for the entire duration of the build-up whereas the build-up started 4 US heads of government ago. I’m just using the terminology most frequently used in the discourse.

        Also I will psychologize any world leader I please, any leader of a bourgeoisie state is a horrible wretched ghoul

  • whataboutshutup@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Keep in mind, that he is a mouth for some factions inside russia and his message is mostly for internal consumption. There are motives behind what he speaks. Probably testing the reaction of local population towards this idea. And yes, a person saying that (without someone’s protection or even order) may be easily presecuted under new laws.

        • azimir@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah… even with it’s atrophied industrial muscles, you don’t out-build the US and Europe combined. Worst case scenario comes when the US and Europe actually start committing to wartime production. We’re still not doing that. Almost everything so far has been from old stocks and supplies.

          During World War II, the US sent 1,911 locomotives, and 11,225 railcars to the Soviet Union under the lend-lease program, just as an example of the scale of production we have achieved in the past. The US has many many many flaws, but we’ve demonstrated a history of being able to out-build everyone once we’re committed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

          Another phenomenal one was that the US shipyards put out an average of one Liberty Ship every TWO days (every other day…) from 1941 to 1945. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship

          Hell, we made 270+ destroyers during WWII. It’s a mind bending quantity of ships produced: https://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/

          We can’t afford healthcare, our cities are rotting out, and our schools are being undermined by small minded bigots, but we can sure as hell build weapons. If there’s a will to fight, and NATO is committed to supplying you, you’ll never lack for hardware.

      • RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Still wasn’t a very long time for Russia’s military to show how out of practice they were. Two weeks? A month? Amazing they lasted this long at all, crazy dictator aside.

  • crowsby@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m glad to see that incessant and pervasive whataboutism is welcome in the Fediverse. I was afraid for a few weeks that I had left it behind with Reddit but clearly that’s not the case.