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.

  • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is a proxy war against America. You don’t win those. You just set yourself up a good position and dig in. America gets bored and leaves and then you can pick over what is left of what was destroyed. So you don’t win, you just wait for America to forfeit.

    • BigNote@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not just the US though. The European powers are far more firmly committed. It’s not at all clear that the rest of NATO will simply walk away if/when the US does. Especially the former Soviet nations; this is not a fucking game to them. The loss of US support would be huge, but I don’t see a universe in which the Europeans just roll over for Putin once the US loses interest.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The European powers are far more firmly committed.

        So firmly committed that america had to blow up one of germany’s pipelines? Are you having a fucking laugh?

        Everyone I speak to, you know, normal people, thinks this is a fucking stupid distraction from domestic politics and the consistently declining standard of living we are seeing. America has ended european prosperity with this shit and it won’t recover for 50 years. You think people here haven’t noticed that?

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

          America has ended european prosperity

          USA invaded Ukraine? That’s news to me

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            49
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 year ago

            The US assisted in the 2014 fascist coup that led to the fascist transitionary government, the deployment of all the fascist militias to attacking the donbas, and the 8 year long civil war that led to Russia eventually invading.

            Your mindset on this shit is that it began in 2022 which is false, the US has been stoking it since 8 years earlier. If you want we could go even further back though, Operation Aerodynamic was the US operation to fund, arm and support fascists in Ukraine in order to destabilise the soviet union. Absolutely none of this would be happening today without the US’ historic support of fascists.

            • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              39
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              the US has been stoking it since 8 years earlier

              way more than that

              america knew what they were doing in late 2000s when they started the ukraine into nato bullshit; a lot of important people, including some ghouls, said russia would see it as an existential threat. i mean, fuck, angela merkel was saying that back then

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                24
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s the same Angela Merkel that admitted the Minsk agreements weren’t done in good faith, rather, they were just done to create time to build the Ukranian military.

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                From a far enough perspective this conflict goes back to like Napoleon. When was the first time a European power decided that they could definitely take control of Russia before winter?

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

                  Napoleon at first wanted to divide Europe with Russia, he did also think attacking it is bad idea. Several diplomatic fuckups and certain serial traitor* activity later it came to blows.

                  *Talleyrand. Biographers place quite a big role in sabotaging France and Russia agreement on him. It seems correct looking as how the European politics 200 years later are still largely based on the ones he took very active part in establishing. Also his life was wild, he served all French governments from Louis XVI to Charles X and betrayed every single one of them except Jacobins who didn’t trusted him and kicked him out of France.

            • sibe@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So USA took Crimea not Russia because their puppet president was overthrown in 2014?

              • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Crimean independence goes as far back as the 1991 Soviet collapse. Acting like it is only a 2014 thing is also nonsense.


                On Jan. 20, 1991, voters were asked whether they wanted the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 94.3 percent or 1,343,825 of the 1,441,019 voters who cast ballots voted yes. (81.5% turnout)


                In 1994 voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved. The worst of them being 77% saying Yes.


                In 2014 they conducted a referendum asked voters whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea’s status as a part of Ukraine. It had 89% voter turnout and 97% said yes.


                If liberals care so much about democracy, and what people actually want, liberals should also care about the fact it is clearly something Crimeans wanted. The “taking of Crimea” was a referendum vote, and very little else. The way liberals always talk of it as an invasion is incorrect, in particular because Russia already ran the port, and already ran the military checkpoints into and out of the region. They were already there.

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your mindset on this shit is that it began in 2022 which is false,

              No, that is a complete strawman of your own fabrication.

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

              Ah, the completely made up thing. Yes, that makes perfect sense in your imaginary world.

        • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          People like Merkel didn’t exactly think about long-term prosperity, given their climate policies. Energy shocks would’ve been, I assume, much stronger if they only started to happen in the 30s. The economic consequences (energy inflation, supply chain crisis) were not considered, although people have warned. Some acted (I think fennoscandic countries implemented effective heating regimes in the early 10s already for example), but many didn’t learn from the 1970s energy shock caused by energy dependency on incompatible political systems and Russia’s disorganisation of representation in the 2000s. Sanctions/disentanglement would’ve been necessary in the 2000s when Russia became centered around Putin.

          SOL is high enough to defend against fascism. Don’t fall for the propaganda of imperialists.

          This war is so bad already, but it could be much worse (even with MAD).

          • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is nonsense from an american perpsective.

            The reality here is that america is not a friend of europe. Those european leaders were pursuing what was best for europe, and america saw that as moving away from it.

            Thus america set out to destabilise europe with exactly the same mindset it used in the middle east, and it has succeeded. As a result of blowing up pipelines and starting wars it has forced europe into vassalisation by way of creating energy dependence on it instead of itself or anyone else.

            You act like what’s best for america is best for europeans because you think everyone in the world is your vassal to be directed. You need to piss off and focus on yourselves and stop intefering with everyone else in the world. Everywhere the US pokes its nose into ends up worse off than it did before.

            And the EU even recognises this, it understands it has been vassalised now and is working on resolving it.

            They’ve completely fucked us over. And if you speak to anyone on the street here, taxi drivers, etc, you’d hear the same thing over and over again, Americans aren’t viewed as our friends anymore, they did this shit to us and a lot of people know it.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            People like Merkel didn’t exactly think about long-term prosperity, given their climate policies.

            I think that’s mostly ideological. War is something that exists within the Liberal world view, but obstacles to unlimited growth of profits don’t. They can reckon with geopolitical conflicts but global warming does the same thing to them that trying to unlock your dad’s memories does if you’re a bene gesserit.

            • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Climate change isn’t mitigated just by disorienting from economic growth since status quo is so bad already. Growth politics are insufficient - not building another refinery isn’t enough to combat the fossil north. Many economies, including Germany’s vehicle industry, need to be completely restructured and there it is just remotely interesting for climate change mitigation whether there’s differential (non-fossil) growth.

      • Sinonatrix [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have to imagine direct intervention would’ve happened already if it was going to. Why let the Ukrainians get shoved into a meat grinder first? If you’re America: it’s good business and sells more guns. If you’re actually reliant on the buffer zone then it’s really not a game, as you say.

        • peeonyou@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          if all the US / EU weapon stockpiles get wiped out then the US makes a mint resupplying everyone for the next war, which will be with China using Taiwan as the proxy

        • yata@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have to imagine direct intervention would’ve happened already if it was going to.

          Apparently you are completely unaware of the existence of nuclear weapons.

      • jabjoe@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US being unreliable is what will cause a full on EU army. Putin is on the EU’s doorstep and former Soviet are in the EU. The EU can’t ignore Putin’s aggression.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I wish them all the best. Watching Europe absolutely eat shit and collapse trying to fight would be hilarious.

          Notably - America will 100% hang them out to dry rather than committing significant forces.

          Also, you know, the really painfully obvious thing - The only people who want Russia to attack Europe are the Baltics and some of the more unhinged right wing factions in Poland.

          • jabjoe@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The EU basically have to do it if the US is going off into isolationism. Russia is a far away problem to the US, but not the EU.

            If the first iteration of an EU army wasn’t great, in anything serious, the UK’s army would join forces with it.

            Russia has shown itself willing to invade, but also not a fearsome force. So if it tries another former Soviet block country, it will be made to fail. With or without the US.

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

            Also, you know, the really painfully obvious thing - The only people who want Russia to attack Europe are the Baltics and some of the more unhinged right wing factions in Poland.

            Pretty funny how you completely ignore all of the Russian Putin controlled talking heads who have threatened attacking Europe and the Batlics on a daily basis since Russia invaded Ukraine.

            But “painfully obvious things” is definitely something you understand all about, huh?

        • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          America is a plutocracy which accepts queerness in its federal law. Your gotcha went too broad.

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

              Mate. Respect for Marriage Act 2022 is a federal law protecting same sex marriages. It’s there. It’s fact. Bwaha etc.

              • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                25
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The Respect For Marriage act of 2022 requires ONLY that states recognize existing same sex marriages. If Obergefell was overturned tomorrow, zombie laws kick in over a good chunk of the country banning same sex marriage. And Roberts as well as Thomas both opposed Obergefell.

                And that’s not evne getting into the fact that you’re sitll only talking about a single piece of legislation which ONLY requires that states recognize such marriages, it does absolutely nothing besides that. Which means that it is not only inadequate in what it does to protect queer marriage, but also that it’s a very minor piece of legislation in the grand scheme of queer discrimination.

                • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You are incapable. That is because the comment is factually correct. US Federal law has protections for queerness. The cited law proves it. What point are you trying to make exactly?

                  • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    25
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    The long and short of it is that legalizing gay marriage isn’t even a strong step to lgbt liberation, it is literally just tepid assimilationism. We are only “accepted by federal law” in most narrow and on their terms sense. Call me when the US government federally covers trans Healthcare, makes conversion torture a federal crime, deals with the queer(especially child) homelessness problem, and purges the people calling us all pedophiles.

                    Also, learn some fucking humility.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Russia does not have the resources for that. A reminder this isn’t a proxy war for them, even though it is for the West. Russia is there in person conventionally and is somehow losing to a minor Western ally.

      The Ukrainians aren’t going to run out of stuff within the next year for sure, and maybe not ever because even if the US gets bored Europe is highly invested. Russia has negligible productive capacity of it’s own, and is bound to have serious problems eventually, unless they convince China to help and China has so far been uninterested. They could theoretically win by population attrition, I guess, but nobody’s really talking about that yet. And, to do anything, they need political stability, after already having one mostly-failed coup.

      • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        is somehow losing to the minor Western allies

        How are you defining “losing” here? They’re occupying the separatist parts of Ukraine and can do so indefinitely.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev, and they’ve gotten fairly continuously further from that. Saying they’re winning has “Mission Accomplished!” energy at this point.

          They’re occupying Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea if that’s what you mean, although it’s in question if they can do that or anything else including exist indefinitely.

          • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Their original objective was to topple the government in Kiev

            According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.

            Interesting you mention “Mission Accomplished” – would you say the U.S. and its media did a good job of accurately informing the public about the War on Terror? Would you say they had good intentions?

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What did they decide the Kiev thing was about? Was it a botched attempt at a decapitation strike to prevent basically everything else that happened?

              • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s very much worth a read. The broad strokes are:

                • There’s a notable difference between the attack towards Kiev and the attack in the separatist regions (it also talks about attacks in southern Ukraine outside the separatist regions, but I think it says they’re basically similar to the Kiev attack).
                • The attack in the separatist regions were to hold territory with an amenable population. So you have a lot of troops, tons of artillery, and they dug in elaborate fortifications that they will actually stay and defend.
                • The attack towards Kiev was an opportunistic raid to divert troops from the main thrust of the attack in thr separatist regions. The article talks about similar raids the Russian Empire did in the Napoleonic Wars, the Union calvalry did in the U.S. Civil War, pretty sure it mentions a Soviet one in WWII, etc. It involved much less artillery because it wasn’t intended to hold ground and they wanted to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing civilians they didn’t want to govern anyway.
                • On that last point, the article also talks about how Russian missile strikes have largely avoided the most damaging civilian targets. It gives an example of striking an electrical substation that converts electricity into a type usable by trains instead of striking electrical infrastructure that is more general purpose (and would shut down broader civilian electricity, too).

                The Kiev attack’s goal appears to have been “disrupt, divert, and if you see opportunities, take them.” I bet if the Ukrainian government had shown signs of folding or if the defense of Kiev had been weaker they would have pushed for more, but that didn’t happen, the separatist regions were taken successfully, and the Russian Kiev column had no more reason to be there.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              According to who? If you read the article from U.S. military analysts posted elsewhere in this thread, not even they think that was the point of the early war thrust towards Kiev.

              All I see is a chain of threads that go mostly nowhere. No, a wargame from 2002 is not relevant.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, there war goals were to protect Donbass, kill a shitload of Nazis, and de-militarize Ukraine. Plans change but it still looks like they’re doing what they set out to do.

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is funny how you critical thinkers uncritically regurgitate Putin propaganda without any hesitation.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  “Kill nearly every young man in Ukraine” is their main path to victory, but Russia has only about 4x the population of Ukraine, so they’ll have to mind their casualty ratios pretty well. And avoid any more coups.

                  • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Presumably the young men of Ukraine will realize that throwing themselves on to the enemy guns is a losing proposition at some point before that but who knows?

      • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate. You sure USA and Europe can last even one year? Russia also has allies in China and India, in case West thought for even one moment about uniting.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russia also has allies in China and India

          Press X to doubt.

          Pentagon said last year in a press briefing that Russia could keep up this war for 40 years at current rate.

          Could you link that? It goes against everything I’ve read and I can’t find it myself.

          • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Press X to doubt.

            India ramping up trade in oil and gas with Russia while refusing to even offer the most milquetoast condemnation of Russia’s invasion on the world stage haven’t clued you in?

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Call me when they do more than not get involved.

              India and China are fair-weather friends to Russia. India is also an increasingly close fair-weather friend of the West. Both the West and India see themselves as adversaries with China.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you think the neutral action would be an embargo, then? Buying gas at a heavy discount doesn’t seem very political to me, or to the Western leaders for that matter.

          • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Russia also has allies in China and India

            Press X to doubt.

            I do not think you are capable of learning anything, if you seriously say things that are opposite of reality.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization. Meanwhile, Russia losing the war would be an utter disaster for China. US is very openly trying to surround China militarily, and Russia acts as a shield in the west. The worst possible outcome for China would be the west managing to destabilize Russia and put a pro western government in power. If there was even the slightest chance that Russia could lose this conflict then China would step in.

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I disagree. The Cold War is ancient history and China’s probably just as happy carving up Russia as living beside it.

                • yata@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think I have ever seen such a clear cut example of projection as your comment.

                • Alaskaball [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  For example, Joe Biden was literally born when the battle of Stalingrad of World War 2 was occurring. Biden’s literally old enough to have lived in the same era as the generation that lived during the American Civil War were dying out.

                  Anyone that was born in the 70s, for a brief time, lived on the same earth at the same time as the last living emancipated American slaves still drew their breath.

                  “Ancient history” is closer to us who are alive than we can truly perceive and comprehend. The past’s heavy hands rest on our shoulders, burdening the present with the acts performed hitherto each passing minute.

                  A quote:

                  ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.’

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                26
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                US literally says it wants to prevent China from developing and has surrounded it with military bases, but whatever you say buddy. The brains of Chinese leaders aren’t as smooth as yours.

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  More territory is good, if the opportunity would present itself this would make China stronger. They also don’t want another Xinjiang they have to genocide, though, so I imagine they wouldn’t actually annex much. Maybe just take back the old Qing cities and puppet the rest.

                  • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Like actual material evidence that China would want to do it and not just fantasy theory crafting in your mind

                    This is pure projection on what you’d do if you ran a country

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  OP gave me their vibes, and I responded with my vibes. Actual facts about the future of geopolitics are hard to come by (until they happen).

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nobody who has even a modicum of understanding of geopolitics doubts this. India and Russia have a very strong relationship that goes back to the days of USSR which was one of the biggest forces that helped liberate India from western colonization.

              Only if you believe your own propaganda, because none of that occurred at all.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          77
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah. That was basically Cold War propaganda, partly spread by ex-Nazis covering their asses after losing to “subhumans”. Russia fought the same way every country did in it’s recent wars.

          Man I miss AskHistorians.

        • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          73
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, not at all; that’s a myth started by Nazi propagandists to explain why they were losing to the Soviets, and it was picked up by USA propagandists during the cold war.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh, and Ukraine is also populous. It has a quarter of Russia’s population, about, so human wave wouldn’t win anyway.