‘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.

  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
    41·
    1 year ago

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

      • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
        71·
        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.netEnglish
          264·
          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
            61·
            1 year ago

            That’s not the point. I feel I’ve already answered your argument in other comments. If you don’t agree, please let me know why and I’ll happily address it.

                • h3doublehockeysticks [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  161·
                  1 year ago

                  I pointed out that the specific law you talk about does not in fact “Protect same sex marriages”, the act does absolutely nothing to stop states from banning same sex marriage, and that even if it did that it only covers a tiny aspect of queer discrimination. The act does not demand that states accept queerness, it does not demand that all states allow or protect gay marriage, it does not prevent states from banning same sex marriage, it does none of that. ALL it does is say that Texas can’t say a New York marriage is invalid because the people involved are of the same sex.

                  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                    31·
                    1 year ago

                    I mean that’s just completely false. The Act requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages.

                    From the Act:

                    Congress finds the following: ((a) In General.–No person acting under color of State law may deny– (1) full faith and credit to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State pertaining to a marriage between 2 individuals, on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals; or (2) a right or claim arising from such a marriage on the basis that such marriage would not be recognized under the law of that State on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those individuals.

                    Seems pretty clear, no?

                    Again I’m not trying to say this is a fait accompli and we can just sit back on our laurels and consider it done. But it’s a hell of a lot better than Russia’s law.

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            42·
            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.netEnglish
              262·
              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.

              • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                22·
                1 year ago

                But that’s not what was under discussion. Does there exist a federal law which protects queerness?
                Yes, yes there does.

                Is it perfect? By no means, there’s a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.

                • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  211·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re original wording was:

                  which accepts queerness in its federal law.

                  You do not know what queerness is if you think that is met by gay marriage being legalized federally.

                  Is it perfect? By no means, there’s a long way to go. But the characterization of the US as queerphobic in the context of comparison to Russia is a nonsense. Both-sidesing this issue is a disgusting affront to the LGBTQ people suffering under Putin.

                  This is whataboutism. Also US capitalists fund the passage of anti-lgbt laws and hate campaigns globally that create basically pogroms against gay and trans people. So it is ridiculous because the US is much worse to gay and trans people globally.

                  They also helped illegally and undemocratically dissolve the USSR and created the situation for Putin to exist in in the first place. Who knows, if they didn’t interfere maybe the USSR would currently be as progressive as Cuba is on the issue of queer liberation. And Ukrainian and NATO capitalists and Russian capitalists wouldn’t be sending conscripts to their deaths.

                  • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
                    22·
                    1 year ago

                    Legalising same sex marriage is an acceptance of queerness. At no point did I say that the issue was “met” (i.e. settled). In fact, I clearly said “it’s not perfect”.

                    Its not whataboutism though. It’s a response to the original (flippant) claim that the US is a queerphobic dictatorship.

                    I have not seen any pogroms against gay or trans people that have been funded or supported by the US government. Maybe going back a ways?

                    I fucking hate the US government. Just need to mention that. They’re a joke and I want to see huge reforms, though I don’t hold out much hope.
                    I hate the Russian government more, and with good reason, especially on the issue of queerphobia. Are you genuinely of the belief that the Russian government is less queerphobic than the US govt? If so, please explain that to me in big letters so that I can understand properly.