Am told that the head of PHE - nominally the entity responsible for dealing with covid - and Hammond (head of civil contingencies in Cabinet Office) are NOT being called to give evidence - which even I, with my boundless cynicism about Whitehall, find striking...
An Inquiry cannot be serious if they don't quiz such people.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
I commented about a year ago that this is the first war between 2 countries with ageing declining populations (Nagorno Karabakh only fits that frame on the Armenian side as Azerbaijan has younger demographics). If the median age in Ukraine is 44 - and I assume the median Russian age is similar - then the median age of people over 18 would presumably be higher. But the median age of people above 18 but below 65 might be a bit lower. I would guess it's in line with the average age of soldiers on the front line.
Demographics is what makes this war so bizarre. Russia clearly doesn't need more land for a growing population. But it does probably like the idea of more people. The trouble is Donbas demographics are every bit as bad and ageing as elsewhere in the region, if not (now, following internal displacement) more so.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
Killing non-combatants, that is those not actively participating in hostilities, is a GC violation. Human shields are not active participants.
Killing non-combatants if they're put in harms way by the enemy and its proportionate to kill them to achieve your military objective is not a crime.
Otherwise any military could make themselves immune to reprisal by the use of human shields, build your munition factories under hospitals. Of course the GC isn't stupid and prevents that, and if you use a hospital as a munition factory then the hospital loses its protected status as a result.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."
Odd, that.
Ditto in Gaza, the way it's looking.
Really? Have you seen how eastern Ukraine has been depopulated by the Russians, through deliberate policy (not the least by. recruiting all the men below 103 years old?)
I can see why people (particularly on the left) get irate about the status of Palestinians. I fail to see why the same people are oddly pro-Russian in their sh*tty conflict.
I'm not sure the intersection of the Venn diagram is that large. I'm at least as irate about the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the Israeli invasion of Gaza. In an ideal world, Putin and Netanyahu would both end up at the Hague alongside the leaders of Hamas.
I'm confused, Kinabalu reckons there's an ongoing occupation of Gaza, you reckon Netanyahu is invading Gaza.
Yours at least makes sense, since they weren't in Gaza and are going in now, but since Hamas declared war and attacked them and they're only defending themselves by going back after Hamas (which is entirely legal) why would anyone from Israel end up at the Hague?
Destroying Hamas is an entirely legitimate war goal.
If Hamas use human shields, then the Geneva Convention says that Hamas are committing the war crime there and Israel are entitled to kill human shields to get to Hamas.
I'm pretty sure the Geneva convention doesn't say that anyone has the right to kill human shields.
Then you're wrong.
Perhaps you could quote the bit that says that belligerents have the right to kill human shields.
Barty seems to be suggesting that the appropriate response to Hamas using human shields is to... kill them?
If and only if its proportionate to achieving the military objective, yes, that's International Humanitarian Law.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?
Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.
Oh... February 27, 2022 Leon said: Nuclear war it is, then I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?
You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?
30 second search pal, not hard.
No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022
Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove
It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.
The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.
But I do. And it really annoys you
Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it
Also I travel a FUCK of a lot. One of the reasons I knew the Ukraine war was going wrong was because I went to Ukraine and saw for myself. That simple
I saw this everywhere.
That looks like the Sunday morning after a pretty average rugby match.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."
Odd, that.
Odd too that Israel blocked America from supplying Iron Dome anti-missile systems to Ukraine. War makes strange bedfellows.
I don't think that's really relevant to my comment. But as I said before when you raise that; given their expenditure rate of Iron Dome, I bet Israel are glad they didn't give permission...
America was not proposing to move kit protecting Israel. The point is that Israel was studiedly neutral in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That is ironic, especially if you see an equivalence between these two wars.
Yes, and I criticised Israel's stance even before the recent tragic events. But Israel now needs those two batteries that the US wanted to give to Ukraine.
An interesting question is why the US never used those batteries anywhere.
The Israelis are worried about technology leakage.
Iron Dome is too cheap and works too well, for the US to promote it.
Missile defence is a big earner for the usual suspects
Big government procurement in the US works on the basis of handing out contracts to the usual suspects in a sequence.
There was a hilarious one a few years back, when the wrong weapon won a testing competition for next-gen smart bombs. Even worse than being too cheap and reliable, it also offered a capability against moving targets. Which was supposed to be another program.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.
Wiki is as good as a specialist barrister? Looking forward to seeing if our resident pinniped might have a view on that.
Does anyone on the planet truly believe there will not be at least two legally arguable views from top legal minds on the mixed law and facts that arise from the deaths of non combatants in Gaza, and that this applies both generally and to each actual occurrence. This is further complicated by there being no such thing as agreed facts in this conflict.
The Bank of England continue to screw over savers with interest rates held at 5.25%.
The BBC has helpfully decided to break this with the message that the rates are unchanged but “still highest level for 15 years”! if we hadn’t been paying attention.
Am told that the head of PHE - nominally the entity responsible for dealing with covid - and Hammond (head of civil contingencies in Cabinet Office) are NOT being called to give evidence - which even I, with my boundless cynicism about Whitehall, find striking...
An Inquiry cannot be serious if they don't quiz such people.
The enquiries are carefully ignoring certain stuff.
I was told that certain decisions were taken in defiance of written instructions. And that the people responsible were upset that ministers weren’t going to take responsibility for the insubordination….
Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?
Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.
Oh... February 27, 2022 Leon said: Nuclear war it is, then I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?
You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?
30 second search pal, not hard.
No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022
Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove
It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.
The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.
But I do. And it really annoys you
Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it
No, this is self-aggrandisement.
You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.
Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
Talking of ageing and declining populations, this phenomenon is now having notable real world effects
Eg Germany has just - or will v shortly - overtake Japan as the world’s third largest economy
This is not because Germany is doing so well (it isn’t) it’s because Japan has been so stagnant so long - partly due to those demographics (also temporary currency moves)
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."
Odd, that.
Odd too that Israel blocked America from supplying Iron Dome anti-missile systems to Ukraine. War makes strange bedfellows.
I don't think that's really relevant to my comment. But as I said before when you raise that; given their expenditure rate of Iron Dome, I bet Israel are glad they didn't give permission...
America was not proposing to move kit protecting Israel. The point is that Israel was studiedly neutral in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That is ironic, especially if you see an equivalence between these two wars.
Yes, and I criticised Israel's stance even before the recent tragic events. But Israel now needs those two batteries that the US wanted to give to Ukraine.
An interesting question is why the US never used those batteries anywhere.
The Israelis are worried about technology leakage.
Iron Dome is too cheap and works too well, for the US to promote it.
Missile defence is a big earner for the usual suspects
Big government procurement in the US works on the basis of handing out contracts to the usual suspects in a sequence.
There was a hilarious one a few years back, when the wrong weapon won a testing competition for next-gen smart bombs. Even worse than being too cheap and reliable, it also offered a capability against moving targets. Which was supposed to be another program.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
From the Dniepr to the Donbass, Ukraine will be one!
That doesn't rhyme.
OK, I've got it!
"From the Dniepr to the Donbass, Ukraine will be one mass!"
Better. Wonder if you'd be arrested for chanting that in 75 years from now?
I was quite impressed by the below from the storm - it’s roof slate that has pierced a friend’s Mini Countryman. Looks like some sort of prehistoric tool, the roof slate does as well.
Coo. In the CIs, presumably?
Yes, Jersey, although I’ve managed to miss the fun as in the UK at the moment. I saw pics of roof slates buried in the ground like chopping knives so glad nobody got hit in the head by one.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.
Wiki is as good as a specialist barrister? Looking forward to seeing if our resident pinniped might have a view on that.
Does anyone on the planet truly believe there will not be at least two legally arguable views from top legal minds on the mixed law and facts that arise from the deaths of non combatants in Gaza, and that this applies both generally and to each actual occurrence. This is further complicated by there being no such thing as agreed facts in this conflict.
As a brilliant forecaster of the future, I sense lots of money will be made by QCs arguing about this at some future date.
Disputed facts x Disputed laws x Disputed interpretations x Changing norms = a lot of mortgages paid off and expensive cars bought.
Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?
Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.
Oh... February 27, 2022 Leon said: Nuclear war it is, then I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?
You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?
30 second search pal, not hard.
No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022
Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove
It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.
The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.
But I do. And it really annoys you
Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it
Also I travel a FUCK of a lot. One of the reasons I knew the Ukraine war was going wrong was because I went to Ukraine and saw for myself. That simple
I saw this everywhere.
Sure all those 5 star hotels gave you the real vibe of what was going on at the front.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.
That's not what you said, but I'm not prepared to argue against your shifting sands.
It is what I said, I said originally so long as you are proportionate. That is the law.
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. ~ Geneva Convention (IV), Article 28
Chapter 5, Subsection VII. Cessation of protection and ‘human shields’
Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the Proto- col on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an illegal attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent State placing innocent civilians at risk. 122 A belligerent State is not vested by LOIAC with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combat- ants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s way. 123
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
That's why they traditionally prefer to recruit young men, but Ukraine didn't prefer that, they immediately (and openly) recruited all able bodied men.
Unless you can show the average age of a Ukrainian soldier was 24 six months ago, the fact its 43 now is just representative of the fact they recruited everyone, and not just the young.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.
Wiki is as good as a specialist barrister? Looking forward to seeing if our resident pinniped might have a view on that.
Does anyone on the planet truly believe there will not be at least two legally arguable views from top legal minds on the mixed law and facts that arise from the deaths of non combatants in Gaza, and that this applies both generally and to each actual occurrence. This is further complicated by there being no such thing as agreed facts in this conflict.
As a brilliant forecaster of the future, I sense lots of money will be made by QCs arguing about this at some future date.
Disputed facts x Disputed laws x Disputed interpretations x Changing norms = a lot of mortgages paid off and expensive cars bought.
Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?
Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.
Oh... February 27, 2022 Leon said: Nuclear war it is, then I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?
You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?
30 second search pal, not hard.
No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022
Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove
It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.
The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.
But I do. And it really annoys you
Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it
No, this is self-aggrandisement.
You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.
Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.
There might be something in that. But only something
eg My ceaseless travel really does give me insights denied to people who stay in Hampstead with the odd visit to Richmond
Ukraine is a very good example. In Lviv I saw lots of young men with injuries walking the streets. I saw lots of young women in groups with no men. The men were all fighting or they were back home on crutches
So I crunched the maths
Also, I spoke to a lot of people. Every young person knew someone dead or injured in the fighting
Again I did the maths. It wasn’t very scientific but it gave me a good and probably correct impression that Ukraine was running out of soldiers. Simple as that
But you had to go to Ukraine to see that. With your own eyes
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
To make this silly argument sillier, Leon claimed it was 43 at the front line. That's significantly worse than 43 in general.
Further, you'd expect the average age of current soldiers to be slightly higher than at conscription, because younger soldiers are the ones dying, I assume. Otoh, I would imagine the original Ukrainian infantry (which has now been largely wiped out, apparently) to be a bit older than the current front line troops, if all was going well.
The average age of the UK army is 31 apparently. The infantry must be younger than that?
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?
Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.
Oh... February 27, 2022 Leon said: Nuclear war it is, then I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?
You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?
30 second search pal, not hard.
No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022
Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove
It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.
The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.
But I do. And it really annoys you
Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it
No, this is self-aggrandisement.
You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.
Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.
There might be something in that. But only something
eg My ceaseless travel really does give me insights denied to people who stay in Hampstead with the odd visit to Richmond
Ukraine is a very good example. In Lviv I saw lots of young men with injuries walking the streets. I saw lots of young women in groups with no men. The men were all fighting or they were back home on crutches
So I crunched the maths
Also, I spoke to a lot of people. Every young person knew someone dead or injured in the fighting
Again I did the maths. It wasn’t very scientific but it gave me a good and probably correct impression that Ukraine was running out of soldiers. Simple as that
But you had to go to Ukraine to see that. With your own eyes
After extensive research and analysis of North Korean deliveries to Russia using various sources and calculations, we estimate that Russia has received around 2,000 cargo containers containing over half a million artillery shells. The article link is at the end of this 🧵thread:
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
So you accept they're not occupied, but reckon they're imprisoned? Who by since they border not one but two countries: Egypt? Israel? Or both?
And the sea border was open prior to Hamas taking over.
When are you going to call on Egypt to end their "occupation" of Gaza? Or is it only Israel?
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
I was quite impressed by the below from the storm - it’s roof slate that has pierced a friend’s Mini Countryman. Looks like some sort of prehistoric tool, the roof slate does as well.
Coo. In the CIs, presumably?
Yes, Jersey, although I’ve managed to miss the fun as in the UK at the moment. I saw pics of roof slates buried in the ground like chopping knives so glad nobody got hit in the head by one.
I've seen embedded damage like that from tornadoes before (in person) and you do wonder how more people don't get killed. Fortunately this one was at about midnight and the weather was already terrible so presumably there weren't many people outside. Lots of cars written off by tile damage and it appears several houses have lost their roof entirely.
The 2 inch hail associated with the same (supercell) storm was just an added extra.
There are also reports of tornadoes in Bridport and Lancing although the damage was less extreme.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Nobody ever talks about Egypt's blockade of Gaza. Apparently only the Israeli one counts - and is evil. The Egyptian one either doesn't exist or is for some other reason which is fine because they aren't the Jews.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Nobody ever talks about Egypt's blockade of Gaza. Apparently only the Israeli one counts - and is evil. The Egyptian one either doesn't exist or is for some other reason which is fine because they aren't the Jews.
Yebbut it's because of prior agreement with Israel or somesuch.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
Its a very good comparator as the US population in 1865 was very similar to Ukraine's today. (Both around 30 million).
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
because they aren't the Jews.
sums up a great deal of PB commentary on Israel/Gaza.
For all of the horrors of the bombs being dropped on these refugee camps, we do have to point to the outrageous cynicism of Hamas in building its tunnel networks directly underneath these hugely densely populated areas.
I suppose that the alternative strategy for Israel would have been a military invasion of Gaza, surround the camp and then go through the tunnels one by one. Wouldn't be remotely pretty.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning
Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.
You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Nobody ever talks about Egypt's blockade of Gaza. Apparently only the Israeli one counts - and is evil. The Egyptian one either doesn't exist or is for some other reason which is fine because they aren't the Jews.
Yebbut it's because of prior agreement with Israel or somesuch.
Yeah - prior arrangement that Egypt is very happy to keep Gazan's imprisoned by closing the border. Both for strategic purposes to show up how evil Israel is for closing the border, and to keep out an army of religious zealots who create chaos in Egypt.
Nobody wants Hamas. Except the Social Worker Party apparently.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
Its a very good comparator as the US population in 1865 was very similar to Ukraine's today. (Both around 30 million).
I wasn’t saying the Ukraine war is “like” the Vietnam War. Merely trying to give context in terms of modern wars and mortality
Tho if you want a comparison the US Civil War is terrible. It was 160 years ago and it was a civil war - they are notoriously bloody, generally worse than wars of conquest
It’s actually quite hard to find a war since 1945 which is anything like Ukraine. Two fairly advanced militaries in a modern war of invasion, with one much bigger combatant literally trying to destroy the other
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning
Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.
You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning
Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.
You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.
I understand your style of argumentation is to bore everyone into ossified silence, so I’m gonna draw a line and spare us all
You asked why it was bad that Ukrainian soldiers have an average age of 43. I explained why
You then said Well, whatever, show me evidence Ukrainian soldiers are getting older
I gave you that evidence, sourced from the Times and the FT
You now just crepitate the same points, in different ways. Enough
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning
Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.
You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
I wasn’t making a comparison in terms of the type of war. Just trying to contextualise the death toll
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
The appeal against the decision that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was incompatible with the Equality Act was refused. The court's conclusion, (TLDR) is that a person who has a Gender Recognition Certificate is that assigned gender for all purposes (other than those very specifically and expressly excluded).
The decision is somewhat controversial (eg https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-world-insane/#more-140311) but seems to me a logical application of statutory construction. What makes the matter red hot, however, are 2 other implications of the decision.
Firstly, if the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill becomes law, those who for all practical purposes self certify their status will have the rights afforded by the 2004 Act with all its safeguards. The judicial review of the decision by the UK government to block that bill seems to me to have been greatly undermined by this decision.
Secondly, the decision makes it clear that these rights arise only the granting of a GRC. So sex pests claiming that they identify as women who want to go to a woman's jail have no right to do so in the absence of a certificate. That would be an important and necessary change in Scottish Government policy.
Probably the strongest distinction between Vietnam and Ukraine is that, well before the end of the 60s, probably 80% of the S Vietnamese population wanted an end to the war whoever won. In Ukraine, what polling there is suggests a similar proportion want to keep fighting to defeat the Russian invasion.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
I wasn’t making a comparison in terms of the type of war. Just trying to contextualise the death toll
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
I wasn’t making a comparison in terms of the type of war. Just trying to contextualise the death toll
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
Ukraine are the defenders fighting for their survival, what's more noteworthy is how much Russia has lost.
Russia has lost more on a futile war it had no reason to start, than it lost in Afghanistan and it is by your logic running out of men.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.
Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.
Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.
In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.
I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
I wasn’t making a comparison in terms of the type of war. Just trying to contextualise the death toll
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
Ukraine is fighting - and Ukrainians dying - because they want to be a modern western nation.
There might come a point when they decide they've had enough, but that's their choice rather than ours. Our choice is whether we help them survive as a nation.
The Bank of England continue to screw over savers with interest rates held at 5.25%.
The substantial falls in broad money of late indicates we are either going to have a sharp fall in inflation, a serious recession or both. As inflation falls savers will see real returns again for the first time since 2008.
Probably the strongest distinction between Vietnam and Ukraine is that, well before the end of the 60s, probably 80% of the S Vietnamese population wanted an end to the war whoever won. In Ukraine, what polling there is suggests a similar proportion want to keep fighting to defeat the Russian invasion.
Also - the North Vietnamese government was a whole lot more popular than their South Vietnamese equivalents.
If America had honoured their promise to hold a Vietnam-wide election under the 1954 Geneva accords, even without vote rigging it's likely Ho Chi Minh's Communists would have won 80% of the vote.
A real tragedy they didn't, because while Ho Chi Minh was a Communist first and foremost he would have been interested in Vietnam. He would have been much more Tito - for good or ill - than Mao, and until the 1950s had no particular animus against the Americans.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
I’ve proved that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has gone up from 30-35 to 43
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
An interesting point about Santos, however likely his eventual felony conviction might seem.
Congressman Jamie Raskin defended his vote against expelling George Santos:
"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
I’ve proved that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has gone up from 30-35 to 43
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.
Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice
Time magazine agrees with the Economist
“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””
This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.
I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going
But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding
So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat
In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame
Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:
I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?
Compliance!
Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.
Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.
Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?
Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2 Israel = 0.022 million km2
Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
The appeal against the decision that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was incompatible with the Equality Act was refused. The court's conclusion, (TLDR) is that a person who has a Gender Recognition Certificate is that assigned gender for all purposes (other than those very specifically and expressly excluded).
The decision is somewhat controversial (eg https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-world-insane/#more-140311) but seems to me a logical application of statutory construction. What makes the matter red hot, however, are 2 other implications of the decision.
Firstly, if the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill becomes law, those who for all practical purposes self certify their status will have the rights afforded by the 2004 Act with all its safeguards. The judicial review of the decision by the UK government to block that bill seems to me to have been greatly undermined by this decision.
Secondly, the decision makes it clear that these rights arise only the granting of a GRC. So sex pests claiming that they identify as women who want to go to a woman's jail have no right to do so in the absence of a certificate. That would be an important and necessary change in Scottish Government policy.
With regards to your secondary point, IIUC the decision does not apply to those without a GRC and so cannot have bearing on it. I have no doubt if another court case was brought for those without a GRC it would find as you imply, (and I'm sure one will manifest in due course given the interest in that area), but until then it's persuasive not conclusive.
I anticipate somebody will post another epically long legal blog entry on this (not you Cyclefree, I'm referring to some of the links which have been posted here, which require a packed lunch and a day off to read), but I think it'll require another court case.
An interesting point about Santos, however likely his eventual felony conviction might seem.
Congressman Jamie Raskin defended his vote against expelling George Santos:
"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
I’ve proved that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has gone up from 30-35 to 43
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
The appeal against the decision that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was incompatible with the Equality Act was refused. The court's conclusion, (TLDR) is that a person who has a Gender Recognition Certificate is that assigned gender for all purposes (other than those very specifically and expressly excluded).
The decision is somewhat controversial (eg https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-world-insane/#more-140311) but seems to me a logical application of statutory construction. What makes the matter red hot, however, are 2 other implications of the decision.
Firstly, if the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill becomes law, those who for all practical purposes self certify their status will have the rights afforded by the 2004 Act with all its safeguards. The judicial review of the decision by the UK government to block that bill seems to me to have been greatly undermined by this decision.
Secondly, the decision makes it clear that these rights arise only the granting of a GRC. So sex pests claiming that they identify as women who want to go to a woman's jail have no right to do so in the absence of a certificate. That would be an important and necessary change in Scottish Government policy.
With regards to your secondary point, IIUC the decision does not apply to those without a GRC and so cannot have bearing on it. I have no doubt if another court case was brought for those without a GRC it would find as you imply, (and I'm sure one will manifest in due course given the interest in that area), but until then it's persuasive not conclusive.
I anticipate somebody will post another epically long legal blog entry on this (not you Cyclefree, I'm referring to some of the links which have been posted here, which require a packed lunch and a day off to read), but I think it'll require another court case.
The question may be whether SG policy "recognising" self identification is compatible with the EA but the clear import of this decision, in my view, is no.
Probably the strongest distinction between Vietnam and Ukraine is that, well before the end of the 60s, probably 80% of the S Vietnamese population wanted an end to the war whoever won. In Ukraine, what polling there is suggests a similar proportion want to keep fighting to defeat the Russian invasion.
Also - the North Vietnamese government was a whole lot more popular than their South Vietnamese equivalents.
If America had honoured their promise to hold a Vietnam-wide election under the 1954 Geneva accords, even without vote rigging it's likely Ho Chi Minh's Communists would have won 80% of the vote.
A real tragedy they didn't, because while Ho Chi Minh was a Communist first and foremost he would have been interested in Vietnam. He would have been much more Tito - for good or ill - than Mao, and until the 1950s had no particular animus against the Americans.
There was an earlier, similar promise at the end of WWII, which the French failed to keep.
Every US President from Truman onwards got it wrong. Most cynical was Nixon (LBJ came close), who escalated what he privately acknowledged to be an unwinnable war, without any real need to do so, even for domestic reasons.
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
I’ve proved that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has gone up from 30-35 to 43
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?
Not lying but definitely obfuscating?
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
If Vietnam is a comparison, a conservative estimate is that the North lost over a million soldiers dead or missing.
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
I wasn’t making a comparison in terms of the type of war. Just trying to contextualise the death toll
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
Ukraine is fighting - and Ukrainians dying - because they want to be a modern western nation.
There might come a point when they decide they've had enough, but that's their choice rather than ours. Our choice is whether we help them survive as a nation.
Indeed and what's more noteworthy is the scale of Russian deaths, already far worse than the disastrous Afghanistan invasion that led to the fall of the Soviet Union - and for what? Ukrainians know why they're fighting and want to fight on, what is Russia fighting for?
And Russian demographics don't offer an infinite supply of 20 year olds either, which is why Russia's fighting age is going up too. Not that Leon cares much about that.
Interesting how the M&S advert is getting all this coverage, then there will be hours dedicated to its offensive, i am offended people get offended etc etc etc.
Where as very specific claims about anti-Isreali and anti-Semitism of the staff at the Guardian....tumbleweed.
I am waiting for the Fortnum & Mason advert.
Booths, Fortnum & Mason is very much style over quality...
Put it this way tonight I will be buying Fudge from the supplier to Fortnum and Masons / Harrods / Selfridges at about 20% of the price those shops sell it at....
Boots are OK, though they have closed their pharmacies in Ilford North (Barkingside), and opposite Parliament.
You from the south, Sunil?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booths for enlightenment - it's been called "the Waitrose of the North" which is a bit weird, as Waitrose is surely the Waitrose of the North.
Never seen a Booths down here!
Do you have Waitrose? It's kinda like the Booths of the South
An interesting point about Santos, however likely his eventual felony conviction might seem.
Congressman Jamie Raskin defended his vote against expelling George Santos:
"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...
Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.
The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.
What does the last sentence of that post mean?
Zelensky's resignation.
The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:
At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.
The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43
Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men
Didn't they conscript every able bodied man between 18 and 65?
So why wouldn't the average age be middle aged?
They didn't only conscript 18-25 year olds.
This is quite an exceptionally stupid remark, even by your own standards
Perhaps you can show me the error of my ways?
The median age in Ukraine is 44.7, they said all able bodied adults should join the military and could be conscripted to defend the nation, they banned anyone male 18-65 from leaving the country as they should be in the military instead.
Now the average age is 43. Below the median age of 44.7.
So the average is close to the average, and you find that shocking? Why?
Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you
Go on, explain it to me.
They conscripted all men, not just young men, now the average age is comparable to the average age, not just young age. What am I missing that you see here?
Had they only conscripted young men, it'd be shocking, but they didn't.
Ok. There’s a reason armies vastly prefer to recruit young men
1. They are stronger and faster 2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home 3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc 4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys 5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality 6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
???? Whereas all your bullet points are accurate, so what. If @BartholomewRoberts is correct and they conscripted 18 - 65 year olds and not just youngsters then he is correct isn't he? You might have arguments with Ukraine's recruitment policy, but not with @BartholomewRoberts maths and he seems to have nullified your point so your insults were unnecessary and you haven't shown he is incorrect.
“As the Ukrainians fight to hold back an invigorated Russian push, their casualty rates are unprecedented. The profile of injured soldiers has altered too. With many of the original Ukrainian regular units shattered by casualty levels, which Nato officers believe far exceed 100,000 killed and wounded, an older generation of newly mobilised personnel — men in their thirties, forties and fifties — are replacing Ukrainian regular units in some of the worst areas of the fighting.“
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
Honestly this is frustrating. All what you post might be correct, but you repeatedly haven't dealt with @BartholomewRoberts point which is entirely logical. You just ignore it each time and insult him.
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
I’ve proved that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has gone up from 30-35 to 43
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
Comments
An Inquiry cannot be serious if they don't quiz such people.
If I'm wrong please get in touch
https://x.com/Dominic2306/status/1720041540834202005?s=20
Demographics is what makes this war so bizarre. Russia clearly doesn't need more land for a growing population. But it does probably like the idea of more people. The trouble is Donbas demographics are every bit as bad and ageing as elsewhere in the region, if not (now, following internal displacement) more so.
Otherwise any military could make themselves immune to reprisal by the use of human shields, build your munition factories under hospitals. Of course the GC isn't stupid and prevents that, and if you use a hospital as a munition factory then the hospital loses its protected status as a result.
1. They are stronger and faster
2. They are more expendable: they won’t have crucial jobs at home
3. They often won’t have dependents - kids etc
4. They are more obedient than grouchy older guys
5. They are often braver - they don’t believe in mortality
6. They are more aggressive - higher testosterone
When a warring country runs out of young men - for all these reasons - it will reluctantly send older men. Men with families and kids. Men with proper jobs. Men who will be really missed - but they have no choice
That the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is now 43 is not some statistical sideshow, it is a really bad sign. It means Ukraine has literally run out of ideal troops - young men - and is forced to recruit less ideal troops - older men. They’ve run out of men
Iron Dome is too cheap and works too well, for the US to promote it.
Missile defence is a big earner for the usual suspects
Big government procurement in the US works on the basis of handing out contracts to the usual suspects in a sequence.
There was a hilarious one a few years back, when the wrong weapon won a testing competition for next-gen smart bombs. Even worse than being too cheap and reliable, it also offered a capability against moving targets. Which was supposed to be another program.
I was told that certain decisions were taken in defiance of written instructions. And that the people responsible were upset that ministers weren’t going to take responsibility for the insubordination….
You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.
Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.
They haven’t yet encountered the adamantine fixedness of the Barty moral compass.
Eg Germany has just - or will v shortly - overtake Japan as the world’s third largest economy
This is not because Germany is doing so well (it isn’t) it’s because Japan has been so stagnant so long - partly due to those demographics (also temporary currency moves)
https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/germany-set-to-overtake-japan-as-3rd-largest-economy/104685486
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/us-army-sending-iron-dome-batteries-back-to-israel/?amp=1
I believe they were originally sent for evaluation ?
They probably wanted them retained as a contingency reserve.
Disputed facts x Disputed laws x Disputed interpretations x Changing norms = a lot of mortgages paid off and expensive cars bought.
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or
areas immune from military operations. ~ Geneva Convention (IV), Article 28
If you want an Academic Reference rather than Wiki, then try this one: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/conduct-of-hostilities-under-the-law-of-international-armed-conflict/protection-from-attack-of-civilians-and-civilian-objects/9C4AA842BD4CCE5DA055E08ED0ADF9D2#
Chapter 5, Subsection VII. Cessation of protection and ‘human shields’
Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the Proto-
col on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian
casualties ensue from an illegal attempt to shield combatants or a military
objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent State placing
innocent civilians at risk. 122 A belligerent State is not vested by LOIAC
with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combat-
ants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm’s
way. 123
Mind bleach time...
Unless you can show the average age of a Ukrainian soldier was 24 six months ago, the fact its 43 now is just representative of the fact they recruited everyone, and not just the young.
eg My ceaseless travel really does give me insights denied to people who stay in Hampstead with the odd visit to Richmond
Ukraine is a very good example. In Lviv I saw lots of young men with injuries walking the streets. I saw lots of young women in groups with no men. The men were all fighting or they were back home on crutches
So I crunched the maths
Also, I spoke to a lot of people. Every young person knew someone dead or injured in the fighting
Again I did the maths. It wasn’t very scientific but it gave me a good and probably correct impression that Ukraine was running out of soldiers. Simple as that
But you had to go to Ukraine to see that. With your own eyes
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12701587/Toe-curling-footage-shows-nuclear-Matt-Hancock-playing-cricket-Department-Health-office-just-months-aped-hitting-boundaries-telling-civil-servants-fine-Covid.html
But still, the average of 43 is rather fitting with 18-60 being mobilised, and not contradictory to it, given Ukraine's demographic pyramid.
Further, you'd expect the average age of current soldiers to be slightly higher than at conscription, because younger soldiers are the ones dying, I assume. Otoh, I would imagine the original Ukrainian infantry (which has now been largely wiped out, apparently) to be a bit older than the current front line troops, if all was going well.
The average age of the UK army is 31 apparently. The infantry must be younger than that?
I’m right. Again
This is why we have the Law of Leon
Times:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-60216439
Also, I think I saw images of a pro-Palestinian rally congregated outside M&S in Glasgow this week.
Tatarigami_UA
@Tatarigami_UA
After extensive research and analysis of North Korean deliveries to Russia using various sources and calculations, we estimate that Russia has received around 2,000 cargo containers containing over half a million artillery shells. The article link is at the end of this 🧵thread:
https://twitter.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1719379856427761688
It was very annoying and utterly counterproductive, as most people just told them to shut up/fuck off.
No idea what they were actually protesting about - sales of Jerusalem artichokes?
Egypt = 1.002 million km2
Israel = 0.022 million km2
Now it is 43
FT:
“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”
Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade
Let’s move on
And the sea border was open prior to Hamas taking over.
When are you going to call on Egypt to end their "occupation" of Gaza? Or is it only Israel?
Intriguing that the Man from Barnard Castle and Bozo were pondering getting rid of Hancock, not for being crap, but for dishonesty.....
I've seen embedded damage like that from tornadoes before (in person) and you do wonder how more people don't get killed. Fortunately this one was at about midnight and the weather was already terrible so presumably there weren't many people outside. Lots of cars written off by tile damage and it appears several houses have lost their roof entirely.
The 2 inch hail associated with the same (supercell) storm was just an added extra.
There are also reports of tornadoes in Bridport and Lancing although the damage was less extreme.
They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.
So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.
ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough
But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war
Israel = 22,700 sq. km
I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel
America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_bE-oVdztA
If only they had a David Brent in the DoH.
Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants
in their 40s and 50s
And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB
All your posts make sense. I have no argument with them, but none of them address the point he raises. You just ignore it and call him stupid.
If his facts are correct then his conclusion is the logical result.
You need to show his facts are inaccurate or there is something else in play that impacts his logical deduction.
Repeatedly ignoring his logical observation and calling him stupid doesn't cut it.
It's not a stalemate. Very slow on ground, but this is a "multi-domain operation".
https://www.kyivpost.com/videos/23466
I suppose that the alternative strategy for Israel would have been a military invasion of Gaza, surround the camp and then go through the tunnels one by one. Wouldn't be remotely pretty.
Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.
You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.
Nobody wants Hamas. Except the Social Worker Party apparently.
Tho if you want a comparison the US Civil War is terrible. It was 160 years ago and it was a civil war - they are notoriously bloody, generally worse than wars of conquest
It’s actually quite hard to find a war since 1945 which is anything like Ukraine. Two fairly advanced militaries in a modern war of invasion, with one much bigger combatant literally trying to destroy the
other
Sui generis
It's behind the paywall, but of the named Russian deaths, the average age has risen from 21 last year to 34 this year.
Russia is likewise, recruiting older men. What I would expect is those on the frontline will tend to be younger than the average.
You asked why it was bad that Ukrainian soldiers have an average age of 43. I explained why
You then said Well, whatever, show me evidence Ukrainian soldiers are getting older
I gave you that evidence, sourced from the Times and the FT
You now just crepitate the same points, in different ways. Enough
US casualties in Ukraine are a handful of volunteers.
Not quite sure what Leon's point is ?
Especially since Ukraine being in an existential war for survival can mobilise everyone, Russia is not in one and can not.
It’s been a long time since a modern European/western
nation lost tens of thousands in a war. Actually probably the last was Russia/USSR in Afghanistan?
The Soviets lost 100,000 men there. And it traumatised the nation and led to the fall of communism. Ukraine has now lost ~200,000
The appeal against the decision that the 2004 Gender Recognition Act was incompatible with the Equality Act was refused. The court's conclusion, (TLDR) is that a person who has a Gender Recognition Certificate is that assigned gender for all purposes (other than those very specifically and expressly excluded).
The decision is somewhat controversial (eg https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-world-insane/#more-140311) but seems to me a logical application of statutory construction. What makes the matter red hot, however, are 2 other implications of the decision.
Firstly, if the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill becomes law, those who for all practical purposes self certify their status will have the rights afforded by the 2004 Act with all its safeguards. The judicial review of the decision by the UK government to block that bill seems to me to have been greatly undermined by this decision.
Secondly, the decision makes it clear that these rights arise only the granting of a GRC. So sex pests claiming that they identify as women who want to go to a woman's jail have no right to do so in the absence of a certificate. That would be an important and necessary change in Scottish Government policy.
In Ukraine, what polling there is suggests a similar proportion want to keep fighting to defeat the Russian invasion.
Russia has lost more on a futile war it had no reason to start, than it lost in Afghanistan and it is by your logic running out of men.
https://genevasolutions.news/peace-humanitarian/ukraine-is-targeting-hospitals-always-a-war-crime
I put up a TLDR version about this:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4585609#Comment_4585609
There might come a point when they decide they've had enough, but that's their choice rather than ours. Our choice is whether we help them survive as a nation.
If America had honoured their promise to hold a Vietnam-wide election under the 1954 Geneva accords, even without vote rigging it's likely Ho Chi Minh's Communists would have won 80% of the vote.
A real tragedy they didn't, because while Ho Chi Minh was a Communist first and foremost he would have been interested in Vietnam. He would have been much more Tito - for good or ill - than Mao, and until the 1950s had no particular animus against the Americans.
And why is this?
“Ukrainian soldiers are worried about running out of combat-capable recruits: report
One infantryman from the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade told the outlet that while he's not afraid of dying himself, he's shocked by the amount of friends he's already lost.
"I just want to go home, I'm so tired," the 41-year-old soldier, identified only as Anatoly, told the outlet. "When will this fucking war end? How many more friends killed do I need?"“
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-soldiers-fear-running-out-of-combat-ready-recruits-report-2023-10?amp
At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand basic inference
Congressman Jamie Raskin defended his vote against expelling George Santos:
"I’m a Constitution guy. The House has expelled five people in our history, three for joining the Confederacy as traitors to the Union and two after they were convicted of criminal offenses. Santos has not been criminally convicted yet of the offenses cited in the Resolution nor has he been found guilty of ethics offenses in the House internal process. This would be a terrible precedent to set, expelling people who have not been convicted of a crime and without internal due process...
It’s a very risky road to go down and we have to stick by due process and the rule of law, as obvious as the eventual result seems."
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1719901475076182023
Tomorrows - must be back to the world shall end before Christmas because.....
And I’d call him many things good and bad but never “lad”
Why oh why oh why are remoaners stopping the government from creating the British storms we need to secure our borders?
I anticipate somebody will post another epically long legal blog entry on this (not you Cyclefree, I'm referring to some of the links which have been posted here, which require a packed lunch and a day off to read), but I think it'll require another court case.
Every US President from Truman onwards got it wrong.
Most cynical was Nixon (LBJ came close), who escalated what he privately acknowledged to be an unwinnable war, without any real need to do so, even for domestic reasons.
And Russian demographics don't offer an infinite supply of 20 year olds either, which is why Russia's fighting age is going up too. Not that Leon cares much about that.
Conscripts like all soldiers are entitled to moan, and to want the war to end.
But Ukrainians want it to end with Russia's defeat and Ukraine independent, free and western.
We should support them in that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)