Hey lads, this cnut might be your leader in a couple of years.
Who are these “lads” to which you refer? I think we’ve established there is only one PB Tory left: @HYUFD
And I’d call him many things good and bad but never “lad”
You’ll be back in the fold before you can say Starmy has revealed himself to be remoaner scum. I’m unconvinced that LOTO Farage would be any obstacle to this.
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
Russia is over 300,000 and that is just dead, so 3 x Afghanistan. Also your numbers for Ukraine are speculative, most reckon around 100K mark rather than your 200K. Russians have fe tanks left , they are down to anvient artillery , chased out of Black sea, not exactly faring very well.
With reference to UKR and RUS death counts, they are always approximate and frequently exaggerated (in Vietnam they were fictional by the end). However I must applaud everybody who came up with *average age of recruits* as a proxy. It's ingenious, *but* you'd have to track the change over time, not the absolute value, plus - again - can you trust the data? The Russians tell you the average is X. They may just be fibbing... 😃
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?"“
At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand inference
Todays insightful analysis - conscripts dont enjoy war.
Tomorrows - must be back to the world shall end before Christmas because.....
Do you think the war is going “well” for Ukraine? Such that this conscript is just a whiner?
In one sense, Ukraine has already won. The original aim of the Russians was to occupy Kyiv in under a week, annex if not the whole of Ukraine certainly the eastern two thirds, and have anything that was left under a puppet government loyal to Moscow a la Belarus.
This would have provided Russia with access to Ukraine's food, mineral and demographic resources (people) which they badly needed to improve their own decaying economy and society while strengthening the FSB's grip over the government.
Instead, the Russians have an unstable occupation of the eastern 25%, they've crushed their own economy, wrecked their own army, killed hundreds of thousands of the Ukrainians and Russians who were meant to resolve the demographic decay and left their government looking like a bunch of drug addled retards who couldn't run a pissup in a brewery (which of course they are).
The problem is a win on those terms is still an awful result for Ukraine and also it leaves a large chunk of their mineral wealth and strategic autonomy in Russia's hands.
Yep, their batsmen are very good too but it is the bowlers who are going to win the WC for them. You just never get a break, every bowler applies a whole range of challenges.
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.
The clowns are going to lose, this ruling just puts the final nail in the coffin of their misguided and stupid suicidal action on the topic.
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...
Its a very basic and standard point surely? I would have voted not to expel at this stage.
Indeed. But it's notable that it's a Democrat making the point forcibly. Republicans have largely been arguing they can't risk losing a vote in the finely balanced Housez
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
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.
The clowns are going to lose, this ruling just puts the final nail in the coffin of their misguided and stupid suicidal action on the topic.
I hope you are right Malcolm. If I was acting for the UK government in that case I would be asking for supplementary submissions on the back of this decision.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
I accept its a bad sign for Russia who are not mobilising the entire country and can't.
I don't accept its a bad sign for Ukraine, since they have mobilised the entire country.
Russia can't sustain the horror longer since they're fighting abroad. Emptying your country to go into another country is completely different to fighting for your own survival, which is why defending nations and civil wars can continue fighting for longer with higher casualty rates, because when you're fighting for your very survival you keep fighting. Ukraine can do that, Russia can't.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
I accept its a bad sign for Russia who are not mobilising the entire country and can't.
I don't accept its a bad sign for Ukraine, since they have mobilised the entire country.
Russia can't sustain the horror longer since they're fighting abroad. Emptying your country to go into another country is completely different to fighting for your own survival, which is why defending nations and civil wars can continue fighting for longer with higher casualty rates, because when you're fighting for your very survival you keep fighting. Ukraine can do that, Russia can't.
When the average age of Ukrainian soldiers hits 76 you’ll be claiming it’s good for Ukraine because their soldiers will “be more mobile in their wheelchairs”
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...
Its a very basic and standard point surely? I would have voted not to expel at this stage.
Indeed. But it's notable that it's a Democrat making the point forcibly. Republicans have largely been arguing they can't risk losing a vote in the finely balanced Housez
There was an interesting throw away line in Oppenheimer when they noted that one of those had voted against Strauss on committee was some guy called Kennedy from Massachusetts "trying to make a name for himself".
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
I accept its a bad sign for Russia who are not mobilising the entire country and can't.
I don't accept its a bad sign for Ukraine, since they have mobilised the entire country.
Russia can't sustain the horror longer since they're fighting abroad. Emptying your country to go into another country is completely different to fighting for your own survival, which is why defending nations and civil wars can continue fighting for longer with higher casualty rates, because when you're fighting for your very survival you keep fighting. Ukraine can do that, Russia can't.
When the average age of Ukrainian soldiers hits 76 you’ll be claiming it’s good for Ukraine because their soldiers will “be more mobile in their wheelchairs”
43 != 76
I'm in my early 40s and there's absolutely no reason if the UK were in an existential war for survival that I should not be doing my part and fighting. I might not be as young as I was, but I am still fit and able as are others my age.
Russia can not keep fighting as long as Ukraine can, as Russia's survival is not at stake. Russia needs people at home, not all at the front.
Ukraine may not have won this war, yet, but Russia is losing it.
Incidentally, Russia is still busily stirring the pot as hard as possible in Europe & probably here too:
French radio Europe 1 says a couple from Moldavia, who have been arrested and were behind the painting of around 60 David Stars on buildings in #Paris were guided by an "individual in #Russia".
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
Oh I've been to plenty of Waitroses!
I was in Newcastle just three weeks back, but didn't see any Booths.
Arse. I just wrote an interesting and informative post on Ukraine which I lost because I'm at lunch and on the tablet. You will have to wait a few minutes for my great wisdom on the subject. Please restrain yourself in anticipation, I will return amongst you shortly.
Incidentally, Russia is still busily stirring the pot as hard as possible in Europe & probably here too:
French radio Europe 1 says a couple from Moldavia, who have been arrested and were behind the painting of around 60 David Stars on buildings in #Paris were guided by an "individual in #Russia".
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
Any young person who could has left Russia. They are only getting peasants etc from teh middle of nowhere. They are in trouble for sure.
Incidentally, Russia is still busily stirring the pot as hard as possible in Europe & probably here too:
French radio Europe 1 says a couple from Moldavia, who have been arrested and were behind the painting of around 60 David Stars on buildings in #Paris were guided by an "individual in #Russia". https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1720068590685094103
Let me guess they were tourists on their way to visit a little known French town....
They took a wrong turn so were in Unchartres territory?
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
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
Oh I've been to plenty of Waitroses!
I was in Newcastle just three weeks back, but didn't see any Booths.
That's cos there aren't any. They are very much a posh North Lancashire and North Yorkshire outfit.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
Any young person who could has left Russia. They are only getting peasants etc from teh middle of nowhere. They are in trouble for sure.
The Russian brain drain over the past 20 months has been profound. The loss of the entrepreneur class will become ever more of a cost of this war.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Wishful thinking? Russia is also getting drones. Why should Ukraine’s be so much better?
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Wishful thinking? Russia is also getting drones. Why should Ukraine’s be so much better?
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
Because Ukraine is smarter, better equipped and less sanctioned than Russia.
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?"“
At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand basic inference
There is only one person being exceedingly dim here and it is you.
I have accepted all the facts you have produced including the one above. I have repeated this, but you seem incapable of understanding that.
Now go back and respond to the initial point which you repeatedly avoided that was raised by @BartholomewRoberts and show where his point (now made in the mists of time) was flawed.
One can only draw one of two conclusions from your repeated avoidance of dealing with his very specific point:
a) You are too stupid, which I don't believe
b) You don't have an answer
I suspect it is b). A more honest answer from you to @BartholomewRoberts would have acknowledged his point was logically correct rather than insulting him and discussing what else may have been in play to explain it.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Wishful thinking? Russia is also getting drones. Why should Ukraine’s be so much better?
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
Azerbaijan's conquest and subsequent ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh suggests rather the opposite.
If they do go on to invade Armenia itself as they are threatening to we may get further confirmation of that.
Incidentally, Russia is still busily stirring the pot as hard as possible in Europe & probably here too:
French radio Europe 1 says a couple from Moldavia, who have been arrested and were behind the painting of around 60 David Stars on buildings in #Paris were guided by an "individual in #Russia". https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1720068590685094103
Let me guess they were tourists on their way to visit a little known French town....
They took a wrong turn so were in Unchartres territory?
...before French security decided to Rouen their little game.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Russia is getting drones too. After all, most if the novel kit on both sides is just assembled around Chinese components.
Admittedly Ukraine is almost certainly better at integrating all this stuff into the battlefield - but their own army has voiced concerns about Russia's developing capabilities.
Incidentally, Russia is still busily stirring the pot as hard as possible in Europe & probably here too:
French radio Europe 1 says a couple from Moldavia, who have been arrested and were behind the painting of around 60 David Stars on buildings in #Paris were guided by an "individual in #Russia". https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1720068590685094103
Let me guess they were tourists on their way to visit a little known French town....
They took a wrong turn so were in Unchartres territory?
...before French security decided to Rouen their little game.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Wishful thinking? Russia is also getting drones. Why should Ukraine’s be so much better?
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
Azerbaijan's conquest and subsequent ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh suggests rather the opposite.
If they do go on to invade Armenia itself as they are threatening to we may get further confirmation of that.
Korea and Ukraine couldn't be more different. The latter has a border which is both pretty flat terrain, and ten times the length of that on the peninsula. Until you've been to Korea you don't fully appreciate how difficult and mechanised manoeuvre would be against modern defences. There are just too many hills.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
At any given moment in Ukraine there are about 10,000 drones in theatre (source: The Chieftain). The drone army has already arrived.
As for "lines on a map", they aren't irrelevant they are the war. It's a war of occupation. Everything else is just displacement activity. It really doesn't matter if they field Armatas, Toyotas, Daleks or drones from Star Wars ("roger roger"). What does matter is evicting them. Droneische wonderwaffe do not count.
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.
Right. So now you accept the fighting age of the soldiers is indeed going up? And now you accept that this is, indeed, a bad sign?
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
The Panmunjom settlement has lasted seven decades. A Russian pause wouldn't last more than a few years - as Crimea demonstrated.
I dunno. Polls show young Russians think this war is a disaster - increasingly so. Most Russians want peace where the front lines are now
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
If there is a pause in the fighting, and we arm Ukraine, chances are that Ukraine will start the next round, and retake the occupied territory - as Croatia did against the Serb occupation in the 90s.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
Wishful thinking? Russia is also getting drones. Why should Ukraine’s be so much better?
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
Weapons provided by the West are not allowed to cross the border into Russia. Ukraine has been fighting this war with one arm tied behind its back.
Once the missiles currently being developed by Ukraine come on line, then Ukraine is on equal terms - and Russia is going to find the battlefield has materially balanced up. Let's see how Russia copes with its power supplies being taken out. Or the heart of the Kremlin being hit with tonnes of high explosive. Because there is no Russian "Iron Dome" that has been shown to work.
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?"“
At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand inference
Todays insightful analysis - conscripts dont enjoy war.
Tomorrows - must be back to the world shall end before Christmas because.....
Do you think the war is going “well” for Ukraine? Such that this conscript is just a whiner?
In one sense, Ukraine has already won. The original aim of the Russians was to occupy Kyiv in under a week, annex if not the whole of Ukraine certainly the eastern two thirds, and have anything that was left under a puppet government loyal to Moscow a la Belarus.
This would have provided Russia with access to Ukraine's food, mineral and demographic resources (people) which they badly needed to improve their own decaying economy and society while strengthening the FSB's grip over the government.
Instead, the Russians have an unstable occupation of the eastern 25%, they've crushed their own economy, wrecked their own army, killed hundreds of thousands of the Ukrainians and Russians who were meant to resolve the demographic decay and left their government looking like a bunch of drug addled retards who couldn't run a pissup in a brewery (which of course they are).
The problem is a win on those terms is still an awful result for Ukraine and also it leaves a large chunk of their mineral wealth and strategic autonomy in Russia's hands.
Simply having more people than your enemy does not assure victory, if your enemy is trying to defend a limited area of territory, and has no interest in attacking your territory. Simply inflicting heavier casualties on your enemy does not assure victory, if your enemy has a greater will to resist.
Russia has a much bigger army than Ukraine, 1.3m to 500,000, but can't deploy even the majority in Ukraine, without leaving much of the rest of the country defenceless. Most of its Black Sea fleet is now at the bottom of the sea. It's cannibalising equipment from the 1960's, and purchasing junk from North Korea, because it's used up so much of the good stuff.
As you say, this is an awful outcome for Ukraine, but it's a worse one for Russia.
Off topic, but cheering: The Texas Rangers won the World Series last night, for the first time in their long history.
There is a small political point in their history. "In April 1989, [George W.] Bush arranged for a group of investors to purchase a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise for $89 million and invested $500,000 himself to start. He then was managing general partner for five years.[49] He actively led the team's projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans.[50] Bush's sale of his shares in the Rangers in 1998 brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
He didn't just sit with the fans, he asked them what the team could do to improve their experiences.
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?"“
At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand basic inference
There is only one person being exceedingly dim here and it is you.
I have accepted all the facts you have produced including the one above. I have repeated this, but you seem incapable of understanding that.
Now go back and respond to the initial point which you repeatedly avoided that was raised by @BartholomewRoberts and show where his point (now made in the mists of time) was flawed.
One can only draw one of two conclusions from your repeated avoidance of dealing with his very specific point:
a) You are too stupid, which I don't believe
b) You don't have an answer
I suspect it is b). A more honest answer from you to @BartholomewRoberts would have acknowledged his point was logically correct rather than insulting him and discussing what else may have been in play to explain it.
I refuse to spend three more minutes on this fatuous argument. So, in 2 minutes
He claimed that this would only matter if Ukrainian soldiers are getting older, on average. I proved that Ukrainian soldiers are getting older, on average
He hasn’t disputed this. The argument is over - thank the Lord
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
Oh I've been to plenty of Waitroses!
I was in Newcastle just three weeks back, but didn't see any Booths.
North West chain - the one nearest to Newcastle is in Ripon so not exactly that close.
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.
I still don't know why they don't bomb the much-vaunted ventilation systems for the tunnels. To avoid civilian casualties was the reason some PBers gave when we discussed it, but that doesn't seem to be too much of a dealbreaker given recent bombings.
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.
Comments
Russians have fe tanks left , they are down to anvient artillery , chased out of Black sea, not exactly faring very well.
This would have provided Russia with access to Ukraine's food, mineral and demographic resources (people) which they badly needed to improve their own decaying economy and society while strengthening the FSB's grip over the government.
Instead, the Russians have an unstable occupation of the eastern 25%, they've crushed their own economy, wrecked their own army, killed hundreds of thousands of the Ukrainians and Russians who were meant to resolve the demographic decay and left their government looking like a bunch of drug addled retards who couldn't run a pissup in a brewery (which of course they are).
The problem is a win on those terms is still an awful result for Ukraine and also it leaves a large chunk of their mineral wealth and strategic autonomy in Russia's hands.
But it's notable that it's a Democrat making the point forcibly. Republicans have largely been arguing they can't risk losing a vote in the finely balanced Housez
In which case, WTF are we arguing about? That was my point in the first place
And yes, the fact Russia is also “recruiting” older soldiers is a bad signal for them, as well. It’s just that they do have 4x the population, so they can sustain the horror longer. But not forever
Which all circles back to my original claim. This is a horrific war which neither side is winning, and which - probably - neither side CAN win (not without nukes or the like)
Which means an exhausted, unsatisfying, Korea style armistice is a sad but likely endpoint
Apparently snares, for the catching of stoats, weasels, etc., are now termed "humane cable restraints" by the land managing community.
I don't accept its a bad sign for Ukraine, since they have mobilised the entire country.
Russia can't sustain the horror longer since they're fighting abroad. Emptying your country to go into another country is completely different to fighting for your own survival, which is why defending nations and civil wars can continue fighting for longer with higher casualty rates, because when you're fighting for your very survival you keep fighting. Ukraine can do that, Russia can't.
That should go well
Raskin might just have done the same.
The nation is war weary. Emptied of blood and treasure
I can’t see Putin repeating this - and he’s now an old man. I’m more optimistic that if there is an armistice it will stick
Of course we will have to re-arm Ukraine and make it a truly fearsome opponent to prevent any Russian leader having another go. Maybe rUkraine will join NATO, putting it under nuclear protection?
I'm in my early 40s and there's absolutely no reason if the UK were in an existential war for survival that I should not be doing my part and fighting. I might not be as young as I was, but I am still fit and able as are others my age.
Russia can not keep fighting as long as Ukraine can, as Russia's survival is not at stake. Russia needs people at home, not all at the front.
Ukraine may not have won this war, yet, but Russia is losing it.
I was in Newcastle just three weeks back, but didn't see any Booths.
Let me guess they were tourists on their way to visit a little known French town....
https://www.newsweek.com/majority-russians-want-end-ukraine-war-poll-levada-1839830
And the snares almost effaced themselves—
Zeros, shutting on nothing,
Set close, like birth pangs.
The absence of shrieks
Made a hole in the hot day, a vacancy.
The glassy light was a clear wall,
The thickets quiet.
But I still think you're paying too much attention to lines on maps and you're missing Ukrainian drone developments. My best guess is that Ukraine will win this war with its drone army.
IDF soldiers will ‘in no circumstances’ enter Hamas tunnels, says ex-military chief
“The wisdom is to find the entrance and seal them, or send in smoke that will cause the enemy to come out and will harm them.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/02/israel-defense-forces-gaza-tunnels-death-trap-general-yair/
What this war has taught us is that offensive military action is much harder than it used to be. Big lumps of hardware - tanks, APCs, ships - are vulnerable to cheap drones and hand held missiles
And the mass production of mines and new ways of laying them - in the trillion, and using drones again - make defending easier
I have accepted all the facts you have produced including the one above. I have repeated this, but you seem incapable of understanding that.
Now go back and respond to the initial point which you repeatedly avoided that was raised by @BartholomewRoberts and show where his point (now made in the mists of time) was flawed.
One can only draw one of two conclusions from your repeated avoidance of dealing with his very specific point:
a) You are too stupid, which I don't believe
b) You don't have an answer
I suspect it is b). A more honest answer from you to @BartholomewRoberts would have acknowledged his point was logically correct rather than insulting him and discussing what else may have been in play to explain it.
If they do go on to invade Armenia itself as they are threatening to we may get further confirmation of that.
After all, most if the novel kit on both sides is just assembled around Chinese components.
Admittedly Ukraine is almost certainly better at integrating all this stuff into the battlefield - but their own army has voiced concerns about Russia's developing capabilities.
NEW THREAD
Should we expect Trump2028 if he wins next year?
The latter has a border which is both pretty flat terrain, and ten times the length of that on the peninsula.
Until you've been to Korea you don't fully appreciate how difficult and mechanised manoeuvre would be against modern defences. There are just too many hills.
As for "lines on a map", they aren't irrelevant they are the war. It's a war of occupation. Everything else is just displacement activity. It really doesn't matter if they field Armatas, Toyotas, Daleks or drones from Star Wars ("roger roger"). What does matter is evicting them. Droneische wonderwaffe do not count.
Once the missiles currently being developed by Ukraine come on line, then Ukraine is on equal terms - and Russia is going to find the battlefield has materially balanced up. Let's see how Russia copes with its power supplies being taken out. Or the heart of the Kremlin being hit with tonnes of high explosive. Because there is no Russian "Iron Dome" that has been shown to work.
Russia has a much bigger army than Ukraine, 1.3m to 500,000, but can't deploy even the majority in Ukraine, without leaving much of the rest of the country defenceless. Most of its Black Sea fleet is now at the bottom of the sea. It's cannibalising equipment from the 1960's, and purchasing junk from North Korea, because it's used up so much of the good stuff.
As you say, this is an awful outcome for Ukraine, but it's a worse one for Russia.
There is a small political point in their history. "In April 1989, [George W.] Bush arranged for a group of investors to purchase a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise for $89 million and invested $500,000 himself to start. He then was managing general partner for five years.[49] He actively led the team's projects and regularly attended its games, often choosing to sit in the open stands with fans.[50] Bush's sale of his shares in the Rangers in 1998 brought him over $15 million from his initial $800,000 investment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
He didn't just sit with the fans, he asked them what the team could do to improve their experiences.
I refuse to spend three more minutes on this fatuous argument. So, in 2 minutes
I showed @BartholomewRoberts why young soldiers are better
He claimed that this would only matter if Ukrainian soldiers are getting older, on average. I proved that Ukrainian soldiers are getting older, on average
He hasn’t disputed this. The argument is over - thank the Lord