Sir Keir Starmer: Malleus Scotnatorum? – politicalbetting.com

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.

Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.

Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".

Here you go, with links to the relevant Geneva Convention Protocols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)#Legal_doctrine

The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.

Dura_Ace said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.

Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.

Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.

Killing non-combatants, that is those not actively participating in hostilities, is a GC violation. Human shields are not active participants.

Eabhal said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."

Odd, that.

Ditto in Gaza, the way it's looking.

Really? Have you seen how eastern Ukraine has been depopulated by the Russians, through deliberate policy (not the least by. recruiting all the men below 103 years old?)

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/ukraine-filtration-camps-forcibly-remove-russia/index.html

I can see why people (particularly on the left) get irate about the status of Palestinians. I fail to see why the same people are oddly pro-Russian in their sh*tty conflict.

I'm not sure the intersection of the Venn diagram is that large. I'm at least as irate about the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the Israeli invasion of Gaza. In an ideal world, Putin and Netanyahu would both end up at the Hague alongside the leaders of Hamas.

I'm confused, Kinabalu reckons there's an ongoing occupation of Gaza, you reckon Netanyahu is invading Gaza.

Yours at least makes sense, since they weren't in Gaza and are going in now, but since Hamas declared war and attacked them and they're only defending themselves by going back after Hamas (which is entirely legal) why would anyone from Israel end up at the Hague?

Destroying Hamas is an entirely legitimate war goal.

If Hamas use human shields, then the Geneva Convention says that Hamas are committing the war crime there and Israel are entitled to kill human shields to get to Hamas.

I'm pretty sure the Geneva convention doesn't say that anyone has the right to kill human shields.

Then you're wrong.

Perhaps you could quote the bit that says that belligerents have the right to kill human shields.

Barty seems to be suggesting that the appropriate response to Hamas using human shields is to... kill them?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

I'm sitting in our study, listening to music on random as I work. Mrs J is sitting opposite me, doing proper work.

A Coldplay song starts and I shout out "Not F***ing Coldplay!" as I open the media player to skip the track.

Mrs J's boss, who she is talking to on a conference call, says: "I know how you feel..."

This illustrates a problem with WFH. You can't tell who overhears supposedly confidential meetings.

Anabobazina said:

The "Is Leon Always Right?" 'debate' is right up there with "Guess Boris' Weight" in terms of thrills.

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

The "Is Leon Always Right?" 'debate' is right up there with "Guess Boris' Weight" in terms of thrills.

So you dont fancy wagering some cold hard cash on it?

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."

Odd, that.

Odd too that Israel blocked America from supplying Iron Dome anti-missile systems to Ukraine. War makes strange bedfellows.

I don't think that's really relevant to my comment. But as I said before when you raise that; given their expenditure rate of Iron Dome, I bet Israel are glad they didn't give permission...

America was not proposing to move kit protecting Israel. The point is that Israel was studiedly neutral in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That is ironic, especially if you see an equivalence between these two wars.

Yes, and I criticised Israel's stance even before the recent tragic events. But Israel now needs those two batteries that the US wanted to give to Ukraine.

An interesting question is why the US never used those batteries anywhere.

DougSeal said:

noneoftheabove said:

Anabobazina said:

The "Is Leon Always Right?" 'debate' is right up there with "Guess Boris' Weight" in terms of thrills.

So you dont fancy wagering some cold hard cash on it?

No but I'll always volunteer some warm soft cash.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Bank of England continue to screw over savers with interest rates held at 5.25%.

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?

Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.

Oh...
February 27, 2022 Leon said:
Nuclear war it is, then
I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?

You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?

30 second search pal, not hard.

No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022

Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove

It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.

The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.

But I do. And it really annoys you

Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

There are remarkably fewer people in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine since 2014, due to the truly murderous and genocidal policies of a Russian government that many of the people protesting over Israel tacitly support when they say the likes of "Let Russia have it cuz peace."

Odd, that.

Odd too that Israel blocked America from supplying Iron Dome anti-missile systems to Ukraine. War makes strange bedfellows.

I don't think that's really relevant to my comment. But as I said before when you raise that; given their expenditure rate of Iron Dome, I bet Israel are glad they didn't give permission...

America was not proposing to move kit protecting Israel. The point is that Israel was studiedly neutral in the Russia/Ukraine conflict. That is ironic, especially if you see an equivalence between these two wars.

Yes, and I criticised Israel's stance even before the recent tragic events. But Israel now needs those two batteries that the US wanted to give to Ukraine.

An interesting question is why the US never used those batteries anywhere.

The Israelis are worried about technology leakage.

Iron Dome is too cheap and works too well, for the US to promote it.

Missile defence is a big earner for the usual suspects

Big government procurement in the US works on the basis of handing out contracts to the usual suspects in a sequence.

There was a hilarious one a few years back, when the wrong weapon won a testing competition for next-gen smart bombs. Even worse than being too cheap and reliable, it also offered a capability against moving targets. Which was supposed to be another program.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

From the Dniepr to the Donbass, Ukraine will be one!

That doesn't rhyme.

OK, I've got it!

"From the Dniepr to the Donbass, Ukraine will be one mass!"

algarkirk said:

Carnyx said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.

Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.

Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".

Here you go, with links to the relevant Geneva Convention Protocols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)#Legal_doctrine

The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.

Wiki is as good as a specialist barrister? Looking forward to seeing if our resident pinniped might have a view on that.

Does anyone on the planet truly believe there will not be at least two legally arguable views from top legal minds on the mixed law and facts that arise from the deaths of non combatants in Gaza, and that this applies both generally and to each actual occurrence. This is further complicated by there being no such thing as agreed facts in this conflict.

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

The crime is using human shields, not killing them. Hamas are the war criminals for using human shields. If they only way to kill Hamas is to bomb them and the human shields they're using, then they are allowed to be bombed.

Special rules exist around hospitals. Hospitals are prohibited to be attacked, but if they are being uses as a human shield then the other side is entitled to give an evacuation order warning that the hospital will be attacked as its being used by the enemies military. After sufficient warning, then the hospital may be bombed too and anyone who remains in it.

Don't use human shields is the point of the Geneva Convention, not don't kill them.

In war, you are always entitled to kill your enemy, as long as you are proportionate about it and stick to the rules of law. That is the whole point of war.

I think we are entitled to a citation for that one, and also a definition of "enemy".

Here you go, with links to the relevant Geneva Convention Protocols: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)#Legal_doctrine

The use of human shields is a crime, the killing of them if its proportionate to achieve military objectives is not.

That's not what you said, but I'm not prepared to argue against your shifting sands.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?

Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.

Oh...
February 27, 2022 Leon said:
Nuclear war it is, then
I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?

You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?

30 second search pal, not hard.

No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022

Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove

It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.

The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.

But I do. And it really annoys you

Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it

No, this is self-aggrandisement.

You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.

Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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

kjh said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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.

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Benpointer said:

Leon said:

Just want to check, am I still a “fucking appeaser” for having been right, all along, about the Ukraine war?

Yes, well done on having predicted a stalemate throughout.

Oh...
February 27, 2022 Leon said:
Nuclear war it is, then
I forget, where do we hide? Under the kitchen table? In a doorway?

You actually combed back through PB to find that from February 2022?! Is your life really that empty?

30 second search pal, not hard.

No, the tragic bit is you quoting me on the week the war broke out. Feb 27, 2022

Not sure what this is possibly meant to prove

It proves that, like the rest of us, you spout a load of opinions, some of which are occasionally right but just as often they are not.

The difference is, you like to delude yourself that you have some special gift. You don't.

But I do. And it really annoys you

Edit to add: actually of course I don’t have a special gift. I am just able to analyse and extrapolate better than many, because I rid myself of prior assumptions and personal bias. Try it

No, this is self-aggrandisement.

You are similar to Mystic Rose now Heathener (who isn't you contrary to what 'large balls, small pockets' Luckyguy thinks) in that you make lots of extreme predictions in a catchy manner, and when one finally hits will claim a spooky prescience.

Where you were good, because of your restless interneting, was on Covid. You did genuinely get ahead of the game there. Credit where credit's due. I'll inform you when credit is due again.

There might be something in that. But only something

eg My ceaseless travel really does give me insights denied to people who stay in Hampstead with the odd visit to Richmond

Ukraine is a very good example. In Lviv I saw lots of young men with injuries walking the streets. I saw lots of young women in groups with no men. The men were all fighting or they were back home on crutches

So I crunched the maths

Also, I spoke to a lot of people. Every young person knew someone dead or injured in the fighting

Again I did the maths. It wasn’t very scientific but it gave me a good and probably correct impression that Ukraine was running out of soldiers. Simple as that

But you had to go to Ukraine to see that. With your own eyes

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

tlg86 said:

I may have been a bit harsh on M&S. They might simply be hypersensitive to this stuff given they've had trouble before:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-60216439

Also, I think I saw images of a pro-Palestinian rally congregated outside M&S in Glasgow this week.

There used to be an almost permanent protest outside M and S on Princes St, Edinburgh by some pro-Palestine group when I lived in the city centre.

It was very annoying and utterly counterproductive, as most people just told them to shut up/fuck off.

No idea what they were actually protesting about - sales of Jerusalem artichokes?

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

tlg86 said:

I may have been a bit harsh on M&S. They might simply be hypersensitive to this stuff given they've had trouble before:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-60216439

Also, I think I saw images of a pro-Palestinian rally congregated outside M&S in Glasgow this week.

There used to be an almost permanent protest outside M and S on Princes St, Edinburgh by some pro-Palestine group when I lived in the city centre.

It was very annoying and utterly counterproductive, as most people just told them to shut up/fuck off.

No idea what they were actually protesting about - sales of Jerusalem artichokes?

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.

Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Matt Hancock playing cricket in his Department of Health office
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12701587/Toe-curling-footage-shows-nuclear-Matt-Hancock-playing-cricket-Department-Health-office-just-months-aped-hitting-boundaries-telling-civil-servants-fine-Covid.html

Leon said:

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

FrankBooth said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.

Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?

Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?

Egypt = 1.002 million km2
Israel = 0.022 million km2

FrankBooth said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.

Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?

Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?

Egypt = 1.002 million km2
Israel = 0.022 million km2

RochdalePioneers said:

FrankBooth said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.

Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?

Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?

Egypt = 1.002 million km2
Israel = 0.022 million km2

Nobody ever talks about Egypt's blockade of Gaza. Apparently only the Israeli one counts - and is evil. The Egyptian one either doesn't exist or is for some other reason which is fine because they aren't the Jews.

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35

Now it is 43

FT:


“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”

Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade

Let’s move on

Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.

They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.

So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.

No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”

Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants
in their 40s and 50s

And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB

turbotubbs said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Leon said:

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35

Now it is 43

FT:


“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”

Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade

Let’s move on

Do you think Ukraine has been lying about casualty numbers?

Not lying but definitely obfuscating?

ie as far as I know they don’t even release casualty figures. Because they’re bad for morale - and fair enough

But I’ve seen non-Ukrainian estimates of ~200,000 killed or wounded (or more) which is horrendous for a nation the size of Ukraine. America lost 60,000 men in the entire Vietnam war

Vietnam war is not a comparison, it was not an existential war for the future of your country.

America lost between 620,000 and 750,000 men, not counting civilians, in the US Civil War if you want an adequate comparison.

Its a very good comparator as the US population in 1865 was very similar to Ukraine's today. (Both around 30 million).

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35

Now it is 43

FT:


“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”

Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade

Let’s move on

Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.

They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.

So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.

No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”

Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants
in their 40s and 50s

And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB

They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning

Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.

You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in 2022 was 30-35

Now it is 43

FT:


“The average age of Russian soldiers in Ukraine is 20-25 years old, according to one western military official, compared with 30-35 for the Ukrainians, who are better-supplied and have a cause on their side.”

Case closed? I’ve shown why armies prefer young men and I’ve now shown that the average age of Ukrainian soldiers has, instead, risen by a decade

Let’s move on

Except that you've not shown why Ukraine prefers young men, since they don't, they've deliberately had a policy of recruiting more mature men upto the age of 60.

They've also not wanted to send all their young men to the front line, as after the war they'll need some young men around to rebuild the country and to enable future generations of Ukrainians, so they've had a deliberate policy of sending older men forwards too.

So case open. They simply have different policies to what you expect.

No, what they’ve done is protect certain types of “valuable” young men - students etc. All countries do this if they can. I met these PhD guys in Lviv - “when I hit 25 next month I’ll leave uni and go to the front”

Apart from those smart men the army would obviously prefer young fitter guys for all the reasons cited. But they’ve run out of them so now they’re sending fathers and managers and IT consultants
in their 40s and 50s

And that is a bad sign. This is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of PB

They're in an existential war for their survival against a larger neighbour. They've had a policy of everyone aged 18-60 since the beginning

Those in their 40s and 50s are under 60.

You may not like their policy, but it's their country and their policy. Insults don't change that.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-deaths-casualties-ukraine-troops-soldiers-ds535glm6

It's behind the paywall, but of the named Russian deaths, the average age has risen from 21 last year to 34 this year.

Russia is likewise, recruiting older men. What I would expect is those on the frontline will tend to be younger than the average.

Nigelb said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

FrankBooth said:

Leon said:

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 ?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrankBooth said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

DavidL said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

Interesting interview with nightclub doorman lookalike Gen. Zaluzhny here in which he shares a Leonesque analysis of the SMO. Specifically: a) it's a stalemate and b) Ukraine are going to run out of people before Russia does.

The fact that it's in the in-house journal of the CIA probably means something but I can't decide what. Maybe they are prepping him for the succession when the bin liner full of green t-shirts goes off to the charity shop.

What does the last sentence of that post mean?

Zelensky's resignation.

The idea that Ukraine will run out of people before Russia is a fallacy and it would be surprising if it were the view of the CIA. Whilst Russia may be three times the size, in population, there are many things that balance the scales:

• At best Russia can use the population aged between 18 and 40. Ukraine can, is and will put people into the fight well outside those age brackets.
  
• The Russian army is predominantly male and conscripting women would be a step too far even for Putin.
  
• In the early 2000s, Russia was coming out of a steep decline in birth rate. As a result, even if they were all sent into the army (and we know that huge numbers have left) it wouldn't be able to field more than 500,000 men each year to replace casualties.
  
• The Ukrainian army is fighting in a very narrow area. Russia on the other hand has to keep forces across 11 time zones.
  

So, whilst on an arithmetical basis Russia could continue with its current losses ad infinitum, in practice that is not the case. That is why we have reached a stalemate this year. Longer term, if the US keeps supporting Ukraine, the balance of power will be with them.

The average age of Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian front line is now…. 43

Think about that. It’s not a case of “Ukraine might run out of men”, Ukraine has ALREADY run out of men

I don't think that will make nearly such a good song as 19. I read a story yesterday that Russia was now looking to recruit women for the fight in Ukraine.

Both sides are exhausted. I think this may be fizzling out into that Korean armistice

Time magazine agrees with the Economist

“But Zelensky’s convictions haven’t changed. Despite the recent setbacks on the battlefield, he does not intend to give up fighting or to sue for any kind of peace. On the contrary, his belief in Ukraine’s ultimate victory over Russia has hardened into a form that worries some of his advisers. It is immovable, verging on the messianic. “He deludes himself,” one of his closest aides tells me in frustration. “We’re out of options. We’re not winning. But try telling him that.””

https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/

This is why the US are going to have to "Diem" him.

I reckon we will see tacit pressure on Kyiv, from Washington, to quietly seek an armistice over the winter. They might not call it that, it could be framed as a temporary ceasefire, it suits both sides to pretend the War is still going

But it suits both sides to pause the war indefinitely, even more. To rest their men. To rebuild armies. To stop the hideous bleeding

So the lines will become frozen. A tacit acceptance of Russian victory in a few provinces at a terrible cost that Russia won’t want to repeat

In return DC will agree to arm Ukraine to the extent Russia will never try another, further offensive. Maybe something like that will be the endgame

Just a reminder - Y-axis starts at zero:

I wonder how that looks on people rather than area (under occupation)?

Compliance!

Ah thanks. Let's hope both occupations end one day. We need a 'river to the sea' type slogan for Ukraine, I think. Or maybe there is one.

Is 'occupation' the best way to describe the status of Gaza before October 7th? If it were occupied, they wouldn't now need to invade it.

Ok, it could maybe be improved upon. What's the best word for being controlled and imprisoned by another country but not physically occupied by it?

Two countries. Are you forgetting Egypt? And weren't there plenty of Gazans working in Israel?

Egypt = 1.002 million km2
Israel = 0.022 million km2

Arab League countries = 13,400,000 sq. km
Israel = 22,700 sq. km

I could do a bar chart, but you'd need a microscope to see Israel

Do it, to scale, with Y axis starting at zero.

Compliance!

Nigelb said:

Probably the strongest distinction between Vietnam and Ukraine is that, well before the end of the 60s, probably 80% of the S Vietnamese population wanted an end to the war whoever won.
In Ukraine, what polling there is suggests a similar proportion want to keep fighting to defeat the Russian invasion.

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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?"“

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-soldiers-fear-running-out-of-combat-ready-recruits-report-2023-10?amp

At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand inference

Theuniondivvie said:

Hey lads, this cnut might be your leader in a couple of years.

DavidL said:

Since we are talking of Scotland for a change there was an interesting decision by the Inner House (appeal court) yesterday: https://scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2023csih371cb71fe0-ea75-4892-b423-4751efe6e075.pdf?sfvrsn=554ad62c_1

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.

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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?"“

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-soldiers-fear-running-out-of-combat-ready-recruits-report-2023-10?amp

At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand inference

Todays insightful analysis - conscripts dont enjoy war.

Tomorrows - must be back to the world shall end before Christmas because.....

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

kjh said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

StaffordKnot said:

Eabhal said:

DougSeal said:

Dura_Ace said:

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?"“

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-soldiers-fear-running-out-of-combat-ready-recruits-report-2023-10?amp

At some point I guess I have to accept you’re so dumb you can’t understand 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?

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Selebian said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

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!

Nigelb said:

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...

It’s a very risky road to go down and we have to stick by due process and the rule of law, as obvious as the eventual result seems."
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1719901475076182023

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Hey lads, this cnut might be your leader in a couple of years.

He makes a Brilliant Point. If we batter the south coast of England with storms, we make it impossible for the foreign invaders to come here!

Why oh why oh why are remoaners stopping the government from creating the British storms we need to secure our borders?