Tuukka R

My understanding is that the casualty numbers only include severe casualties - that they are mostly unhealable. Also, hasn’t there already been more severely injured Russian soldiers than there are currently Russian soldiers serving on the front? If a significant share of the crippled really were sent back into action, we would see a LOT of them. The ones on crutches seem to be something of a rare case, based on how they are being talked about by the Ukrainian soldiers.

But yeah, it’s annoying that the “Russian losses” data is so ambiguously defined. I wish there was something of an official list visible for what injury gets you in that statistic and what doesn’t. Still: The earlier rate of roughly 1000 to 1300 per day was enough to make proper training impossible. We know that the Russia had to send everyone more or less immediately to the front. And that the size of Russian forces on the front apparently has not significantly grown. So, the recruitment capacity is such that it can roughly keep balance at a loss rate of 1000 to 1300 ambiguously defined casualties per day. And now the number was about 40-50 % over that for several months.

I’ve been pondering this number and have come to the conclusion that the official Ukrainian statistic most likely tells the number of unrecoverable losses of the Russian armed forces. But, this is just a somewhat-educated guess, based on an understanding that the 1000 to 1300 per day were enough to keep the Russian army from developing a reserve.

What a crazy situation we are in! It looks like we’ll get out of this reasonably fine, but there is still a risk that Ukraine will be pressured by the west into a peace deal where they don’t get Crimea back. (Donetsk and Luhansk… I don’t think they care much for those) If Ukraine doesn’t get Crimea back, I don’t understand why the Russia would not attack Ukraine again in a couple of years.

Trudeau probably won’t affect Trump directly, but knowing about his call affects other western leaders. And the US populace as well.

Well, anything can be done. If all NATO member countries want to let Ukraine in, they can do so.

But of course, Hungary is a NATO country. So, no way really.

Such messages are typically read by aides in the first place. The president might also read them, but the aides figure out what context is relevant and how the message should be interpreted.

Putin’s information bubble is a very interesting phenomenon. He never uses Internet. For anything. Ever. So, all OSINT goes completely missing on him.

His aides probably do print blog texts off the Internet for him to read in paper format, but of course those can be hand-picked and even altered to suit the aide’s needs. Atop that, Putin puts a high emphasis on trustworthiness when choosing aides. Skill is much less important than loyalty. And it looks very much like the definition of trustworthiness is that the aide’s reports show roughly the same data as other aides’ reports. The current aides give him strongly falsified reports and anyone writing something contradictory gets sacked.

This means, Putin’s understanding of many situations is extremely skewed, because he only receives information through his aides and his country’s official news. It is likely that he is being told highly inflated numbers for Ukrainian losses. Or, I’d be very surprised if the numbers weren’t inflated at all, and the only question is to what extent they are exaggerated.

If his understanding of the relative losses is strongly skewed, the strategy you’re guessing makes sense.

Let’s hope so. The Russia has a recruitment capacity of 25 000 to 35 000 roaches per month. That makes roughly 1000 per day. That’s the amount that keeps the Russia from being able to train any new soldiers. (if the losses are smaller than the recruitment capacity, a reserve can eventually be built and trained. If they are bigger, all recruits go almost immediately to front without useful training)

Everything going above that number means the Russian army decreasing in size. The 1800 per day meant that the size of their military was decreasing by 800 roaches per day. I’d like to see it return to those numbers.

But also, Putin had high hopes regarding Trump. Now it looks like those hopes have been possibly in vain, because it looks plausible that Europe will remain supporting Ukraine even if USA was to completely stop all support. As long as the political situation looked promising for the Russia’s ambitions, it made sense throwing much more soldiers to the meat grinder than can be replaced: if the war was to end very soon, the losses would not pose any danger fire the Russia, but every km² they have occupied by that point is a km² of the Russia.

Now that it looks like the war will definitely continue for several months still, Putin cannot afford to let his army diminish in size. What’s interesting is that everything over 35 000 per month (or even over just 25 000?) has been permanent losses from the Russian military capacity. That’s been a huge change in the last couple of months!

deleted by creator

To my knowledge, there have been no plans that this decision would cover. The only talk there has been about sending foreign troops to Ukraine would be as a peacekeeping force, and that would be organized in a way explicitly allowed by this decision.

This decision was probably made to cater to some Bulgarian domestic discourse, right? Anybody got any idea which one?

You probably meant this is an answer to me, so I’ll reply.

What I mean is that for example France supporting undemocratic regimes in Africa in order to get cheaper minerals and cheaper cocoa and cheaper bananas is colonialism. It does not mean that it is as bad as what France used to do in the past. And it’s not even as bad as France still retaining several actual colonies. But it is still bad. And it is colonialism. It would be colonialism even if France did not have any formal colonies around the world.

And when China does in 2025 what France is now, in 2025, doing with now-independent countries that used to be its formal colonies, then both of those are colonialism in the same manner. If what China is doing is okay, then that part of what France is doing is also okay. And I do not like the idea of accepting European countries’ colonialism, not even a little bit.

Being bombed is worse than being economically abused, absolutely. But it does not mean that abusing a country economically is okay. I do not like it at all that cocoa and bananas are as cheap here in Europe as they are. That luxury of low prices is coming from other people’s lack of well-being. And someone doing something even worse does not make this bad thing any better. At least in my opinion.

For what I understand, in reality we two think much more alike than you think we do.

You calling me dishonest is not colonialism. You stubbing your toe is not colonialism.

You, my friend, are defending colonialism and I am opposing your view that colonialism is okay as long as it’s done by a country on a list of “countries allowed to behave in a colonialist manner” that you are curating. And somehow that makes me a colonialism apologist?

Haha, everyone is a fascist now?

Yeah, the French colonies, such as French Guyana, are not okay. But neither are the things France is doing to many of the countries that used to be France’s formal colonies. Even though those countries are not colonies of France, what France is doing to them is colonialism all the same. Or do you disagree?

Also, calling me “dumb” was impolite of you, even though factually correct. Calling me a fascist was outright weird.

I’m sorry but you sound like the people who call DOGE “auditors” who “look for corruption and end it”.

China has been trying to get into big infrastructure projects in Finland as well, with the precisely same kind of loan arrangements. And it’s very good that we declined the offer. We were a colony of Sweden for 600 years. We don’t need to become one of China’s now.

What you’re saying suggests that France’s current behaviour is not colonialist. What are your thoughts on that?

Nothing’s wrong with building infrastructure. Why would it be?

What’s wrong is the financing scheme that makes the infrastructure effectively Chinese national property. And when China can decide how and when a country’s infrastructure can be used, China gets a lot of influence in that country’s domestic politics. And it does use that influence.

USA destroying Iraq doesn’t make China any less colonial. China helping rebuild Iraq in a way that will make Iraq a vassal of China… That does make China more colonial.

USA should absolutely focus on itself. And it will do it much more than before, because now that it has decided to cut its international soft power, it does not really have other options, does it? :)

How do you know everyone knows its bullshit?

When I was in the Russia – my last time was as late as 2019 – the shocking thing was to notice that people there really think their country is somehow a good and exemplatory place! At least in the Russia people should by all logic understand it’s all bullshit. But in practical terms they don’t. They go with it.

Does he not have a way to replace the state agents with ones that will do his bidding?

How is humanity not in its senses?

It’s some very good news if he’s indeed dramatically downsizing the military. Gives Canada and Mexico a fighting chance! Will Canada be USA’s next Vietnam experience?

With Belt and Road, and all the colonialist projects China is doing in Africa, I would absolutely not say that “China is focusing on itself”. Or, at least: Even if it’s mainly focusing on itself, there is a very noteworthy imperial and colonial project going on.