Tuukka R @ Tuuktuuk @sopuli.xyz

Posts

1

Comments

200

Joined

5 mo. ago

I don't consider the concept of national stereotypes offensive per se. What I see as offensive is assuming that a random individual is akin to the national stereotype of their culture. Absolutely nobody is.

If someone considers the whole concept offensive, then that's their problem and won't affect my writing.

Oh, and I did consider it offensive that you assumed I think about stereotypes the way you said. It looks like you based that on a stereotype – assuming that I am alike the stereotypical whatever-you-were-thinking-of.

Ukraine publishes daily statistics about Russia's manpower losses. One would think those numbers are simply propaganda and any army would "of course" exaggerate such numbers.

But, firstly: The numbers reported by Ukraine rise and fall hand-in-hand with the numbers given by Oryx. There is something of an almost fixed multiplier between Oryx numbers and official data provided by Ukraine. And the Oryx numbers are always published later than Ukraine publishes its own, so Ukraine cannot be just copying Oryx's numbers and multiplying them. And it's logical that Oryx shows only a fraction of the real number, because for most Russian combat losses there is no photo proof, and Oryx only counts what has photo proof.

So, at least the Ukrainian numbers rise and drop without fake data added. Then the question is whether the scale of the numbers is correct, or if Ukraine intentionally inflates them with some static multiplier. Since there is data about the Russia's recruitment capacity and the whole size of the Russia's army, it's visible that by recruiting about 1000 per day they can keep their army's size constant. That shows that the losses must be around the same ballpark. And it coincides with the numbers published by Ukraine.

But yes, now that Russians mostly do not have tanks to use in their attacks, they are really using pure meat wave attacks, and that costs a LOT of men. There's a reason Putin is trying to convince Trump to force Ukraine into an armistice. Losing that many soldiers – indeed almost half a million per year! – is extremely unsustainable, no matter what image Putin is trying to give.

And remember: these numbers are about irrecoverable losses, of which only a fraction are deaths. The number of deaths is far lower.

I do see a lot of of US people saying stuff like "all politicians are always corrupt". That's the thought Putin has been trying to actively cultivate in Russians' minds, because when people don't trust politicians in general, they won't come to think that they could vote in someone who is much less corrupt than Putin.

When people lose their trust in national politics ability to act in the best interest of their nation, they will get proud of being apolitical. After all, for them it's come to mean "not taking part in a corruption scheme".

Also... My impression is that a growing amount of people in USA are NOT living more comfortable lives than rural Russians. Living in an RV and having to work two jobs isn't really very different life from living in a dilapidated and crooked wooden house that's letting the wind in from several places. I don't know how common that kind of living is in the States, but it seems to be an existant phenomenon. Those people do not live in a different comfort than people in the poorest regions of the Russia. Also, I've seen photos of large amounts of people living in kind of streetside villages consisting of camping tents. That is a kind of life that is less comfortable than anything I've seen during my travels in the Russia.

A much smaller share of US people live under such.circumstances than is the case in the Russia, but for those who do, I am absolutely able to fathom why any change is better for them than status quo! There's only one way to go from the rock bottom.

No national stereotypes apply to every single individual from that nation. They are rather about statistical likelihoods. In the Russia people are much more likely to be lazy and socially reckless and say "I am not political" as if it was something to be proud of. And also, it shows a lot that they even feel safe to say so. In Finland people typically have mindset, where saying "I stay away from political conversations" would be very shameful. People would not feel socially safe saying that here. In the Russia it is not shameful. And that feature is one of the things that make "a Russian mindset" a useful concept for use in conversations. There are other features typical to people living in the Russia and atypical for others, not only this one thing.

USA has also quite sternly asked Europe to not become a superpower. And this is something that was openly spoken aloud in 1980's and 1990's. Their offer has been "we'll handle this superpower stuff on your behalf, you guys keep to yourself." That has kept USA the clear leading superpower, which has been extremely useful for the American economy, and we have been able to concentrate on other stuff, which has been good for our economy.

It's been an agreement between USA and Europe that Europe will not start competing of power with USA. We have more population and a bigger economy than USA, so I'd guess that now that the agreement has ended, we'll have to become what we would already have been for decades if we hadn't been asked not to.

If their losses climb back to 1800 per day, meaning 700-ish dead per day, and their population is about 140 000 000, that makes a nice round number of 200 000 days. Or 547 years. However, because the Russia's population was already decreasing fast for other reasons anyway, the real number is more like 100-ish years.

BTW, Ukraine has lost on average 64 soldiers per day as dead during these three years. Counting with 40 000 000 inhabitants, that means the last Ukrainian will die on the front in 625 000 days from now. Or 1712 years.

Reading these numbers, keep in mind that they are about dead soldiers, not about losses in manpower. Most of manpower losses come in the form of severe inrecoverable wounds. For Ukraine it's 1:4 or 1:5, so per one dead you have four to five crippled, and for the Russia it's 1:2,5. The Russia has less wounded because so many of their wounded become dead some hours after being wounded. So, the manpower losses are higher in Ukraine, but most of the lost Ukrainian soldiers return to their families, while a huge share of the lost Russian soldiers turn into soil.

It's good to remember that a small subset of Ukrainian commanders do see soldiers as mere cannon fodder. Mere 11 years ago, the Ukrainian military was run almost precisely the same way as the Russian one. And many commanders are from before 2014. Many of them have converted to the new ways since 2014, but some haven't. That's a problem that severely hampers Ukraine's recruitment capacity. Still, Ukrainians are a nation that will flex when it needs to. If the Russia starts advancing faster than the 0.7 % of Ukraine's total area in year like they did in 2024, people get more afraid of what is going on and get motivated to join the armed forces.

It's so meek because of the political stance of "I am not political" that permeats the whole society.

Its main idea is that "I make actively sure to not see or hear what is happening around me, and in return I can live my life reasonably carefree." That's an unspoken contract between the junta leading the country and its populace. If one side breaks the contract, it's null and void.

The funny thing is, the people have not noticed that the contract has been broken, because they are actively avoiding noticing anything that has to do with society!

And the word "actively" is of great significance. Because it's not passivity, it's a stance held up actively by each individual. The situation of the Russia is all the time deeper and deeper "in your face", and eventually it'll be so deep that there's nothing the individual can do to avoid noticing it.

And then they become active in... Well, some other manner.

The Russia was able to barely retain the size of its forces when its losses were 800 to 1200 per day. Now they are 1300 to 1900 per day, and its ability to recruit new troops has not risen and it seems it may have even decreased.

That means, the size of the Russian armed forces is decreasing by 500 to 700 soldiers each day! In a year that makes 180 000 to 255 000 soldiers per year. When their army shrinks in size with about 200 000 soldiers per year, they're very soon going to have plenty of "fun" trying to defend all of their front.

Heroiam slava

You need a small automatized AD machine gun or similar for every group of soldiers. Can be done, but requirea a huge amount of those anti-drone guns. Basically the amount of soldiers on the front, divided by ten or so.

You are calling this a proxy war between North Korea and USA. North Korea is more in USA's area of interest than that of Europe's.

Heroiam slava!

Yeah, they will continue conquering more and more territories, just like they did through 2024.

During 2024 they advanced faster than expected. And managed to conquer a whopping 0.7 % of Ukraine's total territory. Less than kne percent. Or even less, if you take into account what they lost in the Kursk province.

(Also, what is weird about a person having cancer and surviving?)

To be clear: The Russia's losses are increasing month after month, but their recruitment capacity is not. They are recruiting about 1000 soldiers every day, maybe a bit less. And the number seems to be going down, not growing. They are losing 1300 to 1800 each day now meaning a net loss of something like 400 to 900 soldiers per day!

They won't run out of population anytime soon, but they will run out of soldiers.

Ukraine's losses as dead are lower in proportion to population than those of the Russia. As dead+wounded they are higher, but that's relevant for the army, not so much for the nation. The severely wounded typically need a prosthesis, but will stay in the lives of their children.

Add to this that Ukraine is the defending party in the war, so they would be able to incur even higher losses without breaking than the aggressor has to bear with.

If you mean civilian casualties... Most of those are in the occupied territories. The terror attacks do kill people, but that is statistically insignificant. The Russia has been able to kill only a fraction of a percent of Ukraine's civilian population. That is not something that has any effect on the war's outcome. The terror attacks against civilians might have some strategic function in Putin's head, and it does have an effect by reducing western countries' willingness to support Ukraine, but in Ukraine itself it has no real effect and seems to be happening "just for fun" (as macabre as that sounds).

The Russia's army is in much deeper trouble with manpower than that of Ukraine, and civilian population is statistically not in any immediate danger in either country.

(And I do believe I understand quite okay how the Russian mind works because when I lived in Ukraine, I learned both Russian and Ukrainian languages reasonably well, and can therefore follow their sources in original language)

Last year the Russia was advancing faster than expected. During the whole year they managed to conquer 0.7 % of Ukraine's total area. Less than one percent. And that's their "fast".

Their recruitment capacity is 25 000 to 35 000 soldiers per montg, which tranalates to roughly 1000 per day. And losses (dead+wounded) have been mostly around 1800 per day.

Recent video footage shows almost no Russian tanks but only light DIY vehicles.

Even if Ukraine was to lose all western military support, the Russia would not be able to advance faster than 10 times the speed of last year. And that would be 7% of Ukraine's total territory. Not enough for victory.

The Ukrainian economy is so small that EU countries would have no problem covering 100% of its budget. Ukraine's economy will therefore survive indefinitely. The Russia's won't.

Time is strongly on Ukraine's side. They can lose only if the west withdraws all support. We're not stupid enough to do that.

So, as you said: Since the Russia's loss is inevitable, why continue wasting their lives?

Well, he also went from lawyer to comedian. Kind of makes the jump seem much lower.

Most of politicians at least here in Europe have not started with a lot of money. You first start in communal politics, then when you've shown your skills in that, your party gives you more visibility among the general public. And then you might get to the national parliament, and if you're doing your job well there, you might end up in a position where you become interesting for voting in as a MEP. Or as the president of your country.

You cannot get into the national parliament out of nowhere, but I don't really know why you should. It's a very tough job, and it's good that you've first had to gather some experience from communal politics before that.

Though, this is of course only how it works with leftist and centrist parties. In the right wing parties the system is apparently somewhat different. But that's one of the reasons I wouldn't vote them anyway.

What niches are missing? Sports was mentioned, what else?