comment: >
  
  Good thing siberia is defrosting - they'll need that space for the new graveyards.
context: I doubt Putin even considered what their work force or demographics will look like in 5 years.
  It will essentially be non-existent, but I suppose being on your deathbed you really don't give a shit. >
  
  If he takes over Ukraine, he can claim those as his own. For him it's just a numbers game: how many troops lost vs how many people conquered. If he conquers enough, who cares about the fallen. Certainly not the Kremlin >
  
  It's just over the top propaganda, no one in the Western world 🌎 believes any of this shit.
  It makes me wonder if ANY ONE anywhere takes this crap seriously. >
  
  Welcome to the meat grinder. >
  
  Ukraine economy must be doing gang busters over the recent sale of sunflower seeds. >
  
  So. The next question is: How many Russians will flee the country this time? >
  
  They might close the borders this time. >
  
  That would require them to learn from past mistakes. Are we sure they can do that? >
  
  Russia will conduct this war exactly the same as they conduct all war. Attrition and dead soldiers. They won't stop until they have killed hundreds of thousands of their troops and run out of money. It's going to take months/ years before this war ends. Tragic. >
  
  Ukraine has to survive just one particular Russian. >
  
  This view is parroted endlessly but highly likely to be false. In fact Putin's successor may well be worse. >
  
  
  This view is parroted endlessly but highly likely to be false. In fact Putin's successor may well be worse.
  
  You don't see the big picture.
  Putin's successor might be worse, but there would be a pretty long time between Putin's death and the successor getting enough control to do anything.
  This would give Ukraine the opportunity to remove the remaining Russian forces from their territory while Russian leadership would be preoccupied with internal affairs. >
  
  It's also very optimistic to think that Putin would die and then a successor would just be lined up and take his place, dictators don't have successors lined up for very good reasons, Putin dying would likely result in significant infighting.
  If this was the point you were making then I apologize. >
  
  Unless it's Medvedev I do see a lot of infighting, except for the fact that Putin killed half of his oligarchs. >
  
  Medvedev is seen as a joke by ordinary Russians. >
  
  Smart of Ukraine to announce this to scare mobik-aged men to flee Russia now. >
  
  The US had 282K military casualties during the heaviest fighting years in Vietnam (1965-1974). 
  That equates to an average of ~86 losses per day.
  Russia average so far has been ~347 per day. Over 4 times as many.
  Winter is already exacting a heavy toll Russia's genocide: Average military dead per day has more than doubled in the last month and the worst of the winter is yet to come.
  Their veteran troops are all but spent. The ones being sent now are undertrained (if they are trained at all) and underequipped.
  The recently enslaved soldiers have been forced to provide their own winter equipment or go without.
  Russian losses should be hitting around 130,000 by the one year anniversary of this "three day conflict".
  Even without considering the permanent loss of over a hundred thousand Russians they're taking hundreds of thousands of workers out of the workforce which will impact every industry in Russia when things are already tight.
  What will it take for the Russian people to take action? >
  
  The US only had about 50k dead in Vietnam. Russia already has over 100k killed. >
  
  I believe that's using 'casualties' to mean both dead and wounded; the 50k figure is only dead, in the more common use of the term. >
  
  I wish we would bring back casualties and fatalities in discussions, makes it much clearer. >
  
  Militaries use casualties to mean deaths and injured because in their minds both are equally useless on the battlefield. 
  Though I agree with you. Most people aren’t military and aren’t aware this is what it means. It can be unintentionally misleading. >
  
  An injured soldier is useless and requires other able bodied soldiers to render aid. A dead soldier doesn't need aid. >
  
  Except Russians seem to not be helping many of their injured. Leaving them to die >
  
  They don't have a lot of assistance to offer with the supplies they are being given. >
  
  Cannon fodder >
  
  How would they even pay or supply them?
  Considering it’s said Putin himself has admitted the last draft was a mistake, how does that make sense? >
  
  Pay won't be an issue. Kinda hard to pay those six feet under >
  
  They aren’t burying them that deep either