losing, not luzing. Tips for non-native English speakers. English speech is rather divergent phonetically from the written form. Not as bad as French, but still a problem.
Generally, my analysis works even if Russia hasn’t lost a single man. A country defending its territory against external aggression should have no internal political problems mobilizing its reserves for service on its own territory. That’s what they are there for. A country engaging in external aggression can have much worse problems in this. Historically, for instance, France, Britain and the US had serious difficulties finding manpower for this purpose.
Ex - France from the early 19th century had laws prohibiting its conscripts from service abroad. Thats why they organized the Foreign Legion, regular troops (La Coloniale), and native troops (Algerians, Tunisians, Senegalese, etc.), specifically for colonial service.
So if Russia want to be able to invade Ukraine again, it will have to maintain a much larger “contract” force than it does now. That, or modify its conscription laws and process to make a reservist force it can actually use for offensive action.
losing, not luzing.
***I’ve been writing it that way out of so much frustration at seeing so many people spell it “loosing”. To hell with it. Luzing works better than losing because Americans are luzers at spelling.
Tips for non-native English speakers. English speech is rather divergent phonetically from the written form. Not as bad as French, but still a problem.
***Feel free to sell those tips to all those people who love posting “they’re” Luzing approaches to things. Its two bad english doezn’t have it’s shiite together.
Generally, my analysis works even if Russia hasn’t lost a single man. A country defending its
***OMG, you spelled it correctly!
territory against external aggression should have no internal political problems mobilizing its reserves for service on its own territory.
***I find your analysis to be rather adlepated.
That’s what they are there for. A country engaging in external aggression can have much worse problems in this.
***I don’t think your analysis would pull Ukraine out of its existential war.
Historically, for instance, France, Britain and the US had serious difficulties finding manpower for this purpose.
***This leads us nowhere towards a solution to this war.
Ex - France from the early 19th century had laws prohibiting its conscripts from service abroad. Thats
***Uh oh, a misspelling.
why they organized the Foreign Legion, regular troops (La Coloniale), and native troops (Algerians, Tunisians, Senegalese, etc.), specifically for colonial service.
***Your analysis is kinda going nowhere.
So if Russia want
***I think it would be: wants...
to be able to invade Ukraine again, it will have to maintain a much larger “contract” force than it does now.
***Again, I don’t think your analysis solves anything for Ukraine.
That, or modify its conscription laws and process to make a reservist force it can actually use for offensive action.
***Your whole post is basically irrelevant.