Member Info for Spikeyj

Soz, I forgot to add mass murder to that list.

The problem is very clear; nobody sane expects that putin would simply stop / abide by a lasting peace if he is given the heavily fortified part of the Donbas that his troops still can’t take.

It’d be a teeny bit like agreeing a truce with a prolific neighbourhood burglar on condition that the burglar gets a set of all your keys and you agree to dismantle the burglar alarm.

(… tho’ putin ain’t just a burglar, since he is responsible for mass rapes, torture and child abduction, alongside all the theft and destruction.)

“small force”, lol.

“You do the maths”

but unfortunately, poor cheesy can’t, which may be why he keeps referring to “this small Russian force”, and kept posting that the contested part of the donbas was “40 sqm”. he really is quite mind-numbingly stupid.

Russia is providing intelligence to the Iranians to help them target and kill Americans. ? will donald take that into account re Ukraine?

? why did you lie about the year when the FSP ended, welcher?

Welcher is a year wrong about the FSP ending … the conclusion of the FSP was announced by the company in RNS of 12 may 2021, *not* 2022 as the welcher is trying to pretend.

(… so putin’s invasion was 9-10 months after the FSP failed — they couldn’t sell this stuff even well *before* the war.)

The declared strategy was to sell assets, not to mine it.

hence the fsp, which failed (*before* the war)

….what is/may be “in the ground” is very, very different versus what it would cost a mining company to get the stuff above ground and ready for sale.

personally, I don’t think the shifting / vague explanations for unpublished dfs are credible … I think if the figures showed an attractive economically viable case for EUA ‘assets’ then (a) they would have sold during the fsp, and (b) they would have been shouting out those numbers to the whole world.

jmo.

Are you trying to claim that the BoD *did* succeed in selling the assets during or around the time of the the FSP??

Dietch, BoD failed to sell even well*before* the war, when there no sanctions, punitive exit taxes etc to deal with. …& with much longer licence time for sale back then.

And as ever, there is nothing meaningful left to say about EUA.

…. Zombie company.

“People can argue numbers”

lol, cheesy can’t.

There are plenty of figures available, cheesy, you just don’t want to read or understand them.

…. try reading the transcript of the link that troajan just posted … lots of relevant figures in that!

… just as starting points for you to consider, it’s hardly “wild guessing” to count gravestones, published obituaries, probate notices, etc ( and then to extrapolate from known ratios of killed vs wounded vs missing in other historic but modern groundwars.)

… and if you’re a bit old fashioned to use AI tools to help you, just try a quick glance at the “Russian losses” section of the following Wikipedia page … as well as some numbers, it should help you understand some of the sources that get used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war#:~:text=The%20actual%20toll%20is%20likely,of%20the%20real%20death%20toll.

Hi cheesy, no, i am not making up any figures … i have provided some links you can look at … in particular, CSIS is pretty reputable and considered. read it, and engage your brain.

the russians and the ukrainians will both be trying to conceal and / or minimise the scale of their losses, for purposes of morale and also to make things difficult for the other side’s military planners - that happens in most wars

…. but just because it is difficult to know precisely how many casualties each side has taken, doesn’t stop others from making sensible estimates re casualties.

(hint, if you really can’t imagine that for yourself, just ask a friendly AI to outline for you some of the metrics military think-tanks and other bodies can use for such purposes.)

you are sounding increasingly shrill, but if you think about it calmly, surely even you can see that there are other ways to estimate casualty figures other than reading a kremlin press release?

Cheesy, i mean that if an invasion force takes more than one million casualties, it is not mathematically possible that the invading force was only one million strong.

re what is “correct” re russkie casualties,, you seem to confusing the concept of (a) what putin says, with (b) what is true. … just ‘cos putin doesn’t admit that scale of russian losses doesn’t mean that the losses are small, lol!

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-grinding-war-ukraine

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/UKRAINE-CRISIS/CASUALTIES/lgvdgmjbzpo/

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2026/02/23/how-russias-fatalities-compare-with-ukraines

Cheesy, the russkies have taken more than a million casualties (killed, wounded, mia) so far.

even if you think that sending a million squaddies is “small”, that just ain’t possible.

EIEIO 18:22 “Surely surrendering the remaining Donbas makes sense”.

it might make sense, of a very dismal, real-politik type, to accept it as de factor russian, *IF* it genuinely was clear that would bring a lasting, very long-term end to putin’s attempts to dominate all of the ukraine and turn the whole country into a subjugated vassal state with no meaningful sovereignty of its own (whether through a puppet government or through full military occupation).

but the ukrainians, and pretty much anyone who isn’t brick wall stupid, know full well that if putin is simply given the heavily fortified donbas sections that his troops have been failing to take by force, then putin will not stop there … he will keep going until he has all of ukraine under his control.

putin wants it all, not just the donbas.