Tuuktuuk

A Russian propaganda win is a win the sense that it enables Moscow to start a new war in a near future. If the Russia can make the 300 000 lost human lives look justified to its own population, it is able to make a micro-invasion into a NATO. In such a scenario, it takes the city of Narva and stops, hoping that at least Germany will refuse to help Estonia regain the city, thus functionally ending NATO. Even if Germany will turn out to help Estonia after all, the terror the people of Narva will have to endure in such a scenario will be horrible, and it also means there is a war between nuclear powers, which is a thing I'd like to avoid. And of course: Refusing to defend Estonia would not avoid the war, but helping Ukraine block the Russia from getting a propaganda victory does.

The Russia must be prevented from getting a propaganda win, because if it does, there will be a war in EU.

The personnel number is a bit under what one would hope, as it means a (very) slight replenishment in the Russia's manpower. They are recruiting in the ballpark 1300 soldiers per day, so this means the Russia's army grew by a couple hundred soldiers today. Of course, 1100 lost is 1100 lost, and that means about 300 dead plus about 800 who tell their friends and family that the situation is absolutely not as told in television.

The number of destroyed artillery systems is very good. This exceeds the Russia's production capability by quite a bit. 110 "vehicles and fuel tanks"... I've lost track of what that number means these days... Does it include Ladas and motorbikes? Or only cargo equipment and such? 3 tanks in a day is nice, because that's more than the Russia is producing. My understanding is that they are producing a tank once per day or two days. Or?

"Creeping forward" would be more acceptable, but still a gross misrepresentation of reality.

The 0.7 % of "advancing" changes nothing regarding the outcome of the war in comparison to complete stability. Also, in World War I the front was not 100 % stable either. There was advancing taking place all the time, but our history books write of it as a stagnant front, because it was indeed functionally stagnant, just like the front in this war has been since mid-2022.

The problem is, a lot of people assume that "creeping forward" means something like 5 % of Ukraine's territory per year, and that misunderstanding affects their willingness to support Ukraine. If they knew that the Russia has not advanced meaningfully in the last three years, their view of the situation would be dramatically different.

I'd say 5 % is a good trigger number. Maybe even 2 %. Though, it would still take them decades to take over all of Ukraine even if they were to advance at a pace of 2% per year.

For losing my home, it is not relevant if that's because of the Russia advancing or not. It could be retreating at a speed of 5% of Ukraine's total territory per year, but if it manages to take over my village, I've got a bad situation all the same.

The "advancing" is a very bad phrase because it makes Ukraine's situation look hopeless to many. "The Russia has been creeping forward" is a very different story from "The frontline has been largely stagnant since summer 2022."

A significant fraction of people in many countries in the west are against helping Ukraine because they think Ukraine will not be able to regain the occupied territories anyway. They wouldn't think that way if the news were talking about a stagnant frontline as is the reality instead of talking about the Russia "creeping forward" or even "advancing". For the outcome of the war the 0.7 % advance in year 2024 had no significance over a completely stagnant frontline. A good question is: How much did the front line move during the "stagnant" phase of World War I? We could very well write in our history books that either Germany or France was creeping forward, but somehow we are writing that the frontline was stagnant, even though advances of several tens or even hundreds of metres took place more or less often.

During the last 12 months the Russia has "advanced" so much that it controls about 0.3 % more of Ukraine's territory than it did those 12 monrhs ago. That's less than one third of a percent.

During the whole calendar year 2024 the Russia managed to conquer 0.7 % of Ukraine's total area.

0.7 % is not "advancing". The Russia is not advancing and hasn't advanced since spring 2022.

Why do reporters keep writing that the Russia is advancing when it factually doesn't?

Yes. Because I have first-hand experience on what it feels like when it's clear that neither Republicans' or Democrats' program would be something I'd wish for.

If you want to get the likes of me to vote against fascism, then you need to sell it as a vote against fascism.

And if you mean that you saw the phrase "harm reduction" in newspapers you read – did also the anti-democratic people see it?

If we don't win this war now that it's limited to Ukraine, Putin will spread it to first Baltics and then Finland once he his army has regained enough strength. Unless we have developed our defense capabilities sufficiently by that.

We need to be ready for the event that France and Germany decide that Ukraine should fall. And if at that point the only countries that have a serious ability to defend against the Russia are Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then the economy of northwestern EU will be in shambles. And that will definitely affect the rest of EU, including whatever country you are from.

If the whole EU is interested in repelling the Russia when it attacks, then it probably won't even attack. But if only the countries bordering it are interested in that, it abaolutely will attack the northeastern EU. And then your bread will get a lot more expensive.

Then probably you live in the USA. Why would I see a term that is only relevant for elections of another country? What do you know of porvarihallitus? It's a relevant political phrase that I saw a lot during the previous parliamentary elections, but probably you have still never encountered it.

I don't think I've fallen for their trick, because this is the first time I'm even observing a conversation on this topic. It hasn't traditionally been a very relevant subject on this side of the pond.

If a person is anti-dem, there's no way you'll convert them with logical arguments. Or with any arguments at all. But you can get them to vote anti-Trump.

Different strategies for different situations. And, from a European viewpoint, it sounds ridiculous that Dems somehow "deliver". From my perspective they are a massively lesser evil. But, in USA I would definitely vote for them just to vote against fascism. They might be stupid, but they are not malevolent. Trump is. (And stupid as well.)

You wouldn't be able to convince me to like a party as far right to as the Democratic party. I wouldn't like even the European right-wing parties, and they are – even in places such as Poland – to the left of anything USA has to offer. And if you tried spending your effort into making me actually think I might want more of what Democrats can offer, you'd be wasting your effort. I could vote such a party for what they offer less, but definitely not for what they offer more!

I think the main target audience here are people who already think that both sides do harm. I think what is being told here is that "even if we were to accept that both sides do harm, then the other side does it magnitudes more than the other one."

Using mines is not necessary for repelling a Russian attack, but it makes it possible to repel it with less land area lost in the initial phase. The Russia is very weakened by its crazy war, but that is not a situation that will stay that way forever. In something a bit more than 5 years after this war ends, the Russia can very well have enough material to attack Finland. (It will probably attack Estonia or Latvia first. Most likely Estonia, because Narva is located in a very precarious location and taking Narva without NATO reacting would decrease NATO's political ability to react to bigger things in the future.)

NATO is good to have, and it probably will help if needed, but for example Germany and France have shown that if the Russia says the word "nuke", they reduce their help dramatically, and the country under attack is largely left to its own devices. It would be idiotic of western countries not to support Ukraine as much as possible, yet they do indeed only support it at a minimum level. Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania must be able to defend themselves adequately even without external support, because there's not much reason to assume central European countries' thinking about supporting a country in a war against the Russia would be very different in the future than it is now.

It's theoretically possible that a country uses mines and still gets conquered, yes. But the likelihood is smaller. Also, what is much more important is that it's not a black-and-white "you get conquered or you don't". There's also the middle ground of "part of your country gets conquered for a while, then you regain that territory". As is the case in Ukraine at the moment. The smaller that conquered part is, the less demining you need to do to remove the mines sown by the orcs. And if you are a small country like Finland fighting the Russia alone, fighting with other systems plus mines slows down the Russia more than fighting with those other systems only.

Also, mines are indeed generally not as useful as they were 100 years ago. But against the Russia they have been proven very useful in this war now. Not as useful as 100 years ago, true, but extremely useful all the same. Because the Russia is a country that works about the same way civilized countries worked some 100 years ago.

And, to your last point: You're saying it's unlikely that Finland would use mines in a responsible way. Why wouldn't it? Remember, it's Finland's own people that will suffer from the mines. If we are irresponsible with them, it's us that will suffer. This is a country where people take responsibility much more seriously than in any other country that I know. I do trust that the Finnish army does make maps of the minefields. What is the extreme thing that you're claiming Finland would do, actually? Lay a minefield but somehow decide not to make a map about the mines' locations? Why?