Tuuktuuk

Uh, the Russia is doing that on every possible platform. Why would ours be an exception? What makes Lemmy so special?

Similar conscription amounts have been inside the current numbers as well.

These 160 000 are not an addition to the troops. They are just an explanation of where the steady recruitment of new soldiers comes from this year. This means that they are no longer able to find enough suitable prisoners to send to the front and must slightly increase the yearly amount of conscripts to keep things in balance.

The 0.7 % considers only Ukrainian territory, and completely ignores everything that happened inside the Russia

In the end of 2024, Ukraine controlled an area in the Kursk province that equaled about 0.2 % of Ukraine's total territory. If that area was taken into account, the Russia's net territory gain would be about 0.5 % of Ukraine's total territory. At the peak of the Kursk province operation , Ukraine controlled about twice as big an area of the Kursk province as in the end, so an area equalling about 0.4 % of Ukraine's total territory and 4/7 of the area the Russia managed to temporarily gain from Ukraine.

(Edit: and, my understanding is that the 4200 km² does not contain the territories Russia reclaimed, but now I'm getting a bit unsure, as I don't remember the exact phrasing of the text telling how much area the Russia gained)

I'm not really sure what's stopping Putin, but at least all the previous times he's declared how many new soldiers the Russia will recruit, they've fallen very short of that number.

What is known is that the Russia's recruitment capacity is 25 000 to 35 000 new soldiers per month. It is not able to reform during wartime, because that reform would cause a mess for a few years, lowering the capacity for first.

He's saying he'll recruit those soldiers within 4 months. That translates to 40 000 per month, which vows over even the pessimistic estimates for its recruitment capacity. And that would mean that they only recruit conscripts and nobody else during those four months. Of they recruit others than conscripts, they have that much less capacity for the conscription.

Nobody is reporting the 0.7 %. What they're reporting is that the Russia gained about 4200 km² of Ukraine's territory in 2024. That is reported by several sources, such as this one: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/8/russia-gained-4000sq-km-of-ukraine-in-2024-how-many-soldiers-did-it-lose

Ukraine's total territory is 603 628 km², and 4200 km² of that translates to 0.7 %.

Some sources talk about just over 2000 km², which would be around 0.3 %, but the rough measurement I made on the map was around 4000 km², so I don't trust the lower number.

You can search for "how much Ukrainian territory did Russians gain in 2024", and 4200 and 2000 are numbers you will find.

This 4200 km² does not include the areas inside the Russian Federation around the city of Sudzha. There Russia lost a land area that equals about 0.2 % of Ukraine's total land area, and if you count that in, then that brings the Russian gains down to 0.5% instead of 0.7 %.

Why do news media have to repeat this kind of weirdness:

Russian forces have slowly made territorial gains in Ukraine over the past but that has come at a cost.

What kind of "territorial gains" is it that during all of year 2024 the Russia managed to gain 0.7 percent of Ukraine's total area. Less than one percent! That is in no manner significant. Taking over 0.7 of a country's land means the frontline having frozen in place, not the country gaining territory.

And of course, if we take the events in Kursk province into account, the percentage gets even lower...

Also, this article says "will conscript", while in reality it is "wants to conscript". Putin can want whatever. Being able to get what it wants is a whole different question.

But only one really knows how to give commands to Trump. That's a huge difference!

Mathematics and languages have different rules.

In languages it is possible for one century to be a yewa shorter than all the others. Other centuries begin on a year divisible by hundred, but centuries 1–99 and -1–-99 don't. They are both missing a year, and outside mathematics that's just fine.

If almost all native speakers of a language say that a century begins in a year divisible by hundred then that's how it goes in that language.

On working days before 16 o'clock bank transfers inside EU are instantaneous. After that, next working day. If the shop has the same bank as the customer, it's always instantaneous.

But, the shop receives immediate confirmation that the money has been successfully taken from the customer's account and will arrive soon.

...which is actually how it works with card payments as well. With card payments, the shop receives the money about a week later, but gets an immediate confirmation that the money is on the way.

Handling cash costs money as well.

I'd like to know who got the idea to name the system with a word meaning "tax" in Finnish, one of the official languages of EU... Both are related to money, so there is a possibility for confusion.

(We used to always use w, and had a reform some ~century ago to allow using v instead. Therefore, w is considered another form of v in Finnish, and thereby wero equals vero)

Online you pay by bank transfer. Instead of "credit card", I choose "online bank", click my bank's name, enter my online banking login and password, give one of the single-use codes and press "transfer". A bank transfer from my account to the bank account number defined by the shop is made, no money goes to USA.