Maciej Zwolinski

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

I think he means that technically speaking, Russia will probably never exactly run out of war material, because before that happens it will reduce consumption/exposition to risk when faced with a shortage. Therefore one can not just draw a graph with one line representing average production, the other average consumption and at the point where they meet, the Russian army will stop firing guns or have no more tanks. He says this in all his podcasts in particular whenever ammo production is discussed, so I am fairly confident this is what is meant here as well.
And whereas the Russians can decide to reduce the firing rate/usage rate pretty much at will, they cannot increase the production rate by will alone, therefore the replacement rate is the more objectively observable variable.
 

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

And throw in a torpedo or two, even light ones. A ship  manoeuvering violently at full speed to avoid a surface drone will not hear anything on its sonar, active or passive. A stealthy carrier drone able to release a torpedo within several kms off the target would be a perfect crime.

The reason is crystal clear.  44 year olds do not have many children, usually. The Ukraine has dire demographic situation and does not want to be in the position, that it survives the war but has nobody to replace the population gap. To put it crudely, it protects the breeders.

The reason is crystal clear.  44 year olds do not have many children, usually. The Ukraine has dire demographic situation and does not want to be in the position, that it survives the war but has nobody to replace the population gap. To put it crudely, it protects the breeders.

They are not emaciated, and they should not be.  Poland was willing to transfer a very significant part of our military equipment, accept a huge number of refugees, pay for Starlink terminals, act as one of the most active diplomatic supporters of the Ukraine, etc. We even took an Ukrainian SAM which killed 2 Poles and desperately tried to pretend it was Russian missile until we could not pretend anymore. But why gut a significant part of agricultural industry? That is unnecessary and a step too far.
Especially since - as far as we know - in the Ukraine the grain export is a business of equally not emaciated and well nutritioned oligarchs and multinationals, who would like to make a better margin through cutting transportation costs and dumping the goods immediately after crossing the border. That is not a very appealing cause.

https://tvn24.pl/biznes/z-kraju/polska-moze-wprowadzic-embargo-na-import-z-rosji-i-bialorusi-premier-donald-tusk-wyjasnia-st7797293
They are analizing such situations and likely will put embargo on these imports. There are also goods imported from Belarus that were never under any sanctions, but I am unceratin if rapeseed is among them (sorry, I am in train now and can't check).
I don't get where are you again pointing at by comparing situation of a guy living country at war and the one that is not. So local farmer going broke should actually be indeed happy, cause somebody in Africa is hungry and is in worse situation? Now that is optimistic attitude.
Zaleban, don't start another quarrel over nothingburger please. And note I am not their spokesmen too.
And here we go again. Should we spend another several pages to prove you that entire world didn't start, out of a sudden, to conspire against Ukraine? Which is it, 3rd or 4th? Last time you projected that Ukraine will surely fall till December, at the start of the year at the most. Now you found yourself a reason for some Dolchstoss theory?
This is not small number of people, there is 1,3 mln households in entire country that has something to do with farming. And not, not every protest was anti-Ukrainian, not even majority; but to know this, you would need entire picture of situation, not the one oligarchic media coctail serves you now. In Augustów for example protesters on one of largest meetings put UA banners on display, in many others they underlined constantly they are not political but have no choice due to prices murdering their small business (unlike UA, farming here is not concentrated in giant holdings but chiefly small or middle business; average farmer cannot simply walk into PM office like mr. Kosjuk or mr. Verevsky). There were places where Russian stooges were kicked off, in others they were not. Public opinion is very divided over this issue (note: Russia loves this, not only external but also internal divisions); form of protests is usually condemned but not the essence- this problem of unfair prices on food products needs to be resolved sooner or later anyway. Fo new government, who has much more important things on its head (they try to fix rule of law issues left by predecessors) it is hot potato, but one you cannot simply throw back. Also no vital military or humanitarian help was blocked and decision to turn main border crossings legally under critical infastructure was actually rather bold one on Tusk' side.
You probably don't realise, but in most places farmers are prostesting chiefly against Green Deal like everywhere in Union, with entire Ukrainian issue in the background. It all depends where you look at; note they also block not only Polish export at the borders, but also internal ways of communcation, occassionally city centers and such, which has nothing to do with Ukraine. Border is only part of the much larger problem.
So no, heavens out of a sudden didn't fall on Ukraine's heads.  It's normal neigbour issue taking place in very bad time for you; we had dozens of such in last decade only (to put "train wars" over some tariffs that just broke before the war as example; it was still linging in first months), and society is firmly anti-Russian and mostly pro-Ukrainian still. But that doesn't mean they like to get treated like economical loosers by- always extremely pragmatic when comes to economy- Kyiv's ruling circles, and that seems to be indeed prevalent perception now. Artificial hysterias are not helpful in building solutions.

They are not emaciated, and they should not be.  Poland was willing to transfer a very significant part of our military equipment, accept a huge number of refugees, pay for Starlink terminals, act as one of the most active diplomatic supporters of the Ukraine, etc. We even took an Ukrainian SAM which killed 2 Poles and desperately tried to pretend it was Russian missile until we could not pretend anymore. But why gut a significant part of agricultural industry? That is unnecessary and a step too far.
Especially since - as far as we know - in the Ukraine the grain export is a business of equally not emaciated and well nutritioned oligarchs and multinationals, who would like to make a better margin through cutting transportation costs and dumping the goods immediately after crossing the border. That is not a very appealing cause.

They are not emaciated, and they should not be.  Poland was willing to transfer a very significant part of our military equipment, accept a huge number of refugees, pay for Starlink terminals, act as one of the most active diplomatic supporters of the Ukraine, etc. We even took an Ukrainian SAM which killed 2 Poles and desperately tried to pretend it was Russian missile until we could not pretend anymore. But why gut a significant part of agricultural industry? That is unnecessary and a step too far.
Especially since - as far as we know - in the Ukraine the grain export is a business of equally not emaciated and well nutritioned oligarchs and multinationals, who would like to make a better margin through cutting transportation costs and dumping the goods immediately after crossing the border. That is not a very appealing cause.

Rusi report talks about a 10-day plan for invasion
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022

Mr Murz, he dead

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".
 

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".
 

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".
 

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".
 

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".
 

Translating dolboyebism is a complex task. You need to include several steps
First, Dolboyebism - the suffix "-ism" suggests that this is a word denoting things related to another word, in this context it would probably mean "something that a dolbayeb would do" (a hypothesis confirmed by meaningful conclusion of step 2).
Second, "dolbayeb" is a compound word, where two parts may be distinguished: "do lba" (to the head) and "yeb". Given that we are dealing with a swear word, it may be safely assumed that "yeb" pertains to  "yebat", to have sex (rude).
Thus we arrive at "dolbayeb" - man, with whose head someone had sex (presumably damaging it in the process) - and "dolbayebism" - "a thing so stupid, that it could be done by a man, with whose head someone had sex, damaging it in the process".
On the Internet I found someone's translation of "dolbayeb" as "****head", which I like as it is both correct as to the meaning and  the closest ethymologically. Dolboyebism thus could be translated as "****headery" or "****headism".