Butschi

A casino isn't really such a good analogy. For once in a casino your goal is to maximise a single ressource by investing that ressource. Since we are talking about the RuAF, the goal is not to maximise the number of aircraft but to win the war. You also cannot invest aircraft to get more aircraft. In addition, Russia is not playing against the bank but against another player. If that other player loses money faster than Russia or has less of it to play with it is perfectly possible to win while losing money.
I am not. I debate if this logic is applicable here. Russia does not rely on having aircraft in order to achieve their goal, i.e. win the war. Having aircraft does not win a war (well, that is not entirely true because they can be a deterrence). Expending aircraft wins a war if the exchange rate is favourable. As I said, I don't claim to know whether the exchange rate is favourable. 
Very simple example: Let's assume your opponent has only a limited number of fuel dumps and cannot continue to fight without fuel. You rely 100% on your air force to win. If you lose half your air force in order to destroy those fuel dumps you win the war, although you now have less aircraft. This is irrefutable logic, so I have no idea why you're trying to debate it.  Sorry, couldn't resist. 😉
If the Russians now lose more aircraft but hit disproportionally more, or more important targets (-> favourable exchange rate), it brings them closer to winning the war. If they just lose more aircraft, sure, you are absolutely right, Ukraine gets closer to winning the war.

Look here:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/tp709x3im6alym9ge11us/h?rlkey=w26ftpv2jsox5f01mu095mzt8&dl=0
exit_points_test.btt is super minimalistic, only blue has units, a single platoon. Remove the M113s and red will get 100 points, leave them in and its only 62 or something similar.
hohkeppel_osm_v2.btt is a complex scenario where red has to exit. You can observe the same effect there.

Ah sorry, shouldn't have hastily made post before getting called to dinner.
I was describing my test setup to understands where the exact VPs come from (why 85 and not 82, for instance). So I did it step by step, I guess that was a little confusing.
Short version: I have all the units as reinforcements. If it is only infantry, the opposing side gets full points because I didn't exit any unit (although they didn't arrive on the map, yet). If the infantry has their APCs with them, the other side gets less points, although I still haven't exited any unit.
Yes, made sure that all units are assigned to the same VP group.

Yea and I think that is the natural tension between Putin and Russia. For Putin this is an existential war but for Russia its not and there is tension in that. Its why Putin is able to burn strategic and long term assets but can't mobilize Russia into a total war footing.

Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin in many ways but not all the ways. And we also have that tension in our own discussions here to an extent.

You can recall dozens Russian planes and choppers, which were "shot down" in first several months. Indeed these were either "morale boosting", or mistaken reports (target just dissapeared from radars for many reasons, but crew reported about downing), or it could be E95M aerial target jet drone, which Russia actively used during first months as false targets and our radar crews could think they lock on real aircraft or cruise missile and then to report about downing, or it could by cruise missiles. So, from there is derived "340 destroyed planes", but in real in five times less.  

Thanks for keeping us grounded.
It will be interesting to see if can get confirmation of accurate numbers.
I guess without pilots ejecting we can't rely on COSPAS and if they go into the sea no satellite proof possible.
Just maybe in months time obituaries of the pilots if they pop up on social media.

I doubt this is real number. 
Now we have next: 
 - two confirmed Su-35 and A-50U from Russian side
- the video of falling down unknown combat aircraft near Dyakove (presumably Su-34, this is mathes with COSPAS information about eject signal from this area - Su-35 was shot down significantly west from this place)
- COSPAS ejection marks on the map allegedly from three Su-34 (including the one, mentioning above)
- bad quality of something falling down on the screen of some SAM (StarStreak?) claimed as Su-34
- just a claims of shot down jets. 
So, we have 3 100 % confirmed, 2 with high probability confirmed, 2 allegedly confirmed by COSPAS marks and rest 4 just unverified claims
 

It helps to read the FT directly instead of the somewhat cherry-picked excerpt, I think.
https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7
While it says, e.g.
the whole article is more about a possible conflict with a nucelar power, China in particular, than Ukraine. The longer version of the Alberque quote:
 

Interesting thread from UKR serviceman from engineer-position building unit of engineer brigade (these units subordinated to Support Troops Command, not to Ground Forces Command) about why unlike Russians UKR forces have so poor fortifications (if they were built after the big war started), which often dig hastily with shovels and limided engineer means of brigades instead to be prepared beforehand by engineer troops of Support Command.
1. Why we have so small number of useful fortifications. According to General Staff directive of Marh 11 2016 the infantry unit, seizing area of defense is a disposer of defense lines, and the performer of works of building and equipping of this defense line is Support Forces, which have to do it according to requests of infantry brigades engineer service chiefs.
2. Many of chiefs of infantry brigade engineer services do not know how to plan ahead and send requests to Support Command untimely. When I arrive on the place, I have neither a map nor enginner justification of positions. As a rule I hear some sort: "Dig here from the stump to tree-plant". But this is not work in this way. The defense must be continous. Ше must have a depth and the enemy hadn't to bypass it. But infantry engineers in stupid way don't know how to plan this and we have to do it themselves or even to shut up and to gig there, where they to tell, because your business is to shut up and execute.
3. Why is thete no concrete? According to the order of Engineer Troops Chief and a resolution of Chief-in -Command of July 4 2017, the character of defensive positions determinates by Operative Tactical Groupment Commands - OTU (wood cladding) and Operative Strategical Troops Groupment Commands - OSUV (pouring with a concrete) after appropriate request of the infantry unit, seizing defense area.  Wood is provided by Engineer seervice of OTU, and concrete and technic are provided by OSUV. The second defense line have to be cladded with a wood and the thired defense line with a concrete. Why there is no this, because, again, brigade's engineer services have no will to denand this and OTU have no money, because deals (author used a word more corresponding to "frauds") with a wood is a separate theme. 
4.Concerning a concrete - I report. There is no one engineer unit doesn't supply with corrwsponding technic (like and NATO too). These works performs civilian technic, but this is contracts with business. Moscovites just rob technic for works, but we can't do in such way. And again - where is third defense line should be? No one infantry brigade on East didn't provide a project.
5. Where are the tractors? According to numerous directives, orders, normative documents to maintain the defense line have to a units of Support Forces with a supply of infantry units. Alas, an excavator doesn't work on the water - it needs a diesel, and soldier, who works in it have to rest somewhere and to eat something, 
6. As result - with all my respects to engineer services of 110th, 47th, 53rd brigades, you guys are guilty themselves, that your troops hadn't proper trenches. And to all other collegues in Twitetr I recommend to study documents and contact the proper address.    
7. Concering to our work. We work from 6:00 to 17:00 and build continuosly, having more poor funding and more vulnerable technic. Pay attantion, there are many fundrising requestes, but no one engineer unit doesn't ask about a tractor or excavator. Because we undcerstand - the needs of infantry is more important. But instead the infantry for some reasons considers us as useless appendage 
    

Still working on this map and testing things out. Yes the tool is excellent. Takes a while to make adjustments on all of the terrain, buildings, and flavor objects though. Also I wish 18+ square KM maps didn't crash out of memory on my system after testing against the AI for a bunch of turns. I am really liking this opelkadet mod.

It helps to read the FT directly instead of the somewhat cherry-picked excerpt, I think.
https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7
While it says, e.g.
the whole article is more about a possible conflict with a nucelar power, China in particular, than Ukraine. The longer version of the Alberque quote:
 

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?
Anyway I'm not going to argue for or against one side but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.
 

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?
Anyway I'm not going to argue for or against one side but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.
 

Scholz annoys me to no end and I definitely hate to feel I should defend the man. Why I do it in cases like this: I may not agree with Scholz on the details and reasons but it is absolutely our right to decide which weapons we want to send and especially which weapons we don't want to send. By extension, it's Scholz right to make that call as our elected chancellor. Acting as if any other nation would handle this differently is disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me. I have to admit that Scholz is quite gifted in setting himself up as a target, though...

Scholz annoys me to no end and I definitely hate to feel I should defend the man. Why I do it in cases like this: I may not agree with Scholz on the details and reasons but it is absolutely our right to decide which weapons we want to send and especially which weapons we don't want to send. By extension, it's Scholz right to make that call as our elected chancellor. Acting as if any other nation would handle this differently is disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me. I have to admit that Scholz is quite gifted in setting himself up as a target, though...

Scholz annoys me to no end and I definitely hate to feel I should defend the man. Why I do it in cases like this: I may not agree with Scholz on the details and reasons but it is absolutely our right to decide which weapons we want to send and especially which weapons we don't want to send. By extension, it's Scholz right to make that call as our elected chancellor. Acting as if any other nation would handle this differently is disingenuous. I mean, there are lots of countries that are selective in what they give to Ukraine, so calling out only Germany irritates me. I have to admit that Scholz is quite gifted in setting himself up as a target, though...

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?
Anyway I'm not going to argue for or against one side but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.
 

Isn't that a general description of war? The question is just how many inches you get per death, right?

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.

Well, yes. Is there somewhere else you think it should rest?

I'm no expert but if a NATO member sends soldiers outside of NATO territory to participate in a war and then gets targeted by the other party, why should that trigger article 5? If the US defends Taiwan and China strikes the US, would that trigger article 5?
Anyway I'm not going to argue for or against one side but it's really up to each nation to decide if they want get actively involved in war (outside of NATO obligations, of course), I think. Just because France and UK do it doesn't mean everyone else is suddenly obliged to do it, too.
 

Can't argue with that...
From nato.int:
... So it was the US who made sure it is possible to "weasel out" of this. Hadn't seen that coming...

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.

Can't argue with that...
From nato.int:
... So it was the US who made sure it is possible to "weasel out" of this. Hadn't seen that coming...

Gents, I can try to explain why the decision is like it is and I can give my opinion on what I think b the NATO treaty does or does not oblige an ally to do. If you just want to vent steam and do another round of (irrational) Germany bashing, look for someone else.