So the graph shows heavy U07 "Emergency use of" codes, which are reserved for emergency allocation of codes. U07.0 is "Vaping-related disorder" for that epidemic, and U07.1 is COVID-19. U07.2 is for inconclusive, possible COVID-19 (not as widely used).
This data claims U07 is the second high cause for 2024-2026. That seems very high unless the code is being misused / applied for something else, or the data is wrong.
For comparison:
* US has no infectious disease causes of death in the top 10 for 2024.
* India's most recent data release is 2022-2024, and cardiovascular disease tops the list, with neoplasms (cancer), non-infectious respiratory disease, and digestive disease ahead of respiratory infection (all combined). It isn't presented by ICD-10 code exactly.
So that U07 as late as 2024 is unusual unless there's some other huge emergency the code is being used for that has escaped much attention, or it is also being used for war deaths perhaps.
Very off-topic, but we're on a tangent to the whole site anyways.
Afaik, India has very low BMI on average. Why the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases? Could also be that "tops the list" still means relatively small amount of cases relative to the... let's say developed world.
I have no doubt that millions of Russians were sacrificed in horrible ways to defeat the Nazis, but that doesnt change the fact Russia has a LONG history of being a very cruel master to not only its own people but its neighbours.
The greatest enemy of the common nobody Russian is unfortunately their own brothers and rulers. Today we are seeing a genocide of many non Russian peoples on the fronts against Ukraine. It may not be a called a final solution but it will be remembered as this in the future when people learn more of what really feed the Russian monster against Ukraine and for the past few hundred years of imperial expansion.
As a non-westerner, I am only concerned about the resurgent rise of the right- in Europe and emerging politics in Europe due to it ... some of the current political views (and actions) from Europe is shockingly disgusting and backward.
It is a real tragedy for the Russian people to have to endure this totalitarian government, which embarks on inexplicable conflicts just to extend the borders of the LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD by a few kilometers. It makes absolutely no sense to deploy—and subsequently lose—one’s army for such a cause.
But I have to ask: who is going to be left holding the bag for this shitty war? I suspect that neither Putin nor his inner circle will want any of the blame to stick to them, even though they are the ones who masterminded it. The military must be a hotbed of chaos and internal tension right now; they have borne the brunt of the casualties, and, in all likelihood, they are about to face a major purge. I imagine Putin is relying on a handful of highly loyal generals—like Gerasimov—while the rest probably can’t stand him.
Will the regime survive if this ends in some sort of thinly veiled, backroom deal that fails to lift the sanctions imposed by Europe—by far its former primary trading partner?
Russia may be large but its actually a very damned place.
Just look at its borders most are frozen and it is effectively land locked with access via the Baltic and Black sea completed locked in.
It may be large, the numbers may appear also big, but its actually a terrible place to live compared to most other places. All that cold and conditions are nothing more than a prison, for both enjoyment and mental wellbeing and a large reason why so many there are alcholics on a scale you probably have no concept about.
A large reason why its so big is because most of it is so harsh nobody else wanted to conquor it. Theres a reason why China with its thousands of years of imperial history never took Siberia or even went that much more north than it is today.
To put it in perspective, that's almost as many losses US sustained between WW2 and Vietnam combined.
But, to put it on a more relevant Russian scale: that's less losses than what the Soviet Union suffered in Stalingrad alone and barely more than those sustained in the battle of Rzhev.
In any case, Russians were going through a major demographic crisis, and this might be a catastrophic event that with current low birth rates may radically change the face of Russia in the very next decades.
China has an oversupply of men from a different kind of demographic mismanagement. Now Russia has an oversupply of women relative to the number of men. As they are allies (sortof?) this seems like 2 problems that make up a solution (Xenophobia aside). In short Russia may win the war (looking less likely) and still fail/weaken as a socio-cultural entity. China will expand westward and Russia will end up much weaker.
This has always been my main geo-strategic point of befuddlement with the Russian war in Ukraine. NATO, as much as Putin and the Russian hawks like to prattle on about it, is in fact no real threat to Russian sovereignty. The European's mostly just want Russia to leave them alone, and so NATO primarily exists to disincentivize Russian aggression towards Europe.
Russia and Western Europe also don't really have any historical grievances / grudges that would serve as a Casus Belli for a hot war, nor has NATO ever shown even a shred of aggression towards any other states, and so some imagined potential NATO aggression towards Russia is a pretty poor excuse for a war in the first place, but that's not even the main blunder Russia is making here, as by fighting an imagined enemy they are making themselves much weaker in the face of their real enemy China.
China, on the other hand has the whole historical Manchuria grievance with Russia, has their own looming ecological and demographic collapses that will put pressure on the CCP to distract the Chinese people from their internal failings, and has shown an increasing appetite expansionism / imperialism and for getting into proxy or even direct conflicts with their neighbors, and so far more than the "West" / NATO, China is Russia's true geo-strategic adversary.
By sending a generation of their young men into meat grinder of the Ukrainian front, and by simultaneously weakening their own military-industrial base whilst strengthening China's, Russia is all but ensuring they'll be in a far weaker and easier to pressure / defeat state whenever China inevitably turns their expansionism and aggression towards Russia.
Putin is basically trading Russia's future for his own legacy, and I genuinely don't understand how more Russian's don't see this.
- Russia and Western Europe also don't really have any historical grievances
Have you read their history? Two world wars, the cold war, the dissolution of the USSR and the attempt at rapprochement by Gorbachev and Yeltsin (the reunification of Germany, allowing it join NATO, offering to join NATO themselves etc.) and now the Russian grievance of what they consider a betrayal of the promise to not expand NATO eastward ...
Putin's propaganda machine is fabricating a "foreign perception of Russian perception" to enable extorting concessions. It's the same tactic street thugs use when they accuse you of bumping into them or hitting them with a car and demand something in return. They are not actually offended nor hurt, but they play that role to get something out of you. If you follow along, you're a fool who will be mercilessly exploited. The proper response is to punch them in the face and ask if they want more of it. At least that's how Boris Nemtsov, one of the greatest Russian opposition leaders of this century, recommended dealing with Putin.
Since I know you don't like like non-western sources, here's one from a "credible" western source that asserts what I said too - How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine ( https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nat... ):
> "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said at a news conference in December ... Early in the effort to reunify Germany, U.S. officials wrestled with the question of Soviet control of the east: What could entice Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to withdraw? "The Americans guess that maybe what Gorbachev wants in exchange for letting Germany unify is a promise that NATO will not expand eastward," Sarotte said. "And so Secretary of State [James] Baker, in a speculative way in an early stage of negotiations, says to Gorbachev, 'How about this idea: How about you let your half of Germany go, and we agree to move that one piece forward?'" But President George H.W. Bush rejected the idea, and when more formal negotiations began later in 1990, a ban on NATO expansion was never actually offered, Sarotte said. There is some disagreement about what took place during the Baker-Gorbachev talks in February 1990 ... Seemingly conflicting comments from U.S. officials and Gorbachev made years later do not help clear this up ... The historical record shows otherwise, according to Sarotte. Contemporaneous notes, letters, speeches and interviews show that Western leaders were, in fact, already contemplating NATO enlargement by the time the February 1990 talks took place, she says ... From the beginning, Russia strongly objected to NATO's borders creeping closer to its territory. In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to secure a guarantee from President Bill Clinton that NATO would not add any former Soviet republics. Clinton refused.
Do we have the shared understanding, that we are discussing Putin(+regime)'s own perception or what they state it to be? I thought that's what this discussion/thread is about.
> The thing is, there's no such perception.
What do you mean, Putin doesn't have a perception on what happened in the last 50 years, concerning the territory of the USSR?
> Putin's propaganda machine is fabricating a "foreign perception of Russian perception" to enable extorting concessions. It's the same tactic street thugs use when they accuse you of bumping into them or hitting them with a car and demand something in return.
Well I think it IS what Putin* wants his public perception to be. Whether he actually believes that, is of course also a worthy question. But his stated perception does strongly fit his actions, while the supposed hidden actual perception does not and invokes contradictions.
> They are not actually offended nor hurt, but they play that role to get something out of you.
Well, he was imprisoned in Germany once for trying to overthrow the government to reestablish the regime he has been working for before. You can of course claim, that he wasn't offended by that and has indeed accepted the demise of the USSR as unrevocable history. I believe that his actions and stated thoughts indicate otherwise.
> The proper response is to punch them in the face and ask if they want more of it.
I didn't make a statement, about what the response of the "West" should be.
Putin* = including his administration, not just he personally.
a) foreign observers' perception of how Russians perceive things,
b) and Russians' actual perception of things.
Russian propaganda is working hard to instill a manipulated understanding. Historical analogies are drawn from Napoleon to Hitler to prove extreme sensitivity to even the remotest possibility of another attack from Europe, and this is used to justify demands that all Central and Eastern European countries must be kicked out of NATO.
In practice, Russians have never perceived the EU or NATO as a real military threat to the Russian Federation. On the EU's side of the border, bunkers and anti-tank ditches are being dug and public shelters are being prepared. On Russia's side, there isn't even a chain-link fence. The border is simply wide open. When notable Russian military analysts are asked about the prospect of NATO attack on Russia, they roll their eyes and ask to stop wasting their time with stupid questions.
Foreign observers who don't know facts on the ground nor can't follow the discussions held in Russian completely miss this and fall for the obvious deception.
The Russian perception is that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc under its influence was the normal state of the world, and that Russia must strive to return to that time. That means rolling tanks over 100 million free Europeans. If any sob story about injustices and grievances helps achieve that faster and easier, then that's what the propaganda machine will circulate. So far, the fake perceptions that all kinds of faraway "experts" have fallen for have lead to withholding tens of billions worth of military aid to Ukraine, so they've certainly served their purpose.
Like I said I was discussing the (stated) self-perception of the Russian administration (aka. Putin+...).
> The border is simply wide open. When notable Russian military analysts are asked about the prospect of NATO attack on Russia, they roll their eyes and ask to stop wasting their time with stupid questions.
Of course.
> Russians have never perceived the EU or NATO as a real military threat to the Russian Federation.
Yeah, because the threat is not to the current borders of the Russian Federation, but to the borders of the USSR, because the NATO continues to occupy their God-given territory.
> The Russian perception is that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc under its influence was the normal state of the world, and that Russia must strive to return to that time.
I agree. I don't really understand what we are arguing about then.
You answered to the Russian perception, which you yourself mention, with a quote from Gorbachev, someone who in this perception surely isn't seen as faithful to Mother Russia/USSR. Hence I replied, that this can't be a counter argument to that perception.
Gorbachev et al showcase that Putin's perception (as depicted by Russian state media) is not grounded in objective reality. Fairy tales are no reason to start dismantling the established European security cooperation, like he demands.
This perception of Putin is prescriptive, rather than descriptive, so it doesn't matter that it is not grounded in reality. He simply wants it to be the case, so he uses his power to act. Why should he care about "our security cooperation".
> The European's mostly just want Russia to leave them alone, and so NATO primarily exists to disincentivize Russian aggression towards Europe.
That assumes that Putin/the current Russian administration perceive the border of the country they rule, to be where we do. Then there could a hypothetical desire for the EU/NATO to gain more than the current borders, which they could react to with their current militaric actions.
But he/they make it very clear in speeches and public that they perceive the (rightful) border to be the pre-90 border of the USSR. With that context, the "West" does/did expand and the NATO aggression they are worried about, is the continued existence of countries eastward of the Elbe, that are not under Russian influence.
Not to mention the insurmountable cultural differences. Your average Chinese woman would want absolutely nothing to do with your average Russian man, and they certainly wouldn't want to move from modern and prosperous China to decrepit and declining Russia to marry one.
Crimean population gave +1.8 mln. Population of ex-Ukrainian SSR was around 35mln., now estimated as 22mln., and some of that difference moved to Russia.
i wonder how many of the Russian losses were conscripted inmates convicted of violent crimes, thereby effecting a perhaps purposeful pogrom of criminals.
Russia is a country of over a 100 different cultures and peoples. There are multiple levels of more equal people. As you probably know Pregoshin was the genius behind emptying Russian prisons and putting those men on the front line. Many non European peoples in the east or even the artic areas are not only poor they are also basically forced through poverty and selected recruitment policies to fight on the front line. You probably dont appreciate that Moscow and Leningrad are very much first above everyone else.
So the graph shows heavy U07 "Emergency use of" codes, which are reserved for emergency allocation of codes. U07.0 is "Vaping-related disorder" for that epidemic, and U07.1 is COVID-19. U07.2 is for inconclusive, possible COVID-19 (not as widely used).
This data claims U07 is the second high cause for 2024-2026. That seems very high unless the code is being misused / applied for something else, or the data is wrong.
For comparison:
* US has no infectious disease causes of death in the top 10 for 2024. * India's most recent data release is 2022-2024, and cardiovascular disease tops the list, with neoplasms (cancer), non-infectious respiratory disease, and digestive disease ahead of respiratory infection (all combined). It isn't presented by ICD-10 code exactly.
So that U07 as late as 2024 is unusual unless there's some other huge emergency the code is being used for that has escaped much attention, or it is also being used for war deaths perhaps.
>This data claims U07 is the second high cause for 2024-2026
The range is 2020-2026 with peak during 2021-2022 and regions with high air pollution being overrepresented. It's a COVID-related long tail.
Very off-topic, but we're on a tangent to the whole site anyways.
Afaik, India has very low BMI on average. Why the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases? Could also be that "tops the list" still means relatively small amount of cases relative to the... let's say developed world.
Well Northern India has the most polluted air in the world at the moment, or it did a few days ago at least, that probably doesn't help
I believe before the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022 the reporting of casualties of war was made illegal.
So they've prepared and have been trying hard to hide this catastrophic failure from which there probably won't be a recovery.
It wouldn't be shocking if different codes would be used to report casualties of war.
The disconcerting to see glimpses of the inner workings of a system where corruption is an institution.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I have no doubt that millions of Russians were sacrificed in horrible ways to defeat the Nazis, but that doesnt change the fact Russia has a LONG history of being a very cruel master to not only its own people but its neighbours.
The greatest enemy of the common nobody Russian is unfortunately their own brothers and rulers. Today we are seeing a genocide of many non Russian peoples on the fronts against Ukraine. It may not be a called a final solution but it will be remembered as this in the future when people learn more of what really feed the Russian monster against Ukraine and for the past few hundred years of imperial expansion.
[flagged]
What does most of their education system and monuments say for the dates of WW2?
If you want to talk about revisionist history don't make it one sided.
As a non-westerner, I am only concerned about the resurgent rise of the right- in Europe and emerging politics in Europe due to it ... some of the current political views (and actions) from Europe is shockingly disgusting and backward.
The 20,000 Poles massacred near Katyn would disagree with the idea of Soviet sacrifice as stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
Tell us about these atrocities and about the sacrifices of the poor Soviets please.
Some earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50427501
It is a real tragedy for the Russian people to have to endure this totalitarian government, which embarks on inexplicable conflicts just to extend the borders of the LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD by a few kilometers. It makes absolutely no sense to deploy—and subsequently lose—one’s army for such a cause.
But I have to ask: who is going to be left holding the bag for this shitty war? I suspect that neither Putin nor his inner circle will want any of the blame to stick to them, even though they are the ones who masterminded it. The military must be a hotbed of chaos and internal tension right now; they have borne the brunt of the casualties, and, in all likelihood, they are about to face a major purge. I imagine Putin is relying on a handful of highly loyal generals—like Gerasimov—while the rest probably can’t stand him.
Will the regime survive if this ends in some sort of thinly veiled, backroom deal that fails to lift the sanctions imposed by Europe—by far its former primary trading partner?
Russia may be large but its actually a very damned place.
Just look at its borders most are frozen and it is effectively land locked with access via the Baltic and Black sea completed locked in.
It may be large, the numbers may appear also big, but its actually a terrible place to live compared to most other places. All that cold and conditions are nothing more than a prison, for both enjoyment and mental wellbeing and a large reason why so many there are alcholics on a scale you probably have no concept about.
A large reason why its so big is because most of it is so harsh nobody else wanted to conquor it. Theres a reason why China with its thousands of years of imperial history never took Siberia or even went that much more north than it is today.
To put it in perspective, that's almost as many losses US sustained between WW2 and Vietnam combined.
But, to put it on a more relevant Russian scale: that's less losses than what the Soviet Union suffered in Stalingrad alone and barely more than those sustained in the battle of Rzhev.
In any case, Russians were going through a major demographic crisis, and this might be a catastrophic event that with current low birth rates may radically change the face of Russia in the very next decades.
China has an oversupply of men from a different kind of demographic mismanagement. Now Russia has an oversupply of women relative to the number of men. As they are allies (sortof?) this seems like 2 problems that make up a solution (Xenophobia aside). In short Russia may win the war (looking less likely) and still fail/weaken as a socio-cultural entity. China will expand westward and Russia will end up much weaker.
This has always been my main geo-strategic point of befuddlement with the Russian war in Ukraine. NATO, as much as Putin and the Russian hawks like to prattle on about it, is in fact no real threat to Russian sovereignty. The European's mostly just want Russia to leave them alone, and so NATO primarily exists to disincentivize Russian aggression towards Europe.
Russia and Western Europe also don't really have any historical grievances / grudges that would serve as a Casus Belli for a hot war, nor has NATO ever shown even a shred of aggression towards any other states, and so some imagined potential NATO aggression towards Russia is a pretty poor excuse for a war in the first place, but that's not even the main blunder Russia is making here, as by fighting an imagined enemy they are making themselves much weaker in the face of their real enemy China.
China, on the other hand has the whole historical Manchuria grievance with Russia, has their own looming ecological and demographic collapses that will put pressure on the CCP to distract the Chinese people from their internal failings, and has shown an increasing appetite expansionism / imperialism and for getting into proxy or even direct conflicts with their neighbors, and so far more than the "West" / NATO, China is Russia's true geo-strategic adversary.
By sending a generation of their young men into meat grinder of the Ukrainian front, and by simultaneously weakening their own military-industrial base whilst strengthening China's, Russia is all but ensuring they'll be in a far weaker and easier to pressure / defeat state whenever China inevitably turns their expansionism and aggression towards Russia.
Putin is basically trading Russia's future for his own legacy, and I genuinely don't understand how more Russian's don't see this.
- Russia and Western Europe also don't really have any historical grievances
Have you read their history? Two world wars, the cold war, the dissolution of the USSR and the attempt at rapprochement by Gorbachev and Yeltsin (the reunification of Germany, allowing it join NATO, offering to join NATO themselves etc.) and now the Russian grievance of what they consider a betrayal of the promise to not expand NATO eastward ...
Quoting a more rational actor, is not really a counter argument to what they perceive to have happened.
The thing is, there's no such perception.
Putin's propaganda machine is fabricating a "foreign perception of Russian perception" to enable extorting concessions. It's the same tactic street thugs use when they accuse you of bumping into them or hitting them with a car and demand something in return. They are not actually offended nor hurt, but they play that role to get something out of you. If you follow along, you're a fool who will be mercilessly exploited. The proper response is to punch them in the face and ask if they want more of it. At least that's how Boris Nemtsov, one of the greatest Russian opposition leaders of this century, recommended dealing with Putin.
> The thing is, there's no such perception.
Since I know you don't like like non-western sources, here's one from a "credible" western source that asserts what I said too - How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine ( https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nat... ):
> "You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said at a news conference in December ... Early in the effort to reunify Germany, U.S. officials wrestled with the question of Soviet control of the east: What could entice Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to withdraw? "The Americans guess that maybe what Gorbachev wants in exchange for letting Germany unify is a promise that NATO will not expand eastward," Sarotte said. "And so Secretary of State [James] Baker, in a speculative way in an early stage of negotiations, says to Gorbachev, 'How about this idea: How about you let your half of Germany go, and we agree to move that one piece forward?'" But President George H.W. Bush rejected the idea, and when more formal negotiations began later in 1990, a ban on NATO expansion was never actually offered, Sarotte said. There is some disagreement about what took place during the Baker-Gorbachev talks in February 1990 ... Seemingly conflicting comments from U.S. officials and Gorbachev made years later do not help clear this up ... The historical record shows otherwise, according to Sarotte. Contemporaneous notes, letters, speeches and interviews show that Western leaders were, in fact, already contemplating NATO enlargement by the time the February 1990 talks took place, she says ... From the beginning, Russia strongly objected to NATO's borders creeping closer to its territory. In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to secure a guarantee from President Bill Clinton that NATO would not add any former Soviet republics. Clinton refused.
Do we have the shared understanding, that we are discussing Putin(+regime)'s own perception or what they state it to be? I thought that's what this discussion/thread is about.
> The thing is, there's no such perception.
What do you mean, Putin doesn't have a perception on what happened in the last 50 years, concerning the territory of the USSR?
> Putin's propaganda machine is fabricating a "foreign perception of Russian perception" to enable extorting concessions. It's the same tactic street thugs use when they accuse you of bumping into them or hitting them with a car and demand something in return.
Well I think it IS what Putin* wants his public perception to be. Whether he actually believes that, is of course also a worthy question. But his stated perception does strongly fit his actions, while the supposed hidden actual perception does not and invokes contradictions.
> They are not actually offended nor hurt, but they play that role to get something out of you.
Well, he was imprisoned in Germany once for trying to overthrow the government to reestablish the regime he has been working for before. You can of course claim, that he wasn't offended by that and has indeed accepted the demise of the USSR as unrevocable history. I believe that his actions and stated thoughts indicate otherwise.
> The proper response is to punch them in the face and ask if they want more of it.
I didn't make a statement, about what the response of the "West" should be.
A distinction must be made between:
a) foreign observers' perception of how Russians perceive things,
b) and Russians' actual perception of things.
Russian propaganda is working hard to instill a manipulated understanding. Historical analogies are drawn from Napoleon to Hitler to prove extreme sensitivity to even the remotest possibility of another attack from Europe, and this is used to justify demands that all Central and Eastern European countries must be kicked out of NATO.
In practice, Russians have never perceived the EU or NATO as a real military threat to the Russian Federation. On the EU's side of the border, bunkers and anti-tank ditches are being dug and public shelters are being prepared. On Russia's side, there isn't even a chain-link fence. The border is simply wide open. When notable Russian military analysts are asked about the prospect of NATO attack on Russia, they roll their eyes and ask to stop wasting their time with stupid questions.
Foreign observers who don't know facts on the ground nor can't follow the discussions held in Russian completely miss this and fall for the obvious deception.
The Russian perception is that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc under its influence was the normal state of the world, and that Russia must strive to return to that time. That means rolling tanks over 100 million free Europeans. If any sob story about injustices and grievances helps achieve that faster and easier, then that's what the propaganda machine will circulate. So far, the fake perceptions that all kinds of faraway "experts" have fallen for have lead to withholding tens of billions worth of military aid to Ukraine, so they've certainly served their purpose.
This is an interesting political view that I have never come across before. Can you share your source(s) for this?
Like I said I was discussing the (stated) self-perception of the Russian administration (aka. Putin+...).
> The border is simply wide open. When notable Russian military analysts are asked about the prospect of NATO attack on Russia, they roll their eyes and ask to stop wasting their time with stupid questions.
Of course.
> Russians have never perceived the EU or NATO as a real military threat to the Russian Federation.
Yeah, because the threat is not to the current borders of the Russian Federation, but to the borders of the USSR, because the NATO continues to occupy their God-given territory.
> The Russian perception is that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc under its influence was the normal state of the world, and that Russia must strive to return to that time.
I agree. I don't really understand what we are arguing about then.
You answered to the Russian perception, which you yourself mention, with a quote from Gorbachev, someone who in this perception surely isn't seen as faithful to Mother Russia/USSR. Hence I replied, that this can't be a counter argument to that perception.
Gorbachev et al showcase that Putin's perception (as depicted by Russian state media) is not grounded in objective reality. Fairy tales are no reason to start dismantling the established European security cooperation, like he demands.
This perception of Putin is prescriptive, rather than descriptive, so it doesn't matter that it is not grounded in reality. He simply wants it to be the case, so he uses his power to act. Why should he care about "our security cooperation".
> The European's mostly just want Russia to leave them alone, and so NATO primarily exists to disincentivize Russian aggression towards Europe.
That assumes that Putin/the current Russian administration perceive the border of the country they rule, to be where we do. Then there could a hypothetical desire for the EU/NATO to gain more than the current borders, which they could react to with their current militaric actions.
But he/they make it very clear in speeches and public that they perceive the (rightful) border to be the pre-90 border of the USSR. With that context, the "West" does/did expand and the NATO aggression they are worried about, is the continued existence of countries eastward of the Elbe, that are not under Russian influence.
Surplus women in Russia are mostly 40+ though [0], so pairing them up with Chinese surplus dudes won't do much for fertility rates.
[0] https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2026/
Not to mention the insurmountable cultural differences. Your average Chinese woman would want absolutely nothing to do with your average Russian man, and they certainly wouldn't want to move from modern and prosperous China to decrepit and declining Russia to marry one.
You can bet that no Russian woman is particularly interested into the opposite direction either.
It must be Chinese man and Russian woman.
Crimean population gave +1.8 mln. Population of ex-Ukrainian SSR was around 35mln., now estimated as 22mln., and some of that difference moved to Russia.
What is russia today hosted about half of soviet population, even after all the forced relocations.
i wonder how many of the Russian losses were conscripted inmates convicted of violent crimes, thereby effecting a perhaps purposeful pogrom of criminals.
Russia is a country of over a 100 different cultures and peoples. There are multiple levels of more equal people. As you probably know Pregoshin was the genius behind emptying Russian prisons and putting those men on the front line. Many non European peoples in the east or even the artic areas are not only poor they are also basically forced through poverty and selected recruitment policies to fight on the front line. You probably dont appreciate that Moscow and Leningrad are very much first above everyone else.
я понял. I understood and figured that was strategic in the implicit class scenario.
Thanks for explaining better than i could have.