Sure. The 21,000 (31 BTGs) figure is pretty solid.

The 190,000 as an upper limit for how many soldiers the Russians field is too.

Those are the numbers I've used.


Your math with how many BTGs the Russians supposedly fielded and what percentage the 31 BTGs participating in the invasion is part of your argument, and not mine. So I'm not sure why you're trying to accuse me of inconsistencies in an argument you are making.

This is strawmanning at its worst. — Tzeentch

If 31 BTGs = 21 000 is pretty solid, then 1 BTG = is about 670 is also pretty solid. We can learn that, if we use division on those very numbers:
21000/31= 677,41

(The link is supposedly quite reliable).

If 1 BTG is 670 is solid (I round up to avoid fractioning of soldiers), then 100 BTGs (the estimated number of BTGs based on three sources) = 67000 is pretty solid, we know it from the same, reliable source:
100 * 670 = 67000

If your numbers are solid, as you say, then Russians put out in the whole of Ukraine as many people as you say were defenders of Kiev. That would not be even absurd, but simply insane.

On the other hand, if 190000 is your claimed upper limit, then:
190000/100=1900
so one BTG would be 1900 people, not 670. That means that your number is not 'pretty solid', it is completely wrong.

Similarly, if:
1 BTG = 670 people (YOUR CLAIM)
190000 total troops (YOUR CLAIM)
190000 / 670 = 283 - that is how many BTGs Russia should have in the beginning of the invasion according to your 'solid numbers'. I have given three sources which show that was not the case. If you believe that my sources are wrong, give three that claim Russians had nearly 300 BTGs in the Ukraine in the beginning of the conflict.

Of course, I might be wrong, feel free to correct my calculations.

This is why I told you to look up information about the peace negotiations.

The Russians were bargaining to keep Ukraine out of NATO, and under those circumstances the land bridge to Crimea could be given up.
There's nothing inconsistent about that. — Tzeentch

Your claim was that the bridge of Crimea was the primary goal of Russia in the war. Now you also claim that in the negotiations Russians would accept Ukraine out of NATO, but it would lose the bridge. Therefore, it would NOT reach your stated primary goal of the war, which is exactly what I wrote. I believe there is a name for not achieving your primary goals in a war and it is not 'victory'.

That's rather ironic, considering the Russian order of battle included no more than 190,000 troops, making the notion that the Russians had large territorial goals something that can be dismissed outright. — Tzeentch

Nobody claims that they had large territorial goals - they were supposed to take the capital and major cities - every move they made confirms that. They counted on the lack of resistance and political inertia of the Ukrainian government, exactly as it was in Crimea.

We don't know that. That's an assumption that you seem to keep hinging on, so you're questioning your own assumption here, and not mine. — Tzeentch

Let me see:

31 BTGs. — Tzeentch

The 31 BTG figure is one of the more concrete numbers they give — Tzeentch

But they do provide hard data - 31 BTGs. — Tzeentch

You have given the number at least three times. I suppose that if you knew how many BTGs there were in total, you would rather not.

Wikipedia estimates the total number at about 80:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_for_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

Guardian estimated it as 93:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-ukraine-crisis-putin-troops-visual-guide-explainer

The biggest figure I could find is 117 from some Polish analytic group:

https://defence24.com/armed-forces/land-forces/russia-losing-22-battalion-tactical-groups-is-btg-a-myth-or-is-it-truly-effective-in-combat-analysis

So yes, I would say I have a pretty good support for my claim - three quotes from you that the northern axis had 30 BTGs and three independent sources claiming the total was about 100. Your math is totally off.

The question is irrelevant as to what the Russian goals might've been. Columns will be found during any large-scale military operation. Mistakes will be made and losses will be incurred regardless of the Russian goals. That's inherent to military operations. — Tzeentch

No, you do not find 60 km columns stalled without fuel and resources for days in the enemy territory during any large-scale military operation. And in those which that happened, they were not part of a successful operation, but rather a major disaster. And the question is essential, because so obviously it was a mess-up of such embarassing proportions that it negates any claim of a successfully executed feint. You do not feint an attack by endangering 15 thousand troops... The column was obviously going somewhere – it was supposed to support the blitz and mop up the remaining forces. Except the blitz did not happen, as the campaign stalled. You just choose to ignore the reality of what has actually happened.

If you take half a second to think about what you just wrote, you'll understand why this isn't contradictory at all. — Tzeentch

Lol.

To negotiate you need bargaining chips. Kind of obvious. — Tzeentch

You do not need bargaining chips to negotiate your defeat.

I think the primary goal of the invasion was safeguarding a land bridge to Crimea. However, neither me nor you know what the actual Russian goals are/were.

Western media have tried hard to spread a narrative that the Russians were essentially hoping to take over all of Ukraine. Of course, given such a narrative it is easy to frame the Russian operations as a massive failure. — Tzeentch

You were already given many clues what their aims might be: Putin's speech, claims of propagandists, the order of the battle etc. You just ignore them. They have committed 40 BTGs out of 100 for what you claim was their primary goal. Militarily that makes zero sense.

However, scholars such as Mearsheimer underline that given the 190,000 troops that participated in the initial invasion, the Russian goals must have been limited. Mearsheimer doesn't rule out the possibility that the operations in the north were meant to threaten (and not capture) either.

Seymour Hersh in one of his interviews states directly Kiev was a feint, and the number of Ukrainian defenders in and around Kiev he puts on 60,000. With that, we arrive at a whopping 180,000 troops necessary to reach a bare minimum of a 3:1 advantage with which the Russian could go on the offensive.

Instead, we see 21,000.

The numbers simply don't add up to support your view. — Tzeentch

Your numbers simply don't add up at all. One third of the BTGs were committed to the northern axis, so if it was 20 thousands (with 15 thousands in a single column!), that would make the total invasion force just 60 thousands. On the other hand, if the total force was 190 000 troops, then one third on the northern axis would be 60 thousands, which is about what Wikipedia claims. So which is it?

And I see you conveniently decided not to answer the question: how exactly forming a 60 km immobile column works as a feint? Was it planned or not?

It's perfectly possible for a military operation to have multiple purposes, so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea. — Tzeentch

Your source claimed that Russians were ready to give up the land bridge to Crimea which you claim was the primary goal of the invasion. That basically means that your source claims that Russians were ready to surrender their primary goals. Why would they need 'threatening Kiev' for that?

I think the casualty figures clearly imply said lack of trying. — Tzeentch

No, it does not, for the reasons I have already explained and which you are not even trying to engage. Do you believe that getting 15 thousand troops in a column, keeping them immobile for a few days and then withdrawing them was planned?

And the southern operations were successful, weren't they? — Tzeentch

They took some land, but the goals of the war were not achieved. It is a matter of interpretation how much success is that.

I'm hypothesizing.

I suggest you read up on the peace negotiations that took place during March / April 2022. — Tzeentch

I have tracked them as they happened. I was just pointing out that the source you have provided contradicts your previous claims.

A blitz means punching through defensive lines with massed numbers and firepower. In a blitz operation one doesn't stop at the first sign of resistance, but will attempt to overpower the defensive lines with maximum force to keep the momentum going. — Tzeentch

But obviously Russians DID try to commit more forces, that is why they moved their 60 km column. The fact that it was unable to sustain its movements shows their embarassingly bad execution, not lack of trying. In a hit-and-run operation such move would make even less sense.

Had this been the Russians' intention, we would have seen a lot more casualties and intense fighting. — Tzeentch

In general, columns standing idly without fuel do not engage in intense fighting. They were lucky that Ukrainians were spread so thin that they could not move on them (and that their airforce was suppressed), otherwise they would all be massacred.

Yes, I think that's perfectly reasonable.

A threat must be credible in order to serve as a diversion. Consider also that the threatening of Kiev may have had an additional objective, namely that of getting Ukraine and NATO to the negotiating table. — Tzeentch

No, committing one third of forces to a diversion is not reasonable, it is absurd. It is even more absurd if you take the actual order of the battle – beside the 30 BTGs committed in the North there were 15 BTGs in the Kharkiv direction, 4 in Sumy and about 4 as a general reserve for the northern axis. That leaves less than 40 in the South, for the 'real' offensive.

And again, the progress of the northern campaign has no indications of a successful hit-and-run attack, it has all indications of a failed effort.

Russia and Ukraine in fact entered negotiations shortly after the invasion, and we have accounts that claim there was a peace accord being written up before the negotiations were blocked by the US. — Tzeentch

So now you are claiming that the 'diversion' at Kiev was meant to reach an agreement where Russia would willingly give up what you claim were its aims in the war, i.e. the territorial gains. That would actually mean its defeat, right?

I have looked at other sources and indeed the number of thirty plus BTGs might refer to the northern campaign (without Kharkiv). Given that the initial number of Russian BTGs for the whole invasion is estimated at 80-110 BTGs (depending on the source), that is still one third of the force. Do you think it is reasonable to use one third of invasion forces for a diversion?

The sources you quote list 31 BTGs ona single salient. I am talking about the total number of troops involved in the northern campaign. It is estimated that the Kiyv Convoy itself might have up to 15 thousand troops, that would leave 5 far all other salients, reserves, GLOC etc. That is simply absurd. The number of troops involved just in the battle of Chernihiv is estimated at 20 thousand.

As for the massive casualties - Russians were not massacred in the north, their offensive stalled mostly to unexpected resistance and catastrophic logistics. They expected a blitz and failed. They stood in a column for a week, a fine diversionary maneuver... The majority of the troops was not even close to the battle.

It was reported directly by the Ukrainian general staff.

31 BTGs, each comprised of roughly 600 - 800 officers and soldiers, amounts to roughly 21,000 troops. — Tzeentch

This is the number engaged on 26th of February, which does not comprise the whole northern force. As you seem to accept Wikipedia as credible, here is the article on the whole northern campaign:
[url=http://]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv_offensive_(2022)[/url]

It gives the number of the Russian troops involved in the northern campaign at 70 thousand (and defenders at less than 40 thousand, half of it irregulars, which seems a bit less than your 60). So your claim is basically that Russia has committed one third of its troops in Ukraine to a 'diversion'.

And claiming that the battle of Kiev was a 'diversion' is not laughable? You have failed to actually address any points I have mentioned, you just repeat your claim.

The aims of the 'special operation' were clearly stated by Putin at its beginning. Russia has failed to achieve any of them. Sure, occupying some land may be seen as a consolation prize, but it is rather obvious that was not the actual goal of the campaign.

On 26.02.2022 RIA Novosti (press agency/main Russian propaganda machine) has run an article by Petr Akopov, one of its main propagandist. In it he praises 'the New Order' which Russia has achieved by 'returning Ukraine to Russia'. It seems it was prepared in advance and was supposed to be run when Russia easily takes Ukraine. Of course, that did not happen and the article was quickly withdrawn, however, some sites, like the Wayback Machine, managed to save it. It is worth reading, as it shows quite clearly what Russia wanted to achieve in Ukraine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220226051154/https://ria.ru/20220226/rossiya-1775162336.html

A diversion? That theory does not fit the facts - you do not send your best paratroopers to be decimated in a diversion. You do not commit the bulk of your forces in the area for them to leave in disarray several days later, leaving a ton of equipment. You do not form a column and stall it - diversion is just feinting an attack, to hit and run. And what that diversion was supposed to achieve? The defenders would be equally committed without the attack at all, they could not leave the city as long as the Russians stood there.

It was not a diversion, it was a botched attack. The Russians did not expect such resistance and their logistics completely failed.

So your narrative is that 20000 of Russian troops were just on a stroll in the vicinity of Kiev? That the battle of Kiev, was actually not a battle of Kiev? What were they doing there then?

I'd just like to point out how absolutely pivotal a piece of information like this is to deciphering the actual goings-on vis-à-vis Ukraine.

For many months now I have defended the position (leaning quite often on Mearsheimer's arguments, I will admit) that the Russians never intended to take over all of Ukraine.

Unless someone wants to argue the 190,000 figure is false, we can essentially dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war. I hope people realise that. — Tzeentch

The plan was to take Kiev, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson and Odessa, possibly Dnipro. If it suceeded, there would be little to no resistance, as the entire government structure would collapse (with Lviv being the only remaining bigger center). Ukrainians would have no choice but to accept peace on very unfavorable terms, most likely with puppet Russian government installed. How exactly does that 'dismiss the entire western narrative of the Ukraine war'?

That graph has the unique attributes of being both correct and irrelevant. Much, if not quite all, Russian resources continue to reach the EU via third party countries. The really significant difference is that the Europeans are paying more for the same resources to pay for the additional layers of middle men and shipping.

But even if that were not the case, the EU and the USA is not the world. It is merely 12% of the world's population. There are new market opportunities for Russia. India is 17% of the world's population. China is another 17% and China has every reason to shift its trading relationship in Russia's favour - as has already happened during this period.. — yebiga

The really significant difference is that the middle men are pocketing the lion's share of the profits, so Russia is getting paid much less. And it is much less important how big are the countries you are trading with, but whether they have the money. India and China are paying for the resources half of what Russians got from the West - that is the significant difference. Especially that neither India nor China want Russia to get much stronger - they are using the opportunity to squeeze Russia, not to help it.

Humans can live without Prada Bags, French Champagne and German Cars. It is more difficult to live without fuel for your transportation systems, very uncomfortable without heating and impossible without food. — yebiga

Is that what you think Russians has imported from the West? Do you realize that not a single modern train junction in Russia (and railway is the backbone of Russian transportation) was built without German technology? Do you realize that not a single oil well works without Swedish, German or American solutions? Did you know that over 70% of Russian civilian aircraft was made in the West and the rest has Western parts, so already part of the fleet had to be cannibalized for spare parts? Even the carmaking industry cannot keep up the (already lowered) production. And these technologies cannot be simply smuggled in or imported through a third country. Without Western engineers they would still be worthless.

The Russian population is barely 2% of the world, but its borders constitute 20% of the world's land mass. Only chronic indolence, corruption, and incompetence can explain why a country possessing this fundamental advantage would be incapable of sustaining a robust economy. Those three attributes have riddled Russia throughout its history. But not only have those riches not gone away but with the advance of technology there are even more unparalleled stretches of previously inaccessible and unexploited territory beckoning. — yebiga

The whole tragedy of Russia is caused by this exact thinking. Its rulers still think they are an empire because they have the sq kilometers. But in today's world area is not worth much (ask Canadians) - you are only as strong as your economy is. And Russia's trails behind Italy, this year it has barely made the first ten, but it does not seem it will stay there for long. That is the very source of Russia's resentment - it does not count that much anymore. That is the major reason for its imperialistic tendencies and that is one of the reasons for the war. If you do not believe me, just watch Russian TV (Russian Media Monitor is an excellent source) - they are stating exactly that precisely and straightforwardly. They do not care for the fate of oridinary Russians - they just want their country 'big'.

The popular Western description echoing that Russia is a gas station impersonating a country is entirely a product of envy. And it is the manifestation of this envy, not Ukraine sovereignty, that drives this conflict. — yebiga

Funny one! Wait, you are serious? The West is envious of Russia? The West mostly does not care about Russia, it is not significant enough. It is Russia that had a Western complex for a long time. In Tolstoy the nobility were practically bilingual, as they spoke French to each other. They called St Petersburg 'Paris of the North', I do not recall anyone calling Paris 'St Petersburg of the West'... And it has not changed a bit - most Russian oligarchs have houses in the West, Solovyov, the chief defender of the Russian values, cries live over the loss of his Italian villas, his purported children, along with children of Peskov, Shoigu, Lavrov and other 'kids of the Kremlin' are also enjoying their lives in the West. That is why they were so outraged at the restrictions... When the Western elites were banned from going to Sochi, they took it in stride. Envy? I do not think so.

It makes little sense to base projections on 2022, in which Russia indeed had a short surge due to short-lived spike of gas and oil prices and inability for the Western countries to switch to other suppliers in such short time. But now they did and the prices have fallen below the pre-war levels. That is why Russia has lost its main source of income, which I have already pointed out in previous post.

Yes, the official inflation rate is low. The question is, given the current deficit and reserve spending (like 35 bln $ spent from reserves on the National Welfare Fund in January), how long it will last. Similarly, given the situation, any predictions concerning the GDP are rather hypothetical.

Much of the trade surplus is driven by grain exports. Russia produces almost 12% of the world’s wheat, all non-GMO. Total world wheat production for this period is estimated at about 781 million tons. — yebiga

In 2021 foodstuff exports accounted for less than 10% of total Russian exports. Compared to income from oil and gas it is pretty negligible. If it has a bigger share now (I cannot find the data), it is not because it is doing so well, but because its other exports fell so much. And the trade surplus in 2022 resulted mostly from ban of imports from the West; exports could not be banned as quickly, as they had to find new suppliers. But now the trend is clearly reversed and Russia is losing both; here is the current graph concerning the trade with the EU:



The fact is that Russia has lost its best customers.

This reply is completely irrelevant to my post, which pointed out the factual inaccuracies in your previous post.

That is why I will reply to this one shortly: it is equally factually incorrect. Russia's economic prospects are rather bleak. While its output in energy resources in volume is close to pre-war levels, the income from their export is down by 45%. Given that before the war it accounted for almost half of the federal budget, it is a significant loss. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the federal spending is higher by about 30% (due to the costs of this unnecessary war). It is enough to say that Russia's deficit has reach its projected annual value in three months. Russia is not ascending, it is deteriorating. It did not start with the war, but it certainly has accelerated that process.

And the talk of the loss of values in the West is rather hypocritical, given the 'values' of Russia's allies. It is not a coincidence that they are all authoritarian states.

Sorry, I did not answer your questions, because I have realized that I might have misunderstood you and we might be talking past each other.

It should be noted 'XY is a male' is a scientific definition of sex, but only one of several, namely genetic (chromosomal) one. There are other, like gonadal sex or phenotypic sex, which take different features into consideration. You seemed to acknowledged that when you wrote about 'sex expressions' (which clearly refer to phenotypic sex, not chromosomal one). Moreover, you wrote that people with AIS are 'neither a man nor a woman' - it seemed you referred to their sex, not gender. Again, writing that makes sense only when referring to their gonadal sex, less so when referring to their phenotypic sex. That is what I was confused about and decided to clarify the issue before we took the discussion further (including answers your questions).

I have never said that we pick and choose the features of what counts as male and female. XY and XX for the norm. — Philosophim

Let us clear something up first. Most people with AIS have XY chromosomes. If you send their genome to a geneticist, he would tell you they are male, not that they have chromosomes different from men and women. Because according to genetic definitions of sex, they are male. Thus if we accept your objective scientific definition, people of biological male sex can have vaginas and give (surrogate) births.

Do we agree so far?

Everything is biological. You are your brain, and it is biological. The point I'm making is that if we could actually identify sex differences in the brain, its irrelevant to why we divide the sexes to begin with. We don't divide the sexes by brains, period. If you think we should, then please give a reason why. — Philosophim

The whole discussion started with my objection to your claim that 'sex' is objective. If your claim now is that 'sex' is 'what we divide by' and we pick and choose the features for the division, then I guess it is a tacit acknowledgment that it is not.

If it was subjective and arbitrary, why do transgender people want to be the other sex so much? If it was subjective and arbitrary, they wouldn't care. It is objective and not arbitrary by this alone. — Philosophim

Because the society strongly acts and sometimes enforces that division. It does not really give you an option not to belong to any group, even though some of your features might not 'belong'.

And again, and if we start repeating ourselves its probably time to agree to disagree, I've noted that exceptions do not change the rules that concern the norms. We make exceptions for those people. I have not seen a compelling reason for a transgender person who is the norm of their sex suddenly being allowed into a place divided by sex because they want to act or dress in a stererotypical belief of how a sex should behave or dress. Feel free to give one, and we can keep discussing this point. But without answering this question, there is no more to explore here. — Philosophim

It seems that you decide that the person is 'the norm of their sex' based on several arbitrarily selected attributes. When I point out that there might be different attributes to be taken into consideration, you just dismiss them, based on 'what society thinks'. Not very objective, I would say.

Finally, the label of sex is settled by science around the world. Give a scientist a genome of any human being and they will identify XY as male and XX as female. This is not subjective. — Philosophim

But that is exactly what I wrote two days ago! If you give a scientist a genome of a human with AIS, they will identify them as a male, period. But your claim was that 'these people fit neither fully into the category of man or woman'. So you obviously reject the very scientific definition you quote.

To this point again, exceptions are not the norm. Exceptions do not change the rules for the norm unless a valid reason is given. An exception to one's chromosomes do not change the objective definition that an XY is a man while an XX is a woman. — Philosophim

You seem to want to use 'norm' and 'objective fact' interchangeably. But that is simply incorrect - if there are exceptions to 'XY is a man', then it is no longer an objective fact.

They're actually the same statement. "Feminine" is a gender term. It implies that being a woman entails certain cultural expressions and behaviors that can be different across cultures. My sister does not wear dresses, does not paint her nails, and dissects dead bodies for a living. These would largely be considered masculine actions in some cultures. Does that mean my sister should suddenly be playing sports on a male team? That people should now call her a man? Of course not.

The second argument I think you need to make is why being masculine or feminine as expressed subjectively by cultures should logically lead to someone being identified as a male or female sex by law. I'm very open to hearing it! — Philosophim

If 'being a woman entails' some behaviors, then they are ulitimately biologically conditioned. But your definition of 'gender' claims they are not. And as I wrote, sex of the brain does not depend on a single or some features - why would it?

As for identification by law, given your own rejection of your own scientific definition, how exactly would you base it?

1. That is exactly my point. Your claim is that transgenderism is NOT a result of biological expression of sex difference - how can you be sure?
2. That is precisely because 'sex' is a subjective collective term for many features that typically are bundled together, but not always, so the division will always be arbitrary. If we allow that not only chromosomes matter, but the expression of features, the same person might be considered both a male and a female. A person might have typically male levels of testosterone and a vagina. If we decide 'sex' based on their genitals, they have advantage in sports similar to males. If we decide 'sex' based on the testosterone level, they should use male bathrooms. Or we can accept that 'sex' is not an objective term and do the separations differently.
3. Wanting to wear a dress doesn't make you feminine, but being feminine might make you want to wear a dress. What exactly gives you certainty that the desire to identify with specific sex is not biologically based?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that expected behavior is gender. If your brain now determines your sex, that means a lesbian could be considered a man because their brain is attracted to a woman. Do we want to go down that path? No, we don't. Sex is simply chromosonal and secondary sex expression. — Philosophim

Not if attraction to women is just one biological feature that aligns with features typically attributed to men and her other psychological features align with those of women. Again, psychology is also part of genetic expression and it might also be sexual, as there are biologically caused psychological differences typically attributed to sex. Thus it should be considered by you as 'secondary sex expression'.

No, that person would be transgender according to the definitions I've provided. Gender is how we expect a sex to act or dress. That's what the brain controls. We could also call that subjective stereotyping, or sexism. I think its very important as a society that is trying to avoid discrimination that we don't go back to the old idea that women and men's gender should define who they are. — Philosophim

Then you are inconsistent in your definitions – you treat physical sex expression in genitals differently than physical sex expression in a brain.

Again, all of this is really talk of transexuals, which is not really an issue. Does a genotypical and phenotypical male get to dress up and talk like a stereotypical woman and suddenly get access to places restricted by sex? No, that doesn't make any sense at all. — Philosophim

But you just assume that transgender people are not transsexual, because 'the society does not care about brains'. We were supposed to talk about objective demarcation, so if the brains are different, we should take it into account.

Suppose that a person has a male body with male genitals, but due to some developmental occurrence this person's brain acquires features typically associated with women, therefore causing that person's strong identification with women. Would that person be transsexual or not?

If we agree that different parts of the body can have different expressions, how do we actually know whether a person is fully expressed as a man? Just looking at their body is not enough, if the person's brain or even some of its areas might express as woman's. I am not saying that it is always the case for transgender people, but there is some research that indicates that in some cases their brains might indeed be different. It is inconclusive at this time, in fact it seems transgendered people's brains show differences both to male and female ones. However, that would put them in your category of transsex people.

In such cases maybe it would be more productive to limit the divisions not to sex (as we agree that the expression might not be clear cut in some persons), but to particular features.

Exceptions are important in demarcating the differences, if sex is supposed to be objective. As i see it, objectively, there are two possible cases:
1. Sex is only determined genetically. That means that on the first day after the conception it can be identified and whatever happens phenotypically is irrelevant. By that account, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome are males, even though they have vaginas, everyone treats them as females and they themselves identify as females.
2. Sex is not fully determined by the genome, i.e. it can also be determined by the phenotype (i.e. actually expressed features). That means that even though the embryo has a male genome, something might happen along its development that will still make that person non-male.

Which is the case, in your opinion?

And thank you for the kind words, It is nice to feel welcome here!

I must disagree. While indeed most androgen insensitivy syndromes are genetically based, it does not mean that their genotype itself is not male or female: they have 46, XY karyotype, so geneticists would identify their genomes as male. The difference is in the expression of those genes or the phenotype. Indeed, however, unethical it might be, if we introduced androgen blockers during gestation of an embryo with a male genome, we could induce the exact same symptoms: such person would be genetically male, but not biologically (phenotypically). If your definition of man/woman is strictly genetic, then they would be males.

As for the war itself, the battle for Bakhmut represented Ukraine's last stand. It is clear that the Ukrainian military had no realistic capacity and/or a genuine objective of defeating or defending itself against Russia. Otherwise, it would not have wasted tens of thousands of soldiers on this one settlement. But Bakhmut was more than that, it was the heart of the Ukraine's defence strategy. Sitting above 120 miles of deep underground salt mine tunnels, Bakhmut offered a defensive advantage that cannot be replaced. — yebiga

One look at the map is enough to see that the above is not true. The Sloviansk/Kramatorsk complex is much bigger than Bakhmut and much better defended, moreover, it cannot be passed without breaching the Pavlohrad/Kramatorsk or Izyum/Sloviansk line. At this time Russians have no realistic option to make significant ground gains in the area.

Moreover, if Bakhmut was Ukraine's 'last stand', then Russian strategy since its taking would be completely absurd: instead of pushing forward, they went back to lick their wounds, squandering any advantage they might have.

Hello, this is my first post, so apologies if I do something incorrectly (I did read the site guidelines)!

I would disagree with the OP claim that sex is objective. What is objective are biological features or properties. 'Sex' is a subjective term that is used to categorize beings based on those features, but it depends on the accepted definition, i.e. which features do we consider as essential for that category.

A case in point: people with the Swyer syndrome have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, therefore might be considered as genetic males (according to the OP). However, due to underdevelopment of their male gonads, they develop uterus and vagina. In childhood they are typically identified as females, only at puberty their development problems are diagnosed. They do not develop female gonads either, so they are infertile, but can be surrogate mothers: when implanted with fertilized egg, they can carry it and give birth. That means that a XY chromosome person can give birth.

Interestingly, such cases have prompted researchers to study the issue more thoroughly and it turns out that the Swyer syndrome is not the only cause of lack of development of a male phenotype. Generally, without proper hormone regulation an embryo, even with male genetics, 'defaults' to having most (but not all) female features. According to research done in Denmark one in 15000 people with male genetic setup have been identified and raised as girls due to their features typical of female phenotype. Surprisingly, some of them were not diagnosed with any abnormalities at all, beside lack of menstruation and infertility and were considered as biologically female even in their thirties.