Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,575
- Location
- Rutland
This the bus loads of fresh recruits hit in Mariupol?
No idea but that is dead from a day, however its interesting in the Wagner camp moaning they need ammunition and artillery has run out / running low on ammo.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
What does a planning analyst do in a bank?
Where to pile the cash or what?
I plan to make a pile of 50s there and a pile of tenners in that corner of the safe. There we go job done.
I'm curious as working in manufacturing we have planners and I can't see anything as particularly relevant to a bank.
I get there will be industry specifics but genuinely curious as experienced planners are really hard to recruit and if there are relevant skills in banks they haven't come up during searches.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
From what I have seen the general consensus is that Russia would resort to battlefield nukes and that would NOT lead to full blown nuclear escalation.
The allies are highly unlikely to go after Russia directly. Russian assets outside Russia for sure, I would expect the smoking accidents to be very widespread across the globe.
The allies are highly unlikely to go after Russia directly. Russian assets outside Russia for sure, I would expect the smoking accidents to be very widespread across the globe.
What does a planning analyst do in a bank?
Where to pile the cash or what?
I plan to make a pile of 50s there and a pile of tenners in that corner of the safe. There we go job done.
I'm curious as working in manufacturing we have planners and I can't see anything as particularly relevant to a bank.
I get there will be industry specifics but genuinely curious as experienced planners are really hard to recruit and if there are relevant skills in banks they haven't come up during searches.
Monitoring volumes of work multiplied by how long a task takes, then comparing how much staff we need to complete the work to how many staff we'll have over the next months and weeks to give predictions on service level outcomes to managers. That obviously assists with hiring and planning overtime etc.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
What does a planning analyst do in a bank?
Where to pile the cash or what?
I plan to make a pile of 50s there and a pile of tenners in that corner of the safe. There we go job done.
I'm curious as working in manufacturing we have planners and I can't see anything as particularly relevant to a bank.
I get there will be industry specifics but genuinely curious as experienced planners are really hard to recruit and if there are relevant skills in banks they haven't come up during searches.
I would guess the job is something along these lines:
What is a financial planning analyst?
Manages financial planning, budgeting, and forecasting. Creates variance analysis reports and financial models. Leads real-time financial performance monitoring. Escalates any financial issues to management. Sets and tracks key performance indicators (KPIs) and objectives.
All that gesticulating and pointing would also build up the biceps, so that figures, too
EDIT, no, it seems I am wrong, it's time and motion studies in a nice suit and tie
Last edited:
I'd disagree with some of that, in particular the nukes, that there is a risk of nukes being used certainly isn't laughable (it might be unlikely but the risk is there and it's serious enough that it's shaped policy), it's the reason why NATO certainly didn't want to get involved with a no-fly zone and has been cautious about the delivery of (modern, Western) tanks (not happened until now), longer range weapons (that's steadily increased) and fast jets (still limited to Soviet stuff and with maybe only a few transferred by Poland under the cover of supplying spare parts).
The most likely of the nuke scenarios is the use of a tactical nuke in Ukraine, that has prompted serious concerns within NATO to the point where the US has spoken to Russia directly about it and outlined consequences, they've not published those consequences as generally it's considered escalatory in the West to even posture about nukes, not something Putin and chums seem concerned about.
Trump is also aware that the "n word" shouldn't be used, at least he's not doubt been briefed about it multiple times thus this rather bizarre speech:
Donald Trump talks about the n-word in viral video
The former president said there are "two n-words," that shouldn't "be mentioned," in reference to the threat of nuclear conflict.
www.newsweek.com
The issue with Trump is the uncertainty aspect, he does blunder into stuff and can be less predictable, especially if challenged, he's got a big ego too so something like invading Ukraine further is a bigger risk under his Presidency. Essentially I think the risk of this invasion occurring would have been lower under Trump but the risks of it escalating or going much worse than it has now would have been higher had it occurred.
Under Trump, if it had occurred, you could have had all sorts of scenarios from say: Trump can't keep his ego in line and matches Russian threats with off-the-cuff threats of his own and we end up in a dangerous standoff with Russia/possible WW3... or Trump wants to end the thing sooner, Trump can do a deal, Trump forces Ukraine to do a deal giving up land, it's the best deal Trump's sooo good at deals... or even perhaps an American first approach, Trump follows state department/pentagon advice and proceeds exactly as Biden does initially then gets bored and says he's looking after America, he's given Ukraine some aide but they're on their own now and that... they should do a deal and he's there to help with a great deal, sadly in the latter case he'd perhaps have German and possibly French support for that given their initial positon and the time it took for them to come round to the current approach of the UK, US, Poland and the Baltics etc..
Last edited:
80% of Russia's military is in Ukraine, they've committed most of their armed forces to this conflict, we'd be wiping out the vast majority of Russia's military.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I would guess the job is something along these lines:
What is a financial planning analyst?
Manages financial planning, budgeting, and forecasting. Creates variance analysis reports and financial models. Leads real-time financial performance monitoring. Escalates any financial issues to management. Sets and tracks key performance indicators (KPIs) and objectives.
All that gesticulating and pointing would also build up the biceps, so that figures, too
EDIT, no, it seems I am wrong, it's time and motion studies in a nice suit and tie
Actually the financial planning analyst is kinda closer to me in reality, although its become a lesser part of my role over recent years.
I would say his role comes across as a kind of hybrid between a business analyst with a little planning.
I can see now why when planners are being sought they arent coming from banks as thats not really planning as far as most places that recruit dedicated planners are concerned.
(Planning in this regards and where the shortages are tends to be firm not forecast Ie planning the workload for the machines for the next 12 hours including the sub components etc, and actually doing it ("issuing shop floor papers"), not passing the info on to someone else to review/action)
Last edited:
I suspect this isn't true. They now have (or had) mobilized troops and Wagner doing the fighting. They wouldn't leave 20% in defence of Russia IMO.
EDIT: Looking around at various websites on military strength etc: Russia estimated around 1 million active personnel. 8000 to to 10000 readied tanks. Stock of 12000. So unless there are 800K+ of the active personnel in Ukraine, then 80% is too large an estimate.
Last edited:
2017-December 2021 Russia was modernising and putting back into service tanks and artillery (such as the 2S7 Pion, Tyulpan, T-80 tanks to cycle out T-72s from elsewhere to use in Ukraine, etc.) they weren't ready before early 2022.
If Russia were stupid enough to commit that amount of their armed forces to Ukraine, leaving them completely defenceless at home, and the Ukranians backed by NATO completely wiped them out, it wouldn't be NATO going in to Russia to pick over the bones. But you could bet China or some of their other closer acquaintances would.
So in this outlier of a scenario, maybe nervous Nellie does have a point.
So in this outlier of a scenario, maybe nervous Nellie does have a point.
No, they've around 200k in Ukraine, but who believes they have 1 million men sat around trained in uniforms ready to fight a war?
OK. So you're just going with your gut now? Come on man...
No, I'm quoting a US Senior Defence Official, at the time of invasion they had 190,000 troops committed which was quoted as around 75% of their military
Senior Defense Official Holds a Background Briefing, March 16, 2022
A senior defense official held a background briefing.
www.defense.gov
Russia might have some 1m+ "troops" who showed up for "training" for 3 months and are on the books as soldiers, but who actually probably haven't even fired a rifle.
Last edited:
No, I'm quoting a US Senior Defence Official, at the time of invasion they had 190,000 troops committed which was quoted as around 75% of their military
Senior Defense Official Holds a Background Briefing, March 16, 2022
A senior defense official held a background briefing.www.defense.gov
Russia might have some 1m+ "troops" who showed up for "training" for 3 months and are on the books as soldiers, but who actually probably haven't even fired a rifle.
From that article:
Q: Sorry for the delay. So, really quick, on the 75 percent. I'm trying to understand how that math works, because I thought there was only, you know, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 Russian forces in Ukraine involved in the war. And I think that the Russian overall force structure, you know, as an order of magnitude, much, much bigger, just to the active-duty forces not including a couple million reservists they've asked. Could you explain the 75 percent?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, I was talking -- I appreciate that. I'm talking mostly about battalion tactical groups, which is the units that he has primarily relied upon in the structure he's replied upon -- or relied upon. Again, this is an estimate. So it's an estimate.
Q: So it's 75 percent of the BTGs that's what you're -- OK.
----------
That is NOT 75% of the active military personnel.
Last edited:
I never said active military personnel, but why are they calling in reserves if they have another 1million active military personnel sat around in Russia? Those numbers aren't real, just like they never had 12,000 tanks.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 21,988
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
2025 Russia Military Strength
Detailing the current military strength of Russia including air force, army, navy, financials and manpower.
www.globalfirepower.com
Its interesting when you look at the estimated breakdown of forces.
Russia has a high percentage in air power as you would expect. Whilst all with have basic training (like the Navy) it would dramatically damage their ability to field effective operations in those areas if they start sending them to the front lines.
Numbers dont quite add up, lots of estimates, but they estimate 360k as Army. They are certainly using some Navy troops there as well.
They also have reserve estimates of 250k which in proportion would be another 100k approx of Army if ratios were roughly equal.
- Status