Audgisil

One thing is for certain. If Siberia does end up having significant agricultural potential, China will become extremely interested in its "historical claims" to this territory very quickly. They import massive amounts of food and being able to change that would open up lots of options for them, and their "limitless friendship" with Russia be damned.

We actually have no idea what Putin’s real base of genuine support is or is not.  First off he controls any and all “polls” either directly or indirectly so trying to gauge who really supports him, who is pretending simply to avoid trouble and who opposes but is afraid to say anything, in real terms is basically impossible to do inside Russia, let alone outside looking in.  “Look a bunch of people lined up to support him” is not a viable basis for deductions.
Second problem is that support, in a functioning democracy, is founded on a basis of “informed decision”.  This means that all sides can spin, argue and slant but in the end the news media and objective journalism is supposed to provide a voter with a range of diverging viewpoints and facts.  Voters can then decide who to support, or not support based on their own personal perception and understanding.  This is damned hard to do in a functioning liberal democracy; however, in Russia it is likely impossible.  Putin controls the mainstream media - we have heard endless stories of dissenters being arrested or charged, hell he passed laws making criticism of this war illegal.  He also has a lot of control within social media, suppressing sites and flooding the RUSNet with stooges.  We have seen enough outright lies and insane claims out of Russian media in the last two years to know that the average Russian simply is not able to access much beyond what Putin wants them to see and hear.  Under these conditions “real support” is nearly impossible because no alternative facts, ideas or even options are ever presented.
Finally, as our Ukrainian friends like to point out continually, the average Russian is poorly educated, poor wealth and largely ignorant…this is why they keep signing up for this war.  To now accuse these people of “knowingly supporting Putin” as if they have access to alternatives is short-sighted at best.  Further, Kraze’s continued insistence to call every living Russian on the planet as vicious war loving murders is not only disingenuous, it treads dangerously close to genocidal narratives that have no place on what is supposed to be a rational objective forum.  We know Russians opposed this war, a few hundred thousand ran away.  Others are resisting passively.  We also know that many really do not even understand what this war is or is not because Putin is preventing them from seeing any truth but his own.  We also know some Russians also buy into this war and Putin fully even knowing the reality.  In the end we are going to have to deal with all of them in some form or another because as much as some people are acting out emotionally here, we are not going to wipe Russia off the face of the earth and salt the ground on their mass graves.
So be pissed off, but do not come here and promote outright disinformation in some sort of weird attempt to get us to all buy into some “every Russian is evil and must die” nonsense.  There are all sorts of sites on the internet where people on both sides can engage in that emotional orgy, but it should not be here.  The second this forum becomes one of those places, I for one, am out.
 

Hi,
As a Swede I thought today would be a good day to stop lurking for a bit and drop a comment. Been playing cm for 20 years and following this forum for a long time.
Thank you all for contributing to this thread, checking it daily. Always a good source for news and discussion, so much knowledge and experience gathered is hard to get elsewhere. 
I always was all for our countrys neutral stance combined with a strong Defense but last decade has of course swayed us all in Sweden a bit. I have my background in the army, cv90. Seeing us finally start to retake our capabilities regarding defense is good.
Anyways thanks for having us in the club I guess (why am I thinking about brothers Marx)?
Carl 

To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion.
I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.

To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion.
I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.

To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion.
I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.

To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion.
I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.

To me, the evolution of drone warfare in this conflict seems to mirror the introduction of aircraft during the First World War. At the beginning, aircraft were mostly thought of as a tool for observation and artillery direction, similar to drones. Then one guy brings a pistol one day and shoots at the other guy. The guy who got shot at was understandably irritated and figured out a way to strap a machine gun to his aircraft. The next thing you know, there are massed arial dogfights with dedicated fighter aircraft, mult-engine heavy bombers (by WWI standards), specialized recon aircraft, etc. When you compare 1914 to 1918, it's hardly recognizable as the same conflict. Then if you compare WWI aviation to the advancements in aerial warfare just within the 20th century, it looks more like what one might expect from an alien invasion.
I have the, uninformed, feeling that drone warfare today (I include unmanned ground vehicles in this as well), will be nearly unrecognizable in as few as twenty or thirty years.

It is because of who we were…middle of the food chain.  Prey animals are driven by fear because it is necessary programming to survive.  We were right in the middle until we figured out how to 1) leverage energy, 2) communicate, and 3) lie to each other and ourselves.  Our big juicy brains allowed us to do this at an evolutionary escape velocity rate.
Good/bad, altruistic/selfish have no real scientific meaning - an eagle swooping in to kill another animal is not being anything morally, it is simply surviving.  We built social frameworks that allowed us to create social metrics such as good and evil…which are basically metrics of relative behaviours.  We are in fact both and will leverage them based on context.  In frames of certainty and safety we will act altruistically and “good”.  Pump in enough uncertainty and fear and we will start to eat each other in a surprisingly short period of time - see Hurricane Katrina.
People want to believe we are good because their sky-god or whatever made us that way but in reality “being good or evil” is an artificial set of conditions.  The role of government is to sustain frameworks of order and certainty so we stay within a “good” frame.
War is a collision of two or more social frameworks that creates a completely new environment along with a new set of social metrics.  “Being good” is killing other people.  Being good is committing suicide to save others so they can kill other people.  Being evil is to not kill other people and run away, or kill the wrong people.  War is also a state of massive uncertainty so we often see devolution happen very quickly.  Of course that is what military machines are all about - sustaining violence through order in a massive environment of fear and uncertainty.
 

Actually, there have been a large number of studies that show that the majority of people aren't 'selfish & brutal' and are altruistic in many ways ... perhaps most ways ... sure, there will always be sociopaths, psycopaths, malignant narcissists and others with anti-social personality disorders, but they are in a minority.
The problem is when such people gain control over the levers of power ... they can do a heck of a lot of damage.
Putin in Russia, the Kims in Korea, Xi in China are all good (bad?) examples ... 

I mean, they are right.
But isn't depressing, seeing how China and to a lesser degree Iran will provide whatever they can just to nut-punch the West while Western nations look with equal concern at Ukraine and their purses.
Granted, this is possible because the third parties supporting Russia are inhumane, bloodthirsty regimes who do not have to worry about accountability for their budgets.
But boy, does it show how much easier it is to just embrace being the villain instead of trying to do what's right. You will be called a villain anyway, often by people who benefited a lot from the Western system. It is a thankless task.

This is why I hate "human rights" organizations.

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-director-general-deplores-death-journalist-rostislav-zhuravlev-ukraine

One thing that I don't quite understand is "Journalists serve a critical role in informing the world about conflict situations and must be protected."

The guy looks pretty protected to me.

I do not use the Ignore function often but in this case may I recommend it.  “Real men do not fear the bomb” is just dumb.  It was during the Cold War and dumber now.  If some people want to wrap themselves in dumb and feel all safe and warm, well there are entire social media platforms dedicated to that.

Not interested in online wins. Your original suggestion was unrealistic to the political realities of NATO as a coalition. It doesn't operate as a single organism, more like a distractable swarm.
For NATO to attack Russia (and with Naval warfare, things can escalate extremely quickly, so no such thing as a little attack in this context) would require an act so overtly aggressive that responding would be an easy sell to the home. It's not complicated - NATO is a defensive alliance, not offensive.
There would have to be clearly necessary reason that NATO should attack St. Petersburg, for a NATO force to actually attack St. Petersburg. Extraordinary situations requiring extraordinary solutions, etc.
For all that you're suggesting Ukraine is being bled dry to serve some Western Illumanti agenda, the simple fact stands - NATO is not at war with Russia. Ukraine is. Until we see a deliberate Russian attack across the NATO-RUSSIA border then we are still at peace, because there sure as heck will not be a NATO first strike, and we are not at war.

“We” are not fighting a war. In case you forgot.

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

You don't even have to go back that far in time to find when the Russians last looked West. A lot a Russians very conveniently like to forget that they started World War 2 on the same side with Germany. In September of 1939, they helped invade Poland. Two months later (and still allied with Germany), they started the Winter War with Finnland.

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.
With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?
Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?
In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?
These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

I've been watching a number of videos recently that have shown combat in the trenches from Ukrainian and Russian perspectives. I'm beginning to wonder if trenches are not more of a hindrance than a help to defenders. It seems that defenders in the trenches are trading maneuverability and situational awareness for increased cover. But to what advantage? Even though they have increased cover, they actually lose a fair bit of concealment as well. Sure, you cannot directly see a defender unless he pops his head up above the trench, but you where he's at and that he's not going far. Granted, the defenders have some degree of lateral movement within the trench, but that's it. The defender's maneuverability seems pretty restricted.
With the plethora of automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, grenades, and now drones. It just appears that what was a good idea during World War I may now be a deathtrap for defenders. Due to the loss of situational awareness for defenders, it just seems like the attackers are consistently able to close the distance to trenches and maneuver around above them fairly easily. The defenders in the trenches, on the other hand, seem limited to mostly unaimed fire whereby they are just raising their rifles above the trench, giving a short prayer, and then spraying in the general direction of the enemy. The assaulting troops are able to lay down well aimed suppression fire on suspected positions, close, and eliminate the threat? How often have we seen guys getting killed at point blank ranges as they have been forced to seek deeper and deeper cover in holes at the bottom of trenches?
Would a better option not be to have pickets forward of the trench lines? These pickets would actually form the main defense by giving enough warning for defending troops to actually leave the trenches and push forward toward the picket lines. Besides, why even dig trenches at all? Aren't they just a giant blinking neon sign to observation drones that says, "hey guys, our main line of defense is right here." Also the trenches just seem to be giant artillery magnets, and do they really help much against airburst artillery anyway?
In short, do defensive trenches give defending troops a false sense of security while actually robbing them of maneuverability and situational awareness while simultaneously compressing them into a tighter space that essentially becomes a kill box?
These are just some musings that I have. Who knows, maybe the trenches are also necessary because of the amount of thermal imaging on the battlefield these days. Maybe a better tactic would be dug in positions with defenders interspersed "out in the open" between them. Maybe a trench is just the best of many bad options when defending open areas where there are no tree lines or any other form of cover. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
If trenches are a bad Idea, I advise the Russians to continue digging them.

Do you know what the biggest threat to Ukrainian civilians is? . . . Russians.

Ukrainians, being grateful allies, decided to celebrate 4 July in a big way.

uhhh.huh? i assume you mean 'the democracy with the strongest militairy power. 
Gerrymandering, unclear votingrules, strong unindependant media, decreasing the amount of voting stations in the areas of the city where your party isnt favourable, winner takes the state.
this is only a start... and we all know it. i dont think USA has the strongest democracy.