Roach

"Leaked" 🤣   Well, I am an expert with 38 years of submarine construction and testing, and as a subject matter expert I can say that that submarine is truly f-ed, FUBAR, SNAFU, scrap metal. 
Aren't you glad I'm here to provide you with my expert opinions?   😀
And kudos to Ukraine. Nice shot. 
Dave

These terms have caused pretty significant debate among western militaries, especially in Canada.  The issue is really one of identity and culture, which of course has come under significant scrutiny in the post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq era.  For some it is no doubt a bit of macho flexing, for others it is holding onto core identity for very important purposes.  Up front, I personally fall into that latter category - but also recognized people are going to have differing positions.  So to try and break it down more simply:
- The term "warrior" [aside: 'warfighter' is in reality an attempt at compromise on warrior and largely has no other point of reference], has been mal-adopted and appropriated into toxic sub-cultures within modern militaries.  Of this fact there is little argument.  The most recent scandal in the Australian SASR and many examples of a warped or toxic use of that term are well documented.  People adopt all sorts of crazy ideas as to what a warrior means and how they behave.  This has to do with the fact that a modern warrior concept has yet to truly evolve so people look at history which was an entirely different context (eg we don't scalp anymore).
- The actual term of "warrior" has deep roots within indigenous cultures around the world.  In many it was a class of citizen with a clearly defined purpose.  You can read a lot on this but the most common and prevalent definition was in line with "One Who Does War" on behalf of their people.  A person whose role within a society is the function of warfare.  In most cases it became part of a cast or class system.  In some cultures this was seen as a sacred duty-to-protect bordering on a pseudo public service.  The recent bashing of the term has drifted into colonial insensitivity in some cases as it really reads like "white folks screwed it up, so now all 'warriors' are bad" when in fact indigenous cultures have employed the concept for millennia and many, like North American natives, still hold it sacred.
- The term is important because it incorporates a key pole of the two-worlds problem.  Militaries are not armed humanitarian aid agencies, or slightly better armed police forces.  Some nations have tried to go that way but they tend to be geopolitical anomalies.  The role of any military is state sponsored and legitimized homicide.  Dress it up anyway one likes, call it "self-defence", "use of force" or whatever helps one sleep at night but the core role is "murder for effect.  The second a military culture, or the society that pays for them, forgets that reality very bad things happen. 
- Militaries that get watered down for various social or political sensitivities tend to do several very dangerous things: 1) They forget themselves. This can lead to significant collective shock when war actually happens and generations of military officers and NCOs have basically become bureaucrats.  When that culture runs head long into warfare it is never pretty.  I lived through such a time in the 90s and trust me it is really bad. 2) Societies go into armed conflict with eyes closed.  Sanitization of war and its consequences becomes very easy when one scrubs out what it actually means.  This can not only dangerously shape political calculus, it can create major flaws in military advice to policy.  The reality is no matter where you may be in the kill-chain, there is blood on your hands. That is a serious burden. Those that forget it can start to make very poorly informed decisions quickly.  3) You cannot order identity.  Troops in combat or preparing for combat are going to adopt an identity and culture that will provide them survival advantage and cope - find me a war where that did not happen.  Problem is that if leadership does not define that identity, troops will do it themselves and sub-cultures form.  Those sub-cultures can become dangerously toxic very quickly.  So bottom line is, ignoring warrior reality comes with significant risks.
- Many like the term "soldier" better.  Feels more civilized.  The term it self actually comes from solidus or coin and refers to mercenaries.  The major historical difference between a solider and warrior is that a soldier stops fighting when they don't get paid.  Warriors keep fighting because they don't need to get paid, they believe.  There is an element of righteousness (and I do not mean in the religious sense) in the role of a warrior. Righteousness being a higher ideal held sacred (all war is sacrifice..."to make holy") by the people who sent you to fight for them.  Soldiers by definition live on a more transactional contract with society.  These are deep and important distinctions that often get lost in the noise.
- To your point, "machoism".  The problem we have with "warrior" is that we never actually define it.  It gets tossed around because it sounds cool but as an identifier we do not unpack it and then teach it to people when they enter the service.  It is all over the place, the US Army uses it all the time:  https://www.army.mil/values/soldiers.html.  Likely the closest I have ever seen is the US Army's Warrior Ethos:
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
https://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html
Not bad, but not quite there either as it lacks definition of role as an extension of American society and elements of righteousness.  
So without a clear definition, the term gets hijacked into a macho "ra-ra" tag line.  The reality is far deeper in speaking to balancing our two worlds - war and peace: home and away.  As military we live within and are part of our own societies.  I have kids, bills and go to the same grocery store.  I watch the same shows and play the same game.  But that is only half of my existence.  The other side lives out in a place of conflict and warfare.  In many ways I did not get this until after my first war.  When I got home I realized that part of me would always be in those hills (and then years later, in the desert). 
As I see these young guys fighting and dying in Ukraine, I see them all fighting and dying in the tradition of the warrior.  They are the Ones Who Do War on behalf of their people.  To them it is more than a tag line and will be for the rest of their lives.
So we definitely need to develop a modern definition and concept here and build a concept that not only better fits modern society but resonates.  If we, as modern militaries do not, then we will get hijacked.  I have already been in discussions where terms like "aggression" are being scrubbed out of our ethos by academics and civilians.  If a modern military cannot define itself, someone is going to do it for us.  And they will very like not understand the two-worlds problem.  We are The Ones Who Do War and we need to get much better at explaining what that means in 2023. 
 

So this is what you got?  I teach “young warriors” and have led dozens in combat while you likely sat at home and yelled at the tv - you are no vet I can tell that from your first post.
Let’s stop the BS and call this what it really is - political platforming.  Your position is not all that difficult to read, pretty transparent.  Basically everything the current US presidential administration is doing is “wrong”.  “Right” is whatever “our guy would do as opposite”.  So President Biden is pursuing a deliberate incremental strategy to compress Russia, so your position is “more firepower” and “hard staring”.  Or you jump on the “this war is stupid, we must negotiate”.  Basically anything President Biden is doing is “wrong” and anything they are not doing is “right”.  That has been the sum total of your contributions to this entire discussing since you showed up (oh, and some bizarre social commentary on women and social justice for good measure).  That is it.  One long “very stable strategic genius” diatribe anchored on a single viewpoint.  If President Biden declared the US was going to “end this thing in 4 weeks” you would be here yelling that “this was the dumbest thing ever” and probably quote my points as why.
You know it is ok.  You are just another in a very long line of segments of the population that surrender their own agency in the face of uncertainty.  We invented the Church which has lasted over 2000 years on exactly that principle.  Agency and independent thought is to embrace uncertainty and most people really don’t want to do this, it is scary.
Problem is you wandered onto the wrong forum.  This place has been home to a lot of independent thought since before this war started. We have pursued the facts as we can find them and then conduct collective analysis and synthesis to try and establish a clear picture of what is happening.  No one here has surrendered independent thought to a political position.  We all have opinions, I for one think President Biden’s administration has done very well in managing this crisis.  Not perfect but considering we are well off the strategic map here, they have done as well as reasonably possible.  
I am not an American, I do not participate in your political process so I do not share your baggage.  I cannot fix you or even try to change your mind, you clearly have it all figured out.  But you are not going to find friends here. Your missionary work on this forum is a waste of time.  
But it is ok.  With this last, I promote you to Hot Thread “crazy guy”.  It is a honorary position that has been vacant since John Kettler left us (rest in peace John).  You can go on and on but we all know it is for entertainment purposes only.  I am even going to un-ignore you because I am going to be first to rub your unruly mop of hair and just smile at your incorrigible rapscallion ways.  Your are a stump thumping looney kevinkin, but you are our looney.  Try not to get banned because then we will have to find another.
 

I have largely ignored you because it is pretty clear that you are not in fact interested in actually learning anything on this forum.  However, in reality this is an honest question that some lurkers may also be asking.  Why can’t the US, or NATO or an alliance in between “win this war in 4 weeks and just end this brutal war?”  Don’t need an essay really:
-  Put the nuclear escalation to the side for arguments sake but we will come back to it.
-    A US direct incursion into Ukraine or this war is going to drive a massive amount of support into Putin’s arms, to the point he might actually get full mobilization support.  A fully mobilized and galvanized Russia is a scary beast particularly since they will likely be heavily backed by both China and Iran as they will see the entire expansion of the war as a chance to defeat the US by proxy.  So now the US has four weeks to push Russia out of Ukraine, could they do it?  Probably?  Would it end the war…no way.  It would likely expand it as Russia gears up for a serious fight because now it has reason to have one. The totality of your position is that you are in fact pointing madly at a “limited war” but your solution is “more limited war”…oh wait maybe you are not talking about a limited war.
- ok, to defeat Russia, truly defeat them, it means not simply driving them out of Ukraine.  It means total defeat of Russia as a nation.  The destruction of Russian Will to fight.  This means going into Russia itself and removing its ability to generate that Will.  So we are talking invasion, defeat in detail and occupation…of Russia.  The military force the US would need to do that is well outside the US military current envelope, we are talking millions of troops.  Let’s pretend Russia can be occupied, it is a big country (look at a map).  You now need to hold it until you can install a friendly government…and remember you brought up total war.  So the US and most of NATO would now need conscription to sustain a force that large…you feeling strong?
- “But we will stop at the border”, sure and Russia will now simply reload and incite as much violence and discontent in Ukraine…now filled with US troops.  What possible negotiated end-state is there where Russia can still function while massing for WW3? No, you cannot give Russia time to reload…that would be really dumb.  So now you would need to contain Russia…in the 21st century…with China on one of its borders…and Iran.  That is a massive problem.  The state sponsored terrorism issues alone will be intense.  Again, this is limited measures that won’t “end” anything but risk a lot worse.
- Back to occupation, the risk of a resistance from hell is incredibly high.  See the many lengthy posts on that issue.  Very angry and well supported by various powers an occupied Russia could make Iraq look like a weekend outing.  Oh wait, there is more,
- Russia might fly apart while you are trying to occupy it.  Not known for its shining unity, occupation could see Russia itself fly apart and the the US is trying to manage a civil war…and a possible insurgency.
- Ok, now the obvious one…WMDs.  Let’s pretend that Russia won’t use them on good old “Merican” boys as they counter attack into Ukraine and encroach on the Russian border.  They sure as hell will if the US invades Russian soil, which we have to now.  And even if they don’t there is no way in this universe we can guarantee we can secure them all.  Now we may have lose WMDs of many flavours lose in this mess.
To put it more simply and in words with as few syllables as I can: To defeat  Russia and end this war in 4 weeks the US would need to break Russia.  To break Russia is to engage in a major war, possibly global.  It would break the UN, it would shatter NATO because I can think of at least a dozen nations that would get off that train quickly.  Economically it would break the system as we are talking markets staring down the barrel of nuclear Armageddon.  Anything short of that is just more limited war with even slimmer margins than we are already on.
So when you declare that “the US could end this thing in 4 weeks” all you are doing is loudly announcing just how much you do not understand.  If you honestly want to learn, maybe stop typing and start reading more. 
 

Personally, I didn't think the guns were too tight to begin with. There are trade-offs with everything, obviously, and with a gun position you want it to be as dispersed as possible, and no more.
Arguing for wider dispersion is the counter-battery threat, which itself varies by enemy, operational situation, tactical situation, and terrain. In general, the Ukrainians seem to have been following an active CB policy (ie, going after Russian artillery assets whenever they get a chance) over the last ... year? But it is unlikely that policy is consistent across the entire front, due to a lack of ammo, deception measures, and lack of sufficient CB C2 infrastructure everywhere. But as a rule of thumb, I expect the Russians would probably want to be more dispersed than perhaps their doctrine would suggest.
Arguing against wider dispersion are a bunch of factors.
Local defence - I'm not sure how porous the front is, or how often Ukrainian raiding parties are hitting battery positions, but a small tight position is MUCH easier to defend against a ground threat that a dispersed position.
Fire mission command and control - in my experience, each section (2 guns) is managed by a junior officer, and he has to keep shuttling between his guns to ensure they are doing the right things in the right way (bearing and elevation is correct, correct ammo, charge and fuse, etc). If the position becomes too dispersed, either those firing checks have to be reduced or overlooked (with consequent increase in risk), or the pace of fire missions drastically reduced. That's on top of the points @BlackMoria made about limited wire and/or radios. A lot of this can be mitigated with fancy-pants new kit, but these are D-30s. I doubt they are very fancy-pants, and I expect they are using methods and equipment that a gunner from the 1980s would feel intimately familiar with.
Terrain - @BlackMoria has noted that this clearing is quite small, which is true, but FWIW to my eye it doesn't appear to be too small for the number of guns being employed*. It's really hard to eyeball, but it looks to be at least 50m between guns, which is a pretty standard dispersion. Also, the entire clearing isn't available for use due to cresting issues with the surrounding trees - get too close to the trees at the front edge of the clearing and you can't safely depress the barrels enough to engage targets - you'd be firing rounds through the trees just in front of you and, um, that's a really bad idea. That's also why you can't just hide your guns in the forest to begin with.
Edit to add: Terrain part 2 - we can't see the wider area around this position. It could concievably be that this is the only, or one of the few, practical positions for this battery to be. Aside from out in the desert, the battlespace rapidly gets clogged up by all the things you want to be there - ammo and logistics dumps, engineer stores dumps, artillery areas, medical areas, helicopter landing zones, reserve fighting positions, staging areas for units moving forwards and backwards, maintenance area, routes for stuff moving forwards, backwards, and sideways, etc. Given that this area also seems to be heavily wooded and sparsely tracked**, there just mightn't be any other good spots for the guns to be, and the battlespace managers at the higher HQ haven't given this battery commander enough ground to be able to disperse they way he might want to.
 
Interestingly, there seems to be only three guns in this battery. I wonder where the fourth is? I'm guessing it is out of action - either broken, or perhaps destroyed in a previous CB engagement - although it could jut be tucked away somewhere out of sight.
Also, the CB mission as shown seemed focused on the guns themselves, which is fair enough because that's what the unaided eye (or drone cam) can see. But somewhere, not too far away - probably within 100m of the centre gun - is a command post. It's a shame they couldn't identify and target that either instead of one of the guns, or in addition to all of the guns. There is probably also an echelon park nearby - probably not more than 200-500m from the command post - with a bunch of trucks and mechanics and technical equipment and other paraphernalia. Replacing a couple of guns is hard. Replacing a couple of guns AND all that other junk, along with the training of the specialists you find there, is really hard.
 
* although, I suppose you could argue that it really was too small, given that all three guns seem to have been taken out. On the other hand, the Ukrainians seemed to be adjusting between the three guns as if they were three point targets. At that point it wouldn't have mattered if the guns were twice, thrice, or ten times as far apart - once the enemy gunners have the intel and time to accurately adjust between your positions you're screwed, regardless of dispersion. It doesn't matter whether that's a battery of guns or a dug in platoon.
** artillery units need access to good routes - ammo is heavy, and in a sustained battle an artillery unit needs a LOT of trucks coming and going to keep it fed.

Speaking as a retired artillery officer....three other reasons to explain this:
1. They have insufficient radios and field phones to communicate with the battery command post.  
2.  The clearing in the trees is too small for proper dispersion of the guns.  Knowing that drones are sweeping treelines for targets, the russians may have chanced putting these guns into a small clearing in the middle of a forest with a trail going into the clearing for the tow vehicles.
3. They lack fire control calculators/computers to calculate fire patterns like converge, linear, etc.   The spacing looks about right for just doing a common bearing and range shoot to all guns and the spacing of the guns is about right for overlapping lethal burst patterns.

Well I for one am tired of London getting all the credit/blame!

Thank you for the kind words and the addition.
Like with so many subjects, things are much more complicated than the simple explanation/description I used in my "ruthless or forgiving"-post. There's more to it. After ww2 ended, hardly anyone would, or could, really believe that the committed atrocities during the war could be as bad as they were. No smartphones, no Youtube, no Twitter in those days. So maybe it was easier to forget and forgive in those days.
My personal feelings do not always correspond with my rational and "factual" observations. I write about "forgiving", but I do struggle with that concept. Because although I consciously understand that refraining from revenge, and trying to empathize with "wrong-doing" people really will - how counter-intuitive it may sound - improve things in the long run, my gut-feelings struggle to accept that.
I feel that if I were in power, and I could catch people like Putin and Prigozhin and Utkin alive, or the ones that were responsible for the abduction of the Ukranian kids that were taken to Russia, or the soldiers that tortured and killed ordinary people just for fun, etc, that I would summary execute them. No questions asked.
Rabid Russian-supporting politicians? Bullet in the back of the head, no sorrow, no guilt. And no need for trials or laywers. No doubt, no hesitation. That is how I feel. I'm beginning to look like idiots as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam!
And then the difficulty really starts.. The Crimean-conundrum starts. Because, where do I draw the line? Traitors? Sure, they can be shot on site. But what about people who had a shop or business and supplied the Russian Army? Should they be shot? Imprisoned? Flogged?
And what about Ukrainian people who "only" had a Russian flag out in front of their house? Not because they liked the Russians, but because they were scared. What to do with those? What about the people who didn't support Ukraine, but didn't support Russia either? Do we consider them cowards?
I don't know. And the Ukrainians probably don't know. But I hope they are more prone to understanding, then to get even.
Maybe my peace-loving posts do not make it very clear, but I admire the Ukrainians. They are without a doubt on the moral high ground, so far. They care about their own soldiers and civilians, and they sometimes even care about the Russian soldiers(!!!). They can't get air-superiority, and they cannot fight on even terms, because they cannot (the West would not like that) go berserk on Russian territory where a lot could be gained ( Only one brigade on the loose on Russian soil, imagine that!), and that must feel like being in a fist-fight with one hand tied behind your back.
I really hope this war ends before the climate-change will end it.
 
 

Two situations where people had good reasons for insurgencies (if there are any good reasons), but nothing happened, were Germany and Japan right after the end of WW2.
Both countries had, until defeated, completely different (political and social, mainly) beliefs compared to the conquering and occupying nations (Ehm, just the Western Allies, because Russia.., well, Russia just being Russian.)
So that could be a reason for an insurgency, because there was a (kind of) repression from the Allied occupants. (Warning: this is not my personal opinion, I describe what lots of Germans and Japanese might have felt in 1945.) Some political views were suddenly FORBIDDEN, and some people were hunted down and punished for things that were totally acceptable in their countries until the end of the war.
Medical experiments, massive exploitation of slave-labourers, killing Jews and Russian POW's and Chinese civilians and Allied POW's, killng innocent hostages, looting occupied countries, and so on and so forth. Suddenly the people who were engaged in those things, weren't allowed to do that no more. So those people, and were talking about not just hundreds, but at least hundreds of thousands, were "forced" to live differently, which also can be a reason for wanting to participate in, or instigate, an insurgency/rebellion.
Besides that a huge percentage of all people in Germany and Japan had experienced personal loss. Either by being wounded, familymembers killed or wounded or missing, friends and neighbours and colleagues killed, or having their houses and shops and factories being destroyed or through evacuations and/or ending up homeless. And those who didn't experience a personal loss, saw their countries being humiliated and being bombed to smithereens.
Which, considering the fact that we humans always feel our own suffering much more than that of others and the tendency to ignore what we (Germany and Japan in this case) did to others, can create resentment and a lust for revenge.
So why was there no big insurgency then? Why practically no attacks on the occupiers?
 
Well, it seems to me that there are two ways to prevent an insurgency.
1. Utter and total repression.
Immediate and murderous hunting down of every possible bit of revolt or resistance. Like Stalin did. Kill everyone you suspect. As a result most people won't even think about protesting or speaking up, just out of fear and self-preservation.
 
2. Being much better than what was.
The Western Allies brought, even for fanatical nationalists, better circumstances on nearly all parts of life for the Germans and Japanese. Freedom of thought and speech and what to read, freedom of travel and movement, freedom to choose your occupation, freedom of religion, entrepeneurial freedom, and much more.
But there was something else; which seems a little weird: people were not being persecuted for wrong-doings except the worst. In stead of shooting all Germans (like I would have done if I was Eisenhower when he discovered what the Germans really did during WW2), stunning amounts of "wrong-doers" got away with sometimes stunning crimes. And even some of those who were convicted, had their sentences absurdly reduced, a few years later.
But unbelievably so, that - for most people despicable - "forgiveness behaviour" created better circumstances in the long run. It helped to create a better, much less belligerent, Germany and Japan. (Eh, until today al least 😉.)
Somehow accepting that people do bad/stupid things, and try to cope with that, works better than revenge and retalliation. Not always and not perfectly, but it works.
 
So as I see it: when (NOT IF) Ukraine gets Crimea (and the rest) back, there's just two ways to prevent an insurgency.
Be extremely ruthless, or be forgiving.
 
 
 

I do have all the pre-2014 documents, both originals and digital backup scans in the cloud.
But it doesn't matter, because I have reasons to believe I may not reach your side of the border. Not particularly fond of the idea of figuring if I am wrong or not. I am 95% sure it's not gonna end well. So I stay put for now.
Uhm. I was born in Crimea ('89), so as my mother and grandparents. My father is originally from Russia, but came here also during Soviet era and was registered here with Ukrainian documents before 2014. I do have all the old documents, but I never left Crimea to renew them after 2014. It costs money, and there's always something more important, like dental, or clothes, or broken boiler. I was going to when I felt comfortable to properly resettle. But who cares? I've never collaborated nor commited any crimes. Those who did know it and take their own risks by staying.
I do get your point about documents disappearing when things blow up and burn, and it's a good one, but it's not like someone intends to repeat Soviet style deportations in the middle of the night with freight trains. Not the country commited to join the EU, at least. Ministry of reintegration and other state services have a lot of experience with this sort of thing by this point, I'm sure. 
 
The ethnic hatred, on the other hand, is something to watch out for, definitely. I've identified myself as ethnically Russian my whole life. I speak Russian in my head 75% of the time. 20% my thoughts are in English, and sometimes I think like 5% in Ukrainian (mostly Poderev'yansky memes ;D).
After 24th February 2022, it suddenly became clear that ethnicity and even culture does not define me. I felt it in my gut and still do. Our actions define who we are. But also laws. By international law, and by Ukrainian law, I am Ukrainian citizen. Even if Estonians did not recognize me as such. That's who I am.
I do see your concerns as valid and they are worth the discussion.

Re: possible insurgency
1. First off, as Steve already said, things can theoretically happen. We're talking about the most likely scenario. Anyone who predicts future with 100% certainty is a fraud.
2. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bad blood. Just as you saw a lot of Crimeans genuinely cheering up and supporting the invaders in 2014, the Crimeans saw people on mainland Ukraine cheer powerlines being blown up as 2 million people plunged into darkness, water channel being cut off, the roads being blocked for cargo traffic, with all the little nasty consequences that were actually physically felt here. The reactionary post-2014 policies, laws and rethoric weren't great either. But compared to all the mayhem what's been happening since Feb 2022, this is nothing. And people are TIRED of chaos, flying jets, drones, explosions and death. Those who are currently in the trenches or came from there are tired as well.
3. What would be "the cause" to rally behind? They can't even formulate victory conditions for the current war. Nor can they achieve anything significant, with all their men and equipment in the field. Rallying (who, civilians?) to do something a huge army can't do? That requires guts and there's none. Only stupidity and hubris. They are unable to say NO when told to do something stupid or illegal. Saying no requires guts.
4. You need to understand the reality on the ground. Pretty much all Crimeans who haven't left have Russian passports. What, 1.5-2 million people? Myself included. Because living here without one is practically impossible. Hell, I know Crimeans who left and are currently on mainland Ukraine that also have Russian passports, issued in Crimea in 2014 (illegaly, obviously). For Ukrainian government to take back control, they'll have to deal with it somehow. And bunch of other documents. There's already been laws and decrees passed aimed to make the transition back as painless as possible. There's a whole ministry that's dealing with issues like these. Refer to Ministry of Reintegration sources for more information.
5. That being said, it's been nine years, and nobody can pretict how much more time will pass before that. It can happen in two months, or in two years, or in ten. And with every single day, people are growing more tired. They are trying as hard as they can not to notice what's happening now. And there's no land warfare close by yet. When it comes, they'll have much more incentive to make it stop ASAP.
 
Re: how am I doing?
My life isn't as horrible as for some others out there. But things can change literally any minute, as for everybody else in the region. So I am trying to live in the moment while I can.
For those who don't know, I tried to get to Estonia via St.Petersburg back in September. Before Feb 2022, it was illegal (by Ukrainian laws) thing to do. I managed to contact some Ukrainian officials and learned that it is okay during the war, if your purpose is to leave the occupied areas/Russia.
But, as I also have Russian passport (issued locally after 2014, and almost impossible to get rid of without being put into danger), Russia views me as Russian citizen first, and by their laws, I had to get foreign travel passport in order to leave. I did that, and it took time. I also had to prepare money and other affairs. Thus I managed to get to the Estonian border only in September. My thinking was that it would be safer to deal with Russian documents after I cross the border, not before.
I knew that Russian passports issued in Crimea are not recognized by the EU. My Ukrainian foreign travel passport was outdated by that point. The rules are: you can apply for asylum if you have no valid travel documents. But when I got to the border, Estonian police and border guard told me that everything is fine with my Russian passport (the travel document I had to use to leave the Russian side of the border, because Russian laws) and thus I cannot ask for an asylum.
I told them many things about myself, and that I would be in danger if I return, but they did not care. They were angry and not cooperative, unwilling to listen. They blamed me for not coming sooner and for other things I had no control over. That night at the border is something that still haunts me to this day. Being rejected by the people who you considered to be good and being sent back to modern day neo-USSR. And there are things that I am not telling you here, because it is dangerous...
Anyway.. I came to St.Petersburg. Got seriously ill. Still, I got tickets to Vladikavkaz in order to try crossing into Georgia. But soon I found a lot of info online that told me the same story would happen there as well. There were no other good alternatives that came to my mind. Going somewhere else eastward wasn't looking like a good idea either, legally, logistically and for other reasons.
At that time, my little sister was still in Crimea. I've decided to come back here and deal with whatever happens to all of us together. Since then, there was a harsh winter without work. Serious depression, from which I barely managed to recover on my own, without meds or therapist. The dangers that are lurking out there are real. But I know who I am and what I stand for, and where my allegiance is.
Most importantly, I know that the bastards have already lost. I knew that back in Feb 2022. They will not succeed, no matter what happens to me personally. They can't do anything good in this world, and there's no "winning" for them in any shape or form.
I've stopped working on my Unity dev career for now. I tried to find some remote work, but failed and had to return back to working in a store. I do see a future where things go at least a little bit better. But for that to happen, a lot of people have to put in a lot of effort. There's nothing free, and freedom itself is not free. We all have to work for it.
Alright, I've already said much more than I should've. Over and out.

Not so fast. Our TGs write UKR command of advancing brigades concerned with such rapid withdrawal of Russians - this can be a trap with flank strikes and artillery hammering of narrow front from all sides, so UKR troops should to expand own flanks enough in order to not to be cut off and encirlced. I notice, in Novoprokopivka in front of our troops already not Territorial troops mobiks and tired units of 42nd MRD, but fresh VDV units - 108th regimemt and two battalions of 56th regiment of 7th air-assault division. This is serious opponent. 
Western partners say to us "Go, go, go! Winter is coming". I wish to our generals big patience and don't command to our troops in own turn "go, go, go!" like in June...

a long illness.. is that a way of expressing that the window was above the 8th floor?

Ok, I think this is a a pretty common misconception. Yes, there was a smaller chance that Guardsmen both Army National Guard (ANG) and Air National Guard being activated and sent to Vietnam, it wasn’t a sure thing. The Air National Guard actually mobilized 11 units on January 25, 1968, a week before the Tet Offensive. Three more ANG units were mobilized on May 13. ANG units deployed to Vietnam and South Korea. Also on May 13, 34 Army National Guard units were mobilized, with many of their 12,234 members levied to active-duty units. Eight Army Guard units deployed intact to Vietnam, with the first arriving in August of 1968. That was just a few of the deployments.
There were other, less sure ways to avoid being sent to Vietnam, but it came down to being in the “right place at the right time.” Personal example; in 1969, I enlisted just before High School graduation, in the Marine Corps for four years (with an Aviation Guaranty as I had passed the entry tests with a high enough score) so I wouldn’t be drafted into the Army Infantry for two years which would have guaranteed being sent to Vietnam. In Recruit Training at Paris Island, S.C., my general college test scores were high enough to qualify for Aviation and for Marine Officer Candidate School. When I was offered OCS (without aviation) and a two-year extension of active duty (six years), I weighted my options and remained enlisted because I felt sure that I would graduate as a Second Lt. Rifle Platoon Leader and be sent straight to Vietnam, do not pass go, do not collect $200. When I was sent to Fleet Marine Corps, Western Pacific, I received orders in Okinawa. We were in a long line to receive orders and the orders were Chu Lai for about five sets, but mine were for Iwakuni , Japan. Our Phantoms were F-4 J models that were too new to be allowed to deploy to a war zone, so we never were. I simply lucked out on that one even though I tried to transfer to Chu Lai, but didn’t succeed because they stopped split tours.
I personally take exception to the concept that joining an “alternative” Service of any type was done simply to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Anyone could join the Guard if they tested high enough. So the politicians who spouted the “he joined the Guard to avoid Vietnam” were just spouting BS.
For what it’s worth, I actually researched the history of the region, and our involvement there, and will completely agree that the whole thing was a complete travesty and lie fostered by our top politicians.
Sorry for the wall of text Steve, but those types of “observations” tend to infuriate me.

One thing that I think many on this Forum don’t realize is that talk is cheap, especially from “chicken hawks” as many of us here who HAVE served tend to call those who talk a tough fight, but have never been put in a position to have to back up their words with actions. The most honest answer when asked what one would do in a situation is, I’ve never been exposed to that situation so I honestly don’t know what I would, only what I would hope to do. Even a person who has been in a situation never knows, but can only hope to handle it as before. This is because one might be a hero when dry, warm, well-fed, and have dry feet, but be a coward when wet, cold, hungry, and be standing in mud up to their ankles.
we all think we can be a Rambo or a Florence Nightingale, but never know if we can until AFTER the situation is over! And the whole subject is WAY OFF TOPIC in this thread.

Fair point, and I am not saying language skills are a bad idea.  It is the self-righteous BS of judging a volunteer in the middle of this war because he does not speak enough Ukrainian for some plug sitting at home at a computer terminal that gets me going.  The guys will pick it up as stuff like “Excuse me I think my legs was just blown off and I need assistance” gets picked up pretty quickly.  
Been on this thread from the start but this is a bit of a low point in my opinion.

So US C4ISR is highly integrated with UA ops at this point, and has been noted many times is integral in the prosecution of this war…what language do you suppose that is being spoke in?  And the UA training support, I personally know guys doing this and the working language is English.  All this HIMARs, what language do you suppose the manuals are written in?There is no doubt translator support but English is all over this thing as it is the language of the support that is keeping Ukraine in this freakin war.
And as I have pointed out repeatedly…this is not solely Ukraines war.
As to our track record of lack of local language skills - of course it is an issue but what do you suggest?  Adding on a year of language training to already overloaded force generation systems.  “A few simple phrases”?  Which ones?  And then there is context because a few simple phrases can start a gunfight in the wrong context.
My overall point is that if a guy wants to go overseas and fight for Ukrainian freedoms, putting his life on the line everyday; a bunch of armchair generals on this forum getting huffy because his Ukrainian is not “up to snuff” is disrespectful and self-inflated.  It is also ignorant of 1) the extent English is employed in the theatre and 2) the realties of warfare.  Lack of language skills is going to limit the individuals utility and of course it would be great if everyone was fluent, but this is dire straits and harsh times - if he can freakin shoot Russians he is good enough for the job.  
Frankly the level of discourse on this entire forum is sinking if we honestly want to pick apart a volunteers willingness to serve in the cause of greater freedom because of some latent anti-Anglo/US -insecurities.  For all those that think this volunteer is “doing it wrong”.  Well go learn a bunch of Ukrainian and then go over and join the fight…then you might have a leg to stand on.

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.

What about an intervention by our new space lobster overlords?  Are we still good on that?

Its that period between any sort of noticeable operational movement where the thread goes full schizo

What some posters need to do is ask themselves whether they have anything useful to add to the conversation and avoid posting fan fic about striking civilian columns.

Are you guys really discussing indescriminately shelling civilians in a traffic jam and/or kidnapping children? 
Seriously,  WTF. Is this a Wagner Telegram channel or some ****? 
Get a grip on yourselves. 

That would in turn undermine the whole defense of a "western order" and reward Russia for the war.  On top of that Ukraine has shown no interest in giving up a position of full restoration of the national integrity of Ukraine.  NATO membership isn't really relevant and there in no telling how long and convoluted that process might become.  As it stands Ukraine is being backed by almost the full arsenal of NATO so there isn't much incentive to even consider a compromise especially considering Russia's stated positions.
Russia needs to be clearly seen as having lost this war after all the sacrifice Ukraine has given.  Short of that Russia will continue some form of aggression to continue to destabilize things.  That in turn would also hold up membership.  This isn't about Donetsk, but rather the example the Ukrainian people have set.  That is the threat Ukraine represents.

Pardon my words, but the balls on this man to venture to Snake Island….for those who can’t see the video,  Zelensky visited Snake Island, leaving behind wreaths to honor the fallen. Did so by boat.
 

That is exactly the plan from what we have seen so far.  A death by inches so that Russia can come to terms with it.  All war is negotiation and that also means the players must negotiate with themselves.  The fact that Ukrainians have to die to make this happen is something we had better not forget when it comes to guaranteeing their security and rebuilding their nation once this war is over.  We are killing Russia softly while Ukraine pays the bill and we owe them a lot for it.

Because, like Oryx, they cite only confirmed deaths rather than estimates. As I said.