TheVulture

HOLY F-K Geoff-L!  you are right!  This totally justifies an unprovoked armed invasion of conquest and the shelling of civilian populations centers!  Thanks for setting us all to rights on this!  Wow, your keen legal eye is just what's needed so folks can see thru to the real culprit here!

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

yeah regardless of what you might have been told, there is a moment where you fire your weapon, drop that bomb, fire that rocket where you KNOW you are hitting a non combatant.  At that moment if you haven't realized you have committed a war crime, someone needs to point it out to you.  Hopefully permanently.

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

Air-dropped cluster tractors.

Perhaps I'm being a bit conspiracy theorist here, but I'm inclined to view all of this as a "boiling the frog" secenario - shifting the Overton window of what they can do without escalating too fast for Russia to accept (if you'll forgive the Overton window analogy).
e.g. NATO will keep saying no to the concept of a no-fly zone, but they will keep doing so if only to keep the phrase "no-fly zone" in continual use. Russia keeps hearing the words and is focused on making sure it isn't going to happen.
Maybe at some point, they start discussing conditions under which a no-fly zone might work, while insisting that they don't think it is viable. And mentioning that there is no scenario where they'd put ground troops in to protect humanitarian corridors between Kiev and the Polish border.
Slowly the limits of what they say they are not doing move further along. And at the other end of the window, the scale of what they can actually supply to Ukraine without Russia viewing it as a sudden escalation will slowly move along. Maybe some better air defence systems that can be deployed in western Ukraine to protect humanitarian aid from accidents in the near-ish future.
The aim is to keep increasing what can be sent to Ukraine, but to do so in a way that Russia will view each new step as a problem, but not an existential threat. So psychologically you need to keep having people calling for more drastic steps that Russia would react very strongly against (e.g. a no fly zone currently), and have the official position being "no way" whilst slowly trying to create the conditions where it becomes conceivable but remote, and eventually just a minor step above what is already being done.

Already rehearsing it mate - sneak preview image ...

 

Perhaps I'm being a bit conspiracy theorist here, but I'm inclined to view all of this as a "boiling the frog" secenario - shifting the Overton window of what they can do without escalating too fast for Russia to accept (if you'll forgive the Overton window analogy).
e.g. NATO will keep saying no to the concept of a no-fly zone, but they will keep doing so if only to keep the phrase "no-fly zone" in continual use. Russia keeps hearing the words and is focused on making sure it isn't going to happen.
Maybe at some point, they start discussing conditions under which a no-fly zone might work, while insisting that they don't think it is viable. And mentioning that there is no scenario where they'd put ground troops in to protect humanitarian corridors between Kiev and the Polish border.
Slowly the limits of what they say they are not doing move further along. And at the other end of the window, the scale of what they can actually supply to Ukraine without Russia viewing it as a sudden escalation will slowly move along. Maybe some better air defence systems that can be deployed in western Ukraine to protect humanitarian aid from accidents in the near-ish future.
The aim is to keep increasing what can be sent to Ukraine, but to do so in a way that Russia will view each new step as a problem, but not an existential threat. So psychologically you need to keep having people calling for more drastic steps that Russia would react very strongly against (e.g. a no fly zone currently), and have the official position being "no way" whilst slowly trying to create the conditions where it becomes conceivable but remote, and eventually just a minor step above what is already being done.

I think that's meant to be a roof rack to carry extra luggage due to the truck shortage, rather than any kind of defensive measure.

Nothing wrong with Ukrainian morale though
 

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

Actually there is one area where CMBS  might be overmodelling the Russians in a way that players can't do much about: ERA and active defense systems. The t-90s and upgraded t-72s in CMBS tend to come fully stocked with ERA packs and Shtora. On the evidence of what we've seen in Ukraine so far, they are significantly lacking in ERA coverage, particularly on the hull sides. Tanks in Ukraine seem rather more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons (aside from the Javelin) than the in-game counterparts. At least when it's my guys committing suicide by using their AT-4s to achieve nothing but drawing fire.
On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of that is selection bias. By definition, the ones we see photos and videos of are the ones that have been successfully knocked out, not the ones where someone missed, where a hit didn't penetrate, or where ERA was present and worked,

That's kinda my point.  Anyone can make a claim to Ukraine, and it's all totally irrelevant to what's happening now because it's all just a pretense for a violent land grab.  F-ing Mongolia once ruled Ukraine also.  None of this matters.  I am not some dumbf-k just off the turnip truck.  My point is that this is all completely and utterly beside the point.  The vast majority of Ukraine doesn't want Russian rule, and are willing to risk death to avoid it.  Putin initiated a violent overthrow of 30-year established Ukrainian sovereignity, and what happend 70, 100, or 400 years is all just piss in the wind relative to that.

Actually there is one area where CMBS  might be overmodelling the Russians in a way that players can't do much about: ERA and active defense systems. The t-90s and upgraded t-72s in CMBS tend to come fully stocked with ERA packs and Shtora. On the evidence of what we've seen in Ukraine so far, they are significantly lacking in ERA coverage, particularly on the hull sides. Tanks in Ukraine seem rather more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons (aside from the Javelin) than the in-game counterparts. At least when it's my guys committing suicide by using their AT-4s to achieve nothing but drawing fire.
On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of that is selection bias. By definition, the ones we see photos and videos of are the ones that have been successfully knocked out, not the ones where someone missed, where a hit didn't penetrate, or where ERA was present and worked,

A very inspiring leader. Such men can make all the difference. 

Hey all, there's so many posts that it's easy for someone to miss something.  So there's some duplication.  But multiple posts duplicating complaints about multiple posts then me saying let's not worry about posts about multiple posts takes up more space than simply ignoring multiple posts and posts about posts about complaining about multiple posts. 

The Russian BTG TO&E looks like it has 2 platoons each of 3 Pantsir systems, so that's 6 per BTG on paper. I've no idea what fraction of the 'BTG's being used in Ukraine actually conform to the official BTG concept (I'd imagine the follow on forces that are classed as BTGs have different TO&E) - and no idea what fraction of the units actually have the authorised allotment of vehicles.

Putting on my cynical hat for the moment, we never see the shots hitting the tanks.  It is a possibility that the tanks were knocked out in an engagement that wasn't filmed, and then the video was shot with the tanks already dead as a 're-creation'.
Although it might be exactly as shown - at that range I wouldn't really expect someone filming stuff to pop out of cover just to get a good view of the tanks. That would seem unwise.

Actually there is one area where CMBS  might be overmodelling the Russians in a way that players can't do much about: ERA and active defense systems. The t-90s and upgraded t-72s in CMBS tend to come fully stocked with ERA packs and Shtora. On the evidence of what we've seen in Ukraine so far, they are significantly lacking in ERA coverage, particularly on the hull sides. Tanks in Ukraine seem rather more vulnerable to infantry AT weapons (aside from the Javelin) than the in-game counterparts. At least when it's my guys committing suicide by using their AT-4s to achieve nothing but drawing fire.
On the other hand, it's hard to say how much of that is selection bias. By definition, the ones we see photos and videos of are the ones that have been successfully knocked out, not the ones where someone missed, where a hit didn't penetrate, or where ERA was present and worked,

What sense would it make to fake this picture? 
There are videos of this scene: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2630677/Video-Devastation-bridge-collapses-Irpin-Putin-maniac.html 
Btw it took me 2 minutes to find the first videos. 

I don't think Putin is ready to quit just yet personally. The land bridge to Donbas could be a way to save face and cut his losses but Mariupol is bound to fall sooner or later and then that would probably free up a lot of troops and the Russians could resume their advance towards the north. I don't see them achieving anything in the Kyiv meat grinder anytime soon unless the forces coming for the north east can reach the Kyiv suburbs.
There is one thing that makes a bit cautious though and that's why I try to remain measured : this war is covered in such a way that it is akin to a boxing match where you only get to see one half of the ring and one single boxer. You see one boxer taking a lot of punches but even though he is clearly fumbling a lot you are not really seeing how many of his own punches are landing.
Clearly the Russians are getting mauled but it is bound to take its toll on the Ukrainian side too in the long run and who knows how far Putin is ready to go.
 

what the hell is cancel culture even?  people have made choices about products they do or don't want to buy for various reasons for generations.  Now it's a pejorative term as if there is something wrong with deciding cause A means something to me and I don't want to buy products that undermine it.  Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back started the Montgomery Bus Boycott.  That was "cancel culture".