Baneman

Classic “why is spotting in CM so broken?” situation:
 

Well I mean if Britain just let Germany simply occupy its share of Poland without any action - there would be no war, am I right?

that's literally not a joke but a russian logic. If you defend yourself - more bullets get to fly.

I wasn't saying we should never go to mars.  I am saying we shouldn't be 'colonizing' it anytime soon or even sending humans.  we need better technology before we do that.  And it would cost an insane amount of money to send even a research team there & back.  At a time when we use drones to do lots of dangerous dirty work why would be send humans to mars for research right now?  I am all for sending 'drones' until we get better propulsion & survival tech.  Mars is a radiation soaked hell hole w low gravity and very little air, why would we 'colonize' that in near term?  It's a death sentence and would cost a trillion dollars.   And why would we try to send people to mars on 7-9 month trip, each way, when we don't even have a base on the moon, 2-3 days away.  (note, I do think we should put a station on moon and use that to learn). 

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

The_Capt, if you want to talk we want to listen. As I have said before we REALLY appreciate getting to audit staff college without  the push-ups, or the paper work.

Please don't write another love interest fan fic like your Putin Prig love story. I don't know if we can handle it.

Ok, well I don't want to act unfairly in responding to a person who is deciding not to post any more on the thread so I will offer to continue this discussion with kevinkin in DMs, if he's interested.  However I did want to address some recent posts here because I think it speaks to a wider misunderstanding that is distressingly common when discussing complicated issues and has led to similar conflicts on this thread in the past.
Kevin, if you're still reading this (and as I say, you may respond to me in DM if you like - I don't want to provoke you into a further argument in this thread), it's not the positions you hold but your unwillingness to properly explore them which frustrates.  This leads to you gish-galloping your way through three or four 'positions' in each post.  Then, when someone tries to pin down and engage with a single one (like I and others did with 'stare down Putin' and The_Capt did with 'win the war in 4 weeks') we don't get much in response.  I tried to encourage you to expand on the 'staring' position, to see if there was anything to actually discuss there (I do believe that you believe you are raising fair points) but your response to a list of things the US did with the intelligence they had was to ask what the US did with the intelligence they had.  I mean, at my most charitable I could assume that it was a rhetorical question but without any elaboration from you about why the previous answers to such a "rhetorical" question might not count...  Mate, do you not see how that might quickly become frustrating?
The below quote is demonstrative of another problem:
People should be aware that "single points" don't exist in the real world.  If one is trying to drill down to the truth of a matter then dragging multiple different topics together is unavoidable and necessary because ultimately everything is interacting, everywhere, all the time.  The_Capt, in a very particular sense, did write "paragraphs to make a single point" but that was precisely because addressing a single point requires exploration of many others.  That was his point!  In another, slightly less confusing sense, The_Capt's point intent was to just hint at the actual time, effort and patience which would be required to actually start answering one of kevinkin's one-liner questions by pointing out all the other questions which would have to be asked and answered at the same time.
My friendly advice to kevinkin or anyone else who is considering "just asking questions" or raising "points" which go against the "group-think" on this board:
Ask yourself the question Decide what you think the answer might be Think of and ask yourself at least 3 different questions directly related to the answer to your initial question Decide what you think the answers might be to each of those 3 Consider the implications of the combined 4 answers you are now holding in your mind Ask yourself whether they make sense together, as the beginnings of a coherent potential "truth" If they do make sense together and they contrast with what you perceive as the dominant viewpoint on this thread or elsewhere then you may have an interesting point.  Go ahead and make it, simultaneously making your case by including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. If they don't make sense together, try again*.  If you are still unable to find a sensible "truth" which explains them all, that's great because you may have an interesting question.  Go ahead and ask it, simultaneously including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions and what you are finding difficult to understand.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. Listen to/read the response(s) you get, think about them and engage with the precise thoughts that people raise, doing your best to help people relate the discussion back to your original question. Sound too much like hard work?  Welcome to a discussion about a very complicated issue.  People spend lifetimes studying, thinking about and writing about this stuff and it's not because they are overly verbose or for want of anything better to do.
 
*In particular it may be helpful to think about answers which do not involve the USA.  Only a very small minority of real-world global decisions are made with the USA in mind, so you'd be surprised how often this might help.

Stream of semi-consciousness...

Good God he's incessant. 

But remember, it wasn't Iraqi's using them.
I suspect the Ukrainians will be a bit more careful on this, having somewhat greater motivation.

I don't want to derail the thread, but it's hard to find an American who's done as lasting damage to the world as MacArthur by allowing his egomania and zealotry blow a complete victory.  Like a football match team being up 10 goals to zero and then having to forfeit into a draw for some reason.

I am just going to walk past without getting involved in this but, should I drop any thing over my shoulder as I go maybe it can go towards drawing a line under this whole sub-thread?
...
Whoops!
Clumsy me!

But remember, it wasn't Iraqi's using them.
I suspect the Ukrainians will be a bit more careful on this, having somewhat greater motivation.

"A Elbereth! Gilthoniel!"

I am pretty certain Ukraine had internet before Starlink.  Starlink just allows you to avoid the time and infrastructure cost to lay fiber and the wifi network and of course have that whole network operate at the whim of a flaky rich dude.

Pintere brought up this point about Germans volunteering to fight in the war.  I think his/her point was that twice as many Germans are choosing to fight on the russian side.  I think the numbers involved are so small as to be insignificant - less than 50 total, from memory.  Nevertheless it is troubling that anybody from a modern informed democratic state would choose to fight on the russian side - what is this all about?
My feeling has always been that this war needs to be won in the mind.  Russia needs its Algerian moment - something for the French among us.  The French woke up one morning and realised that Algeria was not part of France, and, was definitely not worth dying for.  Nor is Ukraine part of Russia and worth any russian dying for.
On the general point I observe that many Dutch are helping with humanitarian efforts, also in Ukraine itself.  A few with relevant experience are reported as fighting with the international brigades.  I respect and admire their individual decisions  to risk their lives in a war which is not (yet) for Netherlands existential.  There is really no reason to point fingers at any nation unless you are responding to russian divisive propaganda.  We will all feel guilty for not having done more when this war is over.  At least this is my feeling.

Bad for Sweden. I hope someone tells Erdogan, in as clear words as diplomatically acceptable, that a) EU isn't NATO and b) Turkey's chances of getting into EU under a president Erdogan and with a political and judiciary system as it is now are very close to zero. We can't afford another Orban. While they are at it, they might also remind him that at some point we might feel tempted to decide whether we'd rather have Sweden in NATO than Turkey.
I know this won't sit well with some here but I think it is good that a decision to allow new members in has to be unanimously. It is literally a question of whether a country is willing to send soldiers to die for another country, after all. But doing it so obviously for ones own selfish political gains is... disturbing.

At this point I don't even consider the UXO DPICM situation worthy of argument. Very little, if any DPICM or general purpose cluster munitions are going to be used anywhere that Russia hasn't already placed hundreds if not thousands of AT and AP mines. Areas that will have to be demined post war ANYWAYS. Whatever unexploded DPICM remains will just be another part of the clean up.

It would be the part when you stepped on the slippery slope of seeming to suggest that an older persons life was worth less than a young persons life.  I don't even disagree but is opens up a major hypocrisy hole in the position of the "think of the children!" side.  If the value of life is indeed transactional in nature (e.g. old people are going to die soon anyway) then that universal principle applies across the board.  The loss of children itself become transactional as well = relative morality.
In reality landmines, napalm, cluster munitions and fully autonomous "killbots" are less about the cost/danger/morality of warfare, and more about political power.   If it were about existential danger of weapons in warfare then we would have banned all nuclear weapons years ago.  There is even a treaty from 2017 but as you will notice even though 92 states signed on there is a whole lot of cricket sounds coming out of the Western world on this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
https://www.icanw.org/signature_and_ratification_status
I am pretty cynical about all this considering that the real existential threat to human survival - and yes that would be all the children - cannot get traction from anyone but the global South/3rd world.  Maybe this is a work in progress so starting small is the plan but considering our current situation the entire thing really feels hollow.  The landmine and cluster munitions treaty did exactly zero to prevent the Russian invasion, nor did it stop Russia for a millisecond in using these weapons with wanton abandon.  This should be a big hint that soft power/collectivism/whatever-the-hell-they-go-on-about is not a real thing without hard power to actually back up enforcement because people are the worst.  Our better angels have pointy tales and horns and no amount of pontificating or posturing is going to change that.  And here is the rub and why this whole thing is likely really upsetting so many in the liberal humanism/human security camp - if we were in Ukraine's position how long would our moral high ground be sustained? 
Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods.  We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.

Agreed lets not. To be clear the FSB is an organization that actually exists. It has leaders and followers. They have goals. They so stuff. They act together. While the "deep state" does not actually exist. It doesn't matter if some people think it does, it doesn't matter if the authors of the linked article don't understand that. There is no organization that calls itself the deep state, there is no leadership, there is no goal, it's a fake thing that people who are upset about not getting their way invoke to justify that their incompetence, illegal acts or general misunderstandings of how the world works.
They are not the same. There is no similarity. So there is no issue with semantics because it is clear.

Like any good Muscovite, in these troubling times, we should stay calm, wait how things play out and watch the ballet.
 

Just my thoughts. I think Prig is working to save Putin and in doing so creating further opportunity for himself. He is telling the people that Putin was lied to by the FSB and MOD. This gives Putin the out that he needs. When stuff is terminally sideways Putin can ruthlessly purge the MOD and any rogue FSB elements left as well as anyone else he wants to tie to the conspiracy. Then he can pull what is left of the RA back into Russia and announce how he was misled and fooled by the bad actors he just had shot against the Kremlin walls. How they were responsible and did it because of whatever reason (greed, hate, or even a planned military failure that would dethrone him) and that he figured it out and is now, once again, saving the Russian people from a horrible mistake. 
Prig and Kadryov are close supporters of Putin and both have been naysaying the MOD for awhile now. My vote for the main scape goat is the MOD with a splash of FSB. I could see this all happening as a play to save Crimea, so possibly this summer. Putin announces withdrawal from Donetsk and Luhansk as well as any other occupied territories, except Crimea. He will use all his tankies to put pressure on the west and therefore Ukraine to cease hostilities. If we see an uptick in the propaganda when the RA really starts losing it will be a good sign that something along these lines is being prepared. 
His hopes are that the Russian people will believe his lies and he will remain in power, his well funded supporters in the west will parrot his lies and have a cooling affect on Ukraine, and that his apology for the schemes of others, not him, will allow the war to end with Crimea still Russian. 
So who strikes first? Putin or the MOD? The MOD have to realize they are the in the cross hairs and if they don't act first it will be all over. Will it happen after the first large scale collapse, or will it be when the RA has totally collapsed? 

I think the conflict in this thread might have arisen because there's a difference between politely reminding everyone that we don't know enough to be 100% certain and telling people that their conclusions are "copium" because of that fact.
"Copium" is a potent cocktail that leads to conclusions based largely on (very) selective reasoning, hope and a deep aversion to a particular alternative.  Copium is some structural steel bars welded over the top of your T-72 because 'Ukraine have Javelins; Javelins attack from above; I just can't bear the thought of how horribly vulnerable to Javelin attack I am in my tank; Steel is hard and can be used as armour; QED'.  Copium is "Intelligent Design".
The majority of the useful opinions and positions expressed on this thread are not copium-fuelled.  They are properly and more-or-less rationally built upon a firm base of relevant professional experience and critical analysis of both available data and historic trends.  That does not (and cannot) lead to a 'certain' conclusion but it can (and does) lead to a 'most likely' conclusion.  Implicit in the work done to establish such a 'most likely' conclusion should be an understanding of where the weaknesses in the assessment lie and it is welcomed when people politely remind everyone what those weaknesses are.  That is partly because it demonstrates an understanding and appreciation of the work done by the person who carried out the assessment in question.  It is even more welcome when someone steps in and offers an equally or even more well-founded alternative assessment and conclusion, especially if it challenges the previous 'most likely' case.  That's because it adds to the conversation and can be educational and important to think about.
So while I would agree that 'group-think' can be dangerous that doesn't mean it should be challenged for the sake of it; it should be challenged based on the merits of the position that is being 'group-thunk'.  One's confidence in a position/the imperative to challenge it should always be proportional/inversely proportional to the strength of the case made for it.  That leads to the fact that the position itself should actually be irrelevant when deciding whether it needs to be challenged.  If you really are concerned by the fact that positions in this thread are "constantly undermining Russia", rather than that they are poorly-constructed, then you are the one letting your aversion to that "habit" drive your thinking.  You are the one getting too close to the copium fumes.
Finally, if being collectively in agreement in the absence of 100% proof is one of the most dangerous things in society then we are all doomed, since there is no such thing as 100% proof.  I would argue that it is actually disagreement with the collective simply due to a lack of 100% proof which is far more dangerous, since it leads to indecisiveness and passivity in the face of important challenges. See the climate change "debate".  See any number of the "debates" that spilt all over the place in 2020-21.  See the crippling paralysis that struck the collective West when definitely-not-100%-proven-to-be-Russian "Little Green Men" appeared in Crimea in 2014.
Forget 100% proof.  Search for 'most likely'.  Understand why it is considered 'most likely'.  If you agree, cherish collective agreement.  If you disagree, then explain why and you will be thanked for it.

Ok, trying to sort this out.  So we have a bunch of probes and pokes in the run up.  The RA revealed themselves too early and as a result got hammered…badly by the sound of it (48 guns ?!).  Is this why the RA artillery seems tepid?  Being dead does create significant delays in fire support.

Or they are using every drone they have and in a day or two they'll have nothing. We just don't know.
Plus, maybe they've had that kind of footage all along, but now that it's Western kit, it's worth them posting it.
 
Also, remember that all this is Russian footage and everything they post will have at least some element of trying to convince everyone that the offensive is failing.