womble

This is also more generally true. Not always, but often. Emphasis, though, on the "O" (Observation). Any unit you are going to put in a place that can see a broad view is also potentially visible from many locations. And visible means targetable! And the most visible thing your troops ever do is shoot. So you don't want your Observation Post shooting at any old thing it spots, because that will (at least partially) negate the (generally pretty significant) concealment of the building they're in. This means that you should apply a small "Target Arc" (TA, also referred to as Covered Arc - CA) orders to your scouting and observation units so that they restrain their impulse to kill the enemy.

Giving your observers and scouts short segments of TA at their terminal waypoint also allows you to make sure they're looking out of the correct side of the building... At setup time it's probably a good idea to give them a 50-60m circular "self-defense" TA just in case.

The second most visible thing your guys do is move. For this reason, I try and always have my observers (little 'o' - they're not necessarily artillery-callin' Forward Observers) Slow into position. Most of the time you can Quick into the ground floor of a building, but if you go up the stairs at "Quick", I find you quickly get spotted and killed, so any vertical movement is done "Slow". I tend to give the last waypoint before the Slow a short circular TA, just big enough to cover the building.

WeGo or NoGo...
One of the primary USPs for me is the 1 minute turn and infinite replays of the turn results. If it doesn't have that, it's not a competitor to CM, in my lexicon.

What air defenses? ;D
Apperently, there's less and less of them. BBC was pretty quick to report the local (my hometown) events, so you may wanna check that out.
No air raid warnings, no nothing. Nothing is happening, as always. Just bavovna and smoke. Even the announcer at the train station skips the usual "be observant and careful, careful and observant" this morning. How come, I wonder?
 
ps: I'm okay, and the windows are fine, for now.

Or maybe you're doing it right! I don't know what circumstances will trigger a given combination of soft and hard factors in a team to persuade them that leaning out to fight is a Good Idea, but I'd suspect that it's not a first-choice activity. Perhaps you're just keeping your pTruppen in comfortable situations where they don't feel that plinking away with their small arms is a particularly useful contribution.

Maybe actually read and understand the article and find the difference between what it said, which is probably based on truth and what you said which is arrant nonsense.
Hint: "The Internet" is not, by and large, dependent on satellites. Neither are cell phones. See those masts everywhere? They're not satellites, and they're not linked by satellites.
May be true, but it is irrelevant to most day-to-day usage of the Internet, at the individual, corporate and governmental levels.

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.

Maybe actually read and understand the article and find the difference between what it said, which is probably based on truth and what you said which is arrant nonsense.
Hint: "The Internet" is not, by and large, dependent on satellites. Neither are cell phones. See those masts everywhere? They're not satellites, and they're not linked by satellites.
May be true, but it is irrelevant to most day-to-day usage of the Internet, at the individual, corporate and governmental levels.

Rubbish. International banking comms isn't reliant on satellites. They'd have to start snipping oceanic cables as well, and that would, I believe, go hard for Russia, and they know it. As, indeed, would taking out communications satellites, but probably to a lesser degree.

Maybe actually read and understand the article and find the difference between what it said, which is probably based on truth and what you said which is arrant nonsense.
Hint: "The Internet" is not, by and large, dependent on satellites. Neither are cell phones. See those masts everywhere? They're not satellites, and they're not linked by satellites.
May be true, but it is irrelevant to most day-to-day usage of the Internet, at the individual, corporate and governmental levels.

Rubbish. International banking comms isn't reliant on satellites. They'd have to start snipping oceanic cables as well, and that would, I believe, go hard for Russia, and they know it. As, indeed, would taking out communications satellites, but probably to a lesser degree.

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

I will not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.

And so on. 

Way  to miss The Captain's point. You seem to have ignored the last part of his sentence
A recurring tenet of The_Capt's treatises is that "War is negotiation". He's no bleeding-heart liberal who thinks this can be "talked out" round a table at this time. The whizz-bangs are doing the talking right now.

It depends entirely on what they're used to (try and) hit. Same as any other weapon. If the target's in civilian areas (but still legit in and of itself), then the CEP of the strike system orter be smaller than the target. I'm guessing the S-200 isn't incredibly precise, so you probably shouldn't lob 'em at small targets with potential collateral damage right nearby.

Way  to miss The Captain's point. You seem to have ignored the last part of his sentence
A recurring tenet of The_Capt's treatises is that "War is negotiation". He's no bleeding-heart liberal who thinks this can be "talked out" round a table at this time. The whizz-bangs are doing the talking right now.

Way  to miss The Captain's point. You seem to have ignored the last part of his sentence
A recurring tenet of The_Capt's treatises is that "War is negotiation". He's no bleeding-heart liberal who thinks this can be "talked out" round a table at this time. The whizz-bangs are doing the talking right now.

Way  to miss The Captain's point. You seem to have ignored the last part of his sentence
A recurring tenet of The_Capt's treatises is that "War is negotiation". He's no bleeding-heart liberal who thinks this can be "talked out" round a table at this time. The whizz-bangs are doing the talking right now.

Way  to miss The Captain's point. You seem to have ignored the last part of his sentence
A recurring tenet of The_Capt's treatises is that "War is negotiation". He's no bleeding-heart liberal who thinks this can be "talked out" round a table at this time. The whizz-bangs are doing the talking right now.

It depends entirely on what they're used to (try and) hit. Same as any other weapon. If the target's in civilian areas (but still legit in and of itself), then the CEP of the strike system orter be smaller than the target. I'm guessing the S-200 isn't incredibly precise, so you probably shouldn't lob 'em at small targets with potential collateral damage right nearby.