womble

And the frequency of bogs... outside the urban areas, that is.
 

Most of the rest of what you say is at least adjacent to, if not the absolute Truth*, which is better than a lot of commentators. I disagree with the quoted bit, though. The "threat"** was the excuse for some plain, old-fashioned Imperialism. Russia already has borders with NATO members. Who that excuse was aimed at is debatable, but it feeds into the whole "external enemy" narrative the Kremlin has always used to unify their people behind their Kleptocracy. It panders to the prejudices of the polities that feel ill-treated by the First World, and gives the Arch Cynics of China and India "plausible deniability" for their disinterest.
The accession of Finland to NATO hasn't triggered Armageddon, which is suggestive that "Moar NATO" wasn't the problem.
The problem with brinksmanship is that it's difficult to be sure where the brink actually is. Assertions that one thing or another is definitely the thing that will bring about the Apocalypse are largely pointless, which is why the gradualist approach is the only way to escalate. The gradual approach also has the advantage that it can often have the effect of moving the opposition's "red lines" over time. Putin's Russia did that a lot before March '22, to great effect. 
* as I see it, at least
** which hasn't been real since at least 1950

Most of the rest of what you say is at least adjacent to, if not the absolute Truth*, which is better than a lot of commentators. I disagree with the quoted bit, though. The "threat"** was the excuse for some plain, old-fashioned Imperialism. Russia already has borders with NATO members. Who that excuse was aimed at is debatable, but it feeds into the whole "external enemy" narrative the Kremlin has always used to unify their people behind their Kleptocracy. It panders to the prejudices of the polities that feel ill-treated by the First World, and gives the Arch Cynics of China and India "plausible deniability" for their disinterest.
The accession of Finland to NATO hasn't triggered Armageddon, which is suggestive that "Moar NATO" wasn't the problem.
The problem with brinksmanship is that it's difficult to be sure where the brink actually is. Assertions that one thing or another is definitely the thing that will bring about the Apocalypse are largely pointless, which is why the gradualist approach is the only way to escalate. The gradual approach also has the advantage that it can often have the effect of moving the opposition's "red lines" over time. Putin's Russia did that a lot before March '22, to great effect. 
* as I see it, at least
** which hasn't been real since at least 1950

Most of the rest of what you say is at least adjacent to, if not the absolute Truth*, which is better than a lot of commentators. I disagree with the quoted bit, though. The "threat"** was the excuse for some plain, old-fashioned Imperialism. Russia already has borders with NATO members. Who that excuse was aimed at is debatable, but it feeds into the whole "external enemy" narrative the Kremlin has always used to unify their people behind their Kleptocracy. It panders to the prejudices of the polities that feel ill-treated by the First World, and gives the Arch Cynics of China and India "plausible deniability" for their disinterest.
The accession of Finland to NATO hasn't triggered Armageddon, which is suggestive that "Moar NATO" wasn't the problem.
The problem with brinksmanship is that it's difficult to be sure where the brink actually is. Assertions that one thing or another is definitely the thing that will bring about the Apocalypse are largely pointless, which is why the gradualist approach is the only way to escalate. The gradual approach also has the advantage that it can often have the effect of moving the opposition's "red lines" over time. Putin's Russia did that a lot before March '22, to great effect. 
* as I see it, at least
** which hasn't been real since at least 1950

Most of the rest of what you say is at least adjacent to, if not the absolute Truth*, which is better than a lot of commentators. I disagree with the quoted bit, though. The "threat"** was the excuse for some plain, old-fashioned Imperialism. Russia already has borders with NATO members. Who that excuse was aimed at is debatable, but it feeds into the whole "external enemy" narrative the Kremlin has always used to unify their people behind their Kleptocracy. It panders to the prejudices of the polities that feel ill-treated by the First World, and gives the Arch Cynics of China and India "plausible deniability" for their disinterest.
The accession of Finland to NATO hasn't triggered Armageddon, which is suggestive that "Moar NATO" wasn't the problem.
The problem with brinksmanship is that it's difficult to be sure where the brink actually is. Assertions that one thing or another is definitely the thing that will bring about the Apocalypse are largely pointless, which is why the gradualist approach is the only way to escalate. The gradual approach also has the advantage that it can often have the effect of moving the opposition's "red lines" over time. Putin's Russia did that a lot before March '22, to great effect. 
* as I see it, at least
** which hasn't been real since at least 1950

I don't think that's necessarily a worry. Nukes take a lot of money and expertise to keep viable (both their delivery systems and the warheads). Smaller fragments will have other priorities, and the raw components of a standby nuke aren't even particularly useful as dirty bombs, which in turn aren't very useful as a deterrent. I think The Rest of the World will be able to put together a package that will satisfy the new polities. One thing those packages will probably have to include will be guarantees rather than the (largely worthless, and they knew it) "assurances" which were all Ukraine got.

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

They've already walloped the Odessa grain terminal and stated that the grain deal is over. Looks like they don't care what the potential purchasers of Ukrainian grain think of them. And now they're declaring unrestricted warfare against traffic into or out of Ukrainian ports... Trying to gain escalation dominance? Hoping to prove that nothing they do will provoke Western escalation? Will they really fire into Turkish-flagged vessels? Maybe they're just reserving the right to board and inspect.
I'm curious what the Russians mean by: (as the article linked above puts it) "...demands for Russian exports had not been honoured." Were some sort of concessions made on Russian exports as part of the grain deal?
The language is odd, since demands are not honoured, commitments are. Demands are acceded to, or permitted or some such, not "honoured". Maybe that's just linguo-cultural translation, or maybe it's indicative of the Kremlin's solipsistic attitude that all of their wants are automatically promises made by other people to fulfill them...
 

Aye, the driver can't be gunner too, so you have to mount someone up to use the on-board MG. It largely doesn't matter who  That said, like all APCs, be careful about putting them into direct fire roles: there are many things that can easily kill them. I'd generally use them to maintain suppression that's been achieved by other, less fragile units, from keyhole positions.
The 50mm mortar is an infantry weapon. You'll see it scattered through other formations that don't have Universal Carriers at all. To use the ones in the carrier, you need to mount up an infantry element, then use the Acquire command. Don't forget to take the ammo too  Then dismount them, and it'll be available for the infantry element to use.

Aye, the driver can't be gunner too, so you have to mount someone up to use the on-board MG. It largely doesn't matter who  That said, like all APCs, be careful about putting them into direct fire roles: there are many things that can easily kill them. I'd generally use them to maintain suppression that's been achieved by other, less fragile units, from keyhole positions.
The 50mm mortar is an infantry weapon. You'll see it scattered through other formations that don't have Universal Carriers at all. To use the ones in the carrier, you need to mount up an infantry element, then use the Acquire command. Don't forget to take the ammo too  Then dismount them, and it'll be available for the infantry element to use.

Hah. Which Tory is "first division" if Wallace is second?
In case you hadn't noticed, last time, it was Argentina who did the invading. Britain has some pretty far-flung interests which it is prudent to retain the capacity to defend at need. Defend. You know, like Ukrainians do. Not invade, like Russians.
We should (and are) give Ukraine what we can.  Most of the NLAWs that helped stop Russia's first attacks came from the UK. They got 800 Storm Shadows.. I don't think we have that many left on the RAF's establishment. We've promised them the entirety of the annual production of the cruise missiles. If we want to replace the ones we've given over already, we have to ramp up production (and I believe the statment implied that we were).

Hah. Which Tory is "first division" if Wallace is second?
In case you hadn't noticed, last time, it was Argentina who did the invading. Britain has some pretty far-flung interests which it is prudent to retain the capacity to defend at need. Defend. You know, like Ukrainians do. Not invade, like Russians.
We should (and are) give Ukraine what we can.  Most of the NLAWs that helped stop Russia's first attacks came from the UK. They got 800 Storm Shadows.. I don't think we have that many left on the RAF's establishment. We've promised them the entirety of the annual production of the cruise missiles. If we want to replace the ones we've given over already, we have to ramp up production (and I believe the statment implied that we were).

Hah. Which Tory is "first division" if Wallace is second?
In case you hadn't noticed, last time, it was Argentina who did the invading. Britain has some pretty far-flung interests which it is prudent to retain the capacity to defend at need. Defend. You know, like Ukrainians do. Not invade, like Russians.
We should (and are) give Ukraine what we can.  Most of the NLAWs that helped stop Russia's first attacks came from the UK. They got 800 Storm Shadows.. I don't think we have that many left on the RAF's establishment. We've promised them the entirety of the annual production of the cruise missiles. If we want to replace the ones we've given over already, we have to ramp up production (and I believe the statment implied that we were).

Hah. Which Tory is "first division" if Wallace is second?
In case you hadn't noticed, last time, it was Argentina who did the invading. Britain has some pretty far-flung interests which it is prudent to retain the capacity to defend at need. Defend. You know, like Ukrainians do. Not invade, like Russians.
We should (and are) give Ukraine what we can.  Most of the NLAWs that helped stop Russia's first attacks came from the UK. They got 800 Storm Shadows.. I don't think we have that many left on the RAF's establishment. We've promised them the entirety of the annual production of the cruise missiles. If we want to replace the ones we've given over already, we have to ramp up production (and I believe the statment implied that we were).

The dispersal of Wagner might've been part of the agreement. Their expertise is sorely needed. Perhaps they'll be distributed as cadre to existing units that need some on-the-job-instruction. It's almost a ready-made NCO corps (or at least it might look like one to someone unfamiliar with the actual job requirements of a "decent" NCO corps). Cadre is one of the missions that mercenaries traditionally fulfill, after all.
Also/in combination, weren't Russia sending troops to Belarus to train? So a camp of battle-hardened Wagnerites there might be a good start on a twisted version of a Russian Fort Moore.
 

I actually suspect it was for one of them: Russia.  Russia’s reasons for starting this war are opaque but we do know they did not need any of Ukraine’s resources, the line of conspiracies (bio labs, or whatever John Kettler was going on about may he rest in peace) has dried up and if it was to shore up the Putin regime this is one helluva way to go about that.
I suspect this war had a large portion attributable to Russian need to push back on the West and western “encroachment”.  Along with basically declaring the global system of order no longer valid because if you are a revisionist state…you revise.  So for one party the root interest for this war does kinda seem to be centred on the West, Ukraine got caught in the middle in a lot of ways.  All war is communication and in many ways Ukraine was (and is) the medium, not the message itself.

Hah. Which Tory is "first division" if Wallace is second?
In case you hadn't noticed, last time, it was Argentina who did the invading. Britain has some pretty far-flung interests which it is prudent to retain the capacity to defend at need. Defend. You know, like Ukrainians do. Not invade, like Russians.
We should (and are) give Ukraine what we can.  Most of the NLAWs that helped stop Russia's first attacks came from the UK. They got 800 Storm Shadows.. I don't think we have that many left on the RAF's establishment. We've promised them the entirety of the annual production of the cruise missiles. If we want to replace the ones we've given over already, we have to ramp up production (and I believe the statment implied that we were).

Word. It'd be nice if Starmer would keep him as Defence, when the Tories cave at the next election (to leave Labour or a Coalition holding the nasty, badly-cared-for crack baby that the economy will be by then) but that simply isn't going to happen.  
Stupid party politics.
 

Word. It'd be nice if Starmer would keep him as Defence, when the Tories cave at the next election (to leave Labour or a Coalition holding the nasty, badly-cared-for crack baby that the economy will be by then) but that simply isn't going to happen.  
Stupid party politics.
 

Ok, noted, but how is that related to my sentence you quoted? I wasn't talking about Ukraine there or any Western support or intervention or the lack there of. I specifically asked @Maciej Zwolinski what exactly makes him (still) so worried/concerned about Russia. And not to mock anyone or show my indifference but to understand. So, if you just wanted to vent frustration, please make your own post instead answering to mine and making strawman arguments or insulting me.