sburke

I don't think one necessarily has to march boots in to have a consistent and defined policy. The problem for Obama's policy is it has meant folks looking at the U.S. as essentially isolationist in practice while occasionally making comments that sounded more hardline. The result is your threats aren't taken seriously. If you are going to issue a statement, you have to back it up with something. That something does not have to be a direct military response. Options for Obama are more pointed sanctions, more aid to Ukraine be it financial, humanitarian or even non lethal essential military gear (speaking strictly on that conflict now and not ISIS or Syria etc). The U.S. has taken a back seat to European diplomacy, in and of itself not necessarily bad except French and German vacillation has been if anything worse. Personally I think we have gotten so worried about Putin feeling threatened, we have instead encouraged him to dig an even deeper hole essentially just making matters worse. We have not defined a point for him to consider as too extreme thereby encouraging him to go further than he might have if he figured the west to be more resolute.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117381-sell-on-steam/?p=1569257 Dunno, but has your opinion changed since January when you declared it dead with the same link?

You are welcome to be the apologist for inaction and espousing the "poor misunderstood Russia" line. I am gonna stick with the UN charter as the basis of international relations and obligations. Russia doesn't get a pass for feeling like it's neighbors have to make all their decisions based on what is acceptable to a wannabe empire. Western culture LOL gimme a break. Next up -"You don't understand autocracy is just the way the rest of the world finds to be a better form of government." That is so patronizing. We used to call it white guilt. No idea what the hip turn of phrase is now. As to the comparison to Hitler, I gave several examples of the similarity and you quoted them. That you choose to ignore them is your business, but don't pretend I did not provide them.

Sorry I don't think you can make a legitimate argument that it is up to Russian's to reign in Putin when Putin is active militarily in Ukraine. That ship has sailed. Like it or not the west is part of the international community and has both a right and a responsibility to act. You can self flagellate on your own time. I will not get mired in some self loathing argument that says because the west makes mistakes too, we can not therefore have anything worthwhile to contribute. Show me the nation you feel has hands clean enough and the capability to act and maybe we can talk. I doubt though you have anyone in mind. And yes Hitler is an appropriate historical figure. He was an aggressive dictator fanning the flames of Germany's sense of being wronged and acting to "protect Germans wherever they may be". Tell me why you think there is no historical parallel.

Correct if you have a drone up and it is spotting the Tunguska, the unit controlling the drone will light up. That is the unit you will need to use to call in the arty.

1060 posts and you claim to not know of Peng?

I smell a locked thread coming, we can either be more civil, go back to the original subject or find this thread closed proving ourselves incapable of a civil conversation. Our choice

Ukraine has a right to self determination. Russia's defense of it's annexation of Crimea as reflecting their exercising their rights seems to completely contradict Russia's position vis a vis Kiev. The apologists for Russian aggression can say whatever they want about these old notions of "sphere's of influence". Ukraine however is not obligated to live by Russian perceptions. Kiev did not cause the destabilization, Russian continued intervention in Ukraine's internal affairs and the corruption it contributed to created a need for Ukraine to look to the west for societal reforms, so chicken before the egg or whatever, Russia does not get to decide Ukraine's future and Russian disregard for the agreements it supposedly is a party to is inherently at fault for the current situation. As to the comment about folks ending up in a ditch. First off I don't think that is likely. There would have been no separatists movement without Russia and it's proxies. Assuming for the moment though that there were, Ukraine would not get into the EU nor get western support by committing war crimes and that is not an action anyone here should even consider being justified. I am not saying that was the intent of that post, but it comes across like it. if Northern Ireland can find peace, so can Ukraine without continued sectarian murder. Does the West live at times by the same double standard- sure. US relations with Cuba being probably the classic example. However that doesn't justify Russia's behavior. One can comfortably condemn both. For standards to have a value, they need to be consistently and objectively applied.

If not us, who? Putin is the one aggressively de-stabilizing Europe in a country with nuclear weapons. Isolationism is never a good strategy. Wasn't it you who brought up the west's behavior regarding Hitler, is somehow that strategy now okay when applied to Putin?

What he said As to screenshots, I use fraps to take screenshots and picassa to edit. Beyond that I wouldn't know why mine may show up differently. Your screenshot is actually the command phase. Mine is the end of the replay just prior to hitting the end turn. Once you hit that button, the figure no longer shows. It is only there a brief moment at end of turn. There are actually several beta testers responding here. When you have a save and a verifiable problem there tends to be more involvement. The requests in various threads for saves etc isn't just idle or lazy support. To be able to open a ticket and not just annoy Charles requires having some kind of data to work with. In the case of your save I was able to see something that you apparently did not catch. That figure showing in my screen shot would seem to be the source of why the vehicles don't move. The issue has been escalated and the save attached. Whether it can be replicated beyond the save is another question, I have never seen this prior in game.

There you go, proof the next CM needs to be based around Vietnam.

Ken do you ever get accused of being bat s**t crazy. That is just freakin wild testing, I bow to your ability to stay focused long enough to even think of that test much less follow through on it.

Pshaw you east front grogs are so into martyrdom. CMFI is the forgotten side project! 2 years since GL was released! Still we wait swirling our spaghetti for the next module. More Chianti please.

Anti semitism in general has been around a long time in the west and in Russia. It isn't anything new any more than racism is and it isn't going to magically disappear. As to the western view of Russia, there is no question the west viewed communist Russia as a threat. The declaration of the communist movement was that they were engaged in international class warfare In the 1920s there was civil war in the streets of Germany and naval ships were shelling towns as part of it. The Russian revolution was a huge event and in the political context of the time presented a worst case scenario to capitalism as to what the future might hold. That the entire concept was flawed from the start and the world was in a process of political change that would alter the basis of that class war was not evident at the time. So yes the west intervened immediately and continued to view Russia as a threat at the same time Russia viewed itself as the vanguard of a new world. No sooner however was that state founded than it became something completely different than what it espoused. The "communist" state was no different fundamentally than the fascist state, the exception being the fascist state was founded in collusion within the capitalist class. Both models have been rejected in the years following world war 2. The difference is the majority in the west do not look back longingly on fascism whereas what is being reported and espoused here is Russians look back longingly on the communist state. Personally I very much doubt that. I suspect rather the Russian people simply want what most people want. Stability and a sense that they have some control over their future. Their experience so far in a non authoritarian form of gov't is limited and based in periods of instability. The transition to a more democratic form of government is not going to be easy, but real stability is going to require they go through the process of founding a political and economic society that is free. Falling back on some form of crony capitalism or fascist/communist model is simply stalling and is inherently unstable. The west for all it's flaws is a far better social model than anything Russia has to offer. The weakness in the west is something that we in fact do own control over, the extent to which the populace involves themselves in the political process and fights for humanitarian ideals determines what kind of future we hold. When we fall back on stupid catch phrases, simplistic answers and cave into our fears of others we end up with knuckleheads like George Bush jr whose understanding of the world and how to function in the international community is infantile at best. However the political institutions are there and we do have a relatively free press if we make the effort to stop just listening to those who tell us what we feel comfortable hearing. Russians have that to a far more limited degree and only as far as the authoritarian state allows it. Your attitude towards a lot of us on this forum about our perception of the west versus Russia is simply way off base. It seems you feel Russia is simply undeserving of the criticism it has earned from the nature of it's activities. There is a difference between having corruption and being fundamentally corrupt to the core. There is plenty of corruption in the west, any time you put people into authority and access to sources of political or financial power it is almost inevitable. However the difference in the west is there are mechanisms that however flawed at times allow us to pursue and punish those who cross the line. In Russia the highest political authority is itself corrupt and there is no legal mechanism to pursue or punish those individuals short of a major political upheaval.

You weren't? Certainly sounded like it and I quote Again showing you actually were talking the Civil War, your analogy is wrong. United States in your analogy =USSR. Russia would be one of those states not the federal gov't. Your Texas analogy is even further off base. Russia does not equal USSR. That is the flaw in your argument.

Detailed in the sense he writes a lot and throws a bunch of unsupported statements out there including saying no Russians were really involved. I don't buy that for a moment nor do I buy his characterization of the internal strife in LPR/DPR. So overall interesting but not something that I would consider accurate despite the sheer volume of his descriptions of the battle. There is however enough that leaks through oddly enough to support quite a bit of Steve's theories about why they went to plan b.

Okay then so your whole comparison to Texas is wrong. You have completely mis characterized the dissolution of the USSR. If you had said that Congress had voted to dissolve the Union and that Texas had along with other states signed the document declaring that dissolution and the various states of the United States established their own institutions to replace the authority of the federal gov't that would have been a closer comparison. Russia was a signatory to the treaty dissolving the Soviet Union. Russians don't like that? umm too bad. They don't get to call a mulligan 23 years later. USSR On June 12, 1990, the Congress of People's Deputies adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty. On June 12, 1991, Boris Yeltsin was elected the first President. On December 8, 1991, heads of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belavezha Accords. The agreement declared dissolution of the USSR by its founder states (i.e. denunciation of 1922 Treaty on the Creation of the USSR) and established the CIS. On December 12, the agreement was ratified by the Russian Parliament, therefore Russian SFSR denounced the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR and de facto declared Russia's independence from the USSR. On December 25, 1991, the Russian SFSR was renamed the Russian Federation (Russia). On December 26, 1991, the USSR was self-dissolved by the Council of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, which by that time was the only functioning house of Soviet parliament (the other house, Soviet of the Union, had already lost the quorum after recall of its members by the union republics). After dissolution of the USSR, Russia declared that it assumed the rights and obligations of the dissolved central Soviet government, including UN membership. The new Russian constitution, adopted on December 12, 1993 after a constitutional crisis, abolished the Soviet system of government in its entirety. Ukraine Independence Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk and President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin signed the Belavezha Accords, dissolving the Soviet Union, 8 December 1991 On 16 July 1990, the new parliament adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. This established the principles of the self-determination, democracy, independence, and the priority of Ukrainian law over Soviet law. A month earlier, a similar declaration was adopted by the parliament of the Russian SFSR. This started a period of confrontation with the central Soviet authorities. In August 1991, a conservative faction among the Communist leaders of the Soviet Union attempted a coup to remove Mikhail Gorbachev and to restore the Communist party's power. After it failed, on 24 August 1991 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the Act of Independence. A referendum and the first presidential elections took place on 1 December 1991. More than 90% of the electorate expressed their support for the Act of Independence, and they elected the chairman of the parliament, Leonid Kravchuk as the first President of Ukraine. At the meeting in Brest, Belarus on 8 December, followed by the Alma Ata meeting on 21 December, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine formally dissolved the Soviet Union and formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

While you are at it, mind replying on this thread? I thought you got run over trying to get that guy in the truck or something. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118172-truck-with-mounted-infantry-refuses-to-follow-movement-orders/

Do you mind elaborating on that as it doesn't make any sense in the context of anything Russia has said nor in any of the treaty's it has signed. I am genuinely not sure if I am just misunderstanding what you are driving at or not and figure I should first know that before responding.

At the risk of getting this discussion back on track Before any of this can be looked at you'd probably need to answer a few questions. What is the NATO position at this time, have the NATO countries increased their military readiness prior to the beginning of hostilities (I am thinking here of Germany for example, would they have put there army in a better state in the few years preceding events, not just have they mobilized) What is Russia's position, have the force modernizations taken place as planned, have they had manpower shortages, has the economic situation affected armaments programs How much of both sides first line forces are committed in Ukraine, what forces does Russia have available to open a second front in the Baltics? How much of the preparation for a push into the Baltics is spotted? Does Poland move forces into the Baltics as a NATO ally before Russia can launch an attack.

That was what I perceived this comment to be.. "What he wants to avoid is the death-by-slow bleed the west has subjected every one of its enemies to historically. The Turks, the Chinese, Africa, the Native Americans, etc. The west hasn't conquered its enemies through war that often, but they have very frequently conquered them through economics. The writing is on the wall." It wasn't yours.

Look we can spend this whole thread trashing the west and blaming Russia's woes on them, but sorry Russia entirely owns it's own dismal state. NATO and the EU had actually expressed little interest in the Ukraine because it was such an abysmal corrupt mess. The attempt by Ukraine to fix it's endemic corruption, which necessarily meant leaning to the West as Russia is if anything even more corrupt than Ukraine sparked Russia's response. Russia is the one assassinating it's own political dissidents Russia is the one flexing it's muscle globally and making threats about Nuclear retaliation and first strike capability Russia is the one threatening civilian safety by flying it's fighters without transponders near civilian aircraft. I am perfectly willing to accept the blame for the things my country has done wrong, and they have been/are many. However Russia's mess is not one you can leave at our doorstep. Russian owns it's own corrupt, dictatorial state and all the baggage that goes with it. The time when the EU and US are no longer leading world powers may come, but that day has already come for Russia. They just haven't faced up to it yet. Ask the peoples of Eastern Europe what they think of the fall of the Soviet Union. If Russians are looking back longingly for the pre Gorbachev days, it shows how clearly disconnected they are from the mindset of those nations who suffered under that regime and goes a long way towards explaining why folks are more worried about Russia than NATO. NATO didn't build a wall to prevent people from leaving at such a rate that the East German state was facing collapse. That was all Russia.

But wait, the Pope IS an alien. I mean check that hat and tell me one of the coneheads isn't under there.

Different issue, what killed it and actual deployment. The location you tell a UAV to oversee and its location are entirely unrelated. Try this. Create a map with a huge spike right down the middle. Put a Tunguska on each side. Tell your UAV to spot the one on the enemy side of the map. The Tunguska on your side will shoot it down. Odd yes. It has to do the code required to add UAVs. Their game location is on your map edge regardless of where you tell them to observe therefore their being spotted has to do with a location distinct from the observation location. If it is a micro UAV the only thing that can shoot it down is a Tunguska. If a larger UAV it may be susceptible to manpads and SAMs. To see the TG shoot it down, you need eyes on the TG. Hence your first mission in CMBS is really no different than the other titles. You want human eyes on anything you can before you launch UAVs unless you have a gray eagle. If you have one of those get it aloft immediately.

Introduced in vehicle pack http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=333&Itemid=582