Combatintman

Going to try using some facts to justify that statement?  Nuclear proliferation is a big threshold to cross.

It could also be a similar arrangement to NATO. The Russians could send the missiles but maintain control of the warheads at bases with Russian troops. The US has done that. "Giving" them the nuclear weapons openly. No one has done that (at least that we are aware of - relevant technology, yes, actual weapons, no) and would be a grievous violation of the NPT. 

Going to try using some facts to justify that statement?  Nuclear proliferation is a big threshold to cross.

I would say that supplying nuclear weapons to Belarus is unlikely - it contravenes various nuclear proliferation treaties/conventions which I doubt Russia would contemplate given all of the other sanctions it is already under.  This is more of the same in terms of fairly empty threats to exert pressure in the Baltic.

Tracking the clergy now?

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Tracking the clergy now?

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Their drill and locker layouts will be up to scratch at least 😉

Let's not go too far down that track - as I recall the M-113 owning side came second in that conflict.

Let's not go too far down that track - as I recall the M-113 owning side came second in that conflict.

I can't find my original post about 400 pages or so back but its essentially what @Huba said.  My comment was something like 'an anti-radiation missile and a jamming pod strapped to a fast jet does not a SEAD capability make.'  The US pioneered SEAD through hard-won experience in Vietnam and even then lost something north of 200 fixed wing aircraft to some fairly rudimentary SAMs/MANPADs - SA2 and SA7 in the main.
According to Wikipedia - usual caveats apply - Germany and Italy are the only two NATO nations that deploy a specialist aircraft (Tornado ECR).  The former acquired 35 and the latter acquired 16 at a slightly lower spec.  It appears that as of February last year the Germans could only field 20 while the Italians could field 15.
Looking at a more authoritative source - the Royal United Services Institute - the linked article below lays the lack of NATO capability, excepting of course the US, bare:
Getting Serious About SEAD: European Air Forces Must Learn from the Failure of the Russian Air Force over Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)
 

Mine's got pictures ... 😉
 

No don't start with Taiwan ... go and look at the geography and think about why Battlefront hasn't touched it.  I say again there's plenty of stuff to mine in the current conflict in Ukraine.

What's wrong with the war we've already got ... in terms of scenarios, campaigns and stuff - this is being reported in enough detail for any budding scenario maker to make a whole bunch of stuff or contemplate what-ifs and alternate scenarios with CMBS.  If Battlefront makes Korea or whatever - you're only going to see it through a less detailed prism than what you're getting now - all those iterations of Barkmann's corner or Wittman knocking over 7 Armd Bde in WW2 are all interpretations by a scenario designer of information with far less granularity than what's available now.  If you're truly interested in warfare, wargaming and/or simulating warfare then hoover up what you're seeing now, buy CMBS and hook into it.  It has been interesting to note from recent events that maybe 'T-72 spotting is nerfed' and 'Troops running from hard cover is unrealistic' have been proved to be fallacies due to the coverage that is emerging from the tragic events in Ukraine.
 

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 
Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'
US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 
Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'
US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

Beat me to it - the time to invade Ukraine would have been while the US and NATO still had forces in Afghanistan - all that military hardware that is pouring into Ukraine now would have been unthinkable if troops were still on the ground in Afghanistan.  All it would have taken was for a US/NATO soldier to get killed in Afghanistan and someone to unearth a social media post where the soldier said before their death - 'we didn't have enough body amour/MRAPs/fire support because it got sent to Ukraine.'  In fact it wouldn't even take that - the press or an opposition politician would just seize on the fact that equipment and supplies were going to a non-US//NATO country while the former were still engaged in Afghanistan. 
Also, all of those ISR platforms that were able to focus on Ukraine and Russia plus the analytical support behind them which did and still is making a huge difference to Ukraine would likely have been at least half of what they are now.  Also look at the political bandwidth that is being spent in Ukraine right now.  For the latter, I go back to the optics - the calculus would be 'are there any US/NATO troops there?  Nope ... Let's throw Ukraine some bones to keep the press off our backs but we need to focus on where US/NATO troops are in a combat training and advising role.'
US/NATO weakness in Afghanistan was signalled well before August 2021 and the current US President's decision to call it a day earlier that same year.  I can't name an actual year when it was obvious that the US/NATO will was lacking but it was at least a decade ago and probably longer than that.  Or put another way - the 'Biden was weak' theory is ... errrmmm ... weak.  

There seem to be a few tutorials doing the rounds of late … so you’re going to get another one – on planning. So if you’re somebody who wondered how it is done, or are somebody who casts a rudimentary eye over the ground, skims through the orders and then just launches across the line of departure with the view to developing a plan on the hoof and wants to change this – then this is the thread for you.
 
The vehicle for the tutorial is SeinfeldRules Assault Position Mission.  The associated thread is here:
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119212-seinfeldrules-scenario-thread/page-1
 
The mission can be downloaded from here:
 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d85cs6w3xeeg0oi/AD%20Assault%20Position.zip?dl=0
 
What do you get from this thread – simply put it will delve into the planning process and then roll into an AAR. I am playing this as designed so Axis attacker versus the AI. So without further ado, let’s crack on with it. Also I’d be grateful if people could refrain from posting spoilers on this mission if you’ve played it – I haven’t yet – which is kind of the point of stepping through the planning process first!!!!
 
I will warn you that I am no means an expert on military planning but have been around it enough to know how it works. I will cut corners with it here and there but this isn’t necessarily about military doctrine, it is about giving you guys an understanding of some techniques to help you plan your battles should you have a mind to do so.
 
Clearly questions (that do not contain spoilers) are welcome but many of my answers might be ‘I’ll come to that later’.

Mine's got pictures ... 😉