A Canadian Cat

Sympathy. I 've been labeled as a somebody trying to condone Russia's policies because I pointed out at some discrepancies in several press reports, by using some basic logical reasonment supported by some equally basic technology facts. Trying to reason - and I'm one that has got no problems in changing his views if they are proven wrong - like you earlier stated is probably useless.
 
Stephen Cohen being called an apologist of Putin yet, in a democratic society, if he is, then so what? Listen to his arguments then decide if he is wrong or right, or something in between.
 
Yet, my impression is that people like him must be suppressed at once, quickly make them somebodies who are traitors, who have an agenda, who are apologetic. Don't you ever dare to put them debating the subject on the medias, against someone who has opposing views. 
 
Most of those who speak clearly are massively convinced that ALL what is good and just stays only on one side; it's one of the phenomenons that has hurt the human race more than most other things, that has caused so much wars, death and destruction that one must ask himself how come, in 21st century, humans are still prone to the same vices they had thousands of years before.
 
Also, some are quick in calling others reasons "wishful thinking", yet most of what they elaborate, when it comes to perform some mental effort (ie, not discussing news links), is that Russia failed, that Russian economy will not allow it to reach its goals, that Ukraine will come on top - not wishful at all.
 
You mention russia's policies of the last century - yet from your position you seem to fail to recollect all the disgusting feats the US has imposed to other countries, elected presidents assassinated and replaced by military juntas in all the third world: the unlimited support to fanatic religious governments like the Saudi one, who are even more liberticide and suppressive than Syrian, Iranian or Iraqi regimes (womens can't drive or go to school, thieves getting their hands cut and so on), and finally, when "soft power" is failing, the deliberate invasion of a sovereign country; also with the revolting intellectual dishonesty of an administration trying to justify it by inventing the presence of WMDs, and the goofy attempt to ostracize whatever countries tried to oppose that in the appropriate venues (freedom fries? u kidding?) That, on the aftermath of something like 911, for which whoever is responsible owes a neverending debt to the whole human race and of which, only folks who believe right or wrong always stays on one side may believe the explanations.
 
Today we are seeing all too well the results of the aforementioned policy - ISIS coming out right where the americans pulled out. Hey, the germans, the french, the russians did warn the international community of the danger : "The day america pulls off from Iraq, fanatics will arise and start genociding the populations of the area and pose a greater threat to humanity than Saddam Hussein". 
But Saddam had the biological laboratories on wheels - he had to be stopped.
 
Also the fact that the "previous administration" based part (not that it's known how big of a part) of its foreign acts on a document, beacon of freedom and democracy worldwide, entitled  something like "policies on US world dominance" (plenty of web content on "Wolfowitz Doctrine".
 
But, being this "whataboutism", I don't expect, nor desire, to get any sympathy. (Let the whole point of the world "Whataboutism" not concern us, some folks have arguments, others have tactics)
 
 
I am unsure whether the world is falling prey to a zionist conspiracy like somebody declares nowadays - it wouldn't surprise me, yet I want to think that reasonable men in places of power still can avert that kind of thing.
 
Yet accepting all the official views and propaganda on the Ukraine (and on all the other political/international crisis) , coming only from one side, to me equates to start calling folks "french" because they just don't want to accept my points of view.

No Russia's goal was to keep Ukraine in it's area of influence.  They lost that big time, Ukraine will be a long time gone before it ever considers friendship with Russia again.  NATO is just a military alliance that was looking for a reason to exist and was largely ineffective due to downsizing anyway.  That was never the real threat.  The real threat to Russia is a democratic Ukraine with political, legal and economic transparency.  That will happen in no small part thanks to Russia.

Think it's a little between sburke and Apocal's perspective.  The Russians wanted a lot more out of the Ukraine than simply not-in-NATO.  That's where this whole conflict kicked off, closer ties to Russia via the not-really good at representing Ukrainians government.  The results of the follow-on repression by the Russian friendly government, and the "insurgents" totally undermined ANY likely future cooperation between the Ukraine and it'll likely be decades before you see anything resembling a Russian-friendly* political stance in the larger Ukraine (which is a contrast to the previous sort of trying to exist in both the east and the west stance).  On the other hand Russia had clearly gunned for what it assumes it can get through limited conventional warfare and walk away with.  It has succeeded in some ways, taking the Crimea, and having successfully sustained the rebels, but what they've clearly sought in terms of more solid land connections to the Crimea, or more leverage against Kiev has not panned out.
 
In effect the Russians had to succeed a lot faster and use the time in which the Ukrainian forces were very poorly equipped, lead and trained.  Russia has reached the extent of what they can do short of putting large scale ground forces into theater, and that much is doubtful at the moment.  The provocations that were relied upon to justify sending in "peacekeepers" frankly have not borne fruit, and the situation on the ground is now known enough that fait accompli "trust us the Ukrainians were eating Russian babies!" inspired invasion just is not going to wash.
 
Which brings us to now, where more investment is unlikely, but progress is doubtful without said investment.  
 
Re: Soft Power
 
The odd thing about Soft Power is you really need to be a carrot sort of person to make it work.  US loans, aid, guarantees and Chinese business investment both are great examples of those carrots.  The problem is the Russian economic soft power is very tightly tied to oil....which isn't worth so much and comes with less strings from elsewhere.  In terms of non-financial means, Russia hasn't really been a good partner to anyone so outside of folks with literally no one else to turn to (like a certain Syrian guy) it's not going to win friends.
 
Which therein makes hard power a more reasonable choice to "solve" Russia's problems.  Which THEN makes soft power even less viable (even the US suffered greatly in terms of soft power resulting from the War on Terror, and that's something that had SOME appeal overseas, as opposed to the Russian route which really only resonates with the anti-US/EU circles as a middle finger to the west of sorts).
 
*This also assumes Russian policy that's conciliatory or at the least, less of how Russia has treated its neighbors since the Czars.  

There's a sort of logical fallacy assuming that because there's two sides to a debate (or more!) that those viewpoints have equal weight.
 
The Russian argument for the various republics it carved off of Georgia, and is trying to carve off of the Ukraine doesn't hold water.  There might even be legitimate Russian concerns....but they do not excuse or warrant the conflict Russia started (again, there's no practical denial there, Russia started the current crisis, and it sustains it).  
 
Which is inherently why I find some claims of being unbiased to be dishonest.  You either think there's enough of a justification for Russian behavior, or you don't at this point.  There's no middle ground of "Russia deserves SOME of what it's trying to carve off, but not all!"

I watched Vortragsabend der Waldorfschule Überlingen and it' s really bad. This man is badly informed and/or intentionally deceiving is audience. He argues against strawmen most of time and seems to have a love for inaccurate analogys and metaphores. In a nutshell, he says that the german government is conspiring with the mainstream media to control the people, that democracy doesnt work because it brings people to power who have an opinion different from his, that everybody is so evil and immoral, and in particular the US and Israel. On the german Wikipedia it says that he, in other media, claims that 9/11 was an inside job and that the world is controlled by a zionist conspiracy.
 
In german, there is a word for what i felt while i watched the video, it' s Fremdschämen. The english language lacks a compareable word, but the dictionary of my choice translates Fremdschämen as follows: The feeling of shame for someone else who has done something embarrassing.

Huh, you have a natural right to force the Ukrainians to do what Russia wants? No wonder you have a hard time feeling this is one sided. Cause you are on the wrong side of history.

Anyway the point of this thread was to discuss a possible new offensive, not to spend time worrying about bruised Russian feelings about pursuing politics with the ham fisted tactics of the last century. I am afraid you won't find much sympathy here.

This is the standard ammo sharing with in platoon formations.  Members from outside the platoon will not take part.  All ammo types should work.  This kind of ammo sharing is usually by the single missile or magazine or belt depending on the weapon that the guy asking for ammo is using.
 
So if you unit is from outside of the platoon in question you have to use the acquire command.  If you want to take the ordnance away from the vehicle then you need to acquire if first.  A note on that acquiring: the guys in this test did take a missile from the BMP and they could then walk away from the vehicle with that missile.  If you did the same thing with an MG crew they would take a single belt or mag or box which likely is not really enough but that single belt, mag or box is theirs to keep too just like the single missile.

Haha you know I wrestled with that question myself, because of course it can happen. In fact, (I'll try not to give anything away as you have not finished yet) the first battle in Somebody's Hero went NOTHING like I anticipated, and I had to adapt quickly to still have a story to tell.

The point of all this is when you ratchet up tensions and then engage in aggressive behavior human potential for error kicks in and really bad s**t happens.

KAL flight 007
Iranian air flight 655
MH 17

All these were avoidable but the parties involved allowed their aggressiveness to overcome common sense in the heat of the moment. The result is a lot of dead civilians who should all now be very much alive. This is the game that Russia is playing around with and when eventually someone pays the price of this stupidity we can all look at it afterwards and say how stupidly senseless it was. Better to just stop it now so no innocent civilians have to pay the price.

Now we are just dancing around the issue. The article was specifically cited to prove the US flies without transponders in response to multiple points about aggressive irresponsible behavior by the Russian military. The article in fact does not state that, it siimply says the MOD says that and it provides a counterpoint from an impartial body refuting that at least in part.

So now who is misreading or misdirecting the conversation?

''''Kosovo's objection has more to do with who's friends with who.  The behavior of the Serbian military pretty much 1993-1999 is on the road to terrible, and we're ready to remember the agony of sad that the Serbs went through during the bombing, but not the well filled ditches the Serbs left from Croatia, through Bosnia, and beyond.  All the Serbs had to do is stop shooting civilians, and there wouldn't have been much of a leg to stand on.
 
As the case is the region is a lot more stable today, and there's a marked downtick in violence.  And Kosovo isn't a US territory so there you go.  ''''''
 
(note: land in 21st century doesnt need to be conquered on a political 19th century map)
 
 
i duuno about other stuff, but i am from serbia and i am ethnic serb. and i am not nationalist, i am anti serb , i am often disgusted by our traditions ,  i think its pointless and brainwashing-ish. i like western europe  but,
 
you are wrong
 
situation in our country back then was to say the least very complicated. its , (very loose term) something like war of the clans. you have many factions during the time. and listen now, NONE of them are good and NONE of them are bad
 
Albanian unrest  started in the 80s , or even earlier. but 80s are the starting point of this story (kinda simplified story) , it wasnt that much of a big deal, you know unrests happen but not many people at that time thought it will be War... we must see things from their (past) point of view (their: people in the past)
 
you have quazi communists/socialist or whatever they are, you have albanian nationalists, you have Serb nationalists and many other factions. and most of them are dumb as ****, on both sides (plebs)
 
simply put, there are interests of Albanian nationalists, ethnic albanians and to some extent extremists, problem is , sometimes its hard to differentiate who is extremist and who is not, who is for* extremists and who is not and how much do they support certain idea at the given time/region, its VERY VERY complicated. 3 people playing board games @ basement can get into fight , not to mention province/state where there are milions of people...
 
AND you have  serbian moderates ,nationalists and extremists.. its a ****ty mess
 
so their interests (albanian): have their own country/Join albania,or get bigger autonomy
 
Serb interests: keep kosovo (since its heart of serbia and all that bull**** , even tho its true thats where serbia WAS dominant , now its not , due to ww1 and ww2 and other events ) 
 
on other hand you have Milosevic who is "neutral' and want to perserve things (the president), but in reality he kiiiinda secretly does things to benefit ethnic serbs since he sees things are eventually gona get bad, but how bad ?
 
Albanians are those who are attacking status quo,that must be clear, back then Our country was Recognized by the world,everything was legit.
 
Terrorist attacks started, small or big doesnt matter
 
you will say , ''they started   because albanians were supressed''
 
but that is not a honest answer , do you Really think you know who throw the first stone? its a multidimensional situation/problem, you cant just put it into linear box. theres lots of propaganda on both sides, and honestly, you cant know the truth by watching ,well one of the Not so credible News : CNN , 25 000 km away somewhere in atlanta
 
**** happened, on both sides , but on a multidimensional level (Where,how, what,why,Reaction to previous event, wrong conclusions ,wrong translations of the actions etc etc etc ) 
 
you know your country (State)  is very famous for ... well ... strange inconsitencies right? so is every country at one point in time, but just keep that in mind when talking about informations and clinton and other ... ' loving' people. 
i think its safe to assume that clinton doesnt (didnt) give a **** about serbs nor albanians. or at lest its more realistic saying that it doesnt matter what he 'thinks' , he can say he did it for humanitarian reasons, or for the money , it doesnt matter, his opinion is irrelevant. So far Evidence has shown that there are no bad/good guys, only dead/alive guys

Nope, I never read the OP - not even now.  Clearly from the reaction that was a good call.  I did read you poor guys reactions - that's kinda like watching a car accident - I just cannot stop looking at all the wrecked vehicles and confused people

As you can see there is only a slim area of consensus on "general" house rules.  Usually when you ask such a question the rule set gets bigger and bigger and more stuff gets added and before you know if you need to have a decoder ring and know the day of the week to figure out what is allowed
 
I'll play by any reasonable set of rules you might want to suggest as long as there is a discussion first.  Frankly the only one rule that is not really negotiable is the no artillery attacks on setup zones for attackers or during meeting engagements.  BTW Reasonable means short and simple and that are intended to make the game more fun.

A little time has passed - do they pass missiles down the chain.  Well actually they do.  Pretty cool!
 
The BMP now has no missiles - they have been passed along.

 
Oops I messed up and took the next screen shots after one more missile was fired - rats.
 
The first team next to the BMP has a missile and access to three.  This actually works because you can see the third team away from the BMP was actually positioned too close to the second team out so he is actually in sharing distance for the first team too.  Hence access to three missiles.

 
 
The second team away from the BMP also has a missile and access to two.  Wait that's not right he has a missile and his neighbours on either side to do so shouldn't he have access to three then?

 
 
The third guy away from the BMP has the third missile and access to two - which again makes sense since his neighbour has one as well.  Well not quite because if I am right about why the first guy has access to three (due to being close to two other teams) then this guy should be in the same boat. 

 
I also forgot to take a screen shot of the next them but he's got nothing.  The four missiles from the BMP were passed down the chain and one got fired so now the three remaining missiles in the platoon are distributed one each to the first three teams nearest the BMP.
 
There does seem to be a bit of funny business in a couple of places but no missiles are unaccounted for.  It seems that count of what is close buy is not quite right.  Could even bee that I paused it as the items were in motion and the UI had not been updated yet.  Or it could be a bug - but since the actual missile count is correct I'm not going to fuss about it.
 
What I am not clear about is what happens when the guy on the end who has no actual missile but has access to the one next door sees a target.  Does he get the missile right out of the launcher from the guy next to him? I don't know because in this test the guy next to him pretty much spots the aircraft at the same time.  To test that some creative terrain would have to be created to give the guy without a missile in his launcher better sight lines but still have sharing access to this neighbour.  Sorry I'm not going that far.
 




 

OK here are the pictures to show how this worked.  I forgot this was on the picture thread - good thing I have pictures then
 
The setup is I have an air defence platoon with two BMPs stripped out. They have one vehicle for resupply just to keep it simple (that one BMP has four extra missiles, each of the teams have one missile each to go with their launcher).  I set the launchers up in a long chain from the vehicle.  Also on the board were various other AFVs and tanks placed far away form these guys and the US side had to to FOs and five air assets that were ordered to target the other AFVs and tanks away from the air defence platoon's location.

 
It did not take long before they were chewing through their ammo...

 
And I even started to get nervous when I started seeing these noticed popup that there might not be any reason to use the spare ammo...

 
 

 
 
OK now that the teams have all fired off their missiles there are only four left in the vehicle.  Pretty quickly this is how things look.
 
Two left in the vehicle

 
The team nearest to the vehicle now has one missile and access to a total of three.  The vehicle has two and the team has one.  So access to three total (but actually that is a bit odd really because the next team over also has one missile so shouldn't this guy have access to four?).  

 
The next SAM team has one missile and access to two. This makes sense he has one and his neighbour has one so he could access two.

 
 
The thrid team in the chain does not have a missile but as access to one.  Again that works because the next further guy has nothing and the next closer guy (above) has one missile so this guy has access to one.

 
 
The fourth team out has no missiles and no access to any either.  Again that works (none of the other teams further away have any missiles or any access either).

 

Yep a long time indeed.
 
I think about it this way. Those crews did not know the detail armour information about their enemy.  Heck half the time they miss identified the enemy vehicles.  They just had the gun and the ammo that they had on hand and did the best they could.  We already know way more from our player, as all knowing all seeing deity over the battle field, than any tankers or soldiers did during the war.  I for one am totally fine with not having that information to add to my player as deity advantage.

A little time has passed - do they pass missiles down the chain.  Well actually they do.  Pretty cool!
 
The BMP now has no missiles - they have been passed along.

 
Oops I messed up and took the next screen shots after one more missile was fired - rats.
 
The first team next to the BMP has a missile and access to three.  This actually works because you can see the third team away from the BMP was actually positioned too close to the second team out so he is actually in sharing distance for the first team too.  Hence access to three missiles.

 
 
The second team away from the BMP also has a missile and access to two.  Wait that's not right he has a missile and his neighbours on either side to do so shouldn't he have access to three then?

 
 
The third guy away from the BMP has the third missile and access to two - which again makes sense since his neighbour has one as well.  Well not quite because if I am right about why the first guy has access to three (due to being close to two other teams) then this guy should be in the same boat. 

 
I also forgot to take a screen shot of the next them but he's got nothing.  The four missiles from the BMP were passed down the chain and one got fired so now the three remaining missiles in the platoon are distributed one each to the first three teams nearest the BMP.
 
There does seem to be a bit of funny business in a couple of places but no missiles are unaccounted for.  It seems that count of what is close buy is not quite right.  Could even bee that I paused it as the items were in motion and the UI had not been updated yet.  Or it could be a bug - but since the actual missile count is correct I'm not going to fuss about it.
 
What I am not clear about is what happens when the guy on the end who has no actual missile but has access to the one next door sees a target.  Does he get the missile right out of the launcher from the guy next to him? I don't know because in this test the guy next to him pretty much spots the aircraft at the same time.  To test that some creative terrain would have to be created to give the guy without a missile in his launcher better sight lines but still have sharing access to this neighbour.  Sorry I'm not going that far.
 




 

OK here are the pictures to show how this worked.  I forgot this was on the picture thread - good thing I have pictures then
 
The setup is I have an air defence platoon with two BMPs stripped out. They have one vehicle for resupply just to keep it simple (that one BMP has four extra missiles, each of the teams have one missile each to go with their launcher).  I set the launchers up in a long chain from the vehicle.  Also on the board were various other AFVs and tanks placed far away form these guys and the US side had to to FOs and five air assets that were ordered to target the other AFVs and tanks away from the air defence platoon's location.

 
It did not take long before they were chewing through their ammo...

 
And I even started to get nervous when I started seeing these noticed popup that there might not be any reason to use the spare ammo...

 
 

 
 
OK now that the teams have all fired off their missiles there are only four left in the vehicle.  Pretty quickly this is how things look.
 
Two left in the vehicle

 
The team nearest to the vehicle now has one missile and access to a total of three.  The vehicle has two and the team has one.  So access to three total (but actually that is a bit odd really because the next team over also has one missile so shouldn't this guy have access to four?).  

 
The next SAM team has one missile and access to two. This makes sense he has one and his neighbour has one so he could access two.

 
 
The thrid team in the chain does not have a missile but as access to one.  Again that works because the next further guy has nothing and the next closer guy (above) has one missile so this guy has access to one.

 
 
The fourth team out has no missiles and no access to any either.  Again that works (none of the other teams further away have any missiles or any access either).

 

A little time has passed - do they pass missiles down the chain.  Well actually they do.  Pretty cool!
 
The BMP now has no missiles - they have been passed along.

 
Oops I messed up and took the next screen shots after one more missile was fired - rats.
 
The first team next to the BMP has a missile and access to three.  This actually works because you can see the third team away from the BMP was actually positioned too close to the second team out so he is actually in sharing distance for the first team too.  Hence access to three missiles.

 
 
The second team away from the BMP also has a missile and access to two.  Wait that's not right he has a missile and his neighbours on either side to do so shouldn't he have access to three then?

 
 
The third guy away from the BMP has the third missile and access to two - which again makes sense since his neighbour has one as well.  Well not quite because if I am right about why the first guy has access to three (due to being close to two other teams) then this guy should be in the same boat. 

 
I also forgot to take a screen shot of the next them but he's got nothing.  The four missiles from the BMP were passed down the chain and one got fired so now the three remaining missiles in the platoon are distributed one each to the first three teams nearest the BMP.
 
There does seem to be a bit of funny business in a couple of places but no missiles are unaccounted for.  It seems that count of what is close buy is not quite right.  Could even bee that I paused it as the items were in motion and the UI had not been updated yet.  Or it could be a bug - but since the actual missile count is correct I'm not going to fuss about it.
 
What I am not clear about is what happens when the guy on the end who has no actual missile but has access to the one next door sees a target.  Does he get the missile right out of the launcher from the guy next to him? I don't know because in this test the guy next to him pretty much spots the aircraft at the same time.  To test that some creative terrain would have to be created to give the guy without a missile in his launcher better sight lines but still have sharing access to this neighbour.  Sorry I'm not going that far.
 




 

In 1983 the Soviets shot down Korea Air Flight 007 claiming, after initially denying it, that the civilian 747 was a spy plane. Everyone aboard was killed.
 
This is what can happen when the tactics that we are discussing get out of hand. This incident caused such a world wide stir that flight patterns from Alaska to Asia were changed, and the US allowed international access to its then top secret Global Navigation Satellite System, which is now called GPS.
 
We have already had an airliner shoot down over the Ukraine, it can easily happen again if someone makes a mistake or misinterprets a radar blip.
 
http://theweek.com/articles/445179/heres-last-time-russia-shot-down-passenger-plane

Or perhaps you should read it again, flightradar24.com is not the US govt. it is a public website that you can access if you so choose. They claimed it was on and cited the transponder. If you are going to jump into this defending the MOD as a reliable source of info, it might help to read who is contradicting them. The site is actually a Swedish origin company. The article in being strictly objective is saying they can't verify 100% that it was on at the time. Good for them, it shows some objectivity. The MOD however has a proven track record of lying, your choice if you choose to accord them any level of validity. Maybe you can ask if those paras who got "lost" in Ukraine had their transponders on.

Why would Russia be dishonest about anything?  It's not like they've ever concealed facts for their own benefit?  I imagine if that callsign or transponder code was not in service, Russia could easily show the US as lying sneakmen of green wearing nature.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/two-days-of-russian-aircraft-intercepts/1422/
 
Please explain to me how Portugal, England etc are just right around the corner from Russia?
 
 
Apparently it was on, according to the very thing you posted.

Literacy?

 
 
I'm curious to what the Russian interest in maritime patrols carried out over Western Europe were.  The B-1 can also do a variety of other missions, I imagine if they were zipping up and down off Russia we'd be getting marginally more nuclear threats to Denmark than usual.
 
 
Again, picture if it was B-52s buzzing along, and the US DoD had just mentioned pointing more nuclear weapons at Russia because the US has secretly not invaded but actually invaded parts of Mexico to make the new US state of Baja.  It's a needlessly stupid penis waving moment that's on par with Russian foreign policy choices on a whole at this moment.
 
 
 
Said the person comparing P-3s to nuclear bombers, and who thinks Russia has a right to fly nuclear capable bombers through crowded airspace unannounced.
 
Who also doesn't apparently read his own articles posted.
 
Who thinks the UK is next door to Russia.
 
Does your village know where you are?

Near the ambush site, APS stops yet another missile fired from a helicopter.
 

 
An Abrams sits just out of reach of my scout team, but it's probably not worth engaging them with an RPG-26 outside of 30m or so.
 

 
On the far left, the tanks and Bradley pivot, exposing their flanks to me, although one faces rear. I unfortunately I have no units with the capacity to take advantage of such a broadside opportunity. My opponent is pushing (I think) for the edge of the map, although I do not immediately move to counter this threat.

It's insulting to everyone when you base your intervention on a "moral basis". Say you did it for the lolz or whatever, but please don't say you did it on the moral basis. Those stories are not mine, but of the people I call friends. I too, like Lacroix, am tired of my country and its "political elite" and I don't post here to threat some psychological trauma.