A Canadian Cat

Can't see the thread but looking at his posting stream I am not ready to add him to my list of "trusted SMEs" anytime soon.

News from Vire:
A Panther roams at th end of the street…

 
Fierce fighting have also occured in the cemetary:

 
Even the surrounding countryside is not spared…

 

AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
 

Combat Mission:Drone Wars

Of course just deleting FoW wouldn't be entirely satisfactory. Overhead concealment still works on drones. And you can shoot down drones with small-arms fire, or disable them with EW, which may temporarily blind the enemy in a section of the battlefield (they would have a new drone up before too long, but it may buy you some breathing room). Part of the point of a new modern warfare game would be to try to figure out how you could actually operate on the modern battlefield, and part of that is figuring out how to counter drones. So the drones themselves would need to be included in the game.

Given Warhammer has long been another hobby/interest of mine, I had to Google. The internet did not disappoint. 

I don't think so.
Actual Ukrainians correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that lot of the far right in Ukraine traces its history to "the Nazis have treated us (or our ancestors) better than the Russians have", and meanwhile Russian Nazis might be white supremacists globally, but between white people they are definitely Russian-supremacists.
So they might look similar if you look at their opinions on LBGT or economic policy they might look the same, the history and goals are quite different so of course they fight.

Given what is happening in Ukraine today, I think any contemporary game would have to include drones to a greater degree than what is in BS. However, overwhelming drones and meat assaults would not be fun.
+1 on your Asian suggestions.

ruh roh!!
China's Quiet Push Into Russia's Far East Puts Putin in a Pickle (msn.com)
 
 

When the unified right wing National Corps slate only manages to get something like 2.5% of the total vote in Ukraine while rightest parties dominate Russia then this discussion gets very silly. 

"extremist" and "reasoning" are kind of mutually exclusive.

This is not the first time we have seen evidence that the Russians are depleting their Soviet legacy reserves to stay in this war.  The slow but steady downgrading of equipment and troop quality is consistent.  The impact on this war are yet unknown.  Are Ukraine and Russia in a “race to the bottom”?  Not if the West can get its act together and ramp up production of modern systems.  We can easily crush Russia in a modern force generation war, the real question is whether or not we are willing to do it.
The “so what?” for the next war is that Russia as a regional threat (side stepping the nuclear equation) has been demonstrably reduced.  The spectre of hordes of T62s and T55s is laughable in this day and age. Russian military production is constrained and they are not going to be able to rebuild a modern offensive force quickly.  In fact we are not even sure what a modern offensive force really looks like but I do feel safe to say it is not whatever Russia has left.  Next gen will demand higher levels of technology: unmanned air and ground, distributed space based capability, AI supported C4ISR, PGMs everywhere.  All that takes a lot of investment and pivoting for a Russian military industrial complex designed to make tanks and IFVs.
This projects Russia into a serious security dilemma after the war: completely re-tool after the war, or stick with former conventional metrics and try to rebuild what hey had on 21 Feb 22.  In both cases they are heavily burdened by western sanctions and pressures.  Neither is a great option or easily done in anything less than a decade.
Another metric that Russia has essentially “lost” this war - they have likely dramatically reduced strategic post-war options as a result of this as opposed to expanding them.

But isn’t a “domestic” enemy someone whose position is forbidden?  There weren’t a lot of protections granted communists in the US back during the Cold War.  For example, if one was a firm communist they were not going to be employed within the defence department.  Roll forward to modern era, devoted fundamentalist Muslims did not fare much better.  This “freedom” concept really appears to be selective when viewed through a historic lens.  Sure, a US citizen can be free to express whatever they wish, but to do so without consequences from both private and public sectors has clearly been demonstrated as false.  Once a society allows for negative consequences as a result of free speech or association, it is no longer “free”.  This inconsistency appears migratory and frankly unfairly applied historically.  Try being a black civil rights movement in the 1930s in the South.  Not a whole lot of freedom of speech and association in that period for that demographic. LGBTQ in the 50s?
So what, as it relates to this war and situation?  Within the US, and other modern democracies, I do not think this is a case of “autocratic control” but you are very correct in calling it out as a slippery slope.  I think it is a case of “when does speech and association become a threat to national security?”  When is it honest political discourse in an open and fair democracy, and when does it become too dangerous to tolerate?  Obviously sharing information on how to build and deploy a WMD should not be covered in “freedom of speech”.  Nor should sharing of classified information.  But when does political discourse cross that line?
The US currently has elected officials who are pretty actively supporting a foreign powers agenda.  To the point that they are blocking military aid to an ally in the middle of an existential war.  At what point does this stop being “open and free political discourse” and become “paid foreign lies by a domestic enemy?”
I honestly do not know.  I have watched my country wrestle with this.  I think our “hate speech” laws are in fact dangerous.  But clearly there is a point, even within free democracies where we cannot tolerate free expression.  For this war, where that line is drawn could very well impact its outcome and what the region looks like. 

Thanks for laying this out so succinctly. You have said them before but with more words and over more than one post :-). I have even pointed out what I am about to before too.
I would add
- restore territorial integrity to the 1991 borders.
Yes, I was paying attention to you when you said the Ukraine might have to settle for less. Yes, I agree you could even be right. Likely right even. I just think it is unfair to leave it off the list. There is a non trivial number of Ukrainians who want that on the list of victory. Outside Ukraine too.
I realize it doesn't mean they can necessarily get it but I think it needs to be there. As you, and others, pointed out they might be better off with some of those regions festering under control of Russia and no longer a drain nor a problem for Kyiv but there is no denying that Ukraine feels aggrieved after the invasion of 2014 and would like to have that restored too.

Yes, agreed 100%. Keep it tight and simple. Preferably so simple there are none. A way more interesting and fun thing to do is introduce a few rules on how you manage C2 - for example the Hard Cat rules  (https://community.battlefront.com/topic/135087-hard-cat-rules-v2i-simple-to-use-command-control-rules-updated-01-june-2022/ ) Those don't create expectations that opponents will not do things to hurt you it just limits some of the god view flexibility. 
 
 
Yep, for me if someone reaches out with a bunch of rules it's a major red flag they are going to be no fun to play against. Not to mention I would hate to accidentally break a rule I agreed to because I simply forgot - I usually have a few games on the go after all. So hard pass if a new player starts saying "oh and do not this... and don't forget not to that...".
Now having said that, a long time playing partner who wants to experiment with something, that's a different kettle of fish I'm all in on trying something interesting. That's not what we are talking about though.
One of the great things about CM is rules lawyers are not successful because a truly impartial judge is keeping the game rules - the computer. One that you cannot wear down and befuddle. I suspect there are people here who have played war games with the people I call rules lawyers and don't want to repeat the experience. It used to be you were required to play with who showed up. Not any more 🙂

Thanks for laying this out so succinctly. You have said them before but with more words and over more than one post :-). I have even pointed out what I am about to before too.
I would add
- restore territorial integrity to the 1991 borders.
Yes, I was paying attention to you when you said the Ukraine might have to settle for less. Yes, I agree you could even be right. Likely right even. I just think it is unfair to leave it off the list. There is a non trivial number of Ukrainians who want that on the list of victory. Outside Ukraine too.
I realize it doesn't mean they can necessarily get it but I think it needs to be there. As you, and others, pointed out they might be better off with some of those regions festering under control of Russia and no longer a drain nor a problem for Kyiv but there is no denying that Ukraine feels aggrieved after the invasion of 2014 and would like to have that restored too.

Found it - @MikeyD
  
 

Yes, agreed 100%. Keep it tight and simple. Preferably so simple there are none. A way more interesting and fun thing to do is introduce a few rules on how you manage C2 - for example the Hard Cat rules  (https://community.battlefront.com/topic/135087-hard-cat-rules-v2i-simple-to-use-command-control-rules-updated-01-june-2022/ ) Those don't create expectations that opponents will not do things to hurt you it just limits some of the god view flexibility. 
 
 
Yep, for me if someone reaches out with a bunch of rules it's a major red flag they are going to be no fun to play against. Not to mention I would hate to accidentally break a rule I agreed to because I simply forgot - I usually have a few games on the go after all. So hard pass if a new player starts saying "oh and do not this... and don't forget not to that...".
Now having said that, a long time playing partner who wants to experiment with something, that's a different kettle of fish I'm all in on trying something interesting. That's not what we are talking about though.
One of the great things about CM is rules lawyers are not successful because a truly impartial judge is keeping the game rules - the computer. One that you cannot wear down and befuddle. I suspect there are people here who have played war games with the people I call rules lawyers and don't want to repeat the experience. It used to be you were required to play with who showed up. Not any more 🙂

Oh for God's sake, are we still engaging with this guy? 
Cmon,  that last post ("rigged elections in the US") pretty much seals the political troll label. 

Yes! In fact that's one of the clearest signs that you're looking at a dictatorship rather than a true democracy. Democratic elections are competitive. Elections in single-party democracies* (a.k.a. dictatorships) are not competitive, and are really only conducted at all in order to provide the appearance of democratic legitimacy.
*A single-party democracy either only allows one party to run, or may allow other parties to run as straw-men but will only ever allow one party to win. Almost all modern dictatorships are single-party democracies. They provide an advantage over classic dictatorships if you are the dictator since you get a little extra legalistic justification for your rule, without ever really challenging your rule.

Wait a minute.  So the Minks agreements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
These were drafted after Russia had taken Crimea and Donbas.  The first one failed after Russia broke it.  This casts serious doubt as to Minsk 2 and whether it was conducted in good faith by either side.  So your theory is that Minsk Treaties were designed to allow Ukraine to go in and “finish the job”?  With western support?  This would be after Russia basically used conventional troops to back the rebel forces.  Minsk 2 was largely viewed as held together by bailing twine and frankly most are surprised it lasted as long at it did.
Even if this somewhat dubious theory held water, how does this justify a full scale invasion of Ukraine along 5-6 operational axis, including the capital by Russia?  They did it to protect LNR/DPR?  That does not make sense.  If Russia wanted to intervene to stabilize a potential Ukrainian ethnic cleansing there are a lot of way to do this that do not involve a full scale invasion.  Also, what proof is there that Ukraine was preparing to go into the Donbas?  Reports from the opening days of the war show how unprepared Ukraine really was.  This was not a state reading for a large scale military operation.
So, we have an opinion here that really does not add up based on what we think we know.  Do you have other facts or analysis we are missing?

I can tell you from painful personal experience that you can be bleeping near crippled from long COVID while every test they can think to run comes back negative. On some level Havana Syndrome is same kind of the same thing. 

@The_Capt did this very thing:
 

Here's my take from reading the thread and a bunch of OSINT:
This is one where I think it's meaningful to separate "Russia winning" from "Putin's regime winning". I'd suggest that on day 1 of the war, those two were in alignment: Russia wins by absorbing a large neighboring state into its sphere of influence with only targeted bloodshed (at the ruling elite). Putin's regime wins by propping up a vision of pan-Russian nationalism and empire building that cements Putin as Czar.
On day today of the war, those visions of victory are no longer in alignment. Russia has lost - they will not absorb Ukraine into their sphere of influence with only targeted bloodshed, and have actively reinforced the global ruleset by pushing Finland and Sweden into NATO and reawakening Europe to the necessity of self-defensive capability. They've also offered the west a huge opportunity to figure out what fighting a 21st century peer war looks like.
For Putin's regime, victory looks like staying in power. And he's been far more successful at that than we collectively predicted. Even Prigozhin's coup-like thing proved a manageable threat (for reasons that are unclear to me). Somehow recon-by-meat-assault isn't provoking civil unrest, &c. &c. So that one's not a loss for Putin yet. Economy still appears to be sort of functioning? Though it's hard to see how he can keep it that way indefinitely?
For Ukraine, the day 1 objective was "remain an independent and free society". That still appears to be their objective, and they're doing a yeoman's job of that. Jury's still out, though, on what the end state looks like.

Just can’t stay away.  I think you secretly like us and want to be on this thread.  But maybe someone hurt you?  C’Mon, admit it - this thread is far more fun than that other one.
To answer you question:
Find a wide array of open source beacons.  Internet is full of them.  Our real strength here is we have people in-country who can access the RUS sphere and translate.
Filter out the clearly partisan ones.  Objectivity is out there, you just have to work. ISW, RUSI, War on the Rocks, Oryx to name a few, all have pretty solid reputations for presenting either raw data, or good professional analysis by people actually in the business.
Cross check, a lot. We usually get an X video or somesuch but one needs to get a bunch of eyes on it.  Weigh opinions and merits of actual arguments as they relate to observed phenomenon.
Find some experts. You are not an expert. An internet account does not make you one.  I am an expert.  But…and here is the main point, you don’t have to agree with me.  Instead you should weigh my assessment against other experts…somewhere in the middle is likely the best guess for a truth.
Spend some time on “what we are not seeing but should”.  A lot of clues and details in the negatives.  

Roll that all up, take notes, do the work, ask real questions.  Then keep your eyes open because this whole thing is likely going to change…and fast.
The whole point of this thread is to try and make sense of the first real conventional peer war of the 21st century.  Its aim is to try and cut through the noise and find signals.  Big muscle movements in thought at this point need big proof.  If you think Russia is winning and going to win, you need more than “well let me tell you”.
Most importantly at this point you need to shush.  Type less, read more.  Come back with some good questions in a bit and you might get some civil answers.