The Steppenwulf

Okay maybe, I agree that Trump is now a cult figure that the entire Rep campaign is hinged upon, but then this is typical of presidential politics anyway. But I still resist taking too seriously about what's said in the heat of election rhetoric. Bringing back into this a clear and substantive point, when Trump states that "he will call Putin, and end the war in 24 hours" then I'd ask (as I've questioned myself) how does Trump think he can achieve this, given Russia's immoveable terms, set against Ukraine's quite reasonable approach to a settlement, as set out by Zelensky? This is an on-point example I'm referring to regarding the yawning gap between rhetoric and the hard reality of international politics. Not only does the entire US Administration (it goes beyond Trump at this stage) come face-to-face with a hard choice about whose side the US is really on, but how does the US negotiate its way round the intense political scrutiny from all stakeholders (home and abroad) about the far reaching consequences arising from such Russian appeasement, and where lies in this board-flipping quagmire is there some kind of future tangible benefit for the US? This is why, the more I've thought about it, the more I just see hard tarmac!

This is quite true of course. But let's not overlook that this nebulosity is largely explained by election campaigning. A phenomena not exclusive to the US, as it also strongly characterised the recent UK elections over economic policy and EU relations. So much so that the UK press repeatedly challenged the lack of honesty of all the main parties' respective manifesto positions. And manifesto commitments in UK politics are arguably more detailed and indelible than their US party platform equivalent/s. Nevertheless, is it not the case that once in govt, reality bites? Whatever is considered, suggested or indicated during campaigning, hits hard tarmac once it actually lands. That is govt, but due to the nature of how US administration is structured it's much more prevalent as the default character. And with specific regard to the Republican party presently, let's look back to Trump's first round out in the Whitehouse and consider the disconnect between his election rhetoric and actual policy implementation. Nebulous rhetoric is one thing, Realpolitik another.

It's interesting! The backdrop to this, is that continued US support for Ukraine could well be destined for curtailment. That threat is underlined by Zelensky's one to one conversation with Trump yesterday, where clearly he needs to establish a positive dialogue with a possible new administration which has spoken in terms that are not good news for Ukraine. As we all know, the weakness in the MAGA position on Ukraine is that a Trump brokered 'peace deal' with Putin won't be achieved with any significant concessions by Putin. Trump may well think he can bully Putin into something conciliatory but it's unlikely, and Zelensky certainly believes that it won't happen. So I read here that Zelensky is playing a rather clever ante (but one with which we are somewhat familiar). That it's Russian intransigence that prevents successful negotiation not Ukrainian. If Ukraine enters negotiations in good faith and reasonableness and they fail, then it's because Russia lacked good intentions, is unreasonable with its demands and a sustainable settlement is just not viable. That is because throwing Ukraine under a bus altogether (i.e. cutting support in absence of settlement) could never be a good political move for the US, because of the far reaching geo-political implications. If this above were the scenario in an hypothetical autumn negotiation, where Putin does not play ball (and both we and Zelensky don't think he will) would a Trump administration find it genuinely politically viable (domestically or internationally) to cut-off support as they aim for? I'd suggest the US will only withdraw assistance if a sustainable settlement can be found. In summary, Zelensky understands very well that he can exploit Putin's intransigence over terms of any negotiated settlement and he will play this over and over again to prevent the US disengaging from this war. Therefore Zelensky is outlining this here very clearly, so no one can mistake where the fault lines lay in any prospective negotiation.

So on the basis of this statement and the writer's overall rating, what is the rationale for rating Mius Front at #3 and CM on #1? It makes no sense - a "dimly lit candle" should be the other way round, or else I conclude that the writer is the dimly lit candle!

For sure, I worked out why you did it this way, and I get it. Though in all truth - from the player's perspective - there's no need to bother with v4.5 if you don't want the new maps and scenarios. But I didn't realise that until I'd installed and read the "read me notes". When all said and done, it's not a big deal.

So I read the "patch notes" but the patch doesn't actually patch anything. From the BF webpage: There is no download for this product! As long as you have an up-to-date installation you already have 100% of the files you need The "download" which isn't a download, is apparently a "patch", which isn't actually a patch at all. Bizarre!

The significant difference is that there are checks and balances in place in western militaries that serve to expose corruption..... and they are very effective. Furthermore, there are serious consequences anyone caught adopting corrupt practices. Moreover, the problem with countries like Russia and Ukraine is that it's not only military shenanigans, it's literally everything; bribes for this, a top slice for that! It's not an exaggeration to state that its endemic. In the west, especially those nations within the EU, there are extensive regulations underpinned by EU laws governing how commerce operates including a significant degree of transparency, much more than there is in the US. The average citizen (not referring to anyone on this forum) often underestimate the fundamental role of regulatory law (as well as enforcement) to deter corruption to the extent that it is severely curtailed. EDIT: What I'm getting at is that it's the total ineffectiveness of any governing framework (inc proper separation of powers ) that's at the real heart of the problem.

Since Prig - perhaps even before his outbursts - but especially following his insurrection, the Kremlin has been gripped with fear about the potential of any top brass in the TOA "going rogue". I'd suggest the main reason we haven't ever seen large localised downing of arms from the RA rank and file is due to command and control exerted by the leadership in the field (as one would expect). But when we reach a point where these individuals are no longer toeing the line, voicing dissenting views, that's when the dominoes are at most risk of tipping. After Prig, the Kremlin is on high alert (with immediate consequences) for any dissenting senior staff.

As a lawyer you should know better that it's much more than just an 'attitude'. It's an entire legal framework underpinning the political ideology of liberal democracy. Yes the west can sponsor whomever they like, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but there is much more going on here with the particular case of Ukraine because Ukraine has made it no secret that it aspires to joining the EU. As a matter of straightforward facts:- Ukraine will never join the EU if it does not uphold EU law - indeed it has to adopt EU law in order to be a member. Membership means compliance with the ECHR and its rulings. The ECHR enforces the core principles laid out and agreed upon by the union of liberal democratic states. Some of those principles cover the protection of minority groups and protection of individual freedoms etc.. This is just the way it is. You cannot cherry-pick the core ideas of liberal democracy anymore than you can cherry-pick the legal framework and membership of the EU.

Haiduk is more Russian than European!

Hmmm, let's see... it's gonna be something most of the community wouldn't guess, and... we don't really know if it's CM2 or CM3. So... CM2 - Got to have really strong commercial appeal, as this game iteration is dated and CM2 sales are no longer what they were (it must be true), I'll have a guess here at Desert Storm, as it would potentially pull in lots of new players and generate plenty of revenue. CM3 - got to be something ultra modern to increase the possibility of procuring those lucrative future military training contracts, right! Taiwan 2025/26 is the obvious theatre here (so maybe), but I'll go for something altogether more freaky, a hypothetical RF civil war set in the late 2020's.

It's not hard to conclude that corruption is endemic in Ukraine even from a 2 minute online sweep, including widespread discussion across mainstream publications over many months: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/10/opinion/ukraine-war-corruption.html https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/graft-accusations-dog-top-zelenskiy-aides-2023-09-19/ Ukraine is ranked 116 from 180 countries on corruption by Transparency International: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/ukraine In addition, as I mentioned some (Ukrainian) commentators were discussing corruption allegations even at the start of the war. It was commonly known to be an issue. It's simply a matter of public record that corruption was a concern raised by the EU, as I asserted. The EU Anti Corruption Initiative is now committed to assist Ukraine Govt tackle it, as a prerequisite to membership (link below). Legal enforcement is part of the issue. That's why I mentioned shortcomings in checks and balances. All enshrined in general accountability: https://euaci.eu/news/finansuvannya-vidnovlennya-ukrajini-udoskonalennya-na-zasadax-prozorosti-pidzvitnosti-ta-dobrochesnosti Do not confound evidence with proof.

The old Soviet states are particularly notorious and the problem is rooted way back in the soviet era. Big bureaucracy, low accountability of officials and processes, and little in the way of internal checks and balances. Allegations of corruption in Ukrainian govt administration were identified from the very start of the conflict - one of things that WiU (for all the stuff that he's wrong about), and other commentators did highlight. I personally considered there to be substance to the allegations for all the reasons above. But it's wrong to compare it to the west as it's on a different order of magnitude - a major impediment in fact for the progress of Ukraine's application to join the EU in the near term.

In what way? Look it would be different in a fundamental way! The closer the representation to an actual violent event, a game or a drama purports to replay, the higher the personal and/or societal sensitivity to it will be. This is increased by time proximity and relationship to the victims and the experience. It's an accepted characteristic of PTSD that there are differences in sensitivity which can trigger flashbacks - by way of a direct psychological demonstration of this effect. If you cannot see this you must be in a tiny group of individuals that is unable to perceive the difference, or are unwilling to accept that there is a difference.

Would it be different if Russian paramilitaries had in reality run riot through an airport lounge killing hundreds of citizens and security guards? An event of such unimaginable violence that it would be on the scale of Oct 7th attacks, or 9/11. Regardless it needs to be considered that this is not only the reputational risk of a single company at stake, Slitherine and Steam share the risk of potential reputational damage and this in turn can affect future agreements re collaboration. In fact reps from those companies may have even expressed their own views on promoting and selling the planned module. A number of factors could have influenced the decision to pull it, these included. P.S. This thread should have been titled "How cold is CMBS gonna' get?"