quakerparrot67

I honestly think they want the same thing we do - Russia needs to lose by just enough.  China wants two things out of Russia - energy and a market.  Both of those are at serious risk if Russia completely falls apart. So they are propping up a partner..just enough. China could have flooded Russia with much higher end capabilities.  Loans, grants and gifts much like we have done in the West for Ukraine. But China does not want a full on proxy war with the US, but also wants a weak but pliable Russia.  To my eyes they are threading a similar needle here.  I also think China is also ticked off at this whole thing as it just made things harder.  We were apathetic and internally obsessed but this war made us look up, maybe only for a bit, but we looked up and out all the same.  So while China was quietly stacking the deck, suddenly the West is all paranoid and freaking out because there was a war that did not involve brown people someplace hot and tan.  We started to care and for a revisionist state that is never a good thing.

Now let’s not suddenly forget the real reason why China has risen to power…western greed.  We exported manufacturing and every other hard/increasingly expensive job to China because they would do it for a fraction of what western workers were demanding nor was governed by pesky workplace safety regulations.  We wanted cheap everything from Tshirts to running shoes to cellphones.  We did not admit China into the WTO until 2001 and by then we were over-invested in China for our lifestyles that no one could slow that train down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_World_Trade_Organization#:~:text=China became a member of,changes to the Chinese economy.
We had started this trend back in the 80s.  There was nothing altruistic or generous about any of this, it really was simply an extension of western benign (and sometimes not) imperial doctrine.  The Western Rules Based order was really designed to keep the West on top. China figured this out and used that system to rise to power.  They did it using Western money, not charitable intent.  China conducted a series of pretty radical economic reforms and the outsourced the industry we downloaded on them to places like Bangladesh and Vietnam.  They then reinvested in their own high tech and bolstered it with an historic industrial espionage campaign.
None of this was “western misguided liberalism gone wrong” it was straight up pursuit of profit and reinforcing our own consumer based economies.  By the time we realized the problem in the mid ‘00 it was too late.  No politician, even Trump, could simply “drop China”.  Since then we have seen attempts at a gradual uncoupling but we are still too dependent on Asian manufacturing and industry, the pandemic showed this in spades.  And now we are stuck.  We either keep funding Chinese rise to power or try and roll the clock back to 1960, which we can’t do with current standards of living and economic realities.
None of this was generous or high minded.  Anymore than British rule of India was.  It was a 20th century version of economic colonization, which like a lot of colonization came back around to bite.

I see the rabble are getting roused.  We all appreciate the enthusiasm, we really do. As to updates, well I can echo what Steve has already said - we are aiming to have this DLC out this year.  As to progress, well data and research are largely complete (few things left but not biggies).  Maps for the major campaigns are built (I showed off a few and one was used in that CM tourney).  Campaigns are essentially designed and waiting for the kit.  Equipment lists are done, we will likely be haggling these to the finish line.
So over all scope, scale and background are all defined.  What we are waiting for now is the second longest pole in any content creation tent - artwork/modelling.  This is where stuff gets drawn and actually put into the game.  Once we get enough of that we start rolling on really putting it all together, which in the case of BAOR should be pretty quick, but we still need to do testing and polishing.  We still have a features debate - what is in or out features-wise but that will be sorted quickly.
So the short answer is “sometime this year” and we are fairly far along.  Now it is a matter of getting very few critical people’s time to deliver their end and we can then pull it al together.  No Star Citizen, conspiracy or subterfuge, only limited resources available and waiting in line.

100% or the endless bitch session that would result here if the decision was made to delay and issue a new date was made. 
There are really only three choices with regard to this: 
Pick a date and ship whatever you've got - obvious downside is bugs and issues with content Pick a date and delay to a new date if things are not as you want them - obvious downside here is complaints and erosion of "trust" Don't pick a date (or I should say don't say one publicly because all projects have dates) and just repeat the mantra "it will be done when it is ready" - is there a downside here - I don't know one. Marketing people will say they cannot build the sales collateral - BS just have it ready and book the interviews and reviews in the final weeks or after release but what do I know? I only have 30 years of software development experience and no marketing experience - other than watching them do it and not make sweet **** all of a difference if the campaign starts before release or after. Customers say they cannot plan or rely on you - BS: buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait. Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now? If you say you want working product now that's just stupid because that doesn't exist does it? Hence this question. You can end up in a combo of 1 and 2 that either turns into a death spiral: the product is not ready so we will delay it but that means you need to add feature X because the competition has changed which leads to more delays and feature Y needs to be added etc.; or you delay one or two times but piss off everyone and eventually you are forced to end up releasing early even though you tired to do the right thing and fix your problems.
I have worked in through all of these scenarios. The choices that BFC make are absolutely the best framework for managing projects I have lived with. I have worked for other places that get it right too BFC are not unique but doing this right is not the norm - sadly.

Sorry couldn't resist.

The counter point to this is that Russia has somehow managed to survive as an inherently unstable imperial state (in its current size) for over 300 years. It has collapsed twice before but always has come back as an imperial state.  There are more than a few theories on how this keeps happening; my personal favourite is that Russia exists because geopolitically it has been rejected- not European, not Asian, not Persian. That rejection has become an identity in itself: Russia - the original punk-state.
Regardless of how it happened, one has to admit Russia keeps going long after it should.  That quality appears baked into the culture and identity. I also think this war may likely break the current incarnation of the Russian state.  Pressures that have been set in motion may unite a people in the short term but will very well break it in the long term. Russia is very likely going to remain isolated from the West for a long time after this war.  It will also very likely be pulled into the Chinese power sphere - although that relationship has always been weird.
Bur what is very important here is the speed of a Russian collapse.  A slow rattling decline is something we can manage.  A collapse that takes 20-30 years can be boxed up and contained.  When it hits the tipping point it will still seem dramatic but a slow motion collapse, much like the last one with the fall of the Soviet Union is always the preferred option.  It is the fast uncontrolled collapse that must be avoided.  A collapse without mitigations in place.  Too many unknowns, too much energy released too fast.  
The strategic options spaces get far too stark and frankly untenable in this scenario.  We will very likely fail to make the brutal decisions required if Russia plummets suddenly. The result risks runaway mechanisms that could wind up making the entire region (if not the globe) much worse.  And there has been far too much hand waving on this point - “Ya,ya, whatever…but Ukraine!” This reality is why we are not conducting NATO airstrikes into Russia and putting western troops on the ground.
So we take the slow road. Contain but fuel the conflict. Hoping Russia runs out of gas slowly. Hoping Putin will have a sudden “health crisis”.  It is often said in military circles that “hope is not an option”.  I always smirk at this one because historically it has very often been the only option.  We keep things rolling in the hopes a better option will emerge.  Hope is a child of uncertainty, and we are very uncertain right now.

In what way? 
FWIIW if my country was facing an existential threat at that age I would hope to be fighting not hiding abroad.
But of course that is very easy to say as I approach my 60's about to have my afternoon nap...
As for comments about Obama and his attempt to reset it is easy to say in hindsight that it was a failure. At the time there was hope to try and bring Russia back from the edge...
As for the failure to use a big stick on Russia what do you suggest should have been done? Easy to throw stones at someone's else when you don't have to offer concrete proposals on what to do differently.
People are currently blaming Biden for being too weak and not giving Ukraine more, conveniently ignoring the environment he has to operate in.

Meh, the 2% thing is a weak metric and everyone knows it.  I mean it is better than nothing but it is not a measure of effectiveness nor contribution.  Greece is spending nearly 4% GDP - which is essentially an extension of workfare.  When was the last time Greece led a multinational brigade in Latvia or took an entire operational province on in Afghanistan?  Cynically 2% GDP is designed to drive NATO members to buy into American defence industry either directly or indirectly as opposed to really measure effectiveness.  
The reality does not often match the theatre.  But we will bow and scrap. Roll in Coast Guard and VA funding and other creative accounting until the heat gets turned off.  The US on the other hand cannot walk away from its position as a leader of the free world and expect everyone to forget it.

Not only ATACAMS.
France will deliver Aster-30 missiles for single SAMP-T complex, recently handed over to Ukriane
 
UK in own aid package will deliver Paveway IV 
... And what also important alot of equipment for State Emergency Service
 

I really wish they wouldn't do that. The only one that needs to be informed is Syrskyi. Let the Russians find out the hard way. I understand "public right to know", but there's no need to get into specifics. FFS stuff from WWII was kept secret for 50 years in the US, long after it was obsolete and of no intelligence value.

Sanity is optional, you need look no further than the RFK jr campaign....

If my recollection is correct, didn't the guillotine have a plank kind of table to lie on?
yeah I think this is the "negotiating" table.

Nope, no straddling involved, that's firmly on the insane side of the line.
Now, a robot dog that cleans up after your live dog, that would be genius.

This is so true. Russia was one of the guarantors of Ukraine's sovereignty. Look how well that held up. 
I don't get why people keep saying that Ukraine should just negotiate/make a deal with Russia. Any deal made will only last as long as Putin wants it to last.
Dave

your attempt to play the both-siderism game is pathetic and shows an incredible amount of ignorance, both in historic and in current events.  What Gingerich did was completely unprecedented.  What McConnell did was completely unprecedented.  And Trump is off the charts for breaking both norms and laws.  ANd where on the left are the insane ones that are wielding power?   Where's the dem Matt Gaetz?  MTGreene?  American democracy is on the brink and it is due to one side and one side only.  Guess what --  Biden won't attempt to throw the country into a civil war to unlawfully try to cling to power.  Trump's been doing that for last 4 years, including a full on mob-coup attempt that left people dead.  So just WTF are you even talking about?  Clearly you've been watching Hannity or some other bull**** monger and now you are parroting their bulls--t.
So stop watching Fox & newsmax.  It makes you look like a damn fool.
Oh, and please respond by telling me how it's the dems fault the GOP held up UKR aid for 3 months.  Dems aint the ones on Putin's payroll.  
 

The dose makes the poison.
Looking from the outside, there is absolutely zero equivalence between the two parties. None at all.
There are ... odd individuals in both, but at the party level only one is utterly dysfunctional.
Theres also this inconvenient reality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

Yet you do!!! Time again you do!
What has it to do with Ukraine?
🙄

This really speaks to a political leader who simply does not understand how the modern world works. Of the US wants roughly the same economic footing it had pre-WW2, back when its population was about 125M, then decoupling globalization makes perfect sense.  How many jobs in the US will have to go back to manufacturing and resources?  Entire generations of Americans will have to go back to the coal mines and steel mills.  Costs for everything will go through the roof, unless of course Vance’s plan is all JP Morgan and plans to pay future US workers next to nothing to do all the work that has been outsourced.  And then there is the uncomfortable realities of the money markets and foreign investment.
The US does not get to be large, powerful and rich without the global order that it built, fought for and now needs to keep fighting for.  It baffles me that the average voter in the US does not really understand this let alone a senator.

I recall ISW pointing out a couple months ago that while the US is the largest single doner (and Ukraine does desperately need the US to resume donating), Europe overall has donated more than the US. I think it was something like $160-$170 billion.

Ok if we are going to play "pick the data"  then using the same chart democracy is a fad as of about 1850.  We are just as likely to fall back into complete autocracies which have dominated human political affairs for millennia.  Why can't autocracy recover in the long game if democracy can in the short?
In reality this is kinda silly.  It is clear democracy around the world is under strain.  We have no guarantees it will work and my original point stands - we have abandoned democracy in the past (see Roman Empire) and we are at risk of doing it in the future if we do not protect it.  I so not subscribe to the "it will be ok...because reasons" school of human affairs.  Pulling it back to the subject of this thread, we are facing a test for modern democracy right now in this war and the USA is at the forefront.  I honestly hope that democracy prevails but within the US right now some of those charged with protecting it are in fact attacking it.  They are attacking it by "proving" (engineering really) that democracy is weaker in "getting things done."  They are doing so to re-wire how power is distributed in the US and by extension globally.
    

Hmmm we in the UK have personal experience of this and it has cost us dearly. A very expensive mistake...
I hope for the world's sake America takes note that tearing up years of work and cooperation doesn't magically solve anything and creates problems no one was told would happen...

What I find truly amazing are the inconsistencies people are willing to hold so deeply.  For example:
"We can't let in all these immigrants!  They will destroy our nation!"
"Tear the whole system down!"
So on one issue we have to preserve the system while on the other we need to tear it down.  So the real issue is "who" is tearing it down and power distribution post-teardown.  This inconsistency demonstrates what this whole thing is really about and there is little honorable or aspirational about it.  When extremist/reductionist narratives spark up they are filled with these sorts of inconsistencies and paradoxes.

"Tearing it down" will introduce massive collective uncertainty into the last global superpower and roughly 330 million primates...many armed to the teeth.  It does not take a "smart and truly good person" to see how that will likely go.
The American Experiment is, at its roots, a massive social test.  A test to see if our species has evolved to the point where a power sharing scheme like democracy can survive at scale.  I would say the jury is still out.

It is potentially worse than that.  This sort of dysfunction does nothing but feed anti-democracy sentiment.  Democracies die due to abandonment, history demonstrates this quite well.  If the system is seen as "unworkable" democracies often choose suicide.  This is the threat to the US and global stability.  Trump and Greene are symptoms of something far deeper and dangerous....apathy that leads to despair.