FlemFire

The weapons serve different functions so they're kinda hard to compare. Having played through most campaigns/scenarios, I can say that I never paused and went "uh oh, a Bren" whereas the MG42 unexpectedly rearing its head was often akin to getting smacked across the face. In-game, the MG42 on a pod is possibly the deadliest anti-personnel you can put into the hands of infantry. I'm not sure what the soft factors are for the Bren but having used it I didn't notice anything lacking per se, it effectively does what you expect it to do. I think it's closer comparison is maybe the BAR, of which the Bren is better, IMO, though the American squads overall end up having way more firepower thanks to the Garands mostly.

The issue's complicated beyond Ukraine -- it has to do with the U.S.'s southern border which is currently wide open and letting in millions of illegals, nevermind granting literal free entrance for hostile fifth columns if rivals wish to insert such a thing (spoiler: they do). Killing the value of American organized labor via cheap immigrants has been a distinct issue dating back to at least the early 1900s, it's just that nowadays the numbers are so high that leadership is having a hard time hiding it from the plebs. Pro-immigration propaganda is also running out of gas, as fifty years of stagnated wages isn't matching the rose-colored theories of the economists (the economists paid by the industrialists making the most buck off said migrants, what a shocker).
 
I think you and others are reaching the wrong conclusion in perceiving this as the Biden administration failing to get what they want. They're getting precisely what they want: an open border. Other matters are secondary to such an extent that they will be sacrificed for the primary. Ukraine is either collateral damage in this spat or the powers that be are using the topic to slowly navigate to an off-ramp, though this is a distinction without a difference if you're a Ukrainian in a trench somewhere.

The weapons serve different functions so they're kinda hard to compare. Having played through most campaigns/scenarios, I can say that I never paused and went "uh oh, a Bren" whereas the MG42 unexpectedly rearing its head was often akin to getting smacked across the face. In-game, the MG42 on a pod is possibly the deadliest anti-personnel you can put into the hands of infantry. I'm not sure what the soft factors are for the Bren but having used it I didn't notice anything lacking per se, it effectively does what you expect it to do. I think it's closer comparison is maybe the BAR, of which the Bren is better, IMO, though the American squads overall end up having way more firepower thanks to the Garands mostly.

Every side drafted 40+ year olds. This was not an average age, however. You couldn't go to any given unit and interview soldiers and only be coming across 35-45 year old men, as I have unfortunately seen a few times while reading news stories from the front.
 
 
Naftali Bennett and former-German Chancellor Schroeder have stated peace was on the table and that the Americans were the ones who 'ended' those talks. A lot of rumors have been flying around about the nature of these talks and why they suddenly concluded like this, but those are two very legitimate sources.
 
 
If you paid the smallest amount of attention to the West's actions the past 20 years you'd think they were the most aggressively militaristic party on the planet. Wait a second -- they were. In fact, one of them is bombing civvies right this second! But you'd also think there were WMDs in Iraq, that al-Qaeda had a huge network of supervillain caves in Afghanistan, and a long litany of other lies used to justify mayhem on spread. Leaders lie, and they lie most predominantly to their own people. I won't pretend to know Putin's goals at this point and, like in the West, I'd take anything he says to his own people with a grain of salt. I just gave you the above information, though, to demonstrate they were absolutely not his goals early on.
 
Actions by Americans, particularly those with ties to things like PNAC and general neocon-funfair, also clearly demonstrate an intention in Washington to drive Ukraine headfirst into a meatgrinder. So these news articles do not surprise me at all. You people will believe things like Russia is running out of troops, running out of ammo, fighting with shovels, etc., but it never occurs whether or not the intentions of American neocons met its expected conclusion by design or if it all just went in their favor by some coincidence. I don't think it was a coincidence at all. Nor do I think it's a coincidence that bad faith actors like Rumsfeld go from "bulletproof" evidence of WMD in Iraq to "I never said we knew where they were" one year later. I expect to see such reverses in statements about this war just as well, and I also expect people to compartmentalize these statements like they did with that era of politicians, leaving them scot free of any consequences at all.
 
 
The above comments made by the Israeli and German statesmen do not align with your fantasies here. The 150,000 men beelining straight to the capital a la Georgia 2008 also don't really agree with any sort of occupation plan either, just by common sense. The only portion I agree with is that they intended to flip Ukraine's government and install a pro-Russian in there. Those soldiers were then likely going to be used to de-arm Ukraine and defang it. The operation was a pretty clear shock attack and Putin no doubt had (very bad) intelligence that told him it'd get wrapped up in a month at most. Like I said, there's no real getting around this. It's too foundational. I also don't know if it's strictly even that important to the conversation -- by either metric, Russia invaded. I don't think "neutralizing" Ukraine or "conquering" Ukraine have huge differences when at the end of the day it's one nation invading another and seeking to basically operate it from the inside.

I included the former Israeli PM for this reason. Schroeder's connections with Putin are obvious. This does not automatically mean he is incorrect and the arrival of corresponding stories highlights this. You did not talk at all about the Israeli PM, so you left the discussion at a half-step.
 
Nonsense? How is it nonsense when you then agree, but add in the qualifier that they are only the most "capable." The capability of the invading nations does not have anything to do with the aggressiveness of invasions by said nations. You just disagreed to disagree here, and didn't even really disagree. Bizarre comment.
 
 
Neocons are not to be trusted, period. That is my bottom line on those people. Victoria Nuland is married to Kagan, a major neocon architect, who has outlined American expansionism/imperialism for the 21st century. Why is it that when these people go places, war and misery follows in their footsteps? Is that just a coincidence? Judging by what they state and print, the answer is clear.
 
 
If the U.S. is not willing to invest the actual resources required to win a war with Russia, then yes, it should not have involved itself at all. Dogwalking another people into conflict and then playing gotcha with it is insane to me. The U.S. has the material capabilities to lay down some serious material into Ukraine and it has not done it. The West in general has the economic capability to go on a war footing and has not done it. Everything is nominal, and nominal contributions when the other side is very dead-set in their intentions is flagrantly stupid.
I do not forgive half-measures when hundreds of thousands of people are dying.
 
 
Don't see much disagreement here. I mean, moving into separatist regions... like they're doing in Ukraine right now? And pray tell, what major partisan efforts are currently ongoing in those Russian-held regions? After Afghanistan and Chechnya, I don't think Russians have much interest or desire to 'occupy' places they are not wanted. They want to bully and flex, fighting isn't really their forte but anyone who understands Russia knew this already, though a thousand videos of military disasters is pretty sufficient evidence just as well.
 
Almost a year ago, I stated that offenses in this war were almost suicidal and one should avoid engaging Russia in static warfare due to their massive artillery advantage. I was correct. I stated that the Russian economy was not buckling beneath the sanctions. I was correct. I stated that non-West spheres of the world were not responding to West's compulsion to sanction Russia. That was correct. Actually, so correct that we now see Western imports into Russian border-nations, suggesting not even some in the West care anymore, and we see other nations welcoming Putin on their stages. I stated that this notion of Russia running out of materials for anything is a pipedream as they have significant infrastructure to support war efforts. That was correct. I stated that the economic contributions of the West involve stockpiles which necessarily dwindle, and if you do not have a replacement in line for when that happens, bad things are going to come to a head. That is coming to a head right now. My models are fine, thank you.

I travel the world and operate out of Belgium. This is very, very common when interacting with people on the topic of America. It is anecdotal. What is not anecdotal is the massive lines of people waiting to get into America, proving quite verifiably that there is meat on those bones.
 
The hostility toward American foreign policy is harder to measure, but it has moments of clarity I need not expound upon.

The same West that is cheerleading Israel carpet bombing civilians?

The same West that is cheerleading Israel carpet bombing civilians?

The same West that is cheerleading Israel carpet bombing civilians?

Maybe when these leaders go on T.V. and speak they're in actuality lying. Just a guess. 

Not sure what you're faffing on about here. Not a single thing you said has to do with first-strike capable assets being operated by Western forces over Russian territories. Note, this war started because they didn't want those things in a bordering country, but suddenly they're going to be chill with it, for real, as it flies over Russia? 
 
  
 
We're literally looking at the result of a redline being crossed: they invaded Ukraine at enormous cost to themselves. Now, why did they do that? Because they don't want an anti-Russia alliance right next door that is, in effect, bulging right into their main territories. The fact I have to explain this being the ultimate redline when this entire conflict exists because of the threat of it is bananas. Is anyone paying attention in this thread? What are you even talking about people staying up thinking about this. You put NATO forces in the field and this whole thing is over. Things will rapidly escalate and the nukes will fly and we'll all be dead. The ghouls who framed this conflict will mostly be fine, hiding in bunkers and what not, but us normies will be ash or killing one another in the ruins.
 
This is simply not an appropriate resolution to the uncomfortable fact that, all of a sudden, military thinkers have thrown all common sense out the window as they wish under-trained conscripts to instantly develop military doctrines and blow out entrenched Russians despite being outgunned, outmanned, and having zero air support. All I see reading this crap is Robert E. Lee and George Pickett had the right idea, they just didn't probe enough, or they just didn't have fight hard enough, etc. How about no. How about attacking into the teeth of static defensive positions with zero air support has been a bananas idea for 100+ years now and not all the propaganda in the world is going to magically change it. And now I gotta read Aztecan death fantasies over ending the world because people can't bring themselves back to reality.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

Newsflash: if there's a nuclear exchange nothing matters.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

Newsflash: if there's a nuclear exchange nothing matters.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

This isn't Syria. You won't have a no-fly zone. You'll have air-to-air combat between air forces, all within range of Russia's anti-air systems mind you, with fighters and bombers inevitably crossing borders and having their intentions misread, which will rapidly escalate into something worse. Russia isn't going to be very chill with Western aircraft zipping around their airspace and within minutes-distance of striking strategic assets. 

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

Newsflash: if there's a nuclear exchange nothing matters.

I would never risk myself or family getting incinerated on behalf of eastern Ukraine and every single person who has two brain cells to rub together thinks the same. Your bloodlust and suicidal tendencies exist only on paper.

Newsflash: if there's a nuclear exchange nothing matters.

This isn't Syria. You won't have a no-fly zone. You'll have air-to-air combat between air forces, all within range of Russia's anti-air systems mind you, with fighters and bombers inevitably crossing borders and having their intentions misread, which will rapidly escalate into something worse. Russia isn't going to be very chill with Western aircraft zipping around their airspace and within minutes-distance of striking strategic assets. 

Yes. MOUT is amazing in SF2 and the primary draw of the game for me. It simulates the action well enough given the engine's limitations w/ urban elements. 
I actually think getting good at SF2 will make you much, much better at the other games. It wasn't until I nailed down the MOUT-elements in Shock Force did I realize how lackadaisical my tactics were in the WWII ones.

Yes. MOUT is amazing in SF2 and the primary draw of the game for me. It simulates the action well enough given the engine's limitations w/ urban elements. 
I actually think getting good at SF2 will make you much, much better at the other games. It wasn't until I nailed down the MOUT-elements in Shock Force did I realize how lackadaisical my tactics were in the WWII ones.