G.I. Joe

"Civilian" Girkin (Nesmyan) about RU-Iran Aviation partnership
 

Are you CIA or something, Steve? If not, they better hire you😀. I really enjoy and appreciate your thoughts because it moves me out of my biased view and forces me to consider alternative view. Actually, I enjoy and appreciate all your guys opinions (even though I do feel uneasy toward some of them but still I do appreciate them). 
And thinking about you mentioning pragmatist (not liberals) I believe we need to discuss it a little bit deeper.  
Possible lack of pragmatists among RU siloviks
I my personal opinion we need to be careful expecting pragmatists among siloviks. The reason being Putin cleaned a lot of them in 00s. There were a lot of pragmatists both among KGB\FSB and Military in 90s and first half of 00s. That's why coup and counter coup in august 91 was relatively bloodless (AFAIR only 3 guys died). But in 00s Putin started to replace a lot of the old silovik elite with completely different guys. 
Putin cleansing of RU siloviks during 00s
I have high ranking police contact who served in regional police in 90s and first half of 00s. He told me the following. RU police were always corrupt but in normal way, not in extreme. They did break the law, but they tried to do it in a lawful manner, respecting laws and procedures. When Putin came, he started to clean the police, removing one by one old guard, and putting new guys. These new guys stopped caring about even pretending they were doing lawful things. These guys were extreme. So, my contact saw the writing on the wall and got out voluntarily.
Counter point
But for balance I can offer counter point - there is something that surprised me during my visits to the Moscow region in the last 10 years. Police noticeably became more competent and more civilized. They looked like they genuinely care about people. They noticeably became less extreme about policing, more pragmatic.
Implications
But the most interesting thing is the possible implications of both scenarios. If you are right (split is between Pragmatists and Ultranationalists) then most likely we will face far less bloody scenario to the point of skipping Civil war all together. Due to cultural reasons, RU public gravitates toward reasonable and pragmatic siloviks. RU public desire a strong protector but pragmatic one. So, RU Nats would get much less support and most likely would lose Moscow completely. And without Moscow they would be just a bunch of marginal separatists. 
If I am right though (split among the line of Liberals-nationalist) RU Nats would get a lot of public support, as Liberals are seen as weak (and they are weak due to general avoidance of violence). They would be able to contest Moscow and hard press RU Liberals. That would be bloody struggle until RU Nats drown RU in blood or RU public will got tired of bloodshed and abandon RU Nats.   
 

As always Phillips OBrian is worth a read:
Suggested paper:
Business Retreats and Sanctions Are Crippling the Russian Economy by Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, Steven Tian, Franek Sokolowski, Michal Wyrebkowski, Mateusz Kasprowicz :: SSRN
 
 
 

If you meet one turn around and run.  War when is viewed as history it seems so clear - when you are living one it is a chaotic mess with nothing but shades of grey in every direction.

Sorry for banality, but this is most approriate answer, mate (and I would say in longer time there is a lot more hope now. BTW. I find this book more and more relevant seeing this war progressing.):

I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion either, and I will say I respect your credentials (and you, based on your posts in general) so your stance does carry a fair bit of weight with me. However, I do feel it's worth pointing out that a fairly recent Pew survey showed that 79% of physicists (compared to 65% of scientists in general and 45% of American adults) support building more nuclear power plants.
And I will leave it at that, apologies for the slightly tangential post...

It's obvious how Kherson could be a trap for RU.  How could it be a trap for UKR?  
And while I am aware that I am swimming in my own confirmation bias, it does seem that Kherson has that whole "dictator says hold at all costs this untenable position for political reasons".   Yeah, this could shape up nicely.  Have we decided on a name if this turns into a kessel?  -- Kherson-ingrad?  Kherson Pocket 2.0?  Something better?

HIMARS has Russian losses back up in the range of a battlegroup per day. 
Kherson is a trap for one side or the other. My bet is Putin is playing General, and the Russian army is going to be very sorry.

One thing that is curious to me. Girkin and the like are pretty good at seeing why the Russian Army is not doing well in many ways. They often point to the same problems as this thread.
Yet the nationalists believe that mobilization will fix things, and this thread is convinced that mobilization will not actually help (for many reasons).
Where does that blindstop come from?

I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion either, and I will say I respect your credentials (and you, based on your posts in general) so your stance does carry a fair bit of weight with me. However, I do feel it's worth pointing out that a fairly recent Pew survey showed that 79% of physicists (compared to 65% of scientists in general and 45% of American adults) support building more nuclear power plants.
And I will leave it at that, apologies for the slightly tangential post...

I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion either, and I will say I respect your credentials (and you, based on your posts in general) so your stance does carry a fair bit of weight with me. However, I do feel it's worth pointing out that a fairly recent Pew survey showed that 79% of physicists (compared to 65% of scientists in general and 45% of American adults) support building more nuclear power plants.
And I will leave it at that, apologies for the slightly tangential post...

I am not pro-nuclear power.  But do we have a f--ing choice?  We are baking the planet and need something to get us from fossil fuels to something better.  But something better might take some time. 
I am aware that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by evil scientists and commie politicians.  But what I don't understand is how they convinced all the world's thermometers to start lying also.  
And so we find ourselves being held hostage by a petro-fascist who is disrupting the entire world economy, especially the EU.  Because we didn't take the evil, scheming, lying scientists seriously. 
Edited note:  my current weather:  Monday 97F, today 97F, then 96,96,94,92.  In a place where historicially almost no one even had air conditioning.  And last year we hit ~113F in the famous heat dome incident.  yeah, nothing to see here folks, all just a hoax, dang lying thermometers. 

I don't wish to sidetrack the discussion either, and I will say I respect your credentials (and you, based on your posts in general) so your stance does carry a fair bit of weight with me. However, I do feel it's worth pointing out that a fairly recent Pew survey showed that 79% of physicists (compared to 65% of scientists in general and 45% of American adults) support building more nuclear power plants.
And I will leave it at that, apologies for the slightly tangential post...

Thanks for the post. Sometimes when I write here I get a lot of replies I can't follow. I feel like I'm shot from different directions, so sometimes I have to leave a debate unresolved or like waving hand as you say. It's really exhausting sometimes. 
The fact I'm posting here and not in some pro russian forum tells me that I can sense where I mostly belong. But I like to challenge the dominant line. I did this with the Iraq War here when everyone was going Gung ho, and you can't imagine the flak I took. Everyone was so certain about the WMD the AL qaeda links and so on, only to accept some years later that they were wrong. Bush Jr was joking as well and life went on as usual. And people were again posting facts, excel sheets, analysis from reliable sources but nobody predicted the mess that followed. So, whatever firm facts we are looking for, might not be that firm sometimes. 
But I still come here, because it is still one of the best sources of info on the internet about the war. I'm sorry that I'm not contributing to that so much. I have been posting since 2002 here and I appreciate that despite heated discussions from the Iraq war, to Gaza, Syria and Ukraine I was allowed to voice my half baked opinion. 
 
 

Yeah, there's also the story of Iran equipping F-14 with SAM missiles, because they ran out of normal missiles or something.
...
With regards to Russian evil, you don't have to go to Grigb. My country was occupied by Red Army between 1968 and 1991. Between the generation of my parents (who were teenagers when it happened and lived most of their life under Russian occupation) or grandparents (who generally had the luck to compare Russian and Nazi occupation) you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't have horrifying experience with the Russians.
And of course, this happened when the Czechoslovak Communist regime was trying to liberalize itself, and Russians put hardliners back in power, so they are responsible for all the evil the regime did after that. The lagrs they built were special - they were all (or almost all) Uranium mines. Our dissidents were being tortured to death making material for the Russian nukes that threaten the world to this day.

Panzermartin. The constant in your posts on this subject, as far as I have seen, is that you make no firm claims that you back up with facts. You merely apply a constant pressure of “what if”, “what about”, “maybe”. When you have been called out here you have back off, graciously waving a hand - “oh I was only voicing a thought - but I do understand your opinion”. But you don’t qualify your opinion, instead you merely shift focus - sliding sideways.
Personally I am immensely grateful for this forum precisely because it is not defined by people posting half baked opinions and then just leaving them. Instead real facts, as good as we can get them, are being weighed and analysed, and informed conclusions/assumptions made from from that.
The thing is, in July 2022 we are now beyond talking nice and moral ambiguities with russia . This is full on Germany 1939 with all the bells and whistles. We see all the signs of violent authoritarianism, in what is being said and in whats is being done. That really is all there is to it. How russia, and it’s supporters, rationalises it’s actions is now irrelevant, it is merely the words of a abuser/killer in action. Talking about justice for the perpetrator in that context is to insult and co-abuse the victims.
If I may suggest, or indeed urge: Take a stand, for or against - completely. This is now, or will be, a matter of supporting or opposing the 21st century equivalent of Nazi Germany. It defines you in the eyes of others.
And by the way, showing a “generous understanding” for the opponent’s strong emotions, his/her “personal” side, is front and center in the textbook of social media tactics. I mean, we all know that “hysterics” can not possibly be correct. So lets really highlight that bit in in the mass of facts that the other party produces.
Over and out.

I would need to check more details, but government just promised subsidies in range of 3 thousand zloty for every houshold using coal that will be unable to heat itself. Bill is currently awaiting to be proceeded in Parliament, however there are discussion if it will apply to small businessess as well.
So it seems we are preparing for hard winter, just like rest of Europe. No doubts Poland and Germany will support each other energy-wise during energy stoppages, which will be unavoidable if we need to stay on this course. Will probably trade gas for coal from time to time. When comes to resolve on UA issue don't worry about ours, hate for Putin beats everything.
 
@panzermartin Look what perfidious NATO forced poor Mother Russia to do in its "own" neighbourhood...long read, but worth it:  https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/22/ukraine-torture-disappearances-occupied-south
 

Ukrainians doing flying MLRS with Czech Mi-24V. When they're flying this low, I feel the need to think in terms of a medium other than 'air' and 'ground' (like 'Eskimos have 50 words for snow' blah blah); reminds me of the special 'nap-of-the-earth' rules in Avalon Hill's MBT and IDF:
And an interesting find: It turns out this 'flying MLRS' was discussed in an NVA Mi-24 manual, so it's not an exotic maneuver that Russians came up with in Syria and Ukrainians copied from them in this war - by extension, former WP Mi-24 pilots should know about it:
 

Even if we were to consider them the sole (or even primary) reason for the Japanese surrender, I don't think the atomic bombings can be considered a counterexample to the lesson that terror bombing does not work. The 20s and 30s theory of terror bombing was that bombing cities would break the populace's will to resist and drive them to rebel or flee. This is not what happened in Japan...one can argue that the atomic bombings pushed the political and military leadership to a decision point, but not that they broke the civil population's will in any way that forced the government's hand.
As far as the USSR's entry into the Pacific war is concerned, I think it's both-and, not either-or, and even then there are other factors which probably played a major role. Contrary to the "official narrative" having been that the atomic bombings led to the surrender, there has always been a school of thought that the naval blockade was the real reason for Japan's capitulation (one can guess the inter-service rivalry affiliation breakdown of that debate). I think it's probably safe to say that the collapse of Japanese war industries due to the combined effects of the blockade and bombing, the appearance of nuclear weapons in the equation, the Soviets entering the war, impending famine due to the blockade and U.S. diplomatic signalling that the Allies would let Japan keep the Emperor as a constitutional monarch all contributed to some degree...

The first three Gepards have arrived in Ukraine:
Not connected but Russia will halve the gas delivery to Germany to 20% nominal from tomorrow. Reason is another defective turbine. Looks like they don’t even bother being creative. No one believes this anyway.

Does someone have a ground launched one besides the Israelis? or is this a subtle way of saying that Ukraine is getting a NATO aircraft of some description. 
 

Even if we were to consider them the sole (or even primary) reason for the Japanese surrender, I don't think the atomic bombings can be considered a counterexample to the lesson that terror bombing does not work. The 20s and 30s theory of terror bombing was that bombing cities would break the populace's will to resist and drive them to rebel or flee. This is not what happened in Japan...one can argue that the atomic bombings pushed the political and military leadership to a decision point, but not that they broke the civil population's will in any way that forced the government's hand.
As far as the USSR's entry into the Pacific war is concerned, I think it's both-and, not either-or, and even then there are other factors which probably played a major role. Contrary to the "official narrative" having been that the atomic bombings led to the surrender, there has always been a school of thought that the naval blockade was the real reason for Japan's capitulation (one can guess the inter-service rivalry affiliation breakdown of that debate). I think it's probably safe to say that the collapse of Japanese war industries due to the combined effects of the blockade and bombing, the appearance of nuclear weapons in the equation, the Soviets entering the war, impending famine due to the blockade and U.S. diplomatic signalling that the Allies would let Japan keep the Emperor as a constitutional monarch all contributed to some degree...

Even if we were to consider them the sole (or even primary) reason for the Japanese surrender, I don't think the atomic bombings can be considered a counterexample to the lesson that terror bombing does not work. The 20s and 30s theory of terror bombing was that bombing cities would break the populace's will to resist and drive them to rebel or flee. This is not what happened in Japan...one can argue that the atomic bombings pushed the political and military leadership to a decision point, but not that they broke the civil population's will in any way that forced the government's hand.
As far as the USSR's entry into the Pacific war is concerned, I think it's both-and, not either-or, and even then there are other factors which probably played a major role. Contrary to the "official narrative" having been that the atomic bombings led to the surrender, there has always been a school of thought that the naval blockade was the real reason for Japan's capitulation (one can guess the inter-service rivalry affiliation breakdown of that debate). I think it's probably safe to say that the collapse of Japanese war industries due to the combined effects of the blockade and bombing, the appearance of nuclear weapons in the equation, the Soviets entering the war, impending famine due to the blockade and U.S. diplomatic signalling that the Allies would let Japan keep the Emperor as a constitutional monarch all contributed to some degree...

Even if we were to consider them the sole (or even primary) reason for the Japanese surrender, I don't think the atomic bombings can be considered a counterexample to the lesson that terror bombing does not work. The 20s and 30s theory of terror bombing was that bombing cities would break the populace's will to resist and drive them to rebel or flee. This is not what happened in Japan...one can argue that the atomic bombings pushed the political and military leadership to a decision point, but not that they broke the civil population's will in any way that forced the government's hand.
As far as the USSR's entry into the Pacific war is concerned, I think it's both-and, not either-or, and even then there are other factors which probably played a major role. Contrary to the "official narrative" having been that the atomic bombings led to the surrender, there has always been a school of thought that the naval blockade was the real reason for Japan's capitulation (one can guess the inter-service rivalry affiliation breakdown of that debate). I think it's probably safe to say that the collapse of Japanese war industries due to the combined effects of the blockade and bombing, the appearance of nuclear weapons in the equation, the Soviets entering the war, impending famine due to the blockade and U.S. diplomatic signalling that the Allies would let Japan keep the Emperor as a constitutional monarch all contributed to some degree...

A tu quoque response to an accusation can never refute the accusation. In plain English. The pot calling the kettle black doesn't win an argument.