Centurian52

No. The 135 come from Danish, Belgian & German stock IIRC. Those Italian would be on top.

One thing is certain. It is always going to be harder to make another planet's environment livable than to fix this planet's environment. Colonizing other objects is about expanding our total amount of available real estate, not about escaping our current world's problems (one of many reasons why there is no point in rushing colonization (it would probably take centuries for a colony to grow to self sufficiency anyway, so it would do absolutely nothing to save us from anything that might destroy us this century or next)). Unfortunately that does rather ruin the plot of Interstellar.

As I know, 82nd air-assault has a battalion on Marders. 
Leopard 2 were spotted in 33rd mech., 47th mech. and 21st mech.brigades. Latter is "Sweden", using StrV 122 version of Leo2 and CV90 
Also 44th mech.brigade is receiving Leopard 1A5.

On topic again..
The Danish government announced new aid-package for Ukraine (The twelfth.)
780.000.000 Euro's for 2023, 2024 and 2025.
For tanks, ammo, air-defence etc.
 

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

One thing is certain. It is always going to be harder to make another planet's environment livable than to fix this planet's environment. Colonizing other objects is about expanding our total amount of available real estate, not about escaping our current world's problems (one of many reasons why there is no point in rushing colonization (it would probably take centuries for a colony to grow to self sufficiency anyway, so it would do absolutely nothing to save us from anything that might destroy us this century or next)). Unfortunately that does rather ruin the plot of Interstellar.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

We won't know for certain until we send some test subjects* for some long duration experiments. But my feeling is that a mix of bioforming and clever habitat design may be necessary.
*colloquially known as "astronauts".

Not just Prussian (German by this point) regulations. This is how every army worked pre-WW1. And it's mainly about maintaining command and control. There are no radios or modern NCO corps yet, and no one can shout loud enough for orders to be heard along the entire length of a company or even platoon that has deployed into skirmish line (squads exist at this point in time, but they aren't independent maneuver elements yet). And it isn't really considered possible to change direction while in skirmish line (you can try to make a company sized skirmish line turn, but it's gonna be ugly (just imagine 200 men in an extended order line trying to conduct a 90 (or 45, or any number) degree turn, especially when no one on the flanks as even heard the order)). So you march to your start line for the attack in close order, get faced in the right direction, and then deploy into skirmish line to conduct the attack.
Once a unit has deployed into skirmish line they can only move forward. Once they have made contact with the enemy they are now the "firing line" and the higher level commander has effectively lost all command and control over that unit until it has finished its attack. So the only further influence the commander has over the battle is in committing reserves to the firing line. Those reserves may be held back behind the next terrain feature in close order, or following a few hundred meters behind (in close order if it is considered safe enough, or in extended order if enough fire is still reaching them). It is considered preferable to commit the reserves to the flank of the existing firing line, making it longer and preventing units from getting mixed up. But the limited frontages available for the attack usually meant that it was more practical to merge the reserves into the existing firing line from behind. The downside to merging the reserves in behind the existing firing line is that there is no way to prevent the units from getting mixed up.
After the attack is completed everyone needs to be called back into close order so they can be reorganized and reoriented for their next orders. I conceptualize it as being pretty similar to how we use mechanized infantry (can the order get any closer than being crowded into the back of an armored vehicle?). Only "move mounted and fight dismounted" becomes "move in close order and fight in extended order". But, while in theory you should always fight in extended order, in practice a unit moving in close order may get surprised, or a commander trying to keep his unit controllable "just that little bit longer" may misjudge how far it is safe to stay in close order. 
Everyone with any sense (and not everyone had any sense) has figured out by this point in time that units are extremely vulnerable to fire while they are in close order, so should always be shaken out into extended order before making contact. But no one has figured out a system of command and control that can entirely dispense with close order formations just yet. I think the problem was that existing maneuver elements were just too big to be controllable or maneuverable while in extended order. Light machineguns will give squads enough firepower to be a useful maneuver element (10 men with bolt action rifles can't really generate enough firepower on their own to be useful), and the forging of a modern NCO corps gives armies a high enough density of leaders to make squads useable maneuver elements. Once the squad has become a useable maneuver element you finally have a formation that is small enough to easily change direction and hear the shouted commands of its leader while in extended order.
But I digress. There is a whole other thread for this.

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

One of my more favoured aphorisms is "for every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong."

Colonizing Mars isn't insane. The insane part is that he thinks it can be done in a decade or two (he has absolutely no sense for what sort of timescales these things take place on). But, as an Isaac Arthur fan, I do think we'll colonize every planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and grain of dust in this (and every other) solar system eventually (assuming we don't blow ourselves up first, but I'm feeling optimistic).

Just keeps giving.  Seriously, we should do a podcast.  You definitely won buddy.  Hey, what do you think about climate change?  

So this is what you got?  I teach “young warriors” and have led dozens in combat while you likely sat at home and yelled at the tv - you are no vet I can tell that from your first post.
Let’s stop the BS and call this what it really is - political platforming.  Your position is not all that difficult to read, pretty transparent.  Basically everything the current US presidential administration is doing is “wrong”.  “Right” is whatever “our guy would do as opposite”.  So President Biden is pursuing a deliberate incremental strategy to compress Russia, so your position is “more firepower” and “hard staring”.  Or you jump on the “this war is stupid, we must negotiate”.  Basically anything President Biden is doing is “wrong” and anything they are not doing is “right”.  That has been the sum total of your contributions to this entire discussing since you showed up (oh, and some bizarre social commentary on women and social justice for good measure).  That is it.  One long “very stable strategic genius” diatribe anchored on a single viewpoint.  If President Biden declared the US was going to “end this thing in 4 weeks” you would be here yelling that “this was the dumbest thing ever” and probably quote my points as why.
You know it is ok.  You are just another in a very long line of segments of the population that surrender their own agency in the face of uncertainty.  We invented the Church which has lasted over 2000 years on exactly that principle.  Agency and independent thought is to embrace uncertainty and most people really don’t want to do this, it is scary.
Problem is you wandered onto the wrong forum.  This place has been home to a lot of independent thought since before this war started. We have pursued the facts as we can find them and then conduct collective analysis and synthesis to try and establish a clear picture of what is happening.  No one here has surrendered independent thought to a political position.  We all have opinions, I for one think President Biden’s administration has done very well in managing this crisis.  Not perfect but considering we are well off the strategic map here, they have done as well as reasonably possible.  
I am not an American, I do not participate in your political process so I do not share your baggage.  I cannot fix you or even try to change your mind, you clearly have it all figured out.  But you are not going to find friends here. Your missionary work on this forum is a waste of time.  
But it is ok.  With this last, I promote you to Hot Thread “crazy guy”.  It is a honorary position that has been vacant since John Kettler left us (rest in peace John).  You can go on and on but we all know it is for entertainment purposes only.  I am even going to un-ignore you because I am going to be first to rub your unruly mop of hair and just smile at your incorrigible rapscallion ways.  Your are a stump thumping looney kevinkin, but you are our looney.  Try not to get banned because then we will have to find another.
 

I am a veteran of two wars and have likely forgotten more about war and warfare than you based on your contributions to this thread.  
I see that you are taking a “self-imposed” vacation and will come back “when proven right”.  Well problem with that is that you have never really taken a clear position on anything.  At one moment you talk about “diplomacy and negotiation” the next “4 weeks to victory”.  You have not demonstrated any real research or citations in your contributions nor any level of recognizable expertise on the subject matter.  My, and other attempts, to explain are “too complicated” so you dismiss them.  Then when I sit down and actually try to unpack your position and why your assumptions are flawed, I get insults and name calling.  No facts.  No counter analysis.  Just “be quiet”.
So when you come back (and I am sure you will), what exactly constitutes you “being proven right”?  Have the courage to take a position and clearly define it and stop these politically motivated drive-bys.  The way you have ambiguously framed your position does not allow for you to be wrong.  If the war is still going on you can declare “I told you we should have negotiated/stated/invaded”.  If the war ends, you can claim it is because the US finally did whatever you were saying all along.
So I am calling you out.  Clearly give us three strategic “must dos” in order for this war to end.  Clear and measurable strategic actions the US and West must carry out in your deeply informed opinion.  Don’t weasel around it or try to build in wiggle room.  Here let me show you how it is done:
1.  Commitment to win the war. The US/West must continue to own the escalation ladder in this war.  They must continue steady, predictable and clear pressure on Russia through programmed support to Ukraine.  This commitment must be unambiguous and apolitical, we are in it until this is done.  No back doors or side deals.  No renormalization until Russia is out of Ukraine completely.  This is a slow steady path with no sudden movement as we thread a needle between uncontrolled escalation and stagnation/freezing conflict.  This is a long war of attrition and must be navigated as one…it will go slow until the RA collapses militarily or there is a major political shift in Russia.  Either way direct confrontation between US/West must be avoided at all costs - no hard fast win.  Further, victory must be clear and unambiguous as well.  No soft-wins for Russia just to end this. Russian defeat must be clear.
2.  Commitment to win post-war.  Reconstruction and post conflict defence and security mechanisms are a must.  No grey areas or open clauses.  We commit to rebuild Ukraine and pull it into a real security alliance that will guarantee long term security and investment.
3.  Engineer Russian negotiations with its own defeat.  Russia cannot become a failed state, yet it requires regime change.  That is very tricky to manage at the best of times.  A path to renormalization must be developed but it cannot ignore the egregious warcrimes and violations Russia has committed.  This will lead Russia out of being pulled entirely into a Chinese power sphere and provide some multipolar power manoeuvre room.
There you go.  I am on record with my position and advice.  Now if the US goes in hard next week and Russia withdraws with its tail between its legs I will be proven wrong.  If we can suddenly negotiate an end to this war that makes everyone happy, I was also wrong.  So what have you got?

One of my favorite shows as well

Ok, well I don't want to act unfairly in responding to a person who is deciding not to post any more on the thread so I will offer to continue this discussion with kevinkin in DMs, if he's interested.  However I did want to address some recent posts here because I think it speaks to a wider misunderstanding that is distressingly common when discussing complicated issues and has led to similar conflicts on this thread in the past.
Kevin, if you're still reading this (and as I say, you may respond to me in DM if you like - I don't want to provoke you into a further argument in this thread), it's not the positions you hold but your unwillingness to properly explore them which frustrates.  This leads to you gish-galloping your way through three or four 'positions' in each post.  Then, when someone tries to pin down and engage with a single one (like I and others did with 'stare down Putin' and The_Capt did with 'win the war in 4 weeks') we don't get much in response.  I tried to encourage you to expand on the 'staring' position, to see if there was anything to actually discuss there (I do believe that you believe you are raising fair points) but your response to a list of things the US did with the intelligence they had was to ask what the US did with the intelligence they had.  I mean, at my most charitable I could assume that it was a rhetorical question but without any elaboration from you about why the previous answers to such a "rhetorical" question might not count...  Mate, do you not see how that might quickly become frustrating?
The below quote is demonstrative of another problem:
People should be aware that "single points" don't exist in the real world.  If one is trying to drill down to the truth of a matter then dragging multiple different topics together is unavoidable and necessary because ultimately everything is interacting, everywhere, all the time.  The_Capt, in a very particular sense, did write "paragraphs to make a single point" but that was precisely because addressing a single point requires exploration of many others.  That was his point!  In another, slightly less confusing sense, The_Capt's point intent was to just hint at the actual time, effort and patience which would be required to actually start answering one of kevinkin's one-liner questions by pointing out all the other questions which would have to be asked and answered at the same time.
My friendly advice to kevinkin or anyone else who is considering "just asking questions" or raising "points" which go against the "group-think" on this board:
Ask yourself the question Decide what you think the answer might be Think of and ask yourself at least 3 different questions directly related to the answer to your initial question Decide what you think the answers might be to each of those 3 Consider the implications of the combined 4 answers you are now holding in your mind Ask yourself whether they make sense together, as the beginnings of a coherent potential "truth" If they do make sense together and they contrast with what you perceive as the dominant viewpoint on this thread or elsewhere then you may have an interesting point.  Go ahead and make it, simultaneously making your case by including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. If they don't make sense together, try again*.  If you are still unable to find a sensible "truth" which explains them all, that's great because you may have an interesting question.  Go ahead and ask it, simultaneously including your thinking about the 3 other 'satellite' questions and what you are finding difficult to understand.  This demonstrates the way you are thinking.  It is helpful, interesting and it will be appreciated by those who are minded to respond. Listen to/read the response(s) you get, think about them and engage with the precise thoughts that people raise, doing your best to help people relate the discussion back to your original question. Sound too much like hard work?  Welcome to a discussion about a very complicated issue.  People spend lifetimes studying, thinking about and writing about this stuff and it's not because they are overly verbose or for want of anything better to do.
 
*In particular it may be helpful to think about answers which do not involve the USA.  Only a very small minority of real-world global decisions are made with the USA in mind, so you'd be surprised how often this might help.

I wonder what this is and how effective it is in the long term:
https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-russia-missiles-foiled-israel/32586533.html