Begemot

Steve,
You have a problem with the truth. Ukraine has a Nazi problem like here, the famous Azov battalion:

If you want to pretend otherwise, fine. So if you and your chums can't face the reality then go ahead and be the little Nazi you are and send me to the Gulag.

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

If you study war, you know it is all about deception.
Appear weak when you are strong......
and strong when you are weak.
The last thing I would believe is the media/twitter/fakebook etc. (propaganda)
That 40 mile/kilometer convoy didn't just run out of gas.
It also indicates Air Supremacy.
 

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

"That said I suspect nuclear war within a month. If we all die doing the right thing then god bless."
And we thought the jihadists were insane.

My stance is that if you are an American, when your own border is being invaded daily, who gives a flying f%^& about Ukraine's border? I don't. I dont give a rats ass about Ukraine's border, I care about mine. I got sacrificed for a third world border 55 years ago and it didnt amount to ^$^&. Whether Ukraine lives or dies I don't give a flying $##% because I'll still be breathing$ tomorrow. Maybe I'm a totally immoral POS but whatever, I couldn't care less

I guess my last post didn't go through so here goes again. I am disgusted by the likes of danfrodo and dan/california as they shout for war, war by my countrymen, because I feel that anybody hollering for war that loud obviously has never been to war. I have. I joined the USMC in 1966 and deployed to RVN in 1967. I was assigned to I Corps, 1/9 Marines. I understand sacrifice. I understand death. I do not understand these things when they do not benefit my nation in any way and that's what this amounts to. I joined, and I'll be the first to admit that it was not out of patriotism but out of "I'm gonna get drafted so %$^& it". I DID however think that I should contribute to the larger war against communism. That, unfortunately was BS too. It was all BS. My belief in America and what it "stands for" led to my son being a casualty of my own retarded beliefs as well. He joined in time for the glorious "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and hes now a mind$%#@ too. He was an 0311 in Fallujah and now 18 years after? Yeah, hes $##^ed. Rah rah USA. I'm sure I'll be belittled and talked down to over this but I could give a %^$' less, walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my son's shoes...

Yes they do. They can choose not to engage in an urban war that will cost thousands of innocent lives. Crimea and Donbass are not coming back for the foreseeable future and thousands or perhaps tens of thousands more Ukrainian civilian deaths isn't going to change that.
Bottom line is Russia is willing to fight for Ukraine and the west is not. Putin called the west's bluff and now it's time to cut losses and spare lives. Not prolong the conflict and the devastating consequences that will have for innocent Ukrainians and also vulnerable people across the globe from the economic fallout. Not to mention the ever increasing possibility  of war between nuclear powers.

Yeah, I totally agree that any country has the right to deploy weapons they see fit. However, US didn't think so in Cuban Crisis and now Putin doesn't think so either. 

Yes because what the world needs is more nuclear armed states. Particularly deeply unstable ones wedged between competing nuclear armed world powers.

I hope your friends in Ukraine are fine, @akd, but let's discuss the facts on this issue.
Biden didn't offer to negotiate on arms control in a way that would reasonably settle Russian concerns. Let's look at his letter, which can be found here:

Note all the qualifiers. First, it specifies offensive missile systems, which excludes Aegis Ashore (since the US will say it's a defensive system, and it will be - if you exclude the possibility of deception). Second, it distinguishes between Permanent and Non-Permanent Forces, and Combat and Non-Combat Missions.
Which means according to this, the US can have a "Temporary" force on "Training" missions in the territory of Ukraine, even if said force is quite large. Also,

The US also offers a "transparency mechanism" to check Aegis Ashore sites at two locations - Romania and Poland. Already in principle, if there's a third site, say in Turkey or Ukraine now or in the future, the US is not obliged to include them in the "transparency mechanism".
Such are the facts. Let's compare it with Putin's proposal.
First, it rejects the idea of permanent deployments of any kind on the new NATO members by the old NATO members, except by mutual consent. This avoids un-necessary disputes on Offensive v Defensive. The US can, under this framework, negotiate for Aegis Ashore (at least in theory and according to the text), under suitable conditions.
The implication is that this is about "offensive" missiles, but it makes the main criteria a more objective one - whether that missile can physically reach the other party's territory. SAMs can carry nukes.
is actually correctly written in its context. It just obliges countries to use their rights in NATO a certain way.
Note the care taken in this part. It actually allows NATO to continue small to medium scale exercises with Lithuania while limiting excess. So despite the screams of the Western press, at least as written out it's not asking for a wholesale abandonment of the new NATO members, Russia's feelings on them notwithstanding.
Note the care here. Once 15 NATO states (of 30) plus Russia ratifies this, the treaty enters into force ... BUT it won't bind 15 NATO states that didn't ratify. Don't be stupid - the 15 states must include the US, but it does mean NATO can strategize and have up to 15 states helping Ukraine.
One reason why there are "Kremlin fanboys" in this is that frankly from a third party view, the Russian proposals at least make sense and are not a "Trust Us" plan.

You guys ask why Putin attacked, I try to translate you reasons that were mentioned in Putin's and other officials speeches, your reaction is "emotional". Ok, I won't discomfort you.

Sorry, I have friends in Ukraine, and haven’t heard from one of them in over 24 hours (Mariupol). Lies are lies and should be called such.

Obviously not, as Euro Association provided closure of Ukrainian market for Russian goods and vice versa. That's what 2014 conflict was about. EU forced Yanukovich to sign it, he refused and was overthrown. 

I am afraid to say this, bringing hot political discussion. But. Did you hear about such countries as Yugoslavia, Iraq, Lybia, Syria? Syria was bombed by foreign aviation today, by the way. I couldn't help saying it. Not to justify invasion, not to advocate Putin, just saying.

This is dumb.  “Z” is not “Z” in Cyrillic, but rather “з”.

Jim Storr,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query about your characterization of Soviet artillery in a Cold War goes hot scenario as as "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude".  Regrettably, I thought your reply was disappointing.
First, the reference to my wife's father, a colonel of Soviet artillery and an instructor in an academy devoted to producing junior grade artillery officers in a four year program was intended to show that I had personal knowledge that such institutions existed (there were more than one such academy for artillery) and to show that the Soviets evidently took such an investment in training seriously. Your response was to say that while you didn't say that Soviet artillery officers were incompetent (true) the Soviet standards of training  were "generally poor", thus, along with technical backwardness, the best to be expected was "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude". If artillery officers can't hit a target then how competent can they be?
Referring to the Great Patriotic War ("Soviet artillery fire in the Great Patriotic War was often heavy but inaccurate and its fire planning crude") is relevant to the Cold War period in what way? Are you suggesting that the Soviets did not improve their artillery and practice and doctrine in any way from 1945 to the 1980's? Am I on firm ground here in thinking that the Soviets did improve their game in this area? If so, wouldn't accuracy be one of those things improved upon (that being the ultimate point of artillery) or are we to think that these guys are just too primitive and unsophisticated to "get it"?
You also offer the example of the Arabs trained by the Soviets and the Arabs sad and failed efforts as an indicator of the quality of Soviet artillery. If we can accurately judge the teaching nation's military by how well its students have done, then how do we evaluate the US military and the students its has taught: South Vietnamese Army (collapsed 1975), Georgian Army (collapsed 2008), and Afghan Army (collapsed 2021)?
I find it incredible that a nation that could build a nuclear arsenal and carry out a manned space program, even if not up to the technical level of sophistication of the United States, couldn't solve the problem of getting accurate artillery fire, which was solved back in WW1. It beggars belief.
Enough. I suspect that we are firmly lodged in our positions and not likely to yield, so I propose a "Christmas Truce" and there's and end to it.
Good luck with your next book (is the topic a secret?).
Regards
 

Jim Storr,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query about your characterization of Soviet artillery in a Cold War goes hot scenario as as "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude".  Regrettably, I thought your reply was disappointing.
First, the reference to my wife's father, a colonel of Soviet artillery and an instructor in an academy devoted to producing junior grade artillery officers in a four year program was intended to show that I had personal knowledge that such institutions existed (there were more than one such academy for artillery) and to show that the Soviets evidently took such an investment in training seriously. Your response was to say that while you didn't say that Soviet artillery officers were incompetent (true) the Soviet standards of training  were "generally poor", thus, along with technical backwardness, the best to be expected was "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude". If artillery officers can't hit a target then how competent can they be?
Referring to the Great Patriotic War ("Soviet artillery fire in the Great Patriotic War was often heavy but inaccurate and its fire planning crude") is relevant to the Cold War period in what way? Are you suggesting that the Soviets did not improve their artillery and practice and doctrine in any way from 1945 to the 1980's? Am I on firm ground here in thinking that the Soviets did improve their game in this area? If so, wouldn't accuracy be one of those things improved upon (that being the ultimate point of artillery) or are we to think that these guys are just too primitive and unsophisticated to "get it"?
You also offer the example of the Arabs trained by the Soviets and the Arabs sad and failed efforts as an indicator of the quality of Soviet artillery. If we can accurately judge the teaching nation's military by how well its students have done, then how do we evaluate the US military and the students its has taught: South Vietnamese Army (collapsed 1975), Georgian Army (collapsed 2008), and Afghan Army (collapsed 2021)?
I find it incredible that a nation that could build a nuclear arsenal and carry out a manned space program, even if not up to the technical level of sophistication of the United States, couldn't solve the problem of getting accurate artillery fire, which was solved back in WW1. It beggars belief.
Enough. I suspect that we are firmly lodged in our positions and not likely to yield, so I propose a "Christmas Truce" and there's and end to it.
Good luck with your next book (is the topic a secret?).
Regards
 

Jim Storr,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query about your characterization of Soviet artillery in a Cold War goes hot scenario as as "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude".  Regrettably, I thought your reply was disappointing.
First, the reference to my wife's father, a colonel of Soviet artillery and an instructor in an academy devoted to producing junior grade artillery officers in a four year program was intended to show that I had personal knowledge that such institutions existed (there were more than one such academy for artillery) and to show that the Soviets evidently took such an investment in training seriously. Your response was to say that while you didn't say that Soviet artillery officers were incompetent (true) the Soviet standards of training  were "generally poor", thus, along with technical backwardness, the best to be expected was "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude". If artillery officers can't hit a target then how competent can they be?
Referring to the Great Patriotic War ("Soviet artillery fire in the Great Patriotic War was often heavy but inaccurate and its fire planning crude") is relevant to the Cold War period in what way? Are you suggesting that the Soviets did not improve their artillery and practice and doctrine in any way from 1945 to the 1980's? Am I on firm ground here in thinking that the Soviets did improve their game in this area? If so, wouldn't accuracy be one of those things improved upon (that being the ultimate point of artillery) or are we to think that these guys are just too primitive and unsophisticated to "get it"?
You also offer the example of the Arabs trained by the Soviets and the Arabs sad and failed efforts as an indicator of the quality of Soviet artillery. If we can accurately judge the teaching nation's military by how well its students have done, then how do we evaluate the US military and the students its has taught: South Vietnamese Army (collapsed 1975), Georgian Army (collapsed 2008), and Afghan Army (collapsed 2021)?
I find it incredible that a nation that could build a nuclear arsenal and carry out a manned space program, even if not up to the technical level of sophistication of the United States, couldn't solve the problem of getting accurate artillery fire, which was solved back in WW1. It beggars belief.
Enough. I suspect that we are firmly lodged in our positions and not likely to yield, so I propose a "Christmas Truce" and there's and end to it.
Good luck with your next book (is the topic a secret?).
Regards
 

Jim Storr,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query about your characterization of Soviet artillery in a Cold War goes hot scenario as as "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude".  Regrettably, I thought your reply was disappointing.
First, the reference to my wife's father, a colonel of Soviet artillery and an instructor in an academy devoted to producing junior grade artillery officers in a four year program was intended to show that I had personal knowledge that such institutions existed (there were more than one such academy for artillery) and to show that the Soviets evidently took such an investment in training seriously. Your response was to say that while you didn't say that Soviet artillery officers were incompetent (true) the Soviet standards of training  were "generally poor", thus, along with technical backwardness, the best to be expected was "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude". If artillery officers can't hit a target then how competent can they be?
Referring to the Great Patriotic War ("Soviet artillery fire in the Great Patriotic War was often heavy but inaccurate and its fire planning crude") is relevant to the Cold War period in what way? Are you suggesting that the Soviets did not improve their artillery and practice and doctrine in any way from 1945 to the 1980's? Am I on firm ground here in thinking that the Soviets did improve their game in this area? If so, wouldn't accuracy be one of those things improved upon (that being the ultimate point of artillery) or are we to think that these guys are just too primitive and unsophisticated to "get it"?
You also offer the example of the Arabs trained by the Soviets and the Arabs sad and failed efforts as an indicator of the quality of Soviet artillery. If we can accurately judge the teaching nation's military by how well its students have done, then how do we evaluate the US military and the students its has taught: South Vietnamese Army (collapsed 1975), Georgian Army (collapsed 2008), and Afghan Army (collapsed 2021)?
I find it incredible that a nation that could build a nuclear arsenal and carry out a manned space program, even if not up to the technical level of sophistication of the United States, couldn't solve the problem of getting accurate artillery fire, which was solved back in WW1. It beggars belief.
Enough. I suspect that we are firmly lodged in our positions and not likely to yield, so I propose a "Christmas Truce" and there's and end to it.
Good luck with your next book (is the topic a secret?).
Regards
 

Some questions for Jim Storr.
Starting with something non-contentious. You indicated that you and your brother developed a method in your gaming that reduced the "God's Eye View" factor and it seems allowed for actual surprise to occur on the game board. Would you care to tell us what you did to achieve this?
In your footnotes you reference particular games you and your brother played (e,g. "Battle 164, 12 January 2003." - pg. 231). Are these games referred to in the footnotes available somewhere to examine? If so, where? If not, why the footnote?
More contentious:
On page 149 you state: "Soviet artillery fire would probably be very heavy but inaccurate, and its fire planning crude." I don't feel you properly justified this comment in the preceding text and to be frank I find it doubtful for two reasons. First the importance that artillery has played in Russian and Soviet military tactics. And second, your assessment suggests a low standard of training. I know that the Soviets had artillery academies devoted to producing artillery officers. These were academies with four year programs that produced company/battery grade officers with engineering degrees. I can't imagine that such an education would produce incompetents. My wife's deceased father was a colonel in the Soviet artillery and was on the faculty of such an institution. He was a university mathematics student when he was recruited into the Soviet Army. Perhaps I am wrong, so can you explain why an army that prized artillery, seems to have placed it high in their tactical system and seems to have invested quite a bit in the education of its artillery officers would produce and be satisfied with such dismal results as "... heavy but inaccurate [fire], and its fire planning crude"?
Regards.