SteelRain

Ekhmm sole purpose of admitting Turkey was to contain Soviets. And what has Saudi Arabia to NATO?
You also completelly ignore people like Balts, Poles, Romanians etc. For them (especially Balts) NATO is their literal lifeline, only bulwark against barbarity we see now. Hundreds of milions of people are at stake if we ever go Russia to behave like they always did. Which, sadly, some Westerners and Southerners are ready to accept.
No other european country in modern history was more imperialistic and violent to their neighours than Russia. Maybe Turkey, occassionaly. And Germany going crazy. But none was so consistent in its claims and darwinistic in execution. Look at the sheer size of terrain they still claim to be "theirs" at some point. Nobody do this anymore, but hey- it's Russia.

You know, had the invasion not occurred, i would have largely agreed with you, but....since the invasion has occurred, and suddenly everyone in Europe (aside from the Balkans), must confront the idea of war and military conflict once more, with EE feeling pensive about the faithfulness of its Western European allies, NATO serves to defend Europe, and especially Eastern Europe. 
For all the idea of Russia suffering massive damage in Ukraine, lets not underscore the fact Ukraine has been severely damaged. No state in EE wants to suffer any of that, and NATO remains the best guarantee at warding off Russian threats. 
The damage Russia is inflicting on a nation of 44 million people, with hundreds of millions suffering side effects from the economic damage of the food conflict does not endorse your viewpoint. 

Your definitions are categorically wrong.  A dictator with actual 95% support isn't a dictator but a phenomenally popular leader.  An autocrat maybe.   A Dictator in reality relies on brute force power to stay on top.  Pinochet, Kim Jong un, Robert Mugabe etc. State control of the media and education systems, full control of the state police and military institutions, judiciary etc ensures control.  
And what the heck is that "smoothie sipping leftist" comment?  I don't think you are finding in the US that the "smoothie sipping leftists" are Putin's main apologists.  Granted the left can have some annoying as hell pontificators, they however haven't been the ones most vocally decrying the US gov't support for Ukraine.  Who within the French political scene has been arguing against supporting Ukraine?  Same in most other western states.  Gimme a smoothie and arm the hell out of Ukraine. (actually,  i prefer coffee and wine).

Just made me smile, the Germans acting quickly...
 

I would put favorable odds on the Leopard 1 any day. Neither are ideal for modern warfare. The armor of both the T-62M (and I think I saw some T-62MVs on the train as well) and the Leopard 1A5 is worthless against any modern AT weapon. And both have underpowered guns by modern standards. But at least the Leopard 1A5 has thermal sights and a fire-control system.

The note about part of the government being paralyzed by fear of nuclear escalation makes a lot of sense.  Germans older than about 50 grew up expecting their country (whether east or west) to become a nuclear battleground because of the USSR and the US.  Even in the US you could see or read analysis in the regular news about how many German towns and of what size would get obliterated by tactical nukes of various yields.  And then Chernobyl happened and heightened that anxiety.  It was big in the late 80s when I spent some time there shortly after Chernobyl, and that generation (my age and a bit older) is now in power.  It even is a major theme in the TV show Dark, where the AKW (nuclear power plant) is at the center of the supernatural happenings.  Germany made a deal with the devil (Russia) to be able to continue using fossil fuels while they develop renewables, rather than go full on nuclear like France, and now there's a faction that is still tied to the root nuclear fears that led to that deal. 

So we have writers at home adding nothing to the information they recieve, and reporters on the ground with no useful information in the pieces they send.  The answer seems to be 'journalism'.  You can make plenty out of decently sourced material, and find out a lot from direct access to a country or the right people, if your intention is to inform.
Confused business sense is obviously a driver behind many problems: 'paper 'x' already provides good analysis, we need to provide something different and eye-catching if we are going to get people switching subscriptions.'  And as always, stupid people.

wait, Ukrainians aren't white anymore?  Gosh, I can't keep up.   First I find out the Irish, Italians, and Poles are now 'white', at least in the US, when they certainly weren't when they came to the US.  And now the Ukrainians aren't white anymore?  Does this White Club have any rules at all?  It's almost as if they are just making it up on the fly -- but that would be ridiculous, right?   I mean, if one's whole world view revolves around this I would expect their would be some scientifically solid basis, right?  I mean, who would just do this based on nothing?  That would be really stupid.

Droog, Where's My БМП?
 
 

@dan/california
Roderich Kiesewetter says, that Scholz wanting Ukraine to lose the war by not delivering what Ukrainians want and instead offer stuff that is nice to have, but wasn't asked for by Ukrainians. To emphasize his claim he mentions the Gepard SPAAG. The Ukrainians never had the Gepards's on their list. They asked for IFV's and Tanks. The Gepard offer was made by the industry and picked up by the politics. He also mentions that 100 Marder IFV's and 100 Leopard Tanks are ready for delivery by the industry and additional 30 Marders could come from the Bundeswehr. 
One of the other Guests, Carlo Masala, says that the SPD and Scholz tried to protract the delivery of heavy weapons in fear of nuclear escalation until they were forced to deliver something, cause the rest of the world was already delivering too. He also notes that a part of the German government is paralyzed by the threat of nuclear escalation. 
*edit
Basically there is that hazy mood throughout the show that parts of the current administration, Scholz and parts of the EU would go back to the pre war status with Russia as soon as possible and that this is the case for all the half assed proposals.
Also noteworthy is the contribution by Jan van Aken from the "Die Linke", a Left wing party that is mostly known for its pro Russian politics, who says all the sanctions don't work as well as they should and that they are bypassed regularly. He says that in order to show real support for Ukraine, the EU can and should do much more to get independent of Russian resource delivery.
Hope this helps.
 

Another CM relevant one:
About halfway through, the tanks start to experience familiar pathfinding issues.

Also, someone has dumped a lot of artillery on that area and- took me a minute staring at the pixels- at least one of the tanks starts off with tank riders aboard.

Thank you for posting this. It paints a very dire picture for the force level of Russian infantry in Ukraine. It reads like some of the German WW2 memoirs where the situation was desperate and unit sizes were in name only. I also think it’s raises the question of how desperate manning levels must be on the Ukrainian side of things as well, at least in this part of the front. Surely they have a good picture of Russian force levels by now, that they would be able to launch successful attacks of their own (on this part of the front, I know there are local counterattacks elsewhere). The battles described seem to be small groups of units punching at each other in the dark over villages, hoping to achieve local success, rather then any set piece operation. 

Second part of this important account from a Russian soldier is up:
 

Eh - wut?
Ritually and publicly humiliate the President of Germany?
You think that wouldn't be utterly destructive, pointless and immature?
For sure I think it was silly for Zelensky to not invite him. That was dumb. Zelensky's job is to save Ukraine, asap. Germany is the USA of Europe. You need something big, expensive and right now? Better get the Frankenfurters on your side. I thought it was very amateur of Zelensky. I understand the emotions but hes gotta think past that. Ive lived and worked in Germany; politeness, professionalism and cool-headedness are deep cultural characteristics for them, and they absolutely dont appreciate bad manners, excitableness and personal slights, especially in a business transaction. Especially then.
Zelensky getting personal means he didn't and doesn't "get" the Germans. For Ukrainians, this is a national war of survival, a moral crusade (I agree). For Germany, this is geopolitical business, transactional and must have mutual profit (Real Politik). Not understanding that reality, not being able to view from the German side, was a strategic failure. 
Insulting the German President, a fellow Head of State*, has increased German reluctance which just lengthens the war and leads directly to more dead Ukrainians. Zelensky will need to maneuver around that, or straight up apologize in some shape or form (The stress of war is a reasonable excuse).
Why add political and diplomatic friction to the success of your National Defense? Not smart.
 
*You'll notice I'm talking about the office of President, not the man, Steinmeier, who I personally feel is a human weasel flawed and compromised, yet was selected by the German electorate (via the Federal Convention) to represent Germany. But as said in Band of Brothers:
Especially if, gratingly, you need that two-legged rodent Politician to do something vital for you.

That isn't "carried by the NYT". That's the Asia Times "quoting" the NYT. And I trust the Asia Times "quoting" about as far as I could spit Vladimir Putin.

How long will Erdogan resist against Finland & Sweden joining NATO? Or to phrase it better: what does he want for his agreement and will he get it?
 
Sorry, can't let that slip. No, the EU does not act similar to Russia. There are only some political parties who would like to have a more authoritarian kind of state and this is opposed by the EU.
Funnily, the same people who are opposed to the EU are more than happy to take money from it.

A little skepticism about military spending is understandable after the last two wars. But it is worth remembering that Ukraine is fundamentally different from Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two wars had absolutely no influence on our security or our larger strategic interests. We lost Afghanistan just about as hard as it is possible to lose a war, and it ultimately meant nothing. Our position is not the slightest bit weaker for our defeat, which I think really drives home just how much wasted effort went into delaying it. Iraq we somehow managed to win, in the sense that the government we installed is still in place without our continued presence being needed to prop it up. But our position in the world is not the slightest bit stronger for that victory. The money, effort, and lives we poured into those wars really were completely wasted (and I really hope my words here are interpreted as more tragic than callous). So yeah, I get it. I understand feeling a bit jaded about any sort of military spending.
But, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine is absolutely central to our security and our interests. The outcome of this war really will make a big difference to our security and position in the world. Every dime we put into aiding the Ukrainians goes directly to improving the security of our European allies and weakening one of our greatest and oldest adversaries. And frankly Ukraine will be cheaper overall than Iraq and Afghanistan (probably). We spent north of 2 trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan (~2.5 trillion based on my crude google efforts, assuming the top results were correct). I think we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, but I doubt it will take anything on the order of trillions of dollars to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (Russia would have to sustain the fight for years for it to breach the trillions for us, and I don't think that's on the table for them). Although, I would still be in favor of helping Ukraine even if it turned out to be more expensive overall than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Granting that it may take a few hundred billion more to rebuild Ukraine after the war, and that might top a trillion overall when added to the wartime aid. But it would be money well spent. Not only is there the ethical side, where that money would go towards improving the lives of 40+ million people. But it would also be a huge benefit for us strategically, as we would almost certainly gain a longtime ally in Ukraine in just the part of the world where another ally could really matter. And because I have heard a million and a half people say that we shouldn't be engaged in nation building let me preempt any complaints that you may have on that front. This would be completely different from Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of nation building. In Iraq and Afghanistan we were trying to build up countries with populations that viewed us as invaders (because, let's be honest, that's exactly what we were). In Ukraine we would be giving the Ukrainian government the money to rebuild their own country after helping them to repel their invaders. So the local resistance to nation building that we encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan simply wouldn't be present in Ukraine.

I think, we all in the west. Are all the winners, of an out of gas Russian army! For a few years to come, at least!

Having heard on the BBC (who just this morning got around to the famous bridging fiasco as breaking news) about how Russia is threatening to encircle Sievierodonetsk, I decided to summarise how the Russian 'threatening to encircle' reports have changed over the war so far:

Its on the to-do list.  Right after "combined arms" and "logistics", and slightly in front of "do not try the same water crossing more than three times [baby steps]"

"When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war"
- General Stanley McChrystal
 

One of the reasons (besides absolutely refusing to do it) that I didn't progress up the management chain at "The Firm" (yes they do talk like that) was my unwillingness to learn the MCK way of PowerPoint.  You must always have 3 bullet point options... so I asked, what if you are discussing an on/off switch?  That earned me a very sour look.
Then I put this up in my workspace.

Augh!  I'll be seeing 2 x 2s next.
Be warned, @sburke and I 'decided' a few pages back that the entire global management consultant corps should be 'engaged' on the Donetsk front... with one bolt action rifle for every 2 empty suits (that's about as much real world technology as they could figure out how to use).
So congratulations, I think we just found the general to lead that legion of the damned into hell! 💀
 
 
 

Imagine that. A PH 2000 can land 5 grenades at the same moment on it's target. The Russians literally won't know what hit them.