NamEndedAllen
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NamEndedAllen
-
-
6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
Well, that lies most of all in the hands of 'Easterners' themselves with both Warsaw and Budapest causing most of the problems for the EU, not only with regard to democracy and human rights, but also the fact that Poland 80 years after the war demands 200,000,000,000 zlotys (€1.3 trillion) war reparations of Germany....
I even consider it possible that Berlin has more worries about Poland, than about Russia.
It’s these sorts of exchanges over the years that encourage too many Americans (regrettably!) to embrace extremist isolationism.
-
6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
Because they aren't aggressive enough and don't invest as much in their armed forces as the US would like?
Nah. NATO’s Reanimation is seen as a major accomplishment here - even largely as bipartisan, and a reversal of at least some of USA failures. Not to mention that it is intrinsically a win for the post WWII stability that has enabled economic growth. Imperfect, challenges along the way. But proven by events to still be of great value.
-
6 hours ago, Grigb said:
Steve, iirc, discussed the issues about mobilizing various combat and support specialists, the training needed, and the likely failures Russia is accomplishing. I’ve wondered about the other end of the pipeline: bizarre mobilizing of civilian specialists, those in important industry positions, the technical expertises, even in military production positions…all this being ground up in simply incomprehensible madness.
It’s as if Putin is bent on doing the Allies’ work for us all. Tearing down Russia from within, wittingly or not!
-
6 hours ago, JonS said:
The US has a /terrible/ track record with puppet regimes. It's one of the things they just cannot do. Maybe none of /this/ would have happened, but a whole different raft of bedlam would have ensued.
Puppets, and cricket, are just a no as far as the US is concerned.
Out of likes, but terribly true. Lessons learned yet??!
-
6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
I just follow the facts to where they lead. He said his motivation was to expose the illegal and immoral use of hacking and tapping, yet he said nothing about Russia did even though he had access to all of that information. And then he had the balls to spout off about these topics while living in Russia! No, sorry, what I've said about him isn't harsh enough. He might have started off as a sanctimonious egotistical arse, but he wound up being a major asset for one of the worst violators of Human Rights on the planet. As evidence by the genocidal war his new home country is fighting against Ukraine.
By running off to Russia he voluntarily agreed to be an asset even if it didn't start out that way.
Wrong. He would have received a very fair trial. The problem is his actions were so clearly criminal in nature and thoroughly documented that he would have gone to jail for sure. "You do the crime, you do the time" is a very fair system.
Now, obviously he didn't want to be held accountable for his criminal and treasonous activity, so of course he sought refuge elsewhere. And he gladly accepted sanctuary from a country that is the exact opposite of what he said was so important to him... freedom from surveillance and freedom of expression. I find it both amusing and ironic that he would have had more freedom if he was in a US prison than in Russia. In a way, I'm happier with him in Russia than in a US prison. It's a worse punishment and I his life is not sustained by my tax money.
Russia extended the offer of sanctuary because he was one of their assets. This is what Russia does to continue poking an adversary in the eye.
Steve
Well said indeed!
Only the Agencies involved know the full extent of the damage Snowden wrought. But the closer you are able to look, the greater the harm done to not just the USA - the Allies too. The betrayal also aided terrorists and organized crime by helping them further evade detection. But harm to Russia? Any? No? There was no damaging information concerning Russia? Then this was a successful Russian op sowing confusion to its enemies. Regardless of the mindset of its instrument. -
6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
With that I agree, Huba, but mentioning the nazi victims is below the belt in this respect. I'm all in favor of sending everything we can and yes, depending on Russian energy was unbelievably stupid, but judge Germany on what it is now, not on what it has been or has done 80 years ago.
Guys, you are both wonderful people. Now abandon all hope of changing the past.
-
6 hours ago, Peregrine said:
Maybe they were just standing near the edge of an undersea shelf and accidently fell off.
6 hours ago, Butschi said:Yeah, so funny that the energy prises will rise even more so that the poorer people can't afford heating any more. I'm laughing my *ss off.
Smoking while underground?
-
9 hours ago, CAZmaj said:
I was just referred to this tweet by Madi Kapparov.
Based on my studies of history and years of residing and working in Moscow, St. Peterburg, Budapest, Belgrade, Prague, Warsaw, and Podgorica, and traveled extensively in that region of Central and Eastern Europe, but also in Russian Federation Far East (Tomsk) and Kazakhstan, I would agree with most of Madi’s points in his tweet:
Nazism is mainstream in Russia.
What is Nazism? Abstract away from the distractions of economics and markets. Nazism is a form of fascism founded on the delusional belief of one group of people, generally based on ethnicity, being superior to another group of people. 1/
So too the Russians, who have been absorbed by the culture of their ethnic exceptionalism and historic revisionism promoting their ethnic superiority in all aspects, think that they are more privileged than any other ethnicity or nation. 2/
The Russians think that no rules apply to them. They think that they can do whatever they please because they are exceptional.
When the USSR collapsed the new Russian government fought very hard to become a successor state to the Soviet Union. 3/
Much like the USSR became a successor state to the original Russian empire, the Russian federation had to become a successor state to the USSR. Ideologically it was critical to them to preserve imperial continuity of exceptionalism and cultural and historical superiority. 4/
Without the succession, Russia would have had become equal to the former colonies, such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. That was simply unacceptable to the Russians. They also maintained their centuries-long militarism, as it all feeds into their Russian exceptionalism worldview. 5/
In the 1990s Russia was in dire economic straights and it was completely irrational to maintain a huge military and a large nuclear arsenal. But it was culturally and ideologically of an absolute necessity to the Russians. Why? It is part of their exceptionalism beliefs. 6/
Long before Putin, the war in Transnistria happened. The Russians then had no doubt in the necessity to protect ethnic Russian "separatists" in Moldova, whom the empire moved there over the years. However, just a few years later they went to war with Chechen separatists. 7/
Transnistria was acceptable, while Chechen separatism, a liberation movement, was unacceptable to the Russians. The Russians apply no rules to themselves. You see, they think they are special, exceptional, and superior to the rest of the world. 8/
Chechen independence was absolutely repugnant to the Russians. Negotiations with the Chechens were absolutely unacceptable for an average Russian, until major military defeats and economic strains in 1996. The Russians returned in 1999 to put the "savages" in their place. 9/
Any suggestions for Chechen independence from abroad faced an aggressive push back from the Russians. It is all driven by Russian exceptionalism deeply rooted in their culture. 10/
For the Russians, the protectionism of their empire and their imperial ambitions come naturally. They are an organic part of their individual and national psyche. 11/
Over the years, I have witnessed countless times how aggressively the Russians react to any attempts at an independent foreign policy by the former colonies. Typically, such attempts are called "ungrateful." 12/
The Russians expect their former colonies to be grateful. Grateful for what? In their perverted and revised historical view, they did "so much" for the former colonies, they "civilized" them. 13/
When the former colonies do something independently from Russia, the Russians feel betrayed. “How could they? We did so much for them.” Such Russian behavior is axiomatic. They will hold a grudge and retaliate when an opportunity presents itself. 14/
The reality is that the Russians demand the former colonies to be grateful for the misery, death, destruction, starvation, and sometimes assimilation. Such is the Russian way to “civilize” the “savages.” 15/
The Russians also demand the rest of the world to be grateful to them for the victory over Nazi Germany. In their worldview it is the ethnic Russians *alone* who defeated German Nazism in 1945. “The Great Patriotic War” became one of the pillars of Russian exceptionalism. 16/
Anyone who questions the victory in WW2 the ethnic Russians appropriated will face self-righteous anger and a flurry of insults from them. However, it is unclear why the world should be grateful to them: the USSR was allied to Germany till the very first day of Barbarossa. 17/
Should I even mention the brutal Russian occupation of Eastern Europe following the end of WW2? The Russians expect gratitude for that too. The Russians demand gratitude from the world and from the former colonies, they are special, they are exceptional. 18/
2014 was a point of no return. That year centuries long Russian chauvinism regressed into Russian Nazism. I will ignore Crimea. Russia manufactured oppression of Russian speakers in the Donbas and invaded with “separatists.” That is just a few years after the Chechen Wars. 19/
Again, Russian “separatism” is acceptable, Chechen separatism is unacceptable, because rules do not apply to the Russians. They are exceptional. They allow themselves to do what is unimaginable to them if others do it. That is the essence of Russian Nazism. 20/
I think there are no “good” or “bad” Russians. The distinction is meaningless. There are however sheepishly obedient Russians and zealous z-supporters, averaging out into a regular Russian Nazi. 21/
Germany was zombified by Nazi propaganda for 12 years. The Russians were on their path to Nazism for decades if not centuries. There are no easy fixes. There will be no protests. Changes in the Russian government would solve nothing. The road ahead will be long and difficult. 22/
However Nazi Germany was defeated. So too will be the current version of the Russian empire. Their Nazi worldviews will have to be shattered. The sooner the world realizes it is everyone’s problem, the better.
Ukraine will win as they have no other choice. 23/23
Excellent thoughts on the fundamental nature of Nazism. Which is enjoying its perennial rebirth around the world. Defined as you have, it can never be eradicated, only unequivocally opposed and defeated. For a time. What you describe, the hyper idealization of one’s ethnicity and history uber all others - combined with might makes right, is unfortunately embedded to one extent or another in humans across the world. Most people reject this tendency in themselves as they mature, and reject it for their country. Except in sports! But it never goes completely away. Something too about the evolutionary value of group solidarity for survival, “us against them” survival mechanisms, all gone amok. Social stresses aggravate it and lead to the emergence of torchlight parades and chants of you will not replace us, as in Charlottesville USA. And like-minded groups worldwide seeing Russia as the largest white supremacist nation in the world.
So we see the parallels to the rise of Nazism in the 1930’s, the invasion of neighbors, the concentration camps mentality, the genocidal rants, the disdain for life. Details of course differ. Histories and individuals differ. But they lead too often to the same dark places.
For me, this is why appeasement of this streak of human nature in whatever form is among the greatest dangers civilization faces. Abandon all hope of changing the past. But we must find ways to put this current eruption back in its cage. Until next time.
-
12 hours ago, dan/california said:
The U.N. is all but worthless, and yet necessary. It is useful to have a place where countries that really don't like each other can confer somewhat easily. And it has some capacity to make things better in parts of the that are so poor no one cares about the specifics, or the interests of all the big powers happen to align. We would probably have to reinvent it if we shut it down. BUT...
NATO, Five Eyes plus a South Korea, Japan, and maybe on the down low Taiwan, need to start talking about a world wide club/alliance with standards. How to do this is sort of beyond the scope of this thread and the current war in Ukraine. But it is time to think about a world wide alliance of the decent. If the same drawing power the EU exerts could be crafted it might help a lot of countries climb the development ladder without detouring into unpleasant authoritarianism. It is hard to overstate how much the attraction of joining the EU has helped and shaped Ukraine.
Out of likes, but yes. Too many problems and challenges and opportunities that cross too many lines on a map to continue to act as if we just learned how to organize something more than big hostile city states when such matters arise.
Apologies for what is veering further off track. Does stem from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an implication about another, wider step about the challenge policies toward a post war Russia. But beyond this thread’s scope?
-
12 hours ago, JonS said:
No, but I do see the value in not letting either 'side' have unfettered sway.
Russia should probably be out since while it made sense to include them post-war, that justification has long since evaporated AND their behaviour this past decade takes them out of the adult pool.
But, if we start down that road, who does 'deserve' the veto? Do France and the UK keep theirs ... I mean ... really? What about India, or Pakistan, Japan or Germany? Nigeria? What's the basis - has nukes, big economy, large population, lots of territory, is space-faring, large merchant marine, big military, lots of spending on military, popular vote, geographic spread, number of invasions or interventions per year, years without conducting an invasion, etc.
It's tricky, yo
Actually, no. I do not see in today’s world two “sides” and Russia doesn’t really represent an equal and opposite group of anything. Russia isn’t “United”, it has utterly trashed the charter it was bound to. Lastly, China exercises the veto power - it only takes one - for the latter day “other side”, if there is one. The world is much different now than the era that you are using as a template. In any event, having Russia a part of a “Security” detachment for a group of nations trying to work together (and succeeding through a number of their other facets such as WHO - eradicating smallpox, UNESCO, UNICEF, and the CFC Montreal.Protocol etc)…
is like having a grad school seminar in a locked room with a serial killer inside.
-
10 minutes ago, sburke said:
the world is bipolar? Don't we have meds for that now?
Psst! Over here.
-
21 minutes ago, JonS said:
But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handfull from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.
So you could say it's working as designed.
21 minutes ago, JonS said:But if you view the world as bi-polar (which it more or less has been since 1945) that makes sense: USSR/Russia (plus a small handfull from China)= US, UK, France, and it's about 50/50.
So you could say it's working as designed.
Hey, Jon, thanks for your replies.
Mathematically , that is a good point. However I wouldn’t say strongly hobbling the UNSC was the design or the intent. Certainly the charge was to act as mandated by the Charter. The vetoes have too often simply stood in the way of the Charter.
But are you saying that you prefer keeping Russia as a permanent member? I had been considering whether there is actually any means to remove Russia. That the invasion of Ukraine and the war crimes we can see unfolding are the grounds for so doing. We may disagree about the record of the past vetoes by Russia, but to me that is a secondary to this war. And would be an unexpected benefit to the daily tragedies and outrages taking place. However a discussion about that benefit might not be best here?
(Not sure why the double quote!)
-
2 hours ago, JonS said:
So, a couple of points here.
1) I'm not sure the UNSC is functionally analogous to the Senate. For one thing, there is membership - Senators represent a different constituency than congresspeople, whereas members of the UNSC are representing literally the same thing as their national colleagues in the GA.
2) there are loads of nations that function just fine without a separate upper and lower house - an upper house is not a pre-req for good governance. But AIUI the UNSC doesn't really serve the same function as an upper house anyway; it doesn't exist to 'ratify' decisions by the GA. If I recall correctly, the UNSC exists to avoid a situation where you have - to mangle an old expression - 143 grumpy sheep and a wolf voting on dinner. The UN would never have gotten off the ground if the 40-odd tiddly little nations of the Pacific - for example - could work as a block to outvote, say, the US on the urgent need to actually address climate change. Giving the superpowers a, well, a super power seemed like the best way to address that, as imperfect as it has been. Russia has this year thrown up a glaring problem with the UNSC - ie, what to do when one of the permanent members goes rogue. Up to this point the permanent members were implicitly assumed to be the adults, and could be trusted to make good decisions for the kids. That assumption is taking a bit of a beating right now, but I don't think that eliminating the UNSC or permanent members is the way to resolve it. I don't have a good alternative to it, but I can see that if the UNSC was abolished, then a few years down the track you could easily get snowballing, where one 'side' in an argument at the UN starts accreting votes, to the point where they can pretty much force through any decisions, mandates, and sanctions that they want. The permanent members currently provide a short-circuit to prevent that happening.
3) I'm not sure that comparing a mildly dysfunctional collaborative body with a wildly ineffective legislative one is a good way to go, except that in both cases they work great in theory. You know what they say: in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Addendum: I know you aren't arguing to eliminate the UNSC, but that option has been floated here in the last day or so. I also recognise it might seem that I have sort-of argued both for and against the UNSC, but that isn't quite right: I think that the UNSC serves useful purposes AND I know that deliberative bodies can function effectively without an 'upper house'.
In point of specific fact, I agree to a large extent. But I am not making a one to one rigid identification of the USA Congress and the UN GA - UNSC relationship. The point is that the US Senate until lately has functioned as the “cooling chamber” for initiatives by the House. James Madison said the Senate is a “fence against” periodic eruptions of heated emotions and poor judgement in the House. The Security Council broadly speaking functions in a similar fashion, in the sense that if the General Assembly were the ruling authority of the UN, the UN itself would quite likely soon end. I don’t think we need or should take the space here to list the reasons, especially since it would drag this even further off topic.
But the viability and resulting value of removing Russia as a permanent member is my question. Certainly that would not solve all the UN’s woes. However like the Senate, where the veto power nowadays is the constantly used 60 vote filibuster threshold - the veto power of a sole permanent member is and has been used and abused by Russia far more than any other member. For perspective, Russia has used the veto 122 times since UN’s founding. That is nearly as many as ALL the vetos by the other four members, combined. There in a nutshell is a major reason the UN has become increasingly ineffective in achieving the goals of its Charter and the respect of the world.
“The UN Charter mandates the UN and its member states to maintain international peace and security, uphold international law, achieve "higher standards of living" for their citizens, address "economic, social, health, and related problems", and promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".[2] As a charter and constituent treaty, its rules and obligations are binding on all members and supersede those of other treaties” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations
-
1 hour ago, Butschi said:
Seriously, the major problem with the UN Security Council is not Russia. It is the Security Council itself in general and especially having permanent members with veto powers. The latter being in that position by no other merit than having nukes.
Veto power is nothing but a "get out of jail for free" card. Yes, right now Russia is the culprit but next time it can be any other veto power. China, USA under Trump 2.0, France with LePen, etc.
I see your point, however having only the General Assembly without the UNSC is analogous to the USA Congress with only the House of Representatives. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia doesn’t belong on the UNSC any longer regardless of whether that would solve ALL the UN’s or Council’s ills. It would move the UNSC closer to being able to address some of its own issues - or ANY issues.
Rather like the war itself, I see no single actual silver bullets that can alone solve any of our greatest challenges today.
-
The time may be ripe for working on a solution to one major problem with the UN Security Council: Russia. Russia has clearly trashed the spirit and likely some of the letters of UN rules. But on its own UNSC cannot remove a permanent member - Russia - because such members may veto any of its actions. The other route is removal from the UN itself. But iirc that process needs both the General Assembly AND the UNSC approval. Back to square one.
However…Russia was never made a permanent member of the UNSC. It holds the former Soviet Union’s seat as “the inheritor” of that deceased member. Is there a route to a successful challenge that the process by which Russia occupies the former USSR seat was invalid? BTW the PRC China holds its seat in a different way, again IIRC. The UN simply chose to recognize one delegation over the other (Nationalist) delegation.
China is another potential roadblock via a veto of *any* approach. Today. But the art of compromise (“politics”) could have at least a chance in that instance. And circumstances change.
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
It really comes down to one thing:
Is there a set of circumstances where Putin might believe that his only chance of personal survival is using a tac nuke?
Thanks Steve. Agreed! Indeed, there must be. Those and his beliefs must be *the* fundamental, underlying questions of this war. We here speculate about his state of mind and make projections onward from our various favored assumptions. I do think there is at least one place where the West’s very best understanding of Putin’s mindset exists: CIA and DIA. Profiles developed over years of varying circumstances and results have honed their best estimates. I am *guessing* that the use of the previously unused term “catastrophic” was carefully chosen with all that in mind.
As always, to what effect only time will tell. And not forgetting Putin’s KGB background, and as others have mentioned, Nixon’s use of the “I am unbalanced and might do *anything*” tactic.
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
It's all good, but we have to keep in mind that Putin was warned about serious consequences for starting the war in the first place. That didn't stop him from doing it.
The disaster of this mobilization effort will hopefully get us going towards regime change quicker than he can contemplate hitting the button.
Steve
Yes, agreed. He was warned. About conventionally invading a non-NATO country. However those warnings were about sanctions and sending modern *defensive* weapons to Ukraine. Light years away from warning about “catastrophic” consequences that can in no way be assumed not just by Putin, but by his military and civilian leadership that this time they would not face the full force of the military arrayed against Russia. And I imagine the private and back channel communications we know have taken place to have been much less diplomatic. And couched in the context of crossing the one single red line that *all * the powers that be have insisted not be crossed.
Here in the cheap seats, we cannot know the final decision policy of Washington or the Allies. But I would bet on general agreement that the punishment for using a nuclear weapon in anger today must be so clearly “catastrophic” for the attacker that other nations watching with interest have zero doubt about just how very very bad an idea that would be. In fact, one could imagine the core message to Russia:being just that: We are so sorry. This isn’t a civilized, gentlemanly proportional response situation. Understand, this is nothing personal. It’s just not good for business. Which you won’t be in any longer. Because this will not stand.
Here in the cheap seats, I realize this is just an opinion, one without the weight and responsibility that weigh on those who must make such a monumental decision.
-
I thought we had been beating the nuke policy donkey to a thin bloody but necessarily undecided pulp. Perhaps this USA statement will at least reassure some - and possibly frighten others. Here is Jake Sullivan:
“US national security adviser says: ‘Any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia’
“We have communicated directly, privately and at very high levels to the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia, that the US and our allies will respond decisively, and we have been clear and specific about what that will entail,” Sullivan told CBS’s Face The Nation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/25/us-russia-ukraine-war-nuclear-weapons-jake-sullivan
And the other major USA news sources including NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, and the internet sites like the Hill, Bloomberg, Newsweek. FOX strangely led by saying Sullivan was unsure about designating Russia a state sponsor of terrorism.President Joe Biden’s administration has privately told the Kremlin that any use of nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine would have “catastrophic consequences” for Russia, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin renewed his warnings of a nuclear threat last week as he mobilized hundreds of thousands of reservists after Ukrainian forces recaptured a swath of Russian-occupied territory. Those nuclear threats are “a matter that we have to take deadly seriously,” Sullivan said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
-
5 hours ago, billbindc said:
Douglas MacGregor is a hack, an appeaser and an all around toerag. Print that article off and use it as toilet paper. It's about what it's worth.
And with that, off to happy hour. Cheers.
Insult to toilet paper. Fine softwood trees died for that vital product! His opinions…
-
5 hours ago, dan/california said:
Anyone want to give odds these poor serfs, and they really might as well BE serfs, show up at the front in summer uniforms? just in time for some nice cold fall rains? Of course I am optimistically assuming they will have any uniforms at all...
“A mob with guns”.
iirc, that was a ret. USA General’s assessment of the Russian Army much earlier in this debacle. -
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
the entire post-conflict thing is something to unpack, but we need to get there first.
Indeed! Apart from the Capt’s range of more nuanced post war scenarios and the more aggressive varied positions here, the battlefield has a big vote. Right now, it looks as if Ukraine is making concerted efforts to be holding a big time Royal straight flush at the negotiation table. They and/or Russia and their mutual interlocutors may already be quietly speaking about the shape and size of that table. But won’t the scale and impact of Ukraine’s battlefield victories be the loudest voice? (assuming that the near unanimous opinion here that Russia will not be making a Hail Mary game-ending drive).
What we don’t know is how and when Ukraine’s counter-offensives will culminate. Until then our discussions here are largely academic, and need not boil over. Far too much has already been spilled on the battlefield. My opinion, worth less than you paid for it is that Ukraine has the deciding vote on when open negotiations can start, although certainly not without advice from the Allies. IIRC, fighting continued during drawn out negotiations between North Vietnam and the USA. So both may be carried out in parallel. The currently winning side needn’t call a cease fire until it is good and ready. Does Ukraine definitely see 2014 “borders” as that time? Don’t know.
if settlements were made only by the pure light of reason, perhaps the abstractions of fully rational outcomes would always be the result. Then the Capt’s painstakingly measured best outcome and future projections might somehow come about - AND be stable. Bitterly fought WWI did not end that way. But an unconditional WWII type surrender by Russia is not in the cards, even if they withdrew their various forces. Is there a plausible version though? Collapse appears to be the only Walk Off scenario. And most here see that as either a black hole of misery and nukes, or an even worse replacement than Putin at the helm. Again the Capt has an off-ramp vision of a terrible dictator of a rather broken state, but a sorta kinda tame enough one that we could “ manage” and do business with. Maybe that’s the best we could *reasonably* hope for. Stable? Well, how long did Putin take before beginning to subvert, invade and reduce Russia’s neighboring countries?
-
13 hours ago, dan/california said:
Well when we want his friend at CGSC to turn off the cloaking device and join the discussion it behooves us to be nice to him...
I tried. Concerns about sorting the contradictory thicket of work rules about posting on social media have already ended his prolific sim and other related internet articles from ten or fifteen years ago. Which I reluctantly admitted weren’t awful. Even tried a threat that Aragorn and LongLeftFlank might pay him a persuasive “visit”. He remains unmoved. Honestly, it’s too bad. He has experience pertaining to this thread that would be of interest.
-
1 hour ago, dan/california said:
Well when we want his friend at CGSC to turn off the cloaking device and join the discussion it behooves us to be nice to him...
He does jealously guard that cloaking device. But I will discuss the matter with him, calmly and judiciously. And when that doesn’t work…
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
You Eagles fans are... dedicated. Yes, that's the word I have very carefully chosen to use.
Although a comparatively small thing in comparison to your friend's heroism, honoring him with your Forum name is quite touching. Thank you for sharing.
Steve
Steve, thank you for both your - carefully chosen words! - and your kind welcome. I had intended a more conventional first post but red lines are useless if they are not observed! But in all seriousness, thank you Steve for your even-handed oversight and your always thoughtful, insightful observations. I’m sure most of us have seen other beloved sim forums blown to kingdom come. Gone, due to escalating fire fights. Which also means much gratitude to all the far flung members here. You have somehow, someway managed to conduct some times heated debates and discussions of profound import (Philly vs Dallas, for example) with world class, possibly world beating respectfulness.
Thank you all for the education and community. I have managed to convert at least one instructor at the CGSC into a CMBS “How Hot” thread addict.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Say it again!
(louder)