Cederic

I'll lets others explain the difference between a forum and a thread, and instead look forward to playing the CM scenario "Shoot a propaganda video." I still don't know why people are trying to find big houses. There are a few near me, I'm not sure it'll help the conversation here to post photographs.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a discussion on war in Ukraine, not a thread for posting arbitrary pictures of roads and buildings for building computer game scenarios. How foolish of me. Here, have some scenario fodder that's very relevant to the war at hand - GM-94 grenade launchers need to be part of the standard equipment now.

Yes. Now, back to the questions: Why would we care about that road? What makes it so special that it should appear in a scenario? What is the point in finding large buildings, when the Ukrainian military are more than capable of finding them themselves?

I'm missing something here. Why do we care about that road? Why would it appear in a scenario? What is the point or value in identifying large buildings? Oh look, a large building. Now what? It's a large building. Well done. I don't get it. If you want to find Russian bases the observe in person, observe radio activity, observe traffic movements, observe where the Russians are. Are those likely to be large buildings? Yes. But without the Russians, a large building is just a large building.

The second clip is apparently film footage - other tweets showing the crew, etc. However, don't mess with Ukrainian pussy.

Tanks. Who needs them.

I could watch Zelenskyy handing out medals without getting emotionally involved. When you've lived in communities where the Commanding Officer is tracked from every single kitchen window as he walks through the estate waiting to see which door he'll knock on, you end up a bit inured. This though got me.

Then fix your courts, because extra-judicial killings are called murder. Don't murder people. Give them justice. (Yes, I recognise the difference between partisan actions against an occupying administration and what happens following liberation of the occupied territory.) Throwing terms like that around really just doesn't help. Are these people doing bad things? Then address those bad things. You don't have to label them to do that. Are they nazis? Who knows. Frankly who cares. I strongly suspect they're no more or less nazis than some members of the Azov battalion. Labelling people leads to dehumanisation, murder and genocide, whether the label is "nazi" or "orc" or "collaborator". If someone's tortured people, ordered the illegal killing of people, shipped 300,000 children to Russia, those are crimes. Prosecute them. [I was only gone for half a day and missed a whole conversation, but fortunately read ahead, so comments to Haiduk and TheCapt regarding post-war Russian cultural change removed so that Steve doesn't have to spank me. Neither of us would enjoy that.]

That articulates the culture that you feel needs changing. It doesn't address what I understood to be core challenge, which is how. Knowing what needs to change in Russia doesn't help us deliver that change. Given how hard it is to effect material cultural change anywhere (typically a multi-decade, often multi-generational activity, almost always requiring a degree of oppression and internal control) trying to impose cultural change on Russia from outside its borders doesn't feel viable. That approach has been tried on North Korea for several decades with success rates hovering around 'none'.

Hmm. No. I foolishly assumed a 41 year old commander with combat deployments to four countries would be reasonably senior but a quick hunt around suggests that Wagner don't really do ranks so a 'commander' could go anywhere from a 14 man detachment to a company. They do have people referenced as 'senior commander' so I'm guessing they have battalion level responsibilities. It does though seem to be a bunch of heavily armed mercenaries with no discernible structure.

Can't find this chap in a search. New entry in the list?

Hot take: When you secure basic rations from the local stores, it's not looting. It's foraging. Expecting armed men to starve while civilians around them can go quietly shopping is not reasonable. (Sending armed men to another country uninvited is also unreasonable, even if you send food with them)

Not just the oligarchs, anybody that might want to end the war to get the gas flowing again. If anything, the oligarchs feel less likely as they've demonstrated terrible flying skills of late; for Putin destroying strategic assets is overkill compared to, erm, just killing them. But step back and think who else benefits from this. Anybody that feels Germany and other EU nations might waver in their support for Ukraine, in an attempt to keep industry working through the winter (let alone avoid rolling blackouts or citizens dying from cold) could consider removing the means to re-enable the gas supply reduces the option space, making it less likely that support will be withdrawn. There are two Eastern European nations I think would hold that view, and one North American one. The North American one would also be very willing to damage 'friendly' economies to help boost their own world standing as a side-effect of reinforcing support for Ukraine. It wouldn't be the first time. Then there are the people not involved in Ukraine at all. They get to cause economic turmoil in the EU, boosting their own exports while also strengthening their own case for being Russia's largest natural gas customer. Russia remain favourite, if nothing else because of the risks and associated fall-out should anybody else be found to have done it. However..

While a depth charge or torpedo is unlikely, an unmanned suicide submersible is viable, as would inserting an explosive laden pig into the pipe. I look forward to forensic examination of the sites by Denmark and others, if we're ever allowed to hear what they find.

Let's not forget the EU President's time as Germany's Defence Minister: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-s-neglected-soldiers-forced-to-use-broomstick-as-a-gun-glnqbndf6

Sure. Good luck hiding that in the Baltic. Still, thank you for distracting us from all the flirting going on. It is to be fair very likely that the charges on the pipelines were rigged days ago, and either on timers or remotely triggered. Why be spotted at the scene of the crime when you can have high confidence nobody's going to ask what those strange lumps attached to the pipe are. But that also means it's possible a surface vessel launched a submersible of some form, or even just divers. How many trawlers have been in that area in the last couple of weeks? (I almost asked Russian trawlers, but I'm refusing to assume which country was responsible. I could name five that might think they'd heavily benefit, and that's not including the French.)

Well, it's a Russian strategic asset, so if it wasn't them it's an act of war that would remove Article 5 protections from any NATO member involved. Who really wins from this? China. (Just throwing it out there. Sorry. Hey, at least I'm not getting into the debate about Snowden.)

While my country's military has been under funded and has been damaged by what people call 'woke', I would point out that we're confident the US will support us in any conflict because that's a NATO obligation. I'd also point out that for the last forty years it's been the US asking us to support them in every conflict. I also think people are being unfair on Butschi. This is a perfectly reasonable retort to the constant snide attacks on Germany for not providing Leopard tanks it doesn't have to spare. Scroll down to Germany on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War and then look at Germany's contribution is poor in comparison with the US, the UK and especially Poland (given GPD differences) but Butschi really does have a valid point.

Escalation - Counter Terror Operation is 'gloves off'.

Thank you. In return, I can only offer you "big nasty pointy teeth".

Ah, I should perhaps apologise. I was speaking in the context of people complaining that the West need to develop/improve their psyops against civilian populations. I can trace military psyops back to WW2, targeting both civilian populations and military opponents. Propaganda does however tend to be a Government activity rather than a military one; military interactions are usually far more nuanced and targeted, and the suggestion at hand around targeting Russian civilians would in the UK be initiated by non-military entities taking advantage of civil resources (such as the BBC). Military psyops feel more applicable to the suggestion someone made around depositing caches of vodka, or intercepting Russian supplies of toilet roll to the frontline troops. I'm sure you'll find that a naive assumption, but I would nonetheless stand by my belief that political entities in the US are more capable than military ones at influencing public opinion.

Sorry, that must be fake. It's actually right!

Aircraft launched precision missiles with a tactical warhead are surely already available? Keeping aircraft on patrol above the Caspian Sea is easy enough. Ok, it means up to half an hour for the warhead to arrive, but any target worth that escalation isn't going to be moving very fast anyway. -- The discussions here on psyops are farcical. Political organisations cross the US and the EU have been conducting them for years, on their own populations. The military is about the only group that _don't_ have the capability.

I see no other option. -- On a lighter note..