Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 To be fair you would need a more detailed breakdown of the voting in each province to draw any stronger conclusions.....Either way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 16 minutes ago, Machor said: "This is why Russia consistently attempts to portray all opposition in Ukraine as coming exclusively [my italics] from the more predominantly Ukrainian-speaking west of the country." Word for word you're correct. IMHO he does know the facts well enough but he's using very careful and elaborate language to create a very specific impression while trying not to cross the line of facts literally. 16 minutes ago, Machor said: According to your figures, 62% of voters in Lvov province did NOT vote for Svoboda in 2012, and 35% of voters in Donetsk, 48% of voters in Crimea, and 53% of voters in Sevastopol did NOT vote for Yanukovich. 6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: To be fair you would need a more detailed breakdown of the voting in each province to draw any stronger conclusions.....Either way. I took the most extreme cases to illustrate. There were two Western-leaning parties (again, by Western I mean Ukrainian West) who were considerably more popular in Western provinces. Just putting all the pics would have made the post unreadable. Certainly I do not imply 100% of the East voted for Yanukovich and 100% of the West - for Wesnernish parties. It's just a heavy prevalence - not the absolute black-and-white picture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 Just now, IMHO said: I took the most extreme cases to illustrate. There were two Western-leaning parties (again, by Western I mean Ukrainian West) who were considerably more popular in Western provinces. Just putting all the pics would have made the post unreadable. Certainly I do not imply 100% of the East voted for Yanukovich and 100% of the West - for Wesnernish parties. It's just a heavy prevalence - not the absolute black-and-white picture. That's pretty much what I'd assumed, I'm certainly not disputing your position as it matches my own general conclusions very closely indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 23 minutes ago, Machor said: I think your previous posts on the competing economic interests of the east and the west of Ukraine provided a more solid counter-argument. It's all intertwined. Language, economy, political views... The West and a higher proportion of Center would have really won with EU affiliation just like the East was/is woven into the Russian economical fabrics. As I said a Ukrainian friend of mine who had access to a lot of confidential data predicted the crisis a year and a half before it actually happened. He specifically was talking about the diverging economical interests, growing dislike between two parts of the country among ordinary people, rapidly disappearing desire to compromise in both camps etc. I didn't believe him back then as I was not into much of Ukrainian reality back then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) Not to be contrary, but the East would have benefited from EU affiliation also. Not just the money, but the push for rule of law. Witness Romania - still heavily corrupt, but the constant push of EU pressure is having a steady effect. Killing off corruption is inherently a generational war (ie removing the old, entrenched interests) which only succeeds with persistent pressure (internal and/or external) until a newer, cleaner generation takes hold. The EU provides that critical external pressure, and the maidan movement signalled the internal pressure/desire to change things. EU affiliation would/will benefit everyone in Ukraine except the existing elites. And it's effect would have been many times magnified in the east. It's taken 2 decades for eastern Europe in the EU to even approach western levels of services, goods and economic ability. And that's with none if them at war within itself. Which is really, the true tragedy of the Donbass War. The lost opportunity to raise the living stands of the population as a whole, and improve the prospects of the younger generation in particular. Edited October 6, 2017 by kinophile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Well said 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Yeah, being subject to a faceless unelected bureaucracy (that speaks in foreign) just rocks. Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Yeah, being subject to a faceless unelected bureaucracy (that speaks in foreign) just rocks. Isn't that the norm? Pretty much everywhere we are represented by a bureaucracy we can't freakin understand. Edited October 7, 2017 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) The EU is a particularly interesting example.....It's inner workings are obscure to say the least and some of its chief proponents weren't actually the nicest chaps you could hope to meet (their last attempt at unifying the continent ended particularly badly). On the flip side of the (alleged) political coin.....Were you aware that Angela Merkel is ex-Stasi? Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: On the flip side of the (alleged) political coin.....Were you aware that Angela Merkel is ex-Stasi? Do you have anything to cite on that as it doesn't match what I can find. It frankly would not have been surprising as the Stasi had everybody reporting on everyone else to some degree, but I can't find anything to substantiate that she in fact did.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel Near the end of her studies at the University of Leipzig, Merkel sought an assistant professorship at an engineering school. As a condition for getting the job, Merkel was told she would need to agree to report on her colleagues to the Stasi, the GDR's secret police. Merkel declined, using the excuse that she could not keep secrets well enough to be an effective spy.[31] Merkel worked and studied at the Central Institute for Physical Chemistry of the Academy of Sciences in Berlin-Adlershof from 1978 to 1990. After being awarded a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry in 1986,[32] she worked as a researcher and published several papers.[33 Edited October 7, 2017 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Interesting, there seems to be some back-pedalling on that story: http://www.dw.com/en/east-german-stasi-tried-to-recruit-merkel-as-a-spy/a-4265402 Here's something closer to the original account as I recall it: https://adarapress.com/2015/10/19/was-angela-merkel-a-stasi-informer-some-say-ja/ Quote The authors of a television documentary for WDR came in 2005 with the research for a film about the Stasi secret to the Act of Robert Havemann – and in there was a controversial detail: a photo of Angela Merkel. This may be the image in question: Not certain about that. Der Spiegel has a book review that may be relevant: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-book-suggests-angela-merkel-was-closer-to-communism-than-thought-a-899768.html You pays your money.....As they say! PS - Meanwhile according to Teh Grauniad, it was her dad: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/26/books.germany Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) I'm not particularly sure what that actually has to do with anything. You are a past-master at sprinkling bulldust Squarehead. Were you aware that a few chancellors of the Germanies were formerly Hitler Jugend !!?!?!? By Jove! It has very little to do with the European Union's operations - in fact, it has nothing to do with them. You just threw that out there to what, get some sand in the air, de-rail another topic? Very Johnny K of you. Edited October 7, 2017 by Rinaldi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Cheers for your informative contribution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 So yes you'd rather just de-rail a thread and dance away again. Well bravo brother. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 Oh don't be ridiculous, did you just pop in for a rant? Pray do point me to your invaluable contributions to this thread. Totally out of order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Cheers for your informative contribution. He has a point. You threw a fairly substantial allegation out there that you have only one questionable source that admits it really has only circumstantial evidence. I saw that adarapress item. One thing that I have always liked about most of the discussions here is the request for hard evidence when it comes to figuring armor penetration, mobility etc to the point that we see these advanced rha calculations, modeling of armor etc, yet when it gets to the political/social side there seems to be a willingness to forego that same standard of evidence. We are all here fascinated to some degree or another by history. We should hold ourselves to the same standards in our social/political discussions as we do our technical discussions. At least we can try. You know I have a high regard for your work and the discussions you have brought to the forum, but in this particular case if you want to be truly honest it was not an allegation you should be defending. Better to simply say "my bad, I thought I had some info but it seems not". Then go to Germany, met with Angela and ask her forgiveness. If you can get Obama there to speak for you I think Angela would be okay with it. Edited October 7, 2017 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinaldi Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Sometimes the best contribution you can make is to not throw out any wild claims and just keep the thread on topic. Which happens to be about a book about the war in the Ukraine. Not Angela Merkel's biography. Unfortunately we've well butchered the chances of the latter, which is fine, lord knows it happens enough, but we can correct the former . Edited October 7, 2017 by Rinaldi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, sburke said: He has a point. You threw a fairly substantial allegation out there that you have only one questionable source that admits it really has only circumstantial evidence. I saw that adarapress item. TBH I was genuinely surprised by what I found when I went for links on the Merkel thing, there was only the one (immediately obvious) article that carried the story as I recalled it.....Mea Culpa on that one for sure, but I think you know me well enough to know I wouldn't have made the comment based on one rather scanty article. If I find whatever it was that drew my attention to the concept, I'll post a link or PM you. I must also concede that you are both right concerning its relevance here. However my main issue is (as I stated obliquely in my very first post) that this thread is apparently promoting a book with a very particular political orientation and its relevance to CM:BS the game is utterly minimal as far as I can tell. Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sid_burn Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: TBH I was genuinely surprised by what I found when I went for links on the Merkel thing, there was only the one (immediately obvious) article that carried the story as I recalled it.....Mea Culpa on that one for sure, but I think you know me well enough to know I wouldn't have made the comment based on one rather scanty article. If I find whatever it was that drew my attention to the concept, I'll post a link or PM you. However my main issue is (as I stated obliquely in my very first post) that this thread is apparently promoting a book with a very particular political orientation and its relevance to CM:BS the game is utterly minimal as far as I can tell. Its an extreme sim game about a war between Russia and Ukraine. Presumably the people who play this game are really interested in modern warfare and the actual real life war between Ukraine and Russia (sorry, “seperatists”). This book looks like it gives an interesting look into that war. Not the most off topic post on this forum, although I would have preferred another male enhancement pill ad. I think your point about merkel being a Stasi agent is interesting and that you should make a thread about possible connections between merkel, black eyed children, and the pseudo-Nazis who run the EU 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: TBH I was genuinely surprised by what I found when I went for links on the Merkel thing, there was only the one (immediately obvious) article that carried the story as I recalled it.....Mea Culpa on that one for sure, but I think you know me well enough to know I wouldn't have made the comment based on one rather scanty article. If I find whatever it was that drew my attention to the concept, I'll post a link or PM you. However my main issue is (as I stated obliquely in my very first post) that this thread is apparently promoting a book with a very particular political orientation and its relevance to CM:BS the game is utterly minimal as far as I can tell. I am not known for defending posts and links from JK (boy is that an understatement), but in this case I don't see anything wrong with the subject. He followed it up noting the author's credentials and maybe the author does have bias. Could one expect that would not come through from a Ukrainian patriot? Russia has done nothing to show any regard for Ukrainians other than try to project it's power. It has done so at great cost to Ukraine and particularly to the citizens in the East who now live in a frozen conflict war zone that only exists because Russia continues to feed in military supplies and troops. Your allegations earlier of "remember NATO marched pretty much to their border, member nations then interfered massively (both covertly and overtly) in the elections of a country very close to the Russian heartland, so Russia reacted and it all went tits up!" acts as if Russia suddenly reacted to Western activity and denies decades of Russian involvement and subversion of Ukrainian institutions and the actual reason NATO "marched", distrust by all the nations of the former Soviet sphere of influence. These were supposedly Russia's friends. Not to mention those allegations are questionable to begin with. It is exactly what you accused JK's post of and yet in your case you provided nothing other than an allegation and a very biased view of what Russia's activities in Ukraine have actually been. No NATO troops have been involved in this conflict and yet Russia's commitment of regular troops, downing of a civilian airliner, disruption of OSCE activities etc all get a pass. I mostly avoided getting involved as I saw this as another thread heading for the old "lock it up!" demise, but you can't criticize JK for behavior that you then double down on worse. When you live in a glass house..... put down that rock Eugene.... If you can't hold yourself to that higher standard that you infer he violated then you maybe really shouldn't be posting an objection. *shrug* As to it's relevance for CMBS, heck none of our discussion has any relevance. It is a tactical game. Bigger strategic even operational issues aren't necessarily important. Meanwhile I am working on a map that is theoretically in Syria to show US and Russian troops going head to head there..... man I am way out in left field (hopefully) but so what. It makes for a neat map and terrain that doesn't appear in any CMBS scenarios. Heck it probably wouldn't exist in any real battle anyway, I don't think any US troops are based near mountainous terrain. ooh I just thought of a possible way to make mountains trails look a little better! Off I go! Wish me luck! Edited October 7, 2017 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Fair comment fella, I guess my own reactions really haven't been massively helpful TBH. 17 minutes ago, sburke said: I am working on a map that is theoretically in Syria to show US and Russian troops going head to head there I was looking at doing the same but with the SDF/SAA, keeping the 'primaries' back from the fighting so to speak.....CM:SF doesn't really have the tools (TOE-wise), does CM:BS have the terrain? Or must it wait for CM:SF II? I'm still slowly adding blocks to Mosul, then picking them over to connect the bits, not exactly thrilling, but necessary as you know. 31 minutes ago, sid_burn said: although I would have preferred another male enhancement pill ad. Be careful what you wish for? Fair play guys, I'll take this one on the chin.....Sincere apologies to JK, Rinaldi and anyone else I may have offended. Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Fair comment fella, I guess my own reactions really haven't been massively helpful TBH. I was looking at doing the same but with the SDF/SAA, keeping the 'primaries' back fro the fighting so to speak.....CM:SF doesn't really have the tools (TOE-wise), does CM:BS have the terrain? Or must it wait for CM:SF II? I'm still slowly adding blocks to Mosul, then picking them over to connect the bits, not exactly thrilling, but necessary as you know. I think it is doable, in many ways more flexible than CMSF. What it lacks though is what I originally wanted... uncons I wasn't originally intending a US/Russia conflict. It is just all I ended up with as options. Basically it is a placeholder to play with until CMSF2 comes out. I also started a "Vietnam" map trying to see what I could do using CMFI (CMSF and CMBS weaponry is too advanced and CMSF just doesn't have the same terrain to utilize). I found I could create a very very dense forest using various foliage, heavy forest tiles and hedgerows placed to break up line of sight. In many ways it was too successful. I think I understand BF's reluctance to do a Vietnam era game- you'd end up with a lot of very close quarter battles that would get kind of repetitive. They'd also need to have really long scenarios if you wanted even a medium size battle. You spend a lot of time slowly marching through the jungle seeing nothing. Much as I thought I'd really love to see CM:Vietnam. Now I am not so sure... unless of course we could see Hueys hitting a hot LZ to drop troops! Yeah not likely.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Your post got me looking as it goes.....You wind up with about half the units you need with either game, but I'd now be inclined to say CM:SF is probably currently the better bet, unless it turns into a US/Russian ding-dong (which I truly hope isn't going to happen). You can sort of simulate drones with Intel & pre-planned fire in CM:SF, but you just can't do a T-55 or T-62 in CM:BS, let alone a VBIED. I've also been messing about with Turks, Saudis & Qataris using CM:SF, you can get vaguely close, but you would really need mods for it to be convincing and all your Qatari VABs would mysteriously have MG-3s (because they're Fuchs). Unsurprisingly the small arms usually aren't even close as a rule, you can just about do them if you really want to, but it will chop your C2 lines to hell (and your 'unused units post-battle reinforcement' will be humongous which can really mess with your VPs). This was part of the quandary with the Core in Mosul, in the end the Syrian SF as a 'whole unit' was probably the best bet, but they should really have M4s instead of AKs. I'm having another minor mare with that right now, I'd like to give the CTS some SPG-9s, but the Syrian SF don't use them (it's Kornets across the board). I can get them from Syrian Airborne, but their uniforms are totally different, more closely resembling some of the Interior Ministry units also found in Mosul, but not in this area and not at this time (these are also the guys who put a nasty stain on CTS' valiant work, which is another reason they ain't going in). 30 minutes ago, sburke said: They'd also need to have really long scenarios if you wanted even a medium size battle. Or you could make lots of really short battles, modelling the mad half minutes, perhaps interspersed with decision point pseudo-scenarios to simulate the duller (yet potentially still important) bits.....Basically make each patrol a mini-campaign, with combat being avoidable or conducted on more favourable terms dependent upon the decisions made? This would place a lot of emphasis on storytelling in the briefings and cunning trickery in the campaign scripts, but I reckon it could be done (could work well for CM:A too come to think of it, might look into that a bit further). PS - We seem to be equally far off-topic.....Maybe a thread in CM:SF? Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinophile Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Yeah, being subject to a faceless unelected bureaucracy (that speaks in foreign) just rocks. It's working for Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, Hungary etc etc. All those countries are peaceful, prosperous and their younger generation has huge opportunities in comparison to say, Russia/Belarus/Ukraine. Andy critically, they all want to to stay in the EU. It's not even an issue. The benefits (money, opportunities, improved services/infrastructure, rule of law) are massive compared to what they can provide by themselves. Ireland has proper motorways finally that are 60%+ funded by the EU. Same with Poland. We have a standard of living equal to the UK because of the EU. We have access to products, services and jobs across the EU because of the EU. I have a close relative in construction who is up for a top post leading the design and construction of airports in Denmark. His interviews are conducted in English and he is in return expected to learn Danish. That's the real EU - open, free opportunity for everyone. If your contention is that the EU isn't beneficial then you're simply ignoring plain as day facts. No bias needed, just basic observation, simple weighing up of of the benefits. The Ukrainians are fighting a war to literally gain those benefits. But I smell a knee-jerk brexit rant, so what's the point? Edited October 7, 2017 by kinophile 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) Not gonna happen. I have my reasons for my opinions, we all do, and I can support them. But this really is not the place for it as has already been pointed out, plus I'm actually here for the games.....Let's stick to those, we'll probably all get along better that way. PS - That comment wasn't meant to be taken entirely seriously BTW, I should probably have left it at that. Edited October 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.