213374U

It's working. If you are in Europe, you may have to use a proxy or VPN, as it may be blocked by your ISP (much like RT).

Yeah, it was one big conspiracy by the army top brass to quickly take control of the country in the streets and behead the democratic government so a military junta government could be presented as a fait accompli before civil authorities could react. There's very good reason to believe that our emeritus king (yeah, that's a thing here, wonder why) was involved and meant to appear in congress to add a veneer of legitimacy to the coup. For whatever reason -theories abound- he switched sides and condemned the coup at the 11th hour, leaving Milans and the fools at congress high and dry. His support was required because he had been designated head of state by Franco and thus was perceived to carry on with the latter's authority in military circles. Without his endorsement the coup quickly collapsed. Interestingly, while things generally ran very well under Franco (except a free press and, er, elections) in the early days of democracy, political parties in congress actually got a lot of important **** done. There were protests and a degree of instability, but nothing qualitatively worse than what we see today, with blatant executive overreaches, rampant corruption, crippling strikes, etc. against a background of constant warnings of imminent fascist/communist takeover.

Eh. Not a bad piece especially considering what gets printed these days but I lol'd at "history shows that blitzkrieg never works". I know that you know, but blitzkrieg was an incredibly successful model in 1939 Poland and 1940 France. It "failed" in 1941 in large part because its main requisite -speed- couldn't be realized due to the infamous Russian mud season and, well, the sheer number of Soviet armies to destroy. It still got Hitler within spitting distance of Moscow in a bit over 5 months and caused millions of casualties to the Soviets. If anything, what the Russians have attempted is not "blitzkrieg" but rather an application of the old Soviet deep battle doctrine. Deep battle anticipates non-trivial losses, which is why looking at these figures from a Western perspective can be misleading. In any case, the offensive seems to have lost all momentum pretty early on so it's not exactly according to doctrine, heh. Anyway, sorry for the pedantic tangent, but I'd expect a better grasp of terms from someone using them in a professional capacity. I also wasn't impressed by the amount of conjecture and assumptions about Putin's decision-making process and internal motivations. Of course, without face-to-face interviews or access to his shrink's files, there's not much to go on.

Make America Great Again (Again)?

So it's the tedium of micromanaging the reconstruction of a dozen half-destroyed planets? But, I mean, the planetary click-fest is what Stellaris mid-game gameplay has boiled down to for a few years now... Don't machine empires have different buildings for a lot of things? I don't remember how it worked internally but if the uprising event doesn't transform buildings in planets taken over by the uprising, it's not surprising that the rebels can't build what they need. Of course the AI might just be broken -- AI being confused and paralyzed regardless of resources reminds me a lot of the status of AI when 2.2 dropped.

You were, quite obviously, arguing from the tacit premise that you don't indulge in the "need for simplicity" you described, leaving the door open to escape it by "approaching every situation on its own". Because otherwise, the implication is that the "sheer idiocy" (your own words) of that kind of reasoning also applies to you. I might be misunderstanding, so please enlighten me. Which one is it? And while you're at it, please, demonstrate how I'm deliberately misconstruing your words. I'm simply taking your argument to its conclusion. -- I mean, it's like the whole concept of great-power politics is alien to folks around here. Has nothing to do with USA = BAD or any number of facile generalizations reductionist caricatures. All great powers have done it, and will continue to do it, precisely because there's always people refusing to acknowledge it or coming up with rationalizations that "it's not so bad" when it's their side doing it. Yes, exactly like the Russians are doing right now. It may come as a shock to some, but yes, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge Russia's atrocities and profound democratic shortcomings, while understanding that the US has no interest in a negotiated solution that may even remotely satisfy Russian security concerns. Especially when it's not US cities being shelled. Understanding this, and realizing that brinkmanship is a thing does not make anyone a bot, a propagandist, an apologist, stupid, or any other creative epithet you feel like throwing around. Ultimately, that is just deflection, as is pointing out that the US isn't all bad because they also did XYZ when no one has actually said USA=BAD. The Soviet Union raised literacy, economic indicators and living standards in Russia pretty indisputably. It emancipated women in a way that was unthinkable in Tsarist Russia. This didn't make it any less of a corrupted, totalitarian nightmare and the price of all that was paid in blood by people who had no say in the matter. Complex **** is complex. Stop processing arguments from your preconceptions of why the other person is saying what they are saying, and focus on what they are saying. Kaiserreich is one of the best mods of all time. Of all time!

The implication is obviously that you believe yourself free of this flaw. Otherwise your post makes no sense -- if you were aware of this limitation as it applies to yourself, you wouldn't make a facile generalization, as you would realize that it's misleading and ultimately not useful. Nice backpedaling, though. As for moderators participating in discussions, you will have to deal with it. Sorry.

Last time I played, machine uprising was also very badly tuned. The machines were basically gifted fleets equipped with tech that didn't exist yet, and in numbers that dwarfed what I (not to mention neighboring empires) had. Consensus around the time was that if that happened to you, it was basically game over, that's how badly adjusted it was. I don't know if they ever got around to fixing it.

Please tell me you see the irony in raising an absolutely gigantic strawman to (mis)represent US critics, and in the immediately following paragraph describing how humans (not you, of course) have a need to accept facile generalizations rather than consider all aspects of complex situations.

You are creating an arbitrary divide (issue X and issue Y), where it's really one and the same issue -- civilians killed in wars of aggression. If you view it differently based on who caused it, it's a textbook application of double standards. Remember: it's you who's calling into question the character of someone else. The original contention was that my "obvious anti-Americanism" somehow precludes my opinions having merit, to which you added your own observation that I'm seemingly not critical enough of (modern) Russia. There's an obvious implication of bad faith there, but it's an argument that can be turned against anyone because the target is required to meet some arbitrary standard set by the attacker. Because that's what it is, a personal attack. You mean the word filter? I've been using profanity (and getting censored by the forum software) frequently, even after being deputized. Think nothing of it. The rule isn't "no profanity", it's "no circumventing the word filter". But again, apologies if the wording made it look like I was angry. That expectation is not unreasonable. Thankfully I'm not the only moderator and you can rest assured that others will step in if it's deemed that I'm not being discreet enough. As for blocking, you are absolutely right. It's one drawback of having volunteer moderators. If being exposed to opinions you consider disagreeable is unacceptable, I can offer no effective solution. And I'm serious, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the Community Manager if you believe there's a problem or a better way of doing things.

My moderator status has little bearing as I'm posting in the topic like any other user. As always, if you believe a moderator is misbehaving or acting unfairly, you are welcome to take it up with Fionavar. I am calm, though I'm aware that tone doesn't convey well in text. I apologize if I came across as aggressive or confrontational. Still, the observation goes both ways -- you cannot throw your hands in horror at the misdeeds of one and joke on the next when discussing the other's and not expect the conversation to go nowhere fast. As for the leaked document, I wouldn't put it past them, though I don't think the video in question is staged. Even if those were blanks, they'd still do serious damage at that distance.

Ah yes, of course. You were posing a completely honest and good faith question of whether the laws of war apply in a war even though the advisor to the president of Ukraine has made it a pretty clear that they do. You weren't at all being cynical and suggesting that, since Russia hasn't actually formally declared war, their soldiers aren't entitled to POW protection. Any other intellectually dishonest bull**** you'd want me to address?

Sadly, whether, and the extent to which, the laws of war apply will be decided, ultimately, by who is the victor. As always. A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of qualifiers or perpetrator. Which is, essentially, what people seem to have a hard time accepting. I'm sorry. Who are you and why do you think you get to set the bar for whether one is sufficiently critical of <country>? Once again: if you say I'm not sufficiently critical of Russia, I can just as easily say that you are not sufficiently critical of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia or any number of countries that have been or are currently aggressors. My posting history is there for anyone to check, and I have previously stated that Russia should answer for starting a war. Where, oh where, is your righteous indignation for brown people dying in previous (and current) conflicts, hmm? I don't think you are sufficiently critical of <country>, and therefore your arguments are suspect. See how dumb this is yet?

I don't think they have, no. That somehow makes Ukrainian servicemen shooting restrained Russians better, or...? Let me ask again: what is the agenda?

I don't know man, tell that to Oleksiy Arestovich. 'Adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Oleksiy Arestovich said he would focus on the published cases. "We take them extremely seriously. We'll investigate. We do not torture prisoners of war, "he said.'

That's not it. edit: nevermind, it is, it wasn't showing the first part for whatever reason

There isn't any context to remove because you didn't provide any. The statement that comment was in reference to was a gratuitous, unsourced and blanket insinuation that Iraqi civilian casualty figures aren't to be taken seriously because they could have been soldiers in disguise. An insinuation, rather than a clear assertion, so you could easily claim "that's not what I meant" when called on it, as you predictably have. Feel free to provide context and sources so we can have a nuanced and constructive discussion about it. No grandstanding -- just calling bull. I also like how you think my "obvious anti-Americanism" is of any relevance. Previously it was Russian apologism, was it? I wear my political leanings on my sleeve. Over the course of 15+ years of discussions here I've railed against the EU, the Soviet Union, China, Saudi Arabia and, of course, my own country. But it's my anti-Americanism that is unacceptable. Heh. Your exceptionalism is showing.

And hence why discussing stuff that cannot be posted is problematic... just ignore that, I guess.

I don't think anyone has suggested anything of the sort. And yet, in this very thread you have people insinuating that war crimes are ok if they are committed against Russians, and that civilians killed by the US are not, in fact, civilians. So yeah, what's the agenda, indeed?

It most certainly would. Discussing something that isn't allowed to be posted has proven problematic before, so I trust members' judgment to stay within the guidelines. Not the first ugly video to come out, and sadly, certainly not the last.

That looks like the booster of a Smerch rocket[1][2] rather than a cruise missile. Which also explains why a) it didn't explode and b) why the damage to the house is just a hole in the roof and a destroyed kitchen sink. edit: just for clarification, I assume you added that for humorous purposes and not because you think that's an actual cruise missile in someone's kitchen.

The only thing that wouldn't weaken the West's position against Putin would be a US declaration of war on Russia. Anything else is blowing hot air, which is evident to anyone outside of the West's media bubble, and the reason why, far from stopping, evidence seems to indicate that Russia is doubling down. Sanctions and material support for Ukraine are separate from a childish, manichaean reduction of international affairs to good/evil proclamations. Of course, this is useful for the US as it fans the flames of conflict, which is likely to leave the Euros scared and looking to strengthen ties with the US after the disastrous Trump presidency, and the Russians weakened and isolated, while Ukraine pays the price. A bargain deal.

The rhetoric has exactly zero influence on conditions on the ground, and that's ultimately what establishes the leverage that each side has on the negotiating table. It is for internal consumption only, and serves no practical purpose except shoring up approval ratings.

I honestly wonder to what extent Putin is calling the shots on a theatre level. He's probably personally greenlit reinforcements deploying from the Far East and so on, but consolidating the south flank first sounds like a General Staff plan. If true, it also possibly signals a change in approach and tacit admission that this won't be over soon because they will need to defeat Ukrainian forces in detail rather than quickly overrun all key areas at once. It's looking like a Dec 1939 situation. People keep bringing up estimates of Russian casualties but back then they took upwards of 5:1 casualties and still managed to force Finland to accept a peace that carved out a chunk of their territory. I'm also concerned about the growing escalation potential. The US' puerile black-and-white, good-vs-evil rhetoric spouted from safety on the other side of the pond is a huge obstacle to any kind of negotiated exit. Indeed, following the rhetoric to its logical conclusion, the West could settle for nothing less than deposing Putin, trying the Russian General Staff in Nuremberg the Hague, and elevating Navalny from prisoner to president. The EU seems to be largely on board with the rhetoric at least, even if Germany has shown that they aren't willing to go very far on the economic blockade front, let alone militarily. The worst is yet to come.

It shouldn't be in a context of morale and discipline breakdown. Look up fragging. Of course, it might have been an accident as well, or any number of things.