>>48470
>>48472
>>48473
"Realistically" mechs could be a variation of exoskeletons. With armor, and mount points for weapons.
They don't need to be several meter tall robots. As for the dimensions could be a height of a tank (2-3 m) max, the width and length are obviously less. Not sure about the speed, or agility, or the power source... (gadget X propulsion)
They could fix machine guns, anti-material rifles, infantry anti-tank rockets, even mortars upon them. Or some kind of a multiple rocket launchers (like on the Catapult models or something).
They should withstand small arm and machine gun fire, grenade and mortar shrapnel, anti-infantry mines, but I wouldn't expect them to withstand something more serious.
Maybe they could climb stairs, or the lighter models could scale walls.
They should have some kind of HUD, with screens which could display video feed (from other mechs, or drones).
One problem I see especially with the heavier ones: the pressure from the weight is distributed on too small areas (soles). They would need wide feet.

>>48474

Battletech has something like this, although it is not available for every infantryman.

Watching this thing. A two part biographical movie about Guevara. Lots of walking in the jungle, and some black-and-white faux-documentary footage.
Makes me wanna reinstall Tropico 4 again.

>>48354
>in winter
If I place it inside it's doable to some extent. I made lukewarm water from tap temperature in 1L tin can (spraypainted black) behind the window. With concentrated rays it can be made warmer. But I dunno how the keg would fare.
Insulated box with glass panel could also work. I think.
Could be combined with beer-collector.

>>48439 (post got cut again)
...clandestinely, Israel-style, as I mentioned in a different context.
OTOH if beijing feels really confident that it can relatively quickly solve the issue militarily perhaps they would want to take the bait after all. Though AIUI knee-jerk reactions are quite uncharacteristic for China, and let's not forget that in this year already one other big country found itself "hooked" after misjudging the softness of the dangling bait and the animosity of the baiters at the other end of the fishing line.

>>48436
I'm sure the speech-freedom gauge differs in east and west for different topics. But...
>You can get jailed for calling this thing a war.
I have heard these claims months ago. I suspect it's a fake. For example, I have seen clip from russian political talk show on TV where people call it war/vоijna. Maybe our local russian poster can clarify but seems to be BS. What does seem to be true is that one can get detained and fined for making "unauthorised" anti-war protests. Don't know if this is specifically about "antiwar protests" or about "unauthorised protests" in general, but anyway fines are apparently not high (I read about low $ hundreds) and most antiwar protest enthusiasm seems to have petered after those videos from March showing abuse/execution of rus/ldnr POW
>Russia blocks/blocked
For months before the deal mediated by Turkey, Moscow has been denying blocking non-military ships, as long as they use specific "green corridors". I'm sure it was not unconditional. For example, I have read that they wanted access to the ships so that they could be inspected for military equipment, and pic related from May has the UK MoD claiming that they wanted economic-war measures lifted.
On the other hand, Kiev has, after a long time of blaming rus for it, admitted to having deployed mines on its own shores to forestall a rus amphibious operation. This is corroborated by the UK MoD in the same pic (pixelated is some "intelligence" propaganda). In fact, at least one civilian has died after triggering a mine in the waters of an Odessa beach (vid related).
>Turkey blocks Russian ship
I know that Turkey, per the Montreux agreement, limits military ships from crossing the Bosphorus (ships from warring sides, including allied blocs like NATO, cannot cross, though those from Black Sea states can return to port). However, I don't know if non-military ships from Black Sea states can be blocked under that agreement. Maybe they aren't blocking them because I read last week about a shipment of grain from Russia to Syria seized in Lebanon after Ukraine accused it of carrying grain harvested from ukr territories under rus/lndr control.

Misc:
- Last 27/7 there was a ukr suicide drone attack on the border checkpoint of the rus oblast of Bryansk. Ukr published the footage claiming they targeted some rus security service agents. Moscow said the men were actually citizens of Moldova doing some visa paperwork. Moldova's foreign affairs ministry confirmed these were their citizens: https://www.moldpres.md/en/news/2022/07/27/22005588, https://www.ipn.md/en/moldovan-dies-in-bryansk-region-blast-7967_1091320.html . One was killed immediately, the other Moldovan citizen which in that article is reported as injured has since died too.
- Kiev has ordered the "mandatory evacuation" of residents of Donetsk oblast still under their control (said to be more than 200k). They claim this is done because they cannot not provide civilians with sufficient heating in upcoming months. I suspect they actually would like to use the urban areas as a battlefield while avoiding the criticism they will get if they again do as in Mariupol with people still there. Meanwhile there are ukr soldiers who have admitted that the locals are not loyal to Kiev and are waiting for the "liberators"

Since the other thread is autosäging, inevitably sliding into oblivion faster than this one, I move two new posts here, from an Ameriball.
The first is first.

In relation to the Flip Empire I found these, among others. Did not read due to lack of time. Borders seems a bit random.
http://kbl.org.ph/the-untold-story-of-the-kingdom-of-the-maharlikans-now-called-the-philippines/
https://geopolitics.co/2014/03/05/lost-kingdom-of-maharlika/

As for the ROC, yeah, the claim is a claim.

The second was a reply to this post >>36881 about Prester John, by Rusbernd.

He shared the latter two images and this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prester_John

Recently burger/euros were getting excited about "decolonising" the Russia (>>48259)
So some russians decided to help "decolonising" rest of Europa too

Hilarious, shit just made the front page of Politico.
https://www.politico.eu/article/nazi-talk-orban-adviser-trashe-mix-race-speech-dramatic-exit/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/27/outrage-in-hungary-after-orbans-pure-nazi-speech
Our PM in his speech said something liek, the Hungarian people became from the mix of autochthon people, but we don't want to become mixed race. There are obvious implications, but it is apparently about lgbt and holocaust.

>>48378
>Just because the US govt aren't the good guys it doesn't mean those can be found in Moscow and Beijing.
Yeah, I'm not 12 or USian, I'm not interested in finding "the good guys".
For the rest of your reply, I'm going to interpret it as principally referring to this bit:
>Malcom Fraser: "Aus need Usa alliance for its defence but Aus only needs defending because of its Usa alliance". The same can be said of the countries gobbled up by nato in its expansion towards russia.
(That's a former aussy PM, btw) Well, I think my comment ("the same can be said...") is correct. In particular, this was/is literally the narrative peddled, for example, in the case of the Ukraine or Finland: "b-bu-but don't you know they need to invite the military apparatus of a far-away power to the borders of its designated enemy because of the threat posed by the latter?" conveniently ignoring that they are bringing about such threat by that very act.
>Also being neutral for small(er) countries just doesn't work.
It has worked for many decades. But anyway I'm not really talking about small countries. I'm talking about the geopolitical power balance, which mostly involves major countries.
>Russia has the same imperialist mindset as the US does.
>It's either naive to think that Russia would leave alone the small guys
Well, there are some differences (possibly inherent) between thassalocratic empires like the British, from whence the US empire follows, and a more typical tellurocratic empire (e.g. the Roman, Persian, Russian), but as I said, I'm not concerning myself with "the small guys". We can worry about them the day the exceptionalist empire goes back to mind its own business in its own corner of the world. And, as he >>48379 mentioned, it will be, then, arguably better for them in a hypothetical multipolar international arrangement, as they will be freer to pursue their promiscuous "multivectoring" to their hearts' content ;). Because the Russia today simply doesn't have the capability to do to "the small guys" in Europe what US can. Russia has demonstrated it will choose war rather than outright losing the "satellites" Bielorussia and Ukraine (which were more than once part of the same state and are populated by very close people) but all the propaganda about "the Russians are coming" that we hear from Atlanticist sources (e.g. both Sunak and Truss in their UK premiership pseudo-campaigns) is just that: war-time propaganda.
>if the US won't provoke her by making those into her clients
This framing is somewhat misleading. The term "client" or "client state" is typically used to describe economic dependence. By extending its military apparatus onto the borders of its designated adversaries, the US did/does something much more dangerous and threatening than simply "intrude" into "spheres of influence".
>so I rather assume the first situation in case of you.
Well, you would be wrong in either case. I have been explicit in previous discussions about the reason for my support for Moscow or Beijing in the geopolitical matters that involve them and Washington: in short, I want the sick global US hegemony replaced with a multipolar international arrangement that will provide us (Europe in general but my country in particular) with greater opportunity to exercise independence. (Of course, apart from that, I think supporting those two in their struggle to keep the Great Satan at bay also happens to be the historically-informed morally-correct position.)
>Same with China, and with the "separatists".
Among the "great powers", China is probably the farthest thing from a thassalocratic empire like the Britain and later USA. Ming China actually stopped itself from going on transoceanic conquest of colonies when it very much had the means.