Nyquist no date (J.R., no date, former Russia analyst for the DOD and all around smart guy, “Russia's Disruptive Role,” http://www.jrnyquist.com/Russia_s_Disruptive_Role.html)//RTF
On Sunday I spoke with Polish journalist Tomasz Pompowski, who wanted to give me an update on events in Europe. The picture he painted was not entirely pleasant. Russia, he said, was promoting economic and political instability. Russia’s role is not generally understood, he explained, but “whenever you look behind a little, you see the Russians. You see former KGB people.” The game appears to involve businesses, including media businesses – but especially the energy business. The Russians make a great deal of money by exporting gas and oil. It also appears they have a special strategy for dealing with their competition. “The peaceful siesta after the collapse of the Berlin Wall was deceptive,” said Pompowski. The Russians, he explained, made use of the Arab world in order to cause problems and play games with future energy prices. “If you talk to KGB dissidents,” he said, “they will tell you that the most important research department in the KGB was that devoted to Arabic language, culture and Islam, going back since before the invasion of Afghanistan.” The Arabs and the Iranian Muslims control a very considerable part of global energy production. If trouble can be stirred up within these countries, or between countries, then Russia will get more money for its energy exports. For example, the political destabilization of Saudi Arabia could be very profitable for Russia. At present, encouraging Iranian nuclear ambitions, with the attending sanctions on Iran, may also lead to higher Russian profits. Russia is also making economic moves into Europe and Israel. “Russian tycoons are buying up the Israeli media,” he said. “Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch is under attack just as he was starting to invest in Eastern Europe.” Pompowski pointed to the fact that Murdoch’s rival in the United Kingdom is “former” Soviet KGB officer Alexander Lebedev, who owns the Evening Standard and is buying Murdoch’s News of the World which was closed down three weeks ago in the wake of a scandal in which News of the World was found by British police to have hacked the phone calls of nearly 4,000 people, including members of the Royal family. “Look at that,” said Pompowski. When I asked Pompowski why the Russian operatives would block Murdoch in Eastern Europe while taking over his outlets in Britain, he explained: “I believe Moscow has to put down the alternative voices.” Why would this be necessary? Moscow is trying to split off Europe from America through the agency of anti-American active measures. Murdoch’s media outlets represent an obstacle to such an effort. “The late Gen. Odom believed that the Soviet Union transformed itself into these different entities,” noted Pompowski. “Now the NATO states have to understand this new complex of power, and they must take notice.” The danger, said Pompowski, is that Russia may “damage and destabilize the structures established after the Second World War, which were part of the Western security system.” The official Russian policy is to create a new “security architecture for Europe.” This translates as Europe without NATO – that is to say, Europe dominated by Russia. Pompowski also spoke of revelations that the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Georgia last year was carried out by Russian GRU officer Maj. Yevgeny Borisov, and was coordinated by Russian military intelligence. Why would Russian military officials order an attack against a U.S. Embassy? “I believe the Russian state is completely in disarray,” Pompowski explained. “There are several criminal powers within the state, all acting along different lines. I think in the end they are lost. Russia is a rogue state. It is completely a rogue state.” The idea is that Russia is caught between nationalist, communist, mafia and ersatz-Orthodox Christian power blocs. Yet all the various internal Russian power groups share a similar perspective when it comes to America. “Have you seen the report on the visit of the Russian ambassador to NATO with members of Congress?” asked Pompowski. “Ambassador Rogozin met with Senators Kyl and Kirk on Tuesday or Thursday, and he called them ‘monsters of the Cold War.’” Pompowski also spoke of the ersatz-Christian Norwegian terrorist, Anders Bhering Breivik, who was allegedly trained earlier this year at a secret paramilitary field camp in Belarus (a former Soviet republic currently defended by the Russian military and used as a conduit for exporting crime, drugs, weapons – and perhaps even terrorists). Supposedly, Breivik visited Minsk last spring. “There is a discussion of Russian links with this tragedy in Norway,” said Pompowski. “The information is growing all the time.” Breivik’s code name within the Belarus KGB was allegedly “Viking,” though his connection to Russia is unproven, his praise for Putin and the Russian political system is coincident with his disgust for the soft, politically correct democracies of Western Europe and Scandinavia. I asked Tomasz about the idea that somebody in Moscow has been pushing Right Wing extremism in Europe. “I am close to this theory,” Pompowski responded. “But you cannot find in this a homogeneous Russian goal. There is no one in control of the Russian state. It is a conglomerate of different states.” Of course, support for Slavic nationalism is nothing new, he explained.” They were behind the nationalism of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, for example. The Russians are involved in many manipulations, some of them established under Gorbachev or earlier.” According to Pompowski, the tendency of these manipulations is to destabilize the West, to bring higher energy prices and to foster extremism. The Russian military has indeed been fostering a movement in Europe, acknowledged Pompowski. “Unlike the militaries of the West, they had a department of military philosophy placed high up within the strategic command system. These people claimed to be Russian Orthodox, but the majority of the Russian Orthodox leadership had their origins within the KGB. Under the Soviet Union you had to get through the KGB to rise as a priest. Now these people are given a free hand, and are still involved in KGB strategies.” I asked Pompowski about the release of an independent report on the tragic air crash that killed the Polish president last year as he traveled to mark the 60th anniversary the Katyn Forest massacre where thousands of Polish military officers were slaughtered by the Soviets in 1940. He described how Russian officials hindered Polish investigators of the air crash, denying them access to aircraft wreckage, onboard voice recordings and more. In summing up, Pompowski translated a line from Polish poet Zbigniew Herbert, which was used in the report, and which had to do with the Katyn massacre. “And do not forgive “And you are not entitled to forgive “On behalf of those who are betrayed.” It is an apt three lines which the entire world should commit to memory, especially as the number of those betrayed is bound to grow.
Seriously though, Russians are bullies
Roussel and Fossum 10- Stéphane Roussel is professor in the department of political science at the Université du Québec à Montréal and Canada Research Chair in Canadian foreign and defence policy. John Erik Fossum is professor of political science with the ARENA Centre for European Studies at the University of Oslo and vice president of the Nordic Association for Canadian Studies, (“The Arctic is Hot Again in America and Europe: Introduction to Part I”, December 2010, http://ijx.sagepub.com/content/65/4/799.citation//nemo)
Hønneland’s examination of the Russian-Norwegian pattern of cooperation opens the door for a closer look at Russia’s approach to the Arctic. In western capitals, and especially in Ottawa, Russians are depicted as aggressive, ambitious, and greedy. But the contributors to this issue offer a much more nuanced portrait. First, Ekaterina Piskunova explores the idea that Russia is conducting a foreign policy that is consistent with the notion of “soft balancing,” which means “a limited military buildup and security understanding among actors, combined with preventive strategies as well as nonmilitary tools, to discourage, delay, or dismantle unilateral aggressive policies by another great power” (852). Russia has clear interests in the Arctic, especially with regard to energy, and defending these interests is a central concern for Moscow, demonstrated in its pattern of actions and reactions. But, as Piskunova notes, its actions remain within the limits of the existing institutional and legal framework. Indra Øverland addresses Russia’s Arctic strategy—and western perceptions of it—in the energy field. Øverland stresses how western perceptions have been shaped by underlying security considerations that may best be understood as leftovers from the Cold War period, an image he notes is largely reflected in the more jingoistic parts of the Russian media. Øverland instead underlines the many important similarities between the Russian approach and that of western countries, such as Norway. What might set Russia apart, however, is the proportion of Russian gas (80 percent) and oil (70 percent) that is located in the Arctic parts of Russia. A significant proportion of these resources is located offshore, where Russia lacks experience. The sheer size of the fields suggests that the more Russia wants to develop them, the greater will be its reliance on foreign capital and technology. At the same time, there is still a strong element of Russian resource nationalism, and Russia has a tendency to consider energy to be a strategic asset. This is also partly reflected in different Russian models for the inclusion of foreign companies: exploration of the Shtokman field has been more inclusive than exploration in Yamal. How Russia prioritizes these two Arctic petroleum regions will shed important light on its openness to international companies. One of the interesting conclusions raised by Øverland is that “western commentators also tend to overlook similarities between the Russian approach and the approaches of their own countries to the Arctic” (866). These words are a good introduction to P. Whitney Lackenbauer’s article. The author takes as his point of departure that “the Arctic is a topic of growing geostrategic importance.” Realist analysts inject a certain Cold War mentality into the debate when they point to a resurgent Russia as a major threat, a Russia that is heavily committed to Arctic involvement and development. Russia fuels this perception through its belligerent and aggressive rhetoric, which is picked up in Canada and mirrored in the Canadian debate. At the same time, Lackenbauer insists that confrontational Russian rhetoric is really mainly intended for its domestic audience, because Moscow also continues to emphasize that it is committed to abiding by international law. Russia is sending mixed messages. The same pattern also applies to Canada, which is also sending mixed messages. An important observation is that this hard-line rhetoric serves the cause of those seeking to increase military spending and the securitization of the north. This is also taking place in both countries, and “Canada finds itself cast in the unfamiliar role as a catalyst for militarizing the region, staging ‘Cold War-style exercises’ just like the Russians” (892). The situation has a clear ring to it of the liberal security dilemma, where both parties “misperceive each other’s intentions and, in striving to be defensively secure, cause others to perceive their actions as threatening” (893). At the same time, the fact that both countries are not only committed to complying with international law but actually demonstrate compliance in their behaviour goes to show that the potential for conflict is lower than one might infer from the many abrasive statements on both sides. The mixed messaging nevertheless carries the risk that the situation could spiral out of control. Lackenbauer, as do several other contributors to this issue, suggests that it is important to maintain a broader perspective on the discourse. It is also important to keep in mind that there are clear beneficiaries from securitization and increased interstate tensions, and that these are generally not the inhabitants of the region. If these authors add important nuance to the image of the “bad guy” or the “troublemaker” that westerners tend to see in Russia, those dealing with Canada question Ottawa’s image as the “good guy.” In his brief yet incisive overview of the central issues and challenges pertaining to the north, Michael Byers underlines how the Arctic figured centrally in the Cold War and how the end of the Cold War and global climate change have increased cooperation among the main actors there. He further notes that cooperation has generally improved more in non-security than in security matters, where the Cold War divide remains a difficult issue to settle, although the Obama administration has taken measures to improve relations. There are hardly any disputes over land, with the exception of Hans Island; the important differences are over maritime boundaries and shipping routes. All the states are committed to work “within an existing framework of international law to delimit their respective areas of jurisdiction over the seabed” (900). At the same time, the Arctic coastal states are set to test the scope of their rights over an extended continental shelf under the UNCLOS provisions. There are efforts in place to map the seabed, for instance, in the Beaufort Sea, which pit Canadians against Americans. Byers points to the fact that with increased access, today’s security challenges involve non-state actors (smugglers, gunrunners, illegal immigrants, and even terrorists) in the Northwest Passage, the northern sea route, and the Barents, Greenland, Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering seas. The proliferation security initiative is a cooperative mechanism set up to deal with these threats. Byers ends by noting that contentious issues have been dealt with through international law, which has prevented a race for Arctic resources.
Specifically Putin is an evil pinko communist
Bikermog 08 (Bikermog, sometime 6 years ago according to yahoo answers, preferred answerer on yahoo answers, “Is Vladimir Putin a communist?,” https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081226134641AAO7a3v)//RTF
Is Vladimir Putin a communist? Is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB spy, a communist? I also ask considering how he hasarrested and murdered journalists by the tens of hundreds, and rigs elections. He also called the collapse of the Soviet Union a "catastrophe." Do you think its possible a new USSR comes up in the next decade? Best AnswerAsker's Choice bikermog answered 6 years ago if it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck, why would anyone think it was a giraffe? of course he's a communist. Asker's rating & comment 5 out of 5
He’s even trying to over the world, and even worse, AMERICA!
Trinko 3/18 (Katarina, 3/18/14, managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today's Board of Contributors, “
Putin Is Launching a New Version of the Evil Empire. What the U.S. Needs to Do Now,” http://dailysignal.com/2014/03/18/putin-launching-new-version-evil-empire-u-s-needs-now/)//RTF
Today Russian president Vladimir Putin announced that he would make Crimea officially part of Russia. Crimea, which is currently part of Ukraine, had a forced referendum Saturday. “Vladimir Putin is launching a new version of the evil empirethat Ronald Reagan resisted decades earlier,” observes Nile Gardiner, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. “The United States and the free world must resist Putin’s ugly power grab.” “Putin’s attempt to annex the Crimea is only the beginning of his imperial ambitions,” Gardiner warned. “Thisis likely a precursor to Russia seizingthe whole of Ukraine. If Putin succeeds in taking the Ukraine, he will have his eyes set on the Baltic states as his next likely conquest.” “Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the hearts and minds of people,” Putin told Russian politicians today, according to the New York Times. “That faith has been preserved and passed on from generation to generation.” Gardiner wrote this weekend on how the United States should respond to Putin’s aggressive actions: President Putin should be told in no uncertain terms that there will be an immediate price to be paid for enacting his imperial ambitions, beginning with the immediate U.S. withdrawal from the hugely flawed New START Treaty and the swift implementation of targeted sanctions, including visa bans and the freezing of financial assets, against any Russian official or private citizen (including the oligarchs that surround the Kremlin) involved in aggression against Ukraine or in human rights violations on the ground. The Magnitsky Act, passed by Congress in 2012, should be applied without mercy against Russia’s ruling elites, who have been instrumental in keeping Putin’s brutal regime in power. A hard-line sanctions policy—with real teeth and not just empty rhetoric—must be coupled with the bolstering of NATO allies in close proximity to Russia. This should include the deployment of additional U.S. military assets to the region, especially the four members that border Ukraine: Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, and the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The message should be sent directly to Moscow that any threat to a NATO member will be met with the invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and the full force of the NATO alliance. In addition, the Obama Administration must act to lift restrictions on the export of liquefied natural gas to U.S. allies in Europe that have become increasingly energy dependent on Moscow.
Drilling lets us kill the Russians- two warrants
1. Drilling makes Russia mad! That means WAR!
Reuters 12/10 (Reuters, 12/10/13, “New cold war: Russia eyes chilly Arctic in global energy play,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/101262037#.)//RTF
President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia's military to increase its focus on the Arctic and finish plans by the end of the year to upgrade military bases in the resource-rich region where world powers jostle for control. Speaking to Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Putin praised the military's work in the Arctic, where Canada said on Monday it was claiming the North Pole as part of an broader claim on the region. The United States, Denmark and Norway are also pressing for control of what they consider their fair share of massive untapped oil and natural gas reserves. "I request that you pay special attention to the deployment of infrastructure and military units in the Arctic," Putin said, speaking at a Defence Ministry board meeting. "By the end of the year it is planned - and I expect it will be done... the renewal of the Tiksi airfield and completion of construction work on the Severomorsk-1 airfield," he said in televised comments. Russia has already completed work on renovating an airfield on the Novosibirsk Islands, Putin said, which was abandoned in 1993. Earlier this year Moscow sent 10 warships and four icebreakers to the islands in a show of force. Underscoring Moscow's sensitivity over Arctic claims, Russia arrested 30 people on board a Greenpeace ship during a September protest against Russian offshore Arctic drilling. They now face charges carrying seven year jail sentences. Putin said earlier this week that Russia's military presence in the Arctic was needed to protect against potential threats from the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey says the Arctic contains 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of oil. The world's largest oil producer, Russia expects to see oil output decline at its mainstay western Siberian oilfields in coming years and has looked further afield to potential Arctic reserves. Russia, Canada and Denmark all say an underwater mountain range known as the Lomonosov Ridge, which stretches 1,800 km (1,120 miles) across the pole under the Arctic Sea, is part of their own landmass
It’s all good because we would totally win
Wolfeyes 08 (Wolfeyes, yahoo answers said they answered 6 years ago, commenter on yahoo answers, “Can America win a war against Russia?,” https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080817101640AAYkVXY)//RTF
Can America win a war against Russia? while Americans fight amongst each other. Russia plans an attack on the us. Update : By the way America is the greatestcountry in the world. That is why we ...show more Best Answer wolfeyes_89 answered 6 years ago Of course we can, but war is always uncertain. In terms of pure assets yes of course we can win 100 times over. If you think about it all of our weapons were made to fight a WW III with the soviet union, not Russia, which in blatant terms was a superpower while Russia is only an emerging superpower that cant afford to pay it's officers. From our M1A1 Abrams (which is the most powerful and technologically advanced tank in the world to date) toour fleets and our F-22's, we are very prepared to fight a war with Russia. The fact that we have forces active in Iraq and other parts of the world really doesn't matter because we still have enough forces to fight another two or three conventional wars and keep our mainland safe. To put it in laments terms. One carrier strike group has enough power to eliminate the entire Russian air force and navy, and we only have about 2 or 3 in Iraq out of 10 (but don't quote me on that) and seeing as how Russia will chose to fight a conventional war we wont have to be dispersing high value assets to eliminate gorilla targets on a massive scale like we have to right now in Iraq. Furthermore we don't only have the navy, we have an air force that outnumbers the Russians in terms of technology and manpower. So really all we have to worry about is nukes. I really don't think that a superpower like the U.S. doesn't have a contingency for nukes I mean we build new nukes every ten years :D. So in conclusion we would win but we would suffer about 25-35% casualties of the total number of forces that we would deploy, because at the end of the day Russia's armed forces are a big threat.
Kasperowicz 3/5 (Pete, 3/5/14, staff writer for The Hill, “Boehner: Weaken Russian influence by exporting US natural gas,” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/199978-boehner-weaken-russian-influence-by-exporting-us-natural-gas)//RTF
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday called on the Obama administration to allow more exports of natural gas, which he said is a move that would help weaken the influence of Russia. Boehner said Russia's involvement in Ukraine is "more than a cause for concern, it's a cause for action." He said Congress would work with the White House to counter Russia's move into Ukraine, but said energy policy should also be a part of the U.S. reaction. He said selling more natural gas abroad would help boost U.S. values overseas, but said so far, President Obama's Energy Department is holding these exports back. "We can supplant Russia's influence, but we won't so long as we have to contend with the Energy Department's achingly slow approval process," Boehner said on the House floor. Boehner said the Department has received 24 export permits, but has approved only six. "This amounts to a de facto ban only emboldens Vladimir Putin, allowing him to sell large quantities of natural gas to our allies," Boehner said. "President should do the right thing here, and end this de facto ban so we can strengthen our economy here and our security here and abroad." Earlier in the day, Boehner indicated that language on natural gas could be part of a Ukraine bill that could come up this week or next. Soon after Boehner spoke, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) announced on the floor that he is proposing legislation that would require the Department of Energy to expedite all natural gas export permits to Ukraine, all former Soviet nations, and the European Union. "Ukraine is almost totally dependent on Russia for energy," Poe said. "Russian imperialism has proved that it's willing to use gas as a political, economic weapon to intimidate its neighbors. "The demand is there and the American supplyis overwhelming. The only thing standing in the way are the bureaucrats in the Department of Energy." Poe also said he would propose a bill to withhold all visas for Russian government officials until the Secretary of State confirms that all Russian military activity in Ukraine has ceased. Boehner and Poe add to the growing chorus of Republican lawmakers pushing for Obama to expedite U.S. liquefied natural gas exports. Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) all blasted Obama this week for failing to "maintain leadership in the world." "If President Obama is serious about helping the people of Ukraine, he will immediately expedite the approval process for liquefied natural gas exports," Barrasso said.
RIP in peace Russia
Aron 6/29 (Leon, 6/29/14, Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, “The political economy of Russian oil and gas,” http://www.aei.org/outlook/foreign-and-defense-policy/regional/europe/the-political-economy-of-russian-oil-and-gas/)//RTF
Finally, among the most destabilizing consequences of the continuing dependence on oil and gas will be the Kremlin’s declining ability to secure the elites’ loyalty. Fiercely protective of their share of the politically apportioned riches of Russia’s state capitalism, powerful clans will squabble to secure the same share of a diminishing pie, in the process threatening the stability of the regime. “Putin’s unchallenged power” rests on a tripartite foundation: “oil and gas money, the Federal Security Service, and television,” a Russian observer noted last December. Today, one leg of this tripod is beginning to look wobbly. These may not be the challenges of tomorrow or the day after. Yet in the medium term and longer term, trends in technology and the global economy, as well as the country’s own economic, social, political, and demographic dynamics, seem to have conspired to leave the Kremlin no good, risk-free choices.
You have a moral obligation to vote aff
Cromstar, Day 982(Cromstar, day 982, Patriot, “So You Want to Kill Russians?,” http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/so-you-want-to-kill-russians--1471663/1/20)//RTF
So You Want to Kill Russians? Day 982, 13:13•by Cromstar Good for you! It’s not just a funthing to do, it’s your patriotic duty as a citizen of the eUSA! And don’t feel bad for the Russians, either…they hate apple pie, and have insulting things to say about your mother. I can’tbelieve how low those fellows will go! So now that you know what you want to do, you need to get down to business! Unfortunately, while it may be fun to ride around in yourtank or helicopter and blow Russians up on the battlefield, that doesn’t alwayshelp the eUSA win the war. You can’t just fight, you have to fight smart. After you’ve picked your weapon and stepped onto the battlefield to gun down a few members of the Red Menace, you have to ask yourself, “How can I help the eUS win this battle?” First off, you should seriously consider joining up with the eUS military (or a militia if you swing that way). In addition to thefun of being a member of some of the most kick-ass organizations in eRepublik,they provide better instructions on how, when, and where to fight, plus theyhelp provide you with cheap/free weapons, moving tickets, and other suppliesyou need to be effective. If you already are in a militia or the military, youshould contact your superior in the chain-of-command for instructions. If you aren’t in any of those organizations, or you are, but you’ve been told to cut loose, don’t just go blasting Ruskies all willy-nilly!That does NOT help win battles most of the time. Despite his best efforts, Rambo didn’t save Oregon from Russia because he doesn’t know enough about battlefield tactics. So, learn from Rambo’s mistakes, and learnsome strategy! Remember reading all that stuff admins talked about in their articles? Well, whether or not you do, here’s a reminder: there are twoconditions to winning a battle. One side must complete both conditions towin the battle. 1. Hold the Capital city of the region. 2. Possess at least 75% of the tiles in a region. If neither side has completed both objectives at the end of the 24 hour period for a battle, it enters into overtime…and that means thefirst side to complete both conditions at the same time wins automatically. So what does this mean for you? Well, due to the way the new war module works, it means that the beginnings of most battles hold very little meaning on the outcome of thefight. In fact, we’ll go so far as to say that, unless the Department of DefenseOrders say otherwise, don’t fight in the first day of any particular battle. Sadly, after you go to bed that night, the OTHER side will wake up in the morning and undo all your progress when you aren’t around tostop them. What does that mean? It means you probably wasted health, time,weapons, and money and got nothing to show for it. However, during the second day of a battle, people begin to act, in the hopes of completing the conditions and winning the battle for theirside! Now’s your chance to act, and you should know what to do! Russians, Russians, everywhere, and not a friend in sight? That will probably happen sometimes. In those cases, you might end up getting attacked by a dozen enemies and end up dead. Remember, youaren’t superman! Even a Field Marshall and a Veteran with a Q5 weapon willeventually be brought down by enough Russians. You want to take them downwithout being taken down yourself. Basic tactics Remember the terrain bonuses and use them to your advantage for both offense and defense. Infantry, stick to forests and mountains,especially when facing tanks (they will just run you over if you catch them inthe hills where they have the terrain bonus!) Don’t forget your unit bonuseseither infantry! Whenever you spot an enemy artillery defending a city, bridge,or just out in the open, you can move in on him. He’ll have the defense bonusin a city tile, but anywhere else, you can just destroy that artillery and freethe ground for friendly helios to join the fight at your side. Tanks, just remember to run over any infantry you can find. You can’t chase them into the mountains, but if you get into the hills and getthe terrain bonus for yourself, your unit bonus will give you that much of anedge to destroy them. You’ve got 2 movement points each turn, an advantage overinfantry and artillery, so use them well to cover ground fast if you need toget somewhere in a hurry. Just be sure to watch out for helicopters…especiallyon open ground. Helicopters, you have most useful functions in a battle. In addition to 3 movement points, you can cross ANY terrain, a huge bonus overevery other unit. In fact, water tiles can only be captured by helicopters, andyou are the only unit that isn’t affected by bridge blockades. Use yourmovement to benefit your allies, by helping to get around behind blockades atstrategic locations, crossing rivers where there aren’t any enemy units,sneaking into the backfield to capture tiles unopposed, or just bearing down ona tank and blowing it to pieces. Artillery, you have an extremely important role to play. Helicopters are extremely versatile units that can cause a lot of problems ifleft unchecked. Luckily, you have the advantage over them…oh, and you have anadvantage when in a city. Gee…regional capitals are cities. That makesartillery perfect for defending capitals…especially against rouge helios thatjust fly over a river to avoid the defenses at bridgeheads! No, I’m afraid that isn’t all there is. Remember, just remembering the basics about unit strengths and bonuses only gets you so far…you need to know a bit more about tactics onthe battlefield in order to best help the eUSA. Here’s the nitty-gritty detail. Things the experts know but you might not. Learn them by heart. Deployment Where you deploy on the map is important in a battle. If you didn’t deploy in the first day of the battle and waited until the second,you’ll have the extra luxury of deploying most anywhere on the map your alliesstill control. That’s another reason to wait on joining a battle…after you’vejoined the battle once, you are limited in where you are allowed to deploy to thebattlefield. Oh, and while you should carefully consider where to deploy, you should also remember that deployment is important to the other side as well.Remember that. So where to deploy? Generally speaking, deploying for the first time leaves you with 4 main options you might run into you. If either side owns the entire map, you pretty much have a choice of where to deploy…along the front line of the deployment zone. If yourside owns the map, you should deploy along the enemy’s deployment zone and helpkeep them from breaking out. If the enemy owns the map, deploy in your owndeployment zone and help your allies to break out. If the battle is particular close or tight, there’s likely to be large zones controlled by one side or the other. If there is fightingaround the capital of a region, and you can deploy nearby, that might be a goodidea, so that you can join in on the attack or defense of the capital,depending on who owns it. Sometimes, when you go to deploy, you’ll notice that there’s a major front where both sides are stacked up heavily. If there’s only that onefront, you can choose where to deploy and do your best to break the enemy’slines and secure the battle for your side. Finally, sometimes you might get lucky and your allies will have taken a large zone behind the enemy lines. Deploying in these zones toattack the enemy and capture tiles behind his lines, where he’s weak andusually has few units, can really help your allies. It not only pushes towardsthe tile-holding victory condition, but it also draws fighters away from thefront lines of battle, forcing the enemy to lose ground if he’s not careful andtoo many people leave the front. Tiles versus Fights Everyone wants to kill the enemy. We all know that. However, killing the enemy doesn’t actually win the battle. It’s controlling tiles. Sometimes you’ll want to jump into the fight and blow some stuff up. However, you might be more useful performing the dull job ofcapturing tiles. It might not sound as glamorous as fighting the enemy up-closeand personal, but it often has a bigger impact on the battle itself. Remember how important deployment zones are? Remember when we mentioned deploying in the backfield to cause trouble for the enemy? Well,the enemy can do the same to you! So if you happen to be nearby a cluster of enemy tiles, and they are behind the main front of a battle, quickly capture them so the enemycan’t deploy there! The last thing you and your friends want is for a dozenField Marshall’s to appear right beside the capital because you were too busychasing the enemy away to capture the tiles. If there’s any form of breach inthe front where a helicopter popped across a river, or a clump of tiles wheresome tough guys made their last stand, then please help capture those tilesbefore getting back into the fight. Capturing tiles and cutting off enemy deployments can turn the tide of battle! And remember, you need 75% of the tiles to win the battle…ifyour side only needs those last few tiles, these ones are easier to pick upthan the ones the enemy is currently sitting on. Bridges and rivers Three of the four unit types are blocked by rivers and require a bridge to cross. So naturally, rivers form strong barriers against all but helios,and bridges become very important in the long run. When it comes to attackingor defending rivers, everyone needs to pull together to do it right! Tanks and infantry, being limited to land, have only one real option: take the bridges! Tanks and infantry serve as the backbone of anysuccessful attack or defense of a bridge crossing a river. You need to pileonto the bridge and surrounding tiles, push back enemy attacks on yourpositions, and try and dislodge the enemy from their own positions. Onceyou’ve secured the bridge, everyone should be moving across it and into thetiles on the other side of the bridge. Don’t get caught up in just holdingthe bridge tile, when you can use the terrain on the far side to increase yourdefensive advantage! Helicopters also play an important role in river-crossing, since they aren’t limited to the bridge. While some helicopters should assistat the bridge itself, still others should find undefended parts of the riverto cross and enter the enemy’s territory, dragging vital resources awayfrom the bridge AND capturing tiles for your side. Remember, helicopters have along range (3 moves per turn) and you can easily out run the enemy and forcehim to chase you around. Artillery have as big a role in defending rivers as helicopters do in assaulting them. In fact, it’s because helicopters have suchan important role in crossing rivers. Artillery should spread themselves outalong the entire length of a river bank and prevent enemy helios fromcrossing the river. If you don’t, they enemy can circumvent any defense at thebridge and weaken your allies. Defending the capital We cannot stress this enough, so we’re going to make it big and bold so you don’t miss it. DO NOT JUST PILE INTO THE CAPITAL CITY TILE AND HOPE TO KEEP THE ENEMY FROM TAKING IT. Did you catch that? Good…means we don’t have to say it again. But we are anyway. DO NOT sit on the capital tile and assume you are doing a good job. You are NOT. In fact, with a few exceptions, the only units that should be camped out on the capital tile itself are artillery, since they have a defensebonus in cities. Everyone else should make positive use of the terrainaround the capital to increase the defenses of the capital. Check theterrain and look at where the enemy units are coming from. Are helicopters crossing a nearby river to attack? Some artillery should take up positions along the river or just wait at the capitalto shoot them down. There’s not much point in tanks sitting between them, onlyto get shredded by helios. Nearby bridge head providing the only land access to the capital? Then all the tanks and infantry should be on the land between the capital andthe bridge, and pushing to take that bridge and cripple the enemy assault. Does the capital sit in the middle of ground, with no near by rivers? The enemy can come in from everywhere? Then use the terrain toyour advantage! If there are nearby mountains and forests, the infantryshould be piled up knee deep in there, using the terrain bonus to attack enemyunits from the cover. Helicopters should zoom around the open plains, attackingthe enemy and avoiding slow-moving artillery. Tanks should find any hills ifthey can…and if they can’t, they should concentrate on preventing enemyinfantry from entering the forests or mountains. Catch the infantry in the openbefore they can make it to the forest and destroy them that much easier. Closing thoughts So you want to kill Russians? Good to hear. And remember…killing Russians just isn’t enough. We want to win the war as well! Hopefully you’ll remember the lessonswe’ve taught you today, and put them to use on the field tomorrow! And don’t forget, ladies, gentlemen, and whatever the rest of you are, if you aren’t sure what to do, the eUS Department of Defense has apublic IRC channel where you can come and ask for advice on where and how tofight! Join us in the Rizon channel #defense where all your questions will beanswered. Now, on to victory!