Jump to content

Ukraine: Holding


Ser Scot A Ellison
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think this discussion of giving old planes to Ukraine is a distraction at best.  Ukraine isn't going to have operable airfields or ample aviation fuel for much longer.  Ukraine has a lot more use for handheld anti air and anti ground systems, which don't require extensive infrastructure or training to use.  Fortunately, those systems have been proving very effective and are being supplied in significant numbers.  I expect that will continue even as Russia conquers more of the country, since closing off the entire Ukrainian border is not realistic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

This is a bit rich from countries that followed similar tactics in previous conflicts. It took like a month to the US coalition to achieve air superiority over Iraq in 1991 and the strong air defense made them to rely on stealth strikes, cruise missiles and high altitude bombing. Serbia gave them similar troubles even shooting down a frigging stealth fighter.

 

You’re complaining about Russia’s inability to achieve Air Superiority?  Why?  Or are you just throwing out a Tu Quoque (bandwagon) fallacy for fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’re complaining about Russia’s inability to achieve Air Superiority?  Why?  Or are you just throwing out a Tu Quoque (bandwagon) fallacy for fun?

It seems rather weird.

Yes US led coalitions can afford fighting wars in a way that reduce the risk of loosing troops. 

Good logistics and an economy that can throw money instead of lives away is not really a bad thing in war.

He also mentioned an incident which involved a shit ton of luck to down ONE US plane. Good for propaganda I guess but otherwise rather worthless. Edit: I just looked it up and NATO lost 2 soldiers in a non-combat helicopter crash during the bombings NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. That's it.

Edited by Luzifer's right hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I was co-chair of my law school’s 20th reunion.  The main function of the job is raising money.  The LLM co-chair is a Russian National, living in Moscow, and a partner at a US firm.  She is still a co-chair.  I resigned.  School seemed happy to take my resignation.  I have now pulled my (substantial) pledge.  Now looking for good refugee and asylum organizations instead.

Btw - have no idea what the co-chair’s politics are and how she feels about everything (I didn’t know her - JDs and LLMs don’t really interact much).  I have no problem with her personally.  But, I don’t care.  It’s a really bad look.  If she needs help getting out of Russia great.  If she doesn’t support Putin, great.  But my law school should be thinking about who they choose as representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’re complaining about Russia’s inability to achieve Air Superiority?  Why?  Or are you just throwing out a Tu Quoque (bandwagon) fallacy for fun?

No complaining. Pointing out that it's extremely weird that UK raises something that they should know. What do they want? That Russia closes the entire Ukranian airspace and shots down everything that flies over there that doesn't respond to their commands? That's how US achieved air superiority over Iraq.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

No complaining. Pointing out that it's extremely weird that UK raises something that they should know. What do they want? That Russia closes the entire Ukranian airspace and shots down everything that flies over there that doesn't respond to their commands? That's how US achieved air superiority over Iraq.

 

Yes.  And many are puzzled as to why the Russians haven’t done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the Russians already have air superiority (the ability to conduct operations without being pushed back by enemy airpower), and had it since the first few hours of the invasion.  What they do not have is air supremacy (the enemy airforce is no longer able to conduct meaningful operations). 

The Russians have satellite images of every airfield in Ukraine and any military planner with half a brain would prioritize bombing or capturing those airfields to be a high priority.  The fact that any airfields are still operable almost a week into this invasion is both puzzling and embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, I was co-chair of my law school’s 20th reunion.  The main function of the job is raising money.  The LLM co-chair is a Russian National, living in Moscow, and a partner at a US firm.  She is still a co-chair.  I resigned.  School seemed happy to take my resignation.  I have now pulled my (substantial) pledge.  Now looking for good refugee and asylum organizations instead.

Btw - have no idea what the co-chair’s politics are and how she feels about everything (I didn’t know her - JDs and LLMs don’t really interact much).  I have no problem with her personally.  But, I don’t care.  It’s a really bad look.  If she needs help getting out of Russia great.  If she doesn’t support Putin, great.  But my law school should be thinking about who they choose as representatives.

We shouldn't be discriminating against people just because of their nationality. This seems incredibly harsh. As you say, you don't know what her politics are, you are judging her purely on where she was born. 

We should all be trying to differentiate between state and populous. I have friends who live in Ukraine, who I am very worried about. I also have friends who are Russian, who live in Russia. Why would I judge those Russians? They aren't Putin, even if they agreed with Putin that is up to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

We shouldn't be discriminating against people just because of their nationality. This seems incredibly harsh. As you say, you don't know what her politics are, you are judging her purely on where she was born. 

We should all be trying to differentiate between state and populous. I have friends who live in Ukraine, who I am very worried about. I also have friends who are Russian, who live in Russia. Why would I judge those Russians? They aren't Putin, even if they agreed with Putin that is up to them. 

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

We shouldn't be discriminating against people just because of their nationality. This seems incredibly harsh. As you say, you don't know what her politics are, you are judging her purely on where she was born. 

We should all be trying to differentiate between state and populous. I have friends who live in Ukraine, who I am very worried about. I also have friends who are Russian, who live in Russia. Why would I judge those Russians? They aren't Putin, even if they agreed with Putin that is up to them. 

People are starting to see the World black and white. I warned a few pages back, the prevalent rhetoric is reminiscence to the one used during the pandemic, now the Russians are the antimaskers, the antivaxxers, the anti-whatever. It won't be long until they start finding some connections there too. The Russian aggression to Ukrania is unacceptable but it's also a very complex issue. Let's not devolve into a Neo-McCarthyism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rotting sea cow said:

People are starting to see the World black and white. I warned a few pages back, the prevalent rhetoric is reminiscence to the one used during the pandemic, now the Russians are the antimaskers, the antivaxxers, the anti-whatever. It won't be long until they start finding some connections there too. The Russian aggression to Ukrania is unacceptable but it's also a very complex issue. Let's not devolve into a Neo-McCarthyism.

 

Its not dissimilar to attacking Chinese people after Covid emerged. We can't go around blaming people for stuff they didn't do purely because of where they are from. Thats really horrible shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MZ resigned as a co-chair of a reunion committee for a Law School. MZ didn't make any demands or judgements of the Russian co-chair living in Moscow. Let's getting a fucking grip.

The weeping at the drop of a hat by those aggrieved by some melange of 'cancel culture', 'neo-McCarthyism' or whatever other nonsense is embarrassing to witness.

Last I checked, we're all free to choose how to spend our time and money how we choose.

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Week said:

MZ resigned as a co-chair of a reunion committee for a Law School. MZ didn't make any demands or judgements of the Russian co-chair living in Moscow. Let's getting a fucking grip.

The weeping at the drop of a hat by those aggrieved by some melange of 'cancel culture', 'neo-McCarthyism' or whatever other nonsense is embarrassing to witness.

Resigned because there was a Russian as co-chair. How are you ok with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Heartofice said:

Resigned because there was a Russian as co-chair. How are you ok with that?

She's allowed to spend her time and money as she chooses. She chooses to dedicate the time and money to refugee and asylum support instead of to the reunion fundraising. 

Seriously, you're being hysterical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, I was co-chair of my law school’s 20th reunion.  The main function of the job is raising money.  The LLM co-chair is a Russian National, living in Moscow, and a partner at a US firm.  She is still a co-chair.  I resigned.  School seemed happy to take my resignation.  I have now pulled my (substantial) pledge.  Now looking for good refugee and asylum organizations instead.

Btw - have no idea what the co-chair’s politics are and how she feels about everything (I didn’t know her - JDs and LLMs don’t really interact much).  I have no problem with her personally.  But, I don’t care.  It’s a really bad look.  If she needs help getting out of Russia great.  If she doesn’t support Putin, great.  But my law school should be thinking about who they choose as representatives.

I'm not sure how this benefits anyone. Literally her only fault is being Russian born? Do you have any Russian friends? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Week said:

She's allowed to spend her time and money as she chooses. She chooses to dedicate the time and money to refugee and asylum support instead of to the reunion fundraising. 

Seriously, you're being hysterical.

Cool. so genuine xenophobia is cool I guess.. noted.

Seriously, imagine the exact same situation after Covid, and the co chair was Chinese. Would you be so cool with it then?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Week said:

MZ didn't make any demands or judgements of the Russian co-chair living in Moscow. Let's getting a fucking grip.

You're being asinine.

She literally says "She is still a co-chair" and calls it a "bad look" as an explanation for her decision. It's obvious that had the co-chair resigned or been removed, she would not have resigned -- this was not some happenstance re-prioritization of her time, but motivated by the very facts she stated.

MZ did not advocate for them resigning, but clearly feels that the co-chair being a Russian national is a problem, that they should have resigned or been removed simply because they are a Russian national. 

Personally, I don't think this is a liberal position to take. It's one thing if the Russian co-chair worked for a Russian government agency. But if they're in private practice, or working for an NGO or something, I personally would not see it as an issue unless there's something I'm missing here.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...