Chapotraphouse

Did they even get into combat? I thought the barracks ate a cruise missile because they posted the location online.

Also if we’re talking individual valor, my grandfather was conscripted to Korea, was in combat, but upon returning all we ever heard was that he was a “clerk”. No bullshit talk of valor, flags flown, uniforms or medals displayed, and the only picture I’ve ever seen of it is of a few Korean boys holding up the chocolate bars he’d given them. The closest thing to a parade he was in was krackkkers throwing bottles when he marched with Father Groppi.

The only time I saw him mad was when he saw me playing soldier; and decades later I recall it didn’t feel like anger but the most profound sadness and disappointment I’ve felt - in that we might perpetuate violence.

Fuck any scum who glorify war or perpetuate it.

I don't hear much talk of valor in war from those who have been in it. Many veterans understand their role in society as expendables in the battle to make the line go up and to maintain hegemony, and either buy into it as an ontological good to support that cause, or understand their crimes against the humanity of the world. And they’re both hit with americas blowback, because capital doesn’t give a shit about war or dead soldiers unless they make a buck from either, and liberal “anti-war” movements don’t care about war they just want to consume without guilt, and disregard the blood that greases the skids.

What’s an “honorable™️” way out of poverty in the US? Join the military. What’s an dishonorable way into poverty in the US? Failing to die abroad like a “good ™️” soldier. In the US a veteran is just a sunk cost, and a risk to exposing the mask of valor for the lie it is. A dead soldier is the blank slate upon which Uncle Sam signs up the next generation.

Capitalism wants us all dead, and will profit as long as it takes to make that happen.

This time I'll be working on the railroad instead of exploited Chinese immigrants running from the imperialist opium wars.

Russia doesn't have a high degree of air superiority or air supremacy over Ukraine. Russian aircraft don't cross the forward line of own troops, and haven't in years, which is why they use cruise missiles, one way attack drones and ballistic missiles for attacks deeper into Ukrainian territory. And glide bombs launched 40+ km behind their forward line of own troops for air support. When Russia had air supremacy in Mariopul, they brought in the Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers to bomb Mariopul. When Russia gained air supremacy over Kursk this year just before Ukraine lost it, they had attack helicopters, close air support aircraft like the Su-25, and larger UCAVs bombing all of Kursk that Ukraine held at the time. If Tu-22M3 Backfire bombers flew over Kiev every night, Ukraine would've surrendered years ago.

If you mean the Russian air force is superior to the Ukrainian air force in numbers and equipment, and thus they have air superiority, then yes that's correct. But I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Yes Russia is superior there, but they can't translate that into flying deeper into Ukrainian territory, Ukraine still controls the airspace behind the front lines thanks to the area/access denial enabled by their air defence network and defensive counter air missions by the Ukrainian Air Force, which has almost completely transitioned to F-16AM/BM aircraft (Soviet era airframes and the few French Mirages only make up 20% of sorties now). Russian offensive counter air and suppression of enemy air defence missions are not, at this stage of the war, inflicting significant enough losses to meaningfully degrade Ukraine's area/access denial to aircraft. In the beginning of the war Russia inflicted large losses on Ukraine air defence and fighter aircraft, but were unable to translate that into deep strike missions.

A few weeks (or months) ago Ukraine even flew an An-124 cargo plane out of Kiev. If Russia had a high degree of air superiority, they would've shot it down. They didn't.

If you want to be pedantic about it, I think @MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net means air supremacy, which Russia does not have. For instance, during the Israel-Iran war Israel had air superiority over all of Iran, in that they were not under threat and could operate mostly, but only had supremacy over the western part of Iran, where they could conduct deep strikes and totally rule the skies and do anything with almost no resistance whatsoever in the air. This same situation happened in Lebanon and Gaza (obviously). Russia does not have supremacy over Ukraine, and does not conduct deep airstrikes. All of the strikes carried out in western Ukraine are by cruise missiles or missiles launched via aircraft far outside the range of Ukranian air defenses. I think Russia could gain air supremacy over Ukraine, but they don't want to pay that price right now because it'd be costly in terms of aircraft.

Everything builds on logistics, air forces are probably the most resource intensive part of warfare in terms of both offence and defence

No, logistics is still very important. Especially for the air force, in fact it's probably most important for the air force.