[FRIAM] and don’t miss this
Marcus Daniels
marcus at snoutfarm.com
Wed Mar 16 16:29:10 EDT 2022
Advanced tracking technology! Lol, in Russia that means it has an 80386?
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 1:17 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] and don’t miss this
Ha! Could be fake, but:
Ukrainian S-300s Gain First Ever Kills: Shoot Down Two NATO Aircraft Accidentally Over Romania - Reports https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/ukrainian-s-300s-gain-first-ever-confirmed-kill-shoot-down-two-nato-aircraft-accidentally-over-romania
It's one thing to smuggle in weapons. It's another thing to have people there who know how to operate those weapons.
On 3/16/22 12:16, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Glen writes:
>
> < NATO rejects the no-fly zone. But my guess is it's not because of
> some Utilitarian sense of suffering. It's because war is only
> profitable to a small slice of the industrial world. In some ways,
> that's a good thing, I guess. It signals that we've moved away from
> bombs and fire, toward money and "cyber"/info. To Alphabet, Meta, and
> even Musk Enterprises, people are not only the means of production,
> but also the product. It's stupid to destroy your merchandise. It's
> smarter to keep them enslaved. It's akin to our move from broad
> spectrum [pest|herb]icides toward *targeted* "management". Bombs and
> fire are too coarse to preserve the status quo. Oligarchs like Musk
> need the analog for GMOs and viruses ... hearts and minds of the
> Metaverse denizens. >
>
> If Russia wants to make claims to administer Ukrainian territory, then NATO can certainly do the same, especially since they are being begged to do so. A no-fly zone keeps being treated as a term of art.
> It could just be a claim by NATO over some subset of the territory. Responses to this proposal -- one I heard this morning from Richard Haas -- are dismissive without explanation. He claimed that Russia's radar systems would have to be taken out. I don't see why that would be necessary. It would take the courage to put pilots and vehicles at risk: Invite Russia to shoot at NATO aircraft. Then as soon as the Russians attack a NATO security escort or shoot down a plane, punishment can be proportional. After all, war is politics by other means -- appealing the folks in Russia and in Putin's orbit that the military operation has become too dangerous. Meanwhile, once there is a territory that is relatively safe, then NATO can move more freely to relocate refugees and to deploy defensive and offensive weapons systems. In a grinding war, it could make sense to start training Ukrainians on US weapons systems.
>
> As an extreme example to show the absurdity of these norms, the smuggling-in of weapons could include nuclear warheads. So, in comparison, some planes flying around are not nearly as escalatory.
>
> And the media coverage of the military side of this isn't very penetrating. This morning McFaul said that S-300s were now available to the Ukrainians. Ok, that's somewhat significant. No one is asking about surface-to-surface missiles. Perhaps the administration and the Pentagon (and Zelensky's government) are just keeping the messaging light with the no-fly zone talk so that they have cover to deploy more diverse weapons? I suspect it is not so Machiavellian, and the plea for a no-fly zone is simply desperation.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
More information about the Friam
mailing list