XPost: soc.history.war.misc

Anthony Biggar
Salesperson (2021–present)Mar 5

Is the 'Ghost of Kyiv' real?

He was.
And now he is quite dead.

Colonel Oleksandr Oksachenko, also known as “Grey Wolf", whose SU-27
Flanker was shot down about four days ago has been identified as the
so-called “Ghost of Kyiv" and was decorated as a “Hero of Ukraine" post-mortem.

He was called out of retirement and, while he was a superb pilot in
terms of aerobatics and flying manoeuvres, his seemingly remarkable
tally of 7 kills in one day has not been officially proven.

100.7K viewsView 795 upvotesView 2 sharesAnswer requested by
Rudy Triana

Suttichart Denpreuktham
· 20h ago
Is there any confirm report that he was the pilot of the Mig that
appears on that day? After all your report said he is the pilot of Su-27
not Mig-29

Anthony Biggar
· 6h ago
That was according to one news feed I saw. Others do state however, that
the plane was a MIG 29 but the stories are understandably conflicting especially as each side has it's own versions.

The fact that the US Secretary General boldly stated that Russia had not achieved air superiority would thus mean that the emergence of a solo
ace would be highly unlikely. It is possible that on the day he was
downed he might have been flying a MIG 29. I believe he was shot down by
an S400.

Suttichart Denpreuktham
· 5h ago
I’ve done some digging but nothing at all indicated that he was the
pilot who was cited as the Ghost of Kyiv. If you have a source, you
should post it or otherwise indicated that this is unconfirmed information.

Alan Parsi
· 17h ago
Sad! This war should end. The US is not helping by intensifying its
propaganda against Putin. The more the US media is exaggerating the
situation, the more Putin is provoked. Biden should pick up the phone
and negotiate with Putin to end this destructive war.

Anthony Biggar
· 9h ago
I agree entirely. But unfortunately, the arms companies are making lots
of money profiting from the deaths of others as usual. There is of
course a much deeper reason for the tension between Russia and Ukraine,
but Western media chooses to focus only on the parts that suit them.
This conflict is not about wanting to reclaim Ukraine, otherwise that
could have been done back in 2014. It is not even about Zelensky wanting
to be pro-West. It is about protecting ethnic Russians in Donbass and
Luhansk Peoples Republics who have been victimised by the Nationalist government for a very long time-hence they broke away in 2014 and 2015
and why the Crimea seceded also. The Kremlin has tried unsuccessfully to resolve the issue through dialogue on their end, but each time were met
with hostility by Biden's administration.

You are absolutely correct in what you have said, as the continuing
rhetoric against Putin and against Russia just eliminates options until
the only one left is the button that has a tonne of “DO NOT PUSH THIS
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES” warnings stuck up around it.

This entire tragedy could have been avoided😔

Saul Martino
· 12m ago
Nope.

It's just Putins regine is threatened by bordering democracies doing
better than him and he was told nonsense to invade Ukariane and he is
getting old and crazy like all dictators do.

David Tvaltchrelidze
· 8h ago
We should stop thinking about Putin like he is 9 year old child: “don’t
say that or he gets angry and will break things”. He clearly says what
he wants and will try to do it no matter what you say in response. Only
way to stop him is to act.

Profile photo for K Lynch
K Lynch
· 1h ago
Hi Alan,

Not looking to start a flame here, just a few civil questions and
comments. Hoping you will read them in that tone.

Your first statement sounds as if the U.S. is some kind of dominant and precipitating bad guy in this situation. I just don’t see that in the evidence, but maybe I’ve missed it? To which “propaganda” specifically
do you refer?

You said “(Mr.) Biden should pick up the phone and…” O.K. so what makes you believe that Mr. Biden has not already long ago had that
conversation…to which Mr. Putin is already reported to have replied with
his vision of Ukraine as “historically Russian”. That train left a long time ago.

re: “the more the media…” The sequence of your thoughts seems to
indicate that you believe these two entities are one in the same. FWIW,
the behaviors of the U.S. media are not orchestrated by a shadowy
central governmental agency. You may be mistaking us for other nations
where that is the case. However outrageous our media may be, if there is
any observable reality it is that the media in the United States is NOT
an organ of the Government of the United States! 🤣

Maybe just me, but it does seem abundantly clear from worldwide reaction
that the overwhelming majority of the national community has opposed Mr. Putin’s ambitions in Ukraine, Crimea, etc. Predictably, they now
continue to oppose Mr. Putin. Virtually every nation has made rapid,
clear and unilateral decisions about that opposition, both at at high governmental levels and by the outrage of the common man (in nations
where that is possible for the common man, of course!) Some nations are
more opposed, and some militantly so, but I cannot find a single honest
player who says as national policy that “Gee, we think Mr. Putin made
wise, right and morally correct choice to invade and we support him!” (A
few Russian vassal states excepted, of course!)

However one feels about Mr. Biden, it does appear that at some level he
has quickly assembled or at least participated in the assembly a broad coalition of unified support for Ukraine and against Russia. He seems to
have done this without being heavy-handed or overt. The United States -
for better or worse - is a clear and acknowledged economic and military superpower. Our obvious position as such means that we are in the
discussion, like it or not. What should we say? Nothing? Even China, a bed-partner with Russia and the other obvious superpower has at some
level expressed displeasure with Mr. Putin. Is THAT propaganda too?

Your comments seem to predicate on your belief (?) that all information,
any statement, and any policy decision by the U.S. government is somehow “propaganda”. (Not accusing you, just observing) But isn’t it possible that sometimes the truth is simply the truth? And is it not equally
possible that what you are calling “propaganda” is just the plain old truth? Of course, just because the U.S. said it doesn’t make it so…but neither does it automatically make it false or propaganda.

Further, if you can’t believe the U.S. government has for once simply
taken (or stumbled onto) the moral high road in this one, then isn’t it
still possible that the broad release of truthful, painful information
(in part by the U.S. government) is not a strategy at all, but simply a necessary public acknowledgement of what is overwhelmingly observable
from multiple independent sources? i.e. There is no strategic sense in
the U.S. lying about it, and no way to succeed at that game, because the
lies will be discovered so quickly as to only result in loss of
credibility amongst a world that clearly has already made up its mind
against Mr. Putin - with or without U.S. opinion and policy blessing.

You do see that Russia did start this thing on purpose, correct? It is
an obvious part of a larger and dangerous strategy by a very cool
customer (Mr. Putin). Clearly, he didn’t just wake up a month ago and
say “I feel like invading Ukraine”. This is the next domino in a very definite and in-process strategy decades in the making. Virtually every analyst, strategist, and historian with knowledge of Mr. Putin preaches
a version of this thing as “That’s just Putin”. It is a part of his vision of the restoration of Russian glory on the international stage.
He has said as much. Is that “propaganda?” Or, is it a malignant and
evil reality that must be opposed by people better than Mr. Putin. The
latter seems rather more certain from where I sit.

I’m also not sure why you seem to have jumped to the immediate
conclusion that the U.S. is the bad actor prolonging the war. Maybe we
are, but I’m struggling to find the evidence that to be the case. From
where I sit, I can’t see any way that we invited or are prolonging this war…except perhaps by our previous peripherial bungling or the behavior
of certain bad actors stateside. Isn’t it just as likely or even MORE
so, that it is our general existence and relative historical success as
a political and cultural system as compared to Russia that is driving
Mr. Putin? That is something that seems to gall him and others in Russia
and elsewhere. If your neighbor is jealous of your lawn, should you plow
it up and plant weeds borrowed from his?

Now, as to supplying weapons, it is true that the U.S. Is the world’s preeminent weapons manufacturer, and personally I make no apology for
that. Every single nation in the world self-equips with weapons…and
every single one of them does so to their technical, moral, and fiscal
limit (and sometimes beyond). Someone is always smart, wealthy and
successful enough to win at that game. Right now that is the United
States of America. Before that it was the U.K., and before that it was
Germany, Japan, France, England, Spain, Portugal, and on and on back
through the centuries.

Why are we suddenly the bad guy simply because we are just particularly
good at it? Would you rather that we be at a 7:1 numerical disadvantage
to Mr. Putin, as the Ukrainians currently are? More to the point, would
such a position make our government’s public claims somehow ring more
true to you? That has not seemed to work for Ukraine, as their relative military weakness, and the surrendering of their strategic and tactical
nuclear forces has left them at a terrible disadvantage vis-a-vis the
Bear next door. That Bear is now in their house and eating their children.

War is terrible. It is the ultimate failure of diplomacy and civility.
But since war came, and since it came at the hands of an aggressive and militaristic leader from Russia, It seems obvious that one would rather
be in the military position of the U.S. today, as opposed to the
position of Ukraine in relationship to Russia.

I may be wrong, but I hardly see how any of what has happened suggests
that we are prolonging this sad conflict - unless you are proposing that
peace at all cost is the preferable path?

Mr. Putin is a frustrated warmonger, and the ugly truth is that
sometimes one must fight such warmongers. History is littered with
examples of this unfortunate necessity. The only other option is to
surrender one’s sovereignty, rights and dignity to maintain “peace”.

In my opinion, that is not “peace” at all, that is slavery.

But I wish you no ill, nor do I condemn your position…just trying to understand how two people could read the same tea leaves and come up
with such different prognostications.

Cheers!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)