A woman wrote "I ask for bread" in the snow in front of her house. A passing drone photographed it. This led to a later mission to air drop food to her.
From outside it seems that Ukraine is not really given a choice right now but to defend itself. I wish for a soon end to the war so your beautiful country can prosper again and your people can start healing.
Indeed. Ukraine is - and always was - a tech and innovation powerhouse and it is very sad to see the continued degree of distraction caused by russia. Let's hope the midterms will at least muzzle trump to the point that the tide will turn. I can't believe it is almost 5 years now. Very frustrating.
Was it two years ago, or even longer, that Akhmat troops claimed Ukrainian drones tried to abduct their men in the field? Who knows, it might end up actually happen one day. Wild.
Pretty horrifying prospect really. Imagine the buzzing of a huge drone descending upon you from nowhere, before it just grabs you with its metal arms, and whisks you away into the sky, lol.
Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/
If a drone wanted to kill you, it would use a bullet. Cheapest and easiest way, with the least risk to the drone.
The extraction case would only be for high-value targets (enemy military/economic/political leaders), where having them alive would give leverage on having them order their organizations to do something useful for the drone owner.
While it is in modern days you don't cut supply lines to starve people to death, you start cuts supply lines to cut them off from munitions. The space used to transport a singular artillery shell could feed a human for several days, probably even weeks depending on what you put in the space. The modern military tries to be firing thousands of artillery shells per day. So if you can eliminate just a few artillery shells, you can make a difference. Whereas, if any your people are hungry but not starving to death.
Not targeted. While it's true that starvation and disease are usually the biggest killers in any armed conflict, they tend to kill the poor, helpless non-combatants, because the military tends to redirect food and medical care toward soldiers or other key personnel. This makes these strategically ineffective. People will die from starvation and disease in large numbers, but usually not the people who pose a threat to you.
for the Russian soldiers, it would certainly be a better fate than remaining on the field for a few more tens of minutes before they die (on average). AFAICT, they are treated better in Ukrainian POW camps than in the Russian deployed positions
Right, highlight the one incident on the Ukrainian side vs the standard war-crimes treatment by the Russians, and yes, there are also a number of incidents during capture on the both sides.
Also note the mismatch in POWs died in captivity returned by Ukraine (14) vs by Russia (>1000, as of [0]).
And note the overall condition of Russian soldiers returned is well-fed, and Ukrainians returned are barely walking.
It has been some 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." [1] We can always find an exception to condemn someone.
Our task is instead to try to get a fair grasp on what is happening. Highlighting the exceptional event out of context is not helpful
I think ideologically extreme volunteers on either side are more likely to commit war crimes than regular troops. The incident I linked above was perpetrated by the Kraken Battalion, which is basically the Kharkiv chapter of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment (formerly based in Mariupol). Similarly, the horrific video of the castration/execution of a Ukrainian POW seemed to be related to Rusich, the Russian neo-Nazi volunteer unit.
There are actually quite a few more documented incidents of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side than the one I linked to, but I think I would agree that there's probably more on the Russian side. I don't consider the amount of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side to be negligible though, nor would I expect it to be given how bitter this war is.
Yes, I'm sure it is not negligible, since it never is, even with the best-disciplined military. Adrenalin runs pretty high when people are trying their best to kill you and all your family, friends, and countrymen.
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.
Dude, the guys in the Tornado Battalion, who were convicted of absolutely horrifying sexual violence and other atrocities during the 2014 war, were pardoned and released from prison shortly after the war started. What kind of signal was that supposed to send?
Not great, but are you equating the turmoil right after Yanukovych was deposed, Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russia, and there were serial interim governments with a the more stable govt that came after?
Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.
Well since you enjoy whataboutism so much, russia sent all mass murderers it had in prisons that actually volunteered right into the battles (given their sentences vs 6 months of service its not illogical choice from certain perspective). And many of those (given, often just murderers, not mass murderers) that survived walked free after required service period. This reportedly included some cannibals.
Then one reads stories from russian newspapers how those folks continue their murdering hobby after coming back. Or how some are sent to primary schools to talk with small kids about the glory of war.
Making Ukraine seen on same moral level overall as russia is a classic russian propaganda trick and very far from truth for those who follow whats happening on the ground and higher up.
What I find annoying is that I know how biased I am. And this list reaffirms everything I ever thought about this war, which is just more confirmation bias. Argh!
Just because a claim is used as propaganda, does not mean it can not be or is not true.
Start with "1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!", and 2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!"
For this Russian invasion of Ukraine, both are 100% true.
Russia was a signer of The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 [0], in which it guaranteed to 1) Respect [Ukraine's] independence and sovereignty in the existing borders 2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of [Ukraine] and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries 3) Refrain from economic coercion of Ukraine, etc.
In the weeks and days leading up to the RUSSIAN INVASION of Ukraine, Putin himself as well as Lavrov and others repeatedly announced "these are just routine military training excerses and Russia has no intention to invade Ukraine".
Then Russia invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine did not invade Russia, or even provoke it in any way. What Russia claims as provocation is Ukraine making moves to join the EU, which Russia itself guaranteed as Ukraine's right in the Budapest memorandum.
And the situation now: If Russia stops attacking and withdraws from the Ukrainian lands it agreed to respect, the war ends instantly.
If Ukraine stops defending itself, Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, and commit the same mass executions, rapes, tortures, and kidnappings it has already done in this war in Bucha, Mauripol, Kharkiv, and more. [1] Moreover, these atrocities are accelerating [2]. This is also consistent with Russian history such as the Holodomor [3] a massive man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.
Russia has always invaded its neighbors, run a genocide, and then claimed "This was always Russia".
Moving on to 3: Ukraine is not making these claims
4: Ukraine does not claim this, beyond noting what the Baltic states also know inherently, if Ukraine falls, the front line moves to Europe, Russia will not stop, any more than it stopped at Ukraine's borders which it promised to respect in 2022, and Russia is already making kinetic attacks in the rest of the EU
5) We've already reviewed this above, Russia is deliberately targeting civilians EVERY DAY, and goes on "Human Safari" drone hunts against civilians in Ukraine, while Ukraine scrupulously targets military and dual-use targets. Russia's stated goal is to eliminate the very concept of Ukraine existing. Ukraine's stated goal is to retain it's territory and prevent Russian atrocities on it's soil.
6) Russia has repeatedly been documented, even with their own posted videos, using phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Not so for Ukraine.
7) Documented by international organizations and even tracking only video evidence, this is true for Ukraine's fewer losses vs Russia's massive losses. This is also evidenced by Russia needing to bring in North Korean soldiers and recruiting by deception in Africa — Russia wouldn't need to take those humiliating steps if they weren't exhausting their own manpower supplies.
8, 9, 10), I do not see Ukraine making those claims, but Russia's Durgan "academic philosopher" constantly posts them
So NO, just posting a list of "these points are often used as propaganda" does not discredit the facts or make them propaganda.
But it does make more work for the people who must clean up the bullsh*t spewed by posters like you.
If you really feel so strongly about it, I suggest you move to Russia and see for yourself how great life under Putin is.
I don't even know where to begin with such a one-sided list, and I don't have time to track down citations, but just for (6), it is well-documented in Western media (though nearly buried at the time) that Ukraine fired butterfly mines into residential areas of Donetsk for at least several days--a clear war crime. I have seen video of this, but of course I recognize it could have been staged like much Russian propaganda. In this case, though, it was confirmed by multiple Western media outlets.
Sorry if I'm coming across as some kind of Russian apologist; I very much am not, and in fact during the early days of the war I donated several thousand dollars of my income to the Come Back Alive military charity. But the more I looked into what was going on on the ground (largely via Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels) the more I realized I was being lied to by well-meaning Western media that were functioning as de facto propagandists. I think we all deserve to know the truth, and if you want to call that "both-sides-ism", so be it.
The fact remains, it was RUSSIA who INVADED Ukraine, and did so after emphatic public declarations it would not do so, and after signing treaties it would respect Ukraine's territory
It is RUSSIA and PUTIN in particular who has everything to gain from wiping out Ukraine — a successful and European Ukraine would be the source of revolution in his country, as Russians would see the contrast of a former Soviet state with relative wealth, success, and freedom.
Ukraine has respected every proposed cease fire until Russia violated it. Russia has violated every cease fire, often including this week literally violating it as it was being announced (the "Energy CF") oplitering power plants the same hour it was announced, while Ukraine held off all energy attacks for three days while it's power plants got pummeled.
Meanwhile, the ONLY thing Ukraine has to gain it it's own freedom. It would gain nothing from Russia's failure, beyond it's own stated goal of stopping the war.
Russia could unilaterally stop the war this minute. If Ukraine stops fighting, Russia has repeatedly proven it will overrun and obliterate Ukraine.
You have zero ability to cite how Ukraine started the war, or how it could stop the war without surrendering. If you really were initially for Ukraine, it is sad to see you now both-sides-ing it and falling for Russian propaganda.
If you can show a way for Ukraine to stop fighting without surrendering or being overrun, you will surely be up for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, we both know how Russia could stop the war this minute.
I don't believe there's a realistic solution to ending the war that doesn't essentially freeze the conflict along the line of contact like Korea. I don't think Putin wants all of Ukraine except as a pliable client state, but I do think that in the long run, in addition to the Donbas (which he already mostly occupies), he wants the entire Black Sea coast (as well as inland "Russian cities" like Mykolaiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv), and to turn Ukraine into an economically unviable landlocked rump state. That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
There now, do I still sound like a Russia apologist?
No, you just sound like someone who has become confused by all the noise (primarily generated by Russia and its apologists).
We agree: Putin does not like any reasonable outcome and shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
You have just described a deal that Zelenskyy has indicated he would accept and Putin has already repeatedly rejected — freeze the existing lines of conflict, and allow Ukraine to remain sovereign and fully arm itself.
Putin has repeatedly flat-out refused to allow Ukraine to have anything but a crippled military.
The obvious intent is to leave Ukraine so weak it can easily invaded again, so it will either bow to every Moscow demand or will simply be fully invaded and destroyed at a time of Russia's convenience.
Why?
Because Putin can NOT tolerate any condition under which Ukraine is free to be successful or independent, and especially to join NATO (which has proven for 3/4 of a century to be purely defensive).
Moreover, Putin is now stuck, as he has broken the tacit deal with the people that he can lead with corruption and adventurism as long as the people aren't obviously burdened and standards improve. Now, he's killed a half million men, the remainder are broken monsters he can't return to society without breaking it, and he can't just declare victory and end it and still keep his position (or likely his life).
Beyond those local goals, Putin has himself said his goal is to recreate the Russian Empire, beyond just the USSR territories. It is behind all his hours of lecturing on (twisted versions of) history. He will not merely stop at Donbas.
Putin also always follows Lenin's rule: "We probe with bayonets, where we find mush, we press on, where we find steel, we withdraw.".
The only actual solution is to push back so that Russian cannot economically or militarily continue, then arm Ukraine to the teeth (whatever border they end up with).
Autocrats like Putin do not stop unless they are forced to stop.
Turkey figured it out in 2015; a pair of Russian fighters violated Turkish airspace for less then two minutes; Turkey shot them down. Problem solved, hasn't happened since.
The problem is all the EU politicians are afraid of Russia breaking up, as if it will be somehow worse than Russia reasserting imperialism. EU only enforcing a no fly zone over UKR, applying the frozen RU assets to UKR rebuilding, and hard-sanctioning RU oil and isolating RU politically would do it. But they are all too politically chicken and want to kick the can down the road. Meanwhile Russia is already waging hybrid war to break up the EU.
Globally, and historically, the fight is always rule by the people or rule by the few.
If the rest of us fail to fight, everything WILL be taken from us by the few, the despots and the oligarchs. It may not be immediate and total, but it will be inevitable. Unless we fight at every step.
> That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Russia demands heavy restrictions on the size of the Armed Forced of Ukraine, essentially turning it into a small, lightly armed, and easily defeatable infantry force, with a veto on any foreign military assistance to Ukraine if Russia were to attack them again. The goal of this is cartoonishly obvious, and makes a peace deal unrealistic, too.
Just to add to the sibling comment, Zelenskyy just publicly (again) stated on Fox news [0] he would accept exactly the deal you proposed — freezing the conflict on the current lines, and doing so in a way that prevents it from returning, i.e., your "Ukraine armed to the teeth", security guarantees, and sovereignty.
This is a manifestly unfair deal, rewarding Russia for open aggression in violation of every international law and its past agreements. Yet Ukraine is willing to do it (the President says so with confidence he will be backed by the other governmental bodies needed for approval and implementation).
Putin has already rejected those kinds of deals, and I have no doubt he will also reject this.
That is because the 100% cause of the war is Putin, his immediate desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and successful state, and his longer-term goal to reconstitute the Russian empire.
The sooner you recognize this reality, the sooner it will make sense to you.
Put yourself in the shoes of Russia for a moment. You're in a favorable position in a war and you're being offered a "deal" that is 'hey let's stop the war so i can rearm and reman. you can hold onto your claimed land for now, but only dejure - we'll have ourselves a little chat about who really owns it, later.' Why would 'you' even think of accepting this "deal"?
Imagine the roles were reversed, and somehow Ukraine managed to fully push back Russia, claimed a significant amount of land on the Russian border and was continuing to make very slow but steady advances all the while Russian forces seemed on the verge of collapsing due to manpower issues. And oh yeah Ukraine had up to something like 20 million more soldiers they could also mobilize into the war if necessary. Would you expect Ukraine to accept a ceasefire with no concessions besides Ukraine being 'allowed' to continue holding the land they already held, and only dejure at that, with Russia making completely clear its intent to rearm and reman?
This is not at all a effort genuinely intended to end the war. When you're at a disadvantage in war, ending it is going to require concessions that can be difficult to accept. The reason you make these concessions is because they'll be even more painful as your position further deteriorates.
Except that Ukraine's position is not deteriorating, but it's significantly better than a year or two ago due to strike drones that became operational in March/April 2026, and expected to improve further when FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles become operational in large numbers in late 2026/early 2027.
You are using some very poor sources if they have given you the idea that Russia has 20 million soldiers to mobilize. Russia is facing a severe shortage of manpower too, made worse by the fact that they rely on constant costly attacks by small groups of infantry that have very short lifespans, whereas Ukraine is increasingly automating the war and relying on unmanned weapons more and more. For example, Ukraine reached parity in drone strikes in early 2026 and is now carrying out more drone strikes than Russia.
Also, the "slow but steady advances" are a complete Pyrrhic victory if you look at the numbers. Russia has gained less than 1000 sq km this year at a cost of at least 100 000 lives. Ukraine is over 600 000 sq km in size. The daily number of casualties hit a new record a few days ago, exceeding 2000. Russia has no hope reaching the territorial control it had 30 days into the war, let alone anything beyond that. It is by all objective measures one of the worst military disasters in the entire Russian history.
Thank you for basically acknowledging Putin has zero interest in any peace other than Ukraine's full surrender.
Putin in the immediate term is trying to achieve by talking what he cannot achieve on the battlefield. And NO, Putin does NOT have millions more soldiers available. Russian daily KIAs are accelerating and he's already making deals for more NK troops.
The aggressive moves in Europe, ramping up every kind of hybrid warfare, active measures, and dezinformatsiya pressure they can muster shows the Ukrainians are winning with the deep strikes. Russia can not defend its many soft targets, is already in massive deficit and depleting it's sovereign funds, and will lose much more as Ukraine's new Flamingo missiles come online.
Requires concessions. Right. UKR already TODAY offered to give up 20% of their territory and condemn those Ukrainian residents to the torture and death offered by the Russians. You do not think that is a concession?
What concessions are the Russians making at the 'peace' tables? NONE. The Russians stick to their maximalist demands of taking ALL of the "annexed" oblasts they can not even take with the full might of their (declining) military, AND demand Ukraine basically disarm and become a vassal state.
Where are the Russian concessions? They do not exist.
This alone shows who is the aggressor and who is the defending victim.
I notice you refused to answer the question, and we both know why that is. Everything else is mental gymnastics to justify why it's okay to hold different countries to different standards in hypothetically identical scenarios.
> Ukrainian estimates put their potential there at 20 million soldiers
That is the theoretical maximum potential if you conscript absolutely everyone, every single male, in eg 20-45 age range: https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2026/ By that measure, Ukraine has millions of soldiers available, too.
That is pratical only in the event of total societal breakdown like Nazi Germany in its final months when there was no economy left and institutions like schools, hospitals, factories and utilities had ceased to work. Everything was thrown to the front while the people in cities were malnourished, had no power nor running water, and died of minor diseases due to lack of medical supplies.
Putin is too afraid to even announce a regular mobilization and resorts to dirty tactics coercion of ethnic minorities to fill the ranks, because the backlash that would follow a general mobilization would be a major threat to Putin's power. Look up the effect of soldiers' mothers movement during the Chechen wars, or how the forced conscription into the Soviet-Afghan war (620k people over a decade) contributed to the disintegration of the USSR.
The question you asked (Positing UKR taking parts of RU, etc.) *inherently presumes* the counterfactual of Ukraine being an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship. Ukraine is zero of those things, and the question is irrelevant. But IF the actual UKR had taken significant RU territory, and was offered a peace deal allowing them their full sovereignty and territorial integrity, they would immediately take the deal.
Your mobilization numbers are fantasy, and Putin has held off declaring mobilization not because he thinks he does not need to but because it would require drafting people from the middle classes near Moscow instead of the rural impoverished territories that can be ignored politically. A full mobilization could end him. If he had enough people, he would not be getting soldiers from North Korea and deceiving Africans to put into their meat grinder
Yes, Ukraine has a manpower problems also. They are solving it through innovation. And it is working. Just look at the verified death counts from both sides
You really are a persistent apologist for Putin, not some kind of middle ground arbitor you hold yourself out as.
Shall I simply quote the propaganda patterns? "10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor." It's silly. And I think you're obviously not answering in good faith. Militaries who have the advantage in a conflict do not accept peace without significant concession. There's even a precedent for my hypothetical in this war. Early on in the conflict Ukraine was doing quite well, and it was Russia looking for a ceasefire, overtly to rearm and reman.
And at that time it was Ukraine rejecting any calls for a ceasefire without major concessions from Russia. They wanted the immediate and unconditional return of all land as a precondition to even beginning to negotiate, where they would have sought further concessions like reparations to agree to peace. And beyond that they were making statements, in public - let alone private, such as "[Russia] must be defeated, be subjected to a painful defeat, as painful as possible." [1] These are not the words or actions of a country that'd just agree to peace, without major concessions, if they were trending towards a potential absolute victory. But of course no country would. It's the nature of war. The side with an edge will expect significant concessions to end a conflict.
And, obviously a general mobilization would cause major backlash within Russia, but they'd almost certainly be just fine. There's also no such thing as a "verified death count." Again going back to our propaganda list: "7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable." On top of both sides actively lying, they also likely don't even really know themselves, especially Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of their military is made up of forcibly conscripted people, many of whom would flee at the first opportunity. They certainly know the dogtagged KIA, but likely simply have no idea exactly how many of the missing are fertilizer, and how many managed to make their way to freedom. They also have a motivation to not know, to defer the KIA compensation payments.
The residents of the city of Oleshky in the Donbas, who have been literally starving to death under the Russian siege for months would like a word. The Pope managed to arrange a cease-fire long enough to provide food and evacuation, see how long it goes.
You ignore how much prevents Ukrainians from migrating or evacuating temporarily Russian-occupied territories. There is a river with many bridges out, the roads are mined, and the Russians run human safaris hunting civilians. But sure, everyone could have gotten out.
You are also just spewing the standard Russian concern-trolling line about "Russian speakers in Ukraine".
You may be fooling yourself about being some kind of "unbiased" observer, but you aren't fooling anyone else.
And in the latest news: Residents of occupied Oleshky who wish to escape to free Ukraine will not be allowed to cross the Dnipro River – which is less than 4 km away. They will be taken to occupied Crimea or to the Russian Federation, where they will be subjected to coercive measures.
NO, the sides are not even close to the same. Stop stanning for Russia
Oh man. You read too much propoganda. There is absolutely zero difference as a soldier no matter in which country you fight. Stalemate for a reason. Both countries are losing men in a equal rate. Ukraine has to grab men from the streets. Russia has endless pool of men. Please don't fall for that shit propoganda.
If Ukraine was carrying out offensive actions at the same rate as Russia I might agree. But they are defending and slowly loosing territory apart from specific areas where Ukrainian offensive actions have an outsize strategic effect.
Are you suggesting that by defending 95% of the front line Ukraine has the SAME losses in manpower as Russia which is carrying out offensive actions over probably 40-50% of the front line?
Instead of grabbing anyone this could be a real game changer. Enemy soldiers could surrender even deep behind enemy lines, signal their intentions with a white flag, and be evacuated to safety. It could also make taking prisoners much easier and safer, since there would be no need to send troops into hostile territory to retrieve them.
The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.
A net shooting drone that pops an expanding weather balloon would get anyone you need off the ground and then plenty of time to collect then while they are floating around
> Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.
Anyone who has done first responder training should have had it drilled into their skulls to remember the number one rule .... "do not add yourself to the injury list".
If you're operating in a war-zone its kind of the same thing. Send in a helicopter to drop off one or more guys and you are also sending in bare minimum of one extra person but realistically almost certainly three extra people (two at the front and one at the back to watch the people jumping out).
Also drones are probably somewhat cheaper than helicopters. Both to buy and to operate.
I’m sure you’re right, in absolute terms. Still, a SAR helicopter with jet turbines and a multi person crew is much more visible than a battery powered electric drone carrying one man alone.
Heavy lift drones are pretty common, a 150kg or more payload is enough for a soldier with his individual equipment. The are pretty short ranged but they only need to reach to a few kms into the grey zone and back.
See e.g. the KF 150 multi copter. And it's sub $50k
Because it's not America with Vietnam/ Iraq war mindset.
Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors. With Recent developments, the an interceptor can fly up to 600 km/h. It can also wait for you on the balloon.
Overall, piloted aviation, it's almost a dead end with all the recent capabilities.
Piloted aviation is still very much alive. US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses. Drone capabilities will continue to improve but for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions and remote piloting doesn't work in a hostile EW environment. We'll increasingly see manned/unmanned teaming with the drones pushing forward while the manned aircraft trail behind, but close enough to exercise tight control.
Missions in Ukraine Russia achive same results for 1000 times cheaper. Real war nowadays is cheap and mass produced.
As an example, Russia hits with drones a specific parts of the bridge using mesh network of ER resistant drones . Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .
What is the point of sending f-35 if Ukraine can send 5 cheap rockets? And deliver 2-3 tones of payload over the most sophisticated air protection in the world ?
Those cheap drones and missiles are only effective against relatively soft, static targets. As I already explained above, manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments. Maybe that will change in a few years but not today.
Ukraine and Russia are both second-rate powers making do with what they can manage because they're too poor to afford anything better. The systems that sort of work in Eastern Europe likely won't be effective between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)
Ukraine is already using drones that can autonomously identify and seek out even moving targets, without any operator required during the terminal phase. Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.
it covers 99% of the need for fraction of the costs and is way more scalable in manufacturing and operations. Nobody ain't sending a single F-35 into that environment, US won't allow that (we all know why). Plus US completely destroyed trust into its products globally, they can become worse than extremely expensive paperweight on a whim of a single senile sick man.
Lets be a bit clear - F-35 in Iran are also effectively used against static targets in most if not all the cases. School, intersections full of civilian traffic and some underground tunnel here and there or a parked truck, we've seen the videos its not like they are hiding them.
Era of hunt for expensive sophistication at all costs is coming to an end, no point if one can overwhelm any adversary including US by just sending one cheap wave after another, and it doesn't even take long. How long is the backlog for US patriot missiles? Plus Ukraine can do same type of missiles 80% cheaper soon.
This overwhelming already happened numerous times in recent months, US is just not bragging about it on fox news for obvious reasons.
>>manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments.
Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary.
Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.
Who qualifies as a first-rate power, then? I'd say they're still one. It's just that fighting insurgents has always been difficult, even when your commander-in-chief isn't a dumbass.
Its quite interesting to think how much power is more a perception by others than a reality when tested. Just think about how many powers appeared invincible and then were tested and collapsed or how many victories and empires were simply because opponents gave up early.
America isnt a world power because it forgot how to be one. Primary example is their complete lack of research on drones and missiles. Firstly even during a war, Ukraine has managed to create a drone force, and the USA hasnt even started. Second example, look at the build rate for defensive missiles aka THAAD and Patriots. Given the military budget is amazing how few are actually built. Thirdly the reason the USA is having troubles and is unable to support a ground invasion is the Osprey continues to be broken and a failure after 20 something years of being accepted into service. Last example, the USA does not have sufficient auxiliary ships to supply carrier groups at distance. THis is an open secret mentioned in many places. They always assumed a lot of friendly bases nearby, except they lost everything in the Gulf and have only Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean which simply isnt enuff. The later is a perfect example of no planning, no backup plan which is exactly what seniors at the Pentagon should have planned and advised about. Logistics win war and here we see the US is lame because it doesnt have enough of them.
Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.
Rotary wing are 'dead' - because manpads and now drones, they are just not used. Any smart adversary can figure out the drones, as for now.
Iran is a poor country with challenging AA but even they downed like 30 predators (or equivalent). They have passive systems.
Russia doctrines is to have massive numbers of S300/400 which makes it takes weeks at minimum for US to get enough Air dominance to be able to fly, though, eventually they would be worn down as we have seen US standoff munitions are limited.
US used 30-50% of munitions against just Iran. Imagine Russia.
China has a lot of sneaky new toys up their sleeve as well - very long range capabilities for a lot of things, enough to 'deter' USN pretty hard.
Nobody doubts US would ultimately 'win' v Russia, but everything is up in the air right now.
> Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.
Iran has (had?) S300 and maybe S400 yet downed no F35s despite many months of them in their airspace. I'm not suggesting US stealth makes the planes invulnerable but the evidence we have so far does not support your statement.
I don't mean to be demeaning but your statement betrays a lack of knowledge of how these systems operate.
These are not 'point systems' with 'A on B' capabilities aka 'it works on this but not that'.
They are networked systems that work in the context of a layered AA strategy along with many other parts.
A single S300 system outside the context of a layered strategy is useless and will be picked off quickly.
We have ballpark estimations for their capabilities, and S400, in proper defensive posture, will hold out against anything NATO has ... for a while.
(Not accounting for 'magic' unknown gear that either side has)
AA defence will have long range radar, AWACS, satellite, other point systems, all kinds of EW (electronic warfare), and defensive patrols of various kinds. And we're now seeing Chinese passive systems deployed in Iran as well.
If that layered defence is very effectively managed, then it becomes very hard to pin the various pieces down. SEED munitions are maybe 60 miles range, and S400 can see F35's at 50 miles, that's a 'very tight' standoff even in a theoretical standoff. If an adversary has AWACS then they're not going to use their tracking radars.
There are all sorts of things adversaries can do to scare NATO AWACS off, push them back, which shortens the distance at which sorties can take place.
If a nation has 'all the layers' and they have good leadership, training, and are nimble and know what they are doing, they can be effective.
If there is 'kink in the armour' or the defence is piecemeal, it can be picked apart.
Think of it like those Roman Phalanx: we can't just say 'they have a certain shaped shield' - it's everything together. Coordination, training, tactics makes them hard to penetrate, but incompetence, exposed flank, etc. and they will break.
Also, Patriot is more capable, but given 'apparent doctrine' of limited munitions, the West has badly depleted inventories. Russia is pumping out enormous volumes of supplies. All of that means they get used differently.
You moved the goalposts. You originally said S300/400 could down any US stealth plane. Now you are saying that S300/400 can down any US stealth plane in concert with many other capabilities.
I don't think it's a matter of moving goalposts but rather a matter of what's implied when talking about these AD systems.
S400 and S300 are primarily designed to operate as an integral part of an AD networked components.
Iran didn't have the integrated network of S300 or S400, and Russian prior offers to provide it were declined.
We do not know S400 capabilites against the F-35 planes, but there is some evidence that they might be fairly effective.
This was a concern when Turkey purchased an S400 system ("It is not possible to both fly the F-35 in space where the S-400 is significantly operable." - Mike Pompeo) - Washington cancelled the deal with Turkey because of concerns that its low frequency radar can track and analyze F-35 operations (there are multiple sources on that).
That’s false . Ukraine is hitting moving targets with middle strike every single day with ai that knows what to strike. More capable than any f-35 in that regards .
Russia and Ukraine are using what they can do though. That doesn't mean that a different Air Force couldn't work differently. The US has a lot more airplanes in the Air Force plus a lot more planes in the Navy. They could be used potentially. We don't know what would happen, but the generals in the US military still think the manned planes would have a powerful role and would change the situation in Ukraine.
The US - Iran capability gap is orders of magnitude larger than the Ukraine - Russia gap.
Silly nonsense comment.
The US would absolutely not be sending manned helicopters into the same situations. Zero chance.
The US is failing to decisively win a war against a third world country. Ukraine is failing to decisively win (but gradually winning) a war against an adversary several multiples its size and economic strength.
It is not anywhere near a daily occurence. Beginning of the war or on the rs side, sure, but it's suicide for a rs helo to come into Ukrainian territory at this point.
Yes, but they're generally not right at the front.
It's not trivial to hit them with drones - but there so, so many these days, the density makes things dramatically hard. They are there waiting for movement of supplies.
Right...even Ukranians are now saying that they hope they won't be in a too disadvantageous position during the eventual negotiations. So that's where the war is at right now.
The USA is unable to support ground troops in either sphere be it Houthi territory or Iran.
The Osprey is dead, the mission it was built for was Iran, and today they are limited to 15 min from base missions, aka they are effectively retired.
Those new Littoral combat ships are decommissioned.
Russia has almost no tanks or armoured vehicles to deliver troops in Ukraine, and the USA is no different. It cant support troops on the ground in either area. Any troops dropped there would be abandoned in a very harsh terrain.
The US is more than capable of deploying and supporting a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in either Iran or Yemen. That it has not is a political decision.
Unfortunately this is one example where the only proof is actually being able to get the job done. Taking Venezuela isnt proof of anything or a judgement of capability. Today we have an actual test and so far, the USA has failed.
No, the US cannot deploy an expeditionary force of any size anywhere in (hostile) Yemen or Iran without it coming under fire relatively quickly. Light units without support or reinforcements will be overwhelmed in a matter of time.
Minor coastal incursions, sure. Tiny special forces operations, maybe.
There's nowhere for Marines to hunker down for any length of time.
A few months back there was a F15 i think that went down, the cause is irrelevant and pilots ejected over Iran in the mountains. The rescue guys got them but they didnt use the Ospreys they used hercs and regular chopper.
So many grounding it shows they are not actually trusted when it really counts. Every year or two they are grounded, that doesnt inspire confidence and it shows today becuse when it counts they are not to be seen.
> What do the LCS have to do with anything about CASEVAC?
What does the L in LCS stand for ? THey should be the ones In Hormuz today.
> US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses.
It didn't win the Americans and the Israelis the war, to the contrary, it gave them (the Americans and the Israelis) the illusion that they could win it based on air power alone as a result of the Douhet doctrine.
The very reason Trump and his drill sergeant in Pentagon refuse to commit boots on the ground is even they realize how it's going to be. ISR footage of American servicemen dying with no chance of rescue would be bad for ratings.
And just to be clear, there were previous videos of interceptions and near interceptions that just didn't look so photogenic so weren't widely distributed. This video was not where things changed.
There are zero American helicopters that are even able to fly from any friendly base or ship to either Houthi or Iran. All american ships that could support a landing are thousands of kms away. The Carriers are thousands of kms away in the Indian because of drones and missiles have pushed them back.
Paratroopers and similar troops could be dropped but it would be a suicide mission in an extremely harsh land, with no water and no food.
Where did i say the helis were shot down by drones ?
I never said that at all, im simply saying helis have a limited range, and since all ships including any possibly landing ones are too far away because the ships are scared of the missiles and drones.
Ukraine in recent days destroyed bombers with drones. They were faster and dodger than any heli you could send. Also drone can go low but still in the air, heli most either land or stay relatively high.
Also heli is much laughter and easier to spot
And the lost of why would you not send it goes on and on
They can't really use helicopters because they get shot down. It's partly economics. A heli is ~$10m, a stinger like missile ~$100k so they shoot it. If a drone is ~1-10k they tend not to.
Any non-compromised American president would be eager for your guys' expertise on a modern battlefield. I think at this point, even Republicans are beginning to wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump.
Dubya would have sent you guys the munitions and cowboy hats to be on Putin's doorstep by now.
> even Republicans are beginning to wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump.
What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Not trolling or rhetorical; that's a completely sincere question. Even if something "bad" were to surface, his supporters would simply deny it and/or ignore it, same as they've done for all the other things he's done that are already known.
You can pretty much divide American voters into two camps right now: the ones who loathe him and the ones who DGAF (non-voting voters being in the latter category).
> What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Some segment will always deny any dirt that comes out but I think most would become fairly adverse to him if, say, conclusive evidence of child sexual abuse surfaced.
I wish “even Republicans” but that party stands for nothing any more, it isn’t even conservative. It’s the most bizarre and morally bankrupt thing I’ve seen in American politics and I’ve been paying attention since the 80s.
Please don't post political/ideological rhetoric on HN. It doesn't matter how correct your position is or how correct you feel it is; it only leads to back and forth arguments between people on opposing sides, and that's just what we're trying to avoid here. Please aim for curious conversation at all times here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That’s an issue that can be debated at the appropriate time and place, but it’s not the topic of this article, so it’s a generic tangent and flamebait, which the guidelines specifically ask us to avoid.
The article is about the use of a drone to evacuate an injured soldier from a battlefield. It’s not an article about geopolitics, and if it was, it would definitely not belong on the front page, because the guidelines clearly state that mainstream news is usually off topic here.
> Have the curiosity to be serious.
Excuse me. This site and its guidelines have existed in a largely constant form for almost two decades and your account is a couple of months old. Of course we welcome new participants here, but this is only a place where people want to come to discuss important topics because we have guidelines and uphold them daily. Please respect the guidelines and the community expectations if you want to participate here.
Setting aside the politics and the personalities, if we focus on the technology and the lessons in how to produce, iterate, and deploy I think there's enormous value in looking at what Ukraine has to offer from a tactical and strategic standpoint. It's a fact that countries and organizations are rushing to benefit from that aspect of this war, from NATO states to organized crime. Unless we imagine that data from this war isn't being actively pursued by any party that thinks they have the ability to adapt their local conflicts to a "new way of fighting", it's a matter of intense intellectual curiosity.
Doubly so when we recall that drones and ML are inextricably linked on the modern battlefield, and the technology we routinely discuss here is already being used in kill chains, ISR, SAR, and it's evolving on a weekly basis.
Sure, and there's a place for discussion about that (though whether HN can host such a discussion without it spiraling into a hellish flamewar is not something we can be confident about).
That aside, in this context the issue is that the comment very much didn't set aside the politics and the personalities.
You kind of just need to follow the drone news like this article and you can see over the course of the last few years the kind of wild stuff they figure out.
Thanks. The fault is mine though. Thought you were talking about "hackers" in the breaching networks sense, not in the engineering innovative mechanical solutions. Either way, impressive what Ukraine is capable of coming up with.
They probably will, but they won't get the votes to override a presidential veto (2/3 of both chambers). The very best case scenario is that Trump is impeached and Vance doesn't have any serious kompromat.
It's possible that enough Republicans will be looking for a clean break with Trump and may be willing to get Vance in his place, especially with Trump's recent dealings with Russia and Ukraine. The MAGA voting base is looking less devoted with the recent economic developments as well and might not be so keen on his candidates in 2029. Also, if dems get the majority we may be seeing more Epstein revelations in the news.
But like I said, this is the very best case scenario. Most likely Trump will just be to busy handling an investigation and an adversarial Congress to do much but make noise on social media.
Vance is of a generation where he lived a good chunk of his life on social media and his mobile phone, so embarassing secrets could be picked up more easily by nation-level actors. It's possible that any politician of this generation in any country in any political party might be more susceptible to blackmail than the geriatric generation represented by Trump.
Vance is very isolationist and anti-Europe. He has said his proudest achievement is stopping aid to Ukraine. He says he wants peace but the implication is through the surrender of Ukraine. He is seen as worse than Trump.
I’m not sure anything is worse than Trump. He’s an amazing case study of a complete incompetent that somehow has a solid base of supporters. It’s baffling to me as I’ve always thought he was a crass blowhard and I fundamentally cannot understand his appeal.
I think the European countries' leadership are well aware that if Russia is not decisively defeated in Ukraine now, returning every square meter of UA territory back to Ukrainian control, they'll be fighting the Russian army in actual NATO locations even further west in 2, 5 or 7 years from now.
Europe are already fighting Russia. Russia has made scores of "hybrid war" attacks throughout Europe and GB, including attempted bomb-laden drones at Leipzeig airport, cutting numerous undersea cables, and even "errant" drone attacks. They are also likely behind amplifying the current unrest in France.
EU politicians don't want to acknowledge the ongoing war because they think it would be an escalation and they also have a fear of 'Russia breaking up'. Other than the Baltic states, they don't realize the only way to stop it is push back, hard and fast, as Ukraine is doing. The Russian military is low-capability and declining, reliant now on North Korea and Iran, and the economy is sliding. The reality is little could be better than Russia breaking up and finally abandoning it's imperial ambitions, which are still active today.
Because, what? They're worried about Russia breaking apart into civil war if the army is decisively defeated and some general decides to put a 9x18 Makarov round into Putin's cranium?
Because look what happened with Germany after WW1. Now stretch it, multiply economy multiple times, and add nukes. Russia is already revanchist after collapse of Soviet Union, if they are to lose war vs Ukraine it would spiral out of control.
This means we're supposed to appease them by handing them Kyiv and the entire nation of Ukraine, because they'll otherwise become so chaotic and dangerous that they might nuke us?
You aren't deadlast, you are dead wrong. On every point.
The Ukrainian war never stopped. Russia has never paused attacking for even one day, in more years than WWI. The War on Ukraine never went away and so can't "come back"
No one supporting Ukraine is supporting a foreign dictator. Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair election, and elections have been involuntarily suspended while the country is under continuous bombardment targeting civilians. Holding an election would be literal suicide and condemning voters to death by announcing every time and place where people would gather, just to make it easy for Russia to target them. And there is ZERO question — Ukrainian civilian casualties are NOT collateral damage, they are deliberately targeted by Russian missiles, long-range drones, and individual civilians are even hunted by FPV drones in "human safari" incidents posted by Russians themselves.
Ukrainians are only defending their own right to live on their own land under their own government, and not have their children kidnapped and their neighbors and themselves tortured and slaughtered, which has happened in EVERY city Russia occupied. Russia is doing what Russia has always done — invade and genocide a neighbor, then say "this was always Russia".
It is absolutely disgusting that you come here to post such lies and characterize any support for Ukraine as if it were support for an autocracy, when YOU are the one supporting Russia's autocracy. You are factually wrong and morally abhorrent. Rethink your life.
Supporting Ukraine’s defense against invasion has had better ROI than most domestic defense spending. For a pittance we’ve let a major adversary weaken itself considerably. We should do more.
Weakened only in the personnel sense. In terms of industrialization for war and acquisition of modern warfare tactics, we have made them considerably stronger.
Nope. Russians have improved in some areas (experience), but they lost a tremendous amount of war materiel, and the economy suffered significant damage.
Loitering munitions are already a thing. You just need to combine that concept with interceptor drones. Actually I'm not sure autonomous interceptors are a thing yet, so that might be the blocker.
...hmm, yeah, now that you mention it. Those generally have pretty big targets though, with IR signatures. I'm not sure how much of that translates directly to subsonic drone-on-drone violence. (In general it's just a matter of time, of course.)
I wish I knew more to share but I've read about a few things from floating mines as I think the comment was implying to "jumping" mines that are on the ground but launch or shoot up at low altitude aircraft to uav "loitering munitions" (not really a "mine" but the point is roughly the same).
Seems odd to make a purpose-specific drone like this. The modular ones give much larger breadth, especially when you are constrained to being underground, etc.
It also seems suitable as a general purpose cargo delivery UAV for military purposes. Likely its utility is somewhat limited by endurance and range with current battery tech. As I recall from when I first saw that design about 1.5 years ago they're marketing the same thing for many purposes. It just happens to be large enough to theoretically carry one man on a litter.
Today in Kharkiv, a Russian drone killed a baby in a stroller and two women, injuring 7 others. [0]
Meanwhile, Musk and Trump are pointing figures at each about who set the speed limit on Starlink/shield terminals, which apparently affects interceptors. The USA also stopped giving Ukraine ballistic missile warnings.
210 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 50.3 ms ] threadhttps://ukraine.ua/invest-trade/ukrainian-inventions-that-ch...
And the recent drone tech is saving many lives and lots of money.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ukrainian+woman+writes+i+ask+for+b...
A woman wrote "I ask for bread" in the snow in front of her house. A passing drone photographed it. This led to a later mission to air drop food to her.
As someone who lived through Ukraine’s 90s and early 00s, “we” wouldn’t apply it that much.
Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/
This is pretty horrifying. Bonus points if you hit somebody on the way down?
The extraction case would only be for high-value targets (enemy military/economic/political leaders), where having them alive would give leverage on having them order their organizations to do something useful for the drone owner.
They're going to 'snatch' because they want prisoners to exchange, they want info, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_Russian_soldiers_in...
Also note the mismatch in POWs died in captivity returned by Ukraine (14) vs by Russia (>1000, as of [0]).
And note the overall condition of Russian soldiers returned is well-fed, and Ukrainians returned are barely walking.
It has been some 400 years since Cardinal Richelieu said "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." [1] We can always find an exception to condemn someone.
Our task is instead to try to get a fair grasp on what is happening. Highlighting the exceptional event out of context is not helpful
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russo-...
[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu
edit: completed last paragraph; accidentally posted incomplete
But we must also be sure to balance when a country such as Ukraine tries to uphold a moral standard as policy, and when they fail, prosecutes the offenders, vs a country like Russia which makes a standard practice of war crimes.
Again, is this a horrible exception, or is it the standard way they operate. For UKR it is the exception, for Russia, it is the way they operate, right up to human safari FPV drone hunting and killing of civilians posted on social media by the perpetrators.
Then one reads stories from russian newspapers how those folks continue their murdering hobby after coming back. Or how some are sent to primary schools to talk with small kids about the glory of war.
Making Ukraine seen on same moral level overall as russia is a classic russian propaganda trick and very far from truth for those who follow whats happening on the ground and higher up.
---
1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!
2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!
3. Our adversary's leader is inherently evil and resembles the devil
4. We are defending a noble cause, not our particular interests!
5. The enemy is purposefully committing atrocities; if we are making mistakes this happens without intention
6. The enemy makes use of illegal weapons
7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable
8. Recognized intellectuals and artists support our cause
9. Our cause is sacred
10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor
---
Sound familiar? It was written 25 years ago. There's a reason in war that it often seems that it's only the losers that commit war crimes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Basic_Principles_of_War_Pr...
What I find annoying is that I know how biased I am. And this list reaffirms everything I ever thought about this war, which is just more confirmation bias. Argh!
Start with "1. We don't want war, we are only defending ourselves!", and 2. Our adversary is solely responsible for this war!"
For this Russian invasion of Ukraine, both are 100% true.
Russia was a signer of The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in 1994 [0], in which it guaranteed to 1) Respect [Ukraine's] independence and sovereignty in the existing borders 2) Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of [Ukraine] and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries 3) Refrain from economic coercion of Ukraine, etc.
In the weeks and days leading up to the RUSSIAN INVASION of Ukraine, Putin himself as well as Lavrov and others repeatedly announced "these are just routine military training excerses and Russia has no intention to invade Ukraine".
Then Russia invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine did not invade Russia, or even provoke it in any way. What Russia claims as provocation is Ukraine making moves to join the EU, which Russia itself guaranteed as Ukraine's right in the Budapest memorandum.
And the situation now: If Russia stops attacking and withdraws from the Ukrainian lands it agreed to respect, the war ends instantly.
If Ukraine stops defending itself, Russia will invade the rest of Ukraine, and commit the same mass executions, rapes, tortures, and kidnappings it has already done in this war in Bucha, Mauripol, Kharkiv, and more. [1] Moreover, these atrocities are accelerating [2]. This is also consistent with Russian history such as the Holodomor [3] a massive man-made famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians.
Russia has always invaded its neighbors, run a genocide, and then claimed "This was always Russia".
Moving on to 3: Ukraine is not making these claims
4: Ukraine does not claim this, beyond noting what the Baltic states also know inherently, if Ukraine falls, the front line moves to Europe, Russia will not stop, any more than it stopped at Ukraine's borders which it promised to respect in 2022, and Russia is already making kinetic attacks in the rest of the EU
5) We've already reviewed this above, Russia is deliberately targeting civilians EVERY DAY, and goes on "Human Safari" drone hunts against civilians in Ukraine, while Ukraine scrupulously targets military and dual-use targets. Russia's stated goal is to eliminate the very concept of Ukraine existing. Ukraine's stated goal is to retain it's territory and prevent Russian atrocities on it's soil.
6) Russia has repeatedly been documented, even with their own posted videos, using phosphorus and cluster bombs in civilian areas. Not so for Ukraine.
7) Documented by international organizations and even tracking only video evidence, this is true for Ukraine's fewer losses vs Russia's massive losses. This is also evidenced by Russia needing to bring in North Korean soldiers and recruiting by deception in Africa — Russia wouldn't need to take those humiliating steps if they weren't exhausting their own manpower supplies.
8, 9, 10), I do not see Ukraine making those claims, but Russia's Durgan "academic philosopher" constantly posts them
So NO, just posting a list of "these points are often used as propaganda" does not discredit the facts or make them propaganda.
But it does make more work for the people who must clean up the bullsh*t spewed by posters like you.
If you really feel so strongly about it, I suggest you move to Russia and see for yourself how great life under Putin is.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
[1]
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/31/1152743054/human-rights-watch...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/08/04/who-dr...
Sorry if I'm coming across as some kind of Russian apologist; I very much am not, and in fact during the early days of the war I donated several thousand dollars of my income to the Come Back Alive military charity. But the more I looked into what was going on on the ground (largely via Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels) the more I realized I was being lied to by well-meaning Western media that were functioning as de facto propagandists. I think we all deserve to know the truth, and if you want to call that "both-sides-ism", so be it.
The fact remains, it was RUSSIA who INVADED Ukraine, and did so after emphatic public declarations it would not do so, and after signing treaties it would respect Ukraine's territory
It is RUSSIA and PUTIN in particular who has everything to gain from wiping out Ukraine — a successful and European Ukraine would be the source of revolution in his country, as Russians would see the contrast of a former Soviet state with relative wealth, success, and freedom.
Ukraine has respected every proposed cease fire until Russia violated it. Russia has violated every cease fire, often including this week literally violating it as it was being announced (the "Energy CF") oplitering power plants the same hour it was announced, while Ukraine held off all energy attacks for three days while it's power plants got pummeled.
Meanwhile, the ONLY thing Ukraine has to gain it it's own freedom. It would gain nothing from Russia's failure, beyond it's own stated goal of stopping the war.
Russia could unilaterally stop the war this minute. If Ukraine stops fighting, Russia has repeatedly proven it will overrun and obliterate Ukraine.
You have zero ability to cite how Ukraine started the war, or how it could stop the war without surrendering. If you really were initially for Ukraine, it is sad to see you now both-sides-ing it and falling for Russian propaganda.
If you can show a way for Ukraine to stop fighting without surrendering or being overrun, you will surely be up for the Nobel Peace Prize. However, we both know how Russia could stop the war this minute.
There now, do I still sound like a Russia apologist?
We agree: Putin does not like any reasonable outcome and shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
You have just described a deal that Zelenskyy has indicated he would accept and Putin has already repeatedly rejected — freeze the existing lines of conflict, and allow Ukraine to remain sovereign and fully arm itself.
Putin has repeatedly flat-out refused to allow Ukraine to have anything but a crippled military.
The obvious intent is to leave Ukraine so weak it can easily invaded again, so it will either bow to every Moscow demand or will simply be fully invaded and destroyed at a time of Russia's convenience.
Why?
Because Putin can NOT tolerate any condition under which Ukraine is free to be successful or independent, and especially to join NATO (which has proven for 3/4 of a century to be purely defensive).
Moreover, Putin is now stuck, as he has broken the tacit deal with the people that he can lead with corruption and adventurism as long as the people aren't obviously burdened and standards improve. Now, he's killed a half million men, the remainder are broken monsters he can't return to society without breaking it, and he can't just declare victory and end it and still keep his position (or likely his life).
Beyond those local goals, Putin has himself said his goal is to recreate the Russian Empire, beyond just the USSR territories. It is behind all his hours of lecturing on (twisted versions of) history. He will not merely stop at Donbas.
Putin also always follows Lenin's rule: "We probe with bayonets, where we find mush, we press on, where we find steel, we withdraw.".
The only actual solution is to push back so that Russian cannot economically or militarily continue, then arm Ukraine to the teeth (whatever border they end up with).
Autocrats like Putin do not stop unless they are forced to stop.
Turkey figured it out in 2015; a pair of Russian fighters violated Turkish airspace for less then two minutes; Turkey shot them down. Problem solved, hasn't happened since.
The problem is all the EU politicians are afraid of Russia breaking up, as if it will be somehow worse than Russia reasserting imperialism. EU only enforcing a no fly zone over UKR, applying the frozen RU assets to UKR rebuilding, and hard-sanctioning RU oil and isolating RU politically would do it. But they are all too politically chicken and want to kick the can down the road. Meanwhile Russia is already waging hybrid war to break up the EU.
Globally, and historically, the fight is always rule by the people or rule by the few.
If the rest of us fail to fight, everything WILL be taken from us by the few, the despots and the oligarchs. It may not be immediate and total, but it will be inevitable. Unless we fight at every step.
This is a manifestly unfair deal, rewarding Russia for open aggression in violation of every international law and its past agreements. Yet Ukraine is willing to do it (the President says so with confidence he will be backed by the other governmental bodies needed for approval and implementation).
Putin has already rejected those kinds of deals, and I have no doubt he will also reject this.
That is because the 100% cause of the war is Putin, his immediate desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and successful state, and his longer-term goal to reconstitute the Russian empire.
The sooner you recognize this reality, the sooner it will make sense to you.
[0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/zelenskyy-says-agr...
Imagine the roles were reversed, and somehow Ukraine managed to fully push back Russia, claimed a significant amount of land on the Russian border and was continuing to make very slow but steady advances all the while Russian forces seemed on the verge of collapsing due to manpower issues. And oh yeah Ukraine had up to something like 20 million more soldiers they could also mobilize into the war if necessary. Would you expect Ukraine to accept a ceasefire with no concessions besides Ukraine being 'allowed' to continue holding the land they already held, and only dejure at that, with Russia making completely clear its intent to rearm and reman?
This is not at all a effort genuinely intended to end the war. When you're at a disadvantage in war, ending it is going to require concessions that can be difficult to accept. The reason you make these concessions is because they'll be even more painful as your position further deteriorates.
You are using some very poor sources if they have given you the idea that Russia has 20 million soldiers to mobilize. Russia is facing a severe shortage of manpower too, made worse by the fact that they rely on constant costly attacks by small groups of infantry that have very short lifespans, whereas Ukraine is increasingly automating the war and relying on unmanned weapons more and more. For example, Ukraine reached parity in drone strikes in early 2026 and is now carrying out more drone strikes than Russia.
Also, the "slow but steady advances" are a complete Pyrrhic victory if you look at the numbers. Russia has gained less than 1000 sq km this year at a cost of at least 100 000 lives. Ukraine is over 600 000 sq km in size. The daily number of casualties hit a new record a few days ago, exceeding 2000. Russia has no hope reaching the territorial control it had 30 days into the war, let alone anything beyond that. It is by all objective measures one of the worst military disasters in the entire Russian history.
Putin in the immediate term is trying to achieve by talking what he cannot achieve on the battlefield. And NO, Putin does NOT have millions more soldiers available. Russian daily KIAs are accelerating and he's already making deals for more NK troops.
The aggressive moves in Europe, ramping up every kind of hybrid warfare, active measures, and dezinformatsiya pressure they can muster shows the Ukrainians are winning with the deep strikes. Russia can not defend its many soft targets, is already in massive deficit and depleting it's sovereign funds, and will lose much more as Ukraine's new Flamingo missiles come online.
Requires concessions. Right. UKR already TODAY offered to give up 20% of their territory and condemn those Ukrainian residents to the torture and death offered by the Russians. You do not think that is a concession?
What concessions are the Russians making at the 'peace' tables? NONE. The Russians stick to their maximalist demands of taking ALL of the "annexed" oblasts they can not even take with the full might of their (declining) military, AND demand Ukraine basically disarm and become a vassal state.
Where are the Russian concessions? They do not exist.
This alone shows who is the aggressor and who is the defending victim.
Get real.
That is pratical only in the event of total societal breakdown like Nazi Germany in its final months when there was no economy left and institutions like schools, hospitals, factories and utilities had ceased to work. Everything was thrown to the front while the people in cities were malnourished, had no power nor running water, and died of minor diseases due to lack of medical supplies.
Putin is too afraid to even announce a regular mobilization and resorts to dirty tactics coercion of ethnic minorities to fill the ranks, because the backlash that would follow a general mobilization would be a major threat to Putin's power. Look up the effect of soldiers' mothers movement during the Chechen wars, or how the forced conscription into the Soviet-Afghan war (620k people over a decade) contributed to the disintegration of the USSR.
You are operating with fantasies.
Your mobilization numbers are fantasy, and Putin has held off declaring mobilization not because he thinks he does not need to but because it would require drafting people from the middle classes near Moscow instead of the rural impoverished territories that can be ignored politically. A full mobilization could end him. If he had enough people, he would not be getting soldiers from North Korea and deceiving Africans to put into their meat grinder
Yes, Ukraine has a manpower problems also. They are solving it through innovation. And it is working. Just look at the verified death counts from both sides
You really are a persistent apologist for Putin, not some kind of middle ground arbitor you hold yourself out as.
And at that time it was Ukraine rejecting any calls for a ceasefire without major concessions from Russia. They wanted the immediate and unconditional return of all land as a precondition to even beginning to negotiate, where they would have sought further concessions like reparations to agree to peace. And beyond that they were making statements, in public - let alone private, such as "[Russia] must be defeated, be subjected to a painful defeat, as painful as possible." [1] These are not the words or actions of a country that'd just agree to peace, without major concessions, if they were trending towards a potential absolute victory. But of course no country would. It's the nature of war. The side with an edge will expect significant concessions to end a conflict.
And, obviously a general mobilization would cause major backlash within Russia, but they'd almost certainly be just fine. There's also no such thing as a "verified death count." Again going back to our propaganda list: "7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable." On top of both sides actively lying, they also likely don't even really know themselves, especially Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of their military is made up of forcibly conscripted people, many of whom would flee at the first opportunity. They certainly know the dogtagged KIA, but likely simply have no idea exactly how many of the missing are fertilizer, and how many managed to make their way to freedom. They also have a motivation to not know, to defer the KIA compensation payments.
[1] - https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/22/us-ukraine-crisis-podoly...
You ignore how much prevents Ukrainians from migrating or evacuating temporarily Russian-occupied territories. There is a river with many bridges out, the roads are mined, and the Russians run human safaris hunting civilians. But sure, everyone could have gotten out.
You are also just spewing the standard Russian concern-trolling line about "Russian speakers in Ukraine".
You may be fooling yourself about being some kind of "unbiased" observer, but you aren't fooling anyone else.
NO, the sides are not even close to the same. Stop stanning for Russia
Are you suggesting that by defending 95% of the front line Ukraine has the SAME losses in manpower as Russia which is carrying out offensive actions over probably 40-50% of the front line?
The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.
Ukraine will be grabbing Russian soldiers off the field within 12 months, I predict.
Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.
Anyone who has done first responder training should have had it drilled into their skulls to remember the number one rule .... "do not add yourself to the injury list".
If you're operating in a war-zone its kind of the same thing. Send in a helicopter to drop off one or more guys and you are also sending in bare minimum of one extra person but realistically almost certainly three extra people (two at the front and one at the back to watch the people jumping out).
Also drones are probably somewhat cheaper than helicopters. Both to buy and to operate.
Fresh soldiers, with a combat load, might be too heavy. Or simply risky
See e.g. the KF 150 multi copter. And it's sub $50k
Problem is staging is hard, because you take fire trying to set them up, so you need to be further away, which brings up the weight/range issues.
And that's why the war is fought with one way attack drones, to maximize range and payload.
Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors. With Recent developments, the an interceptor can fly up to 600 km/h. It can also wait for you on the balloon.
Overall, piloted aviation, it's almost a dead end with all the recent capabilities.
I give it 1-2y.
As an example, Russia hits with drones a specific parts of the bridge using mesh network of ER resistant drones . Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .
What is the point of sending f-35 if Ukraine can send 5 cheap rockets? And deliver 2-3 tones of payload over the most sophisticated air protection in the world ?
Ukraine and Russia are both second-rate powers making do with what they can manage because they're too poor to afford anything better. The systems that sort of work in Eastern Europe likely won't be effective between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)
Lets be a bit clear - F-35 in Iran are also effectively used against static targets in most if not all the cases. School, intersections full of civilian traffic and some underground tunnel here and there or a parked truck, we've seen the videos its not like they are hiding them.
Era of hunt for expensive sophistication at all costs is coming to an end, no point if one can overwhelm any adversary including US by just sending one cheap wave after another, and it doesn't even take long. How long is the backlog for US patriot missiles? Plus Ukraine can do same type of missiles 80% cheaper soon.
This overwhelming already happened numerous times in recent months, US is just not bragging about it on fox news for obvious reasons.
Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary. Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.
The Houthis have no airforce, no professional army and no navy and yet they control the red sea.
Its quite interesting to think how much power is more a perception by others than a reality when tested. Just think about how many powers appeared invincible and then were tested and collapsed or how many victories and empires were simply because opponents gave up early.
America isnt a world power because it forgot how to be one. Primary example is their complete lack of research on drones and missiles. Firstly even during a war, Ukraine has managed to create a drone force, and the USA hasnt even started. Second example, look at the build rate for defensive missiles aka THAAD and Patriots. Given the military budget is amazing how few are actually built. Thirdly the reason the USA is having troubles and is unable to support a ground invasion is the Osprey continues to be broken and a failure after 20 something years of being accepted into service. Last example, the USA does not have sufficient auxiliary ships to supply carrier groups at distance. THis is an open secret mentioned in many places. They always assumed a lot of friendly bases nearby, except they lost everything in the Gulf and have only Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean which simply isnt enuff. The later is a perfect example of no planning, no backup plan which is exactly what seniors at the Pentagon should have planned and advised about. Logistics win war and here we see the US is lame because it doesnt have enough of them.
Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.
Rotary wing are 'dead' - because manpads and now drones, they are just not used. Any smart adversary can figure out the drones, as for now.
Iran is a poor country with challenging AA but even they downed like 30 predators (or equivalent). They have passive systems.
Russia doctrines is to have massive numbers of S300/400 which makes it takes weeks at minimum for US to get enough Air dominance to be able to fly, though, eventually they would be worn down as we have seen US standoff munitions are limited.
US used 30-50% of munitions against just Iran. Imagine Russia.
China has a lot of sneaky new toys up their sleeve as well - very long range capabilities for a lot of things, enough to 'deter' USN pretty hard.
Nobody doubts US would ultimately 'win' v Russia, but everything is up in the air right now.
FYI even Houthis downed US jets.
Iran has (had?) S300 and maybe S400 yet downed no F35s despite many months of them in their airspace. I'm not suggesting US stealth makes the planes invulnerable but the evidence we have so far does not support your statement.
These are not 'point systems' with 'A on B' capabilities aka 'it works on this but not that'.
They are networked systems that work in the context of a layered AA strategy along with many other parts.
A single S300 system outside the context of a layered strategy is useless and will be picked off quickly.
We have ballpark estimations for their capabilities, and S400, in proper defensive posture, will hold out against anything NATO has ... for a while.
(Not accounting for 'magic' unknown gear that either side has)
AA defence will have long range radar, AWACS, satellite, other point systems, all kinds of EW (electronic warfare), and defensive patrols of various kinds. And we're now seeing Chinese passive systems deployed in Iran as well.
If that layered defence is very effectively managed, then it becomes very hard to pin the various pieces down. SEED munitions are maybe 60 miles range, and S400 can see F35's at 50 miles, that's a 'very tight' standoff even in a theoretical standoff. If an adversary has AWACS then they're not going to use their tracking radars.
There are all sorts of things adversaries can do to scare NATO AWACS off, push them back, which shortens the distance at which sorties can take place.
If a nation has 'all the layers' and they have good leadership, training, and are nimble and know what they are doing, they can be effective.
If there is 'kink in the armour' or the defence is piecemeal, it can be picked apart.
Think of it like those Roman Phalanx: we can't just say 'they have a certain shaped shield' - it's everything together. Coordination, training, tactics makes them hard to penetrate, but incompetence, exposed flank, etc. and they will break.
Also, Patriot is more capable, but given 'apparent doctrine' of limited munitions, the West has badly depleted inventories. Russia is pumping out enormous volumes of supplies. All of that means they get used differently.
Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.
3000 km or around 1864 miles.
Silly nonsense comment.
The US would absolutely not be sending manned helicopters into the same situations. Zero chance.
The US is failing to decisively win a war against a third world country. Ukraine is failing to decisively win (but gradually winning) a war against an adversary several multiples its size and economic strength.
It's not trivial to hit them with drones - but there so, so many these days, the density makes things dramatically hard. They are there waiting for movement of supplies.
The Osprey is dead, the mission it was built for was Iran, and today they are limited to 15 min from base missions, aka they are effectively retired.
Those new Littoral combat ships are decommissioned.
Russia has almost no tanks or armoured vehicles to deliver troops in Ukraine, and the USA is no different. It cant support troops on the ground in either area. Any troops dropped there would be abandoned in a very harsh terrain.
Minor coastal incursions, sure. Tiny special forces operations, maybe.
There's nowhere for Marines to hunker down for any length of time.
The US doesn't have ground troops fighting in Iran or Houthi territories (perhaps some SpecOps, but nothing public.)
The Osprey is not limited as you describe, and the US is purchasing follow on tilt-rotor aircraft.
What do the LCS have to do with anything about CASEVAC?
The Russians still have quite a lot of armor. They're reserving it from combat in Ukraine. The US has even more armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_F-15E_rescu...
> Claimed as self-destroyed: 2 MC-130J Hercules[7] 4 MH-6 or AH-6 special operations helicopters[8
So the q is why not send in the Ospreys ? Because they are lame and out of commission.
THe US had a lot of equipment before the start, but NO Ospreys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%E2%80%93Boeing_V-22_Ospre...
> In January 2026, the V-22 was used in combat during the US intervention in Venezuela.[204]
Yes only used in V but not Iran. We all know V was a freebie.
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2025/04/ospreys-w...
So many grounding it shows they are not actually trusted when it really counts. Every year or two they are grounded, that doesnt inspire confidence and it shows today becuse when it counts they are not to be seen.
> What do the LCS have to do with anything about CASEVAC?
What does the L in LCS stand for ? THey should be the ones In Hormuz today.
It didn't win the Americans and the Israelis the war, to the contrary, it gave them (the Americans and the Israelis) the illusion that they could win it based on air power alone as a result of the Douhet doctrine.
Do we have evidence even a single helicopter has been shot down by a drone?
shows a different event but two angles. Again many videos like this.
/s
Paratroopers and similar troops could be dropped but it would be a suicide mission in an extremely harsh land, with no water and no food.
I never said that at all, im simply saying helis have a limited range, and since all ships including any possibly landing ones are too far away because the ships are scared of the missiles and drones.
Transporting wounded soldiers has become a significant problem in recent years.
Also heli is much laughter and easier to spot
And the lost of why would you not send it goes on and on
https://youtu.be/tIJy0sLzfl4?is=fJfZkiC1vVvtkgiR
1. very advanced with drones 2. caring about their soldiers
Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.
Dubya would have sent you guys the munitions and cowboy hats to be on Putin's doorstep by now.
What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?
Not trolling or rhetorical; that's a completely sincere question. Even if something "bad" were to surface, his supporters would simply deny it and/or ignore it, same as they've done for all the other things he's done that are already known.
You can pretty much divide American voters into two camps right now: the ones who loathe him and the ones who DGAF (non-voting voters being in the latter category).
Some segment will always deny any dirt that comes out but I think most would become fairly adverse to him if, say, conclusive evidence of child sexual abuse surfaced.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxr5yvzv7rp0o
Have the curiosity to be serious.
> Have the curiosity to be serious.
Excuse me. This site and its guidelines have existed in a largely constant form for almost two decades and your account is a couple of months old. Of course we welcome new participants here, but this is only a place where people want to come to discuss important topics because we have guidelines and uphold them daily. Please respect the guidelines and the community expectations if you want to participate here.
Doubly so when we recall that drones and ML are inextricably linked on the modern battlefield, and the technology we routinely discuss here is already being used in kill chains, ISR, SAR, and it's evolving on a weekly basis.
That aside, in this context the issue is that the comment very much didn't set aside the politics and the personalities.
this was a favorite of mine when I first saw it: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/9/what-are-dragon-...
1. Ukraine wants to remain a part of the media cycle.
2. Drone evac news checked some boxes in their propaganda machine aimed to increase coverage; therefore, this is on HN.
3. They want more money, and additional media coverage helps with manufacturing consent in the donor countries.
Disclaimer: I have a functioning brain.
Would be so convenient if you'd add something like "(living in Poland)" or "(living in Canada)"
Easy to do when you're in California with no risk of getting conscripted to the front line.
But like I said, this is the very best case scenario. Most likely Trump will just be to busy handling an investigation and an adversarial Congress to do much but make noise on social media.
EU politicians don't want to acknowledge the ongoing war because they think it would be an escalation and they also have a fear of 'Russia breaking up'. Other than the Baltic states, they don't realize the only way to stop it is push back, hard and fast, as Ukraine is doing. The Russian military is low-capability and declining, reliant now on North Korea and Iran, and the economy is sliding. The reality is little could be better than Russia breaking up and finally abandoning it's imperial ambitions, which are still active today.
The Ukrainian war never stopped. Russia has never paused attacking for even one day, in more years than WWI. The War on Ukraine never went away and so can't "come back"
No one supporting Ukraine is supporting a foreign dictator. Zelenskyy was elected in a free and fair election, and elections have been involuntarily suspended while the country is under continuous bombardment targeting civilians. Holding an election would be literal suicide and condemning voters to death by announcing every time and place where people would gather, just to make it easy for Russia to target them. And there is ZERO question — Ukrainian civilian casualties are NOT collateral damage, they are deliberately targeted by Russian missiles, long-range drones, and individual civilians are even hunted by FPV drones in "human safari" incidents posted by Russians themselves.
Ukrainians are only defending their own right to live on their own land under their own government, and not have their children kidnapped and their neighbors and themselves tortured and slaughtered, which has happened in EVERY city Russia occupied. Russia is doing what Russia has always done — invade and genocide a neighbor, then say "this was always Russia".
It is absolutely disgusting that you come here to post such lies and characterize any support for Ukraine as if it were support for an autocracy, when YOU are the one supporting Russia's autocracy. You are factually wrong and morally abhorrent. Rethink your life.
Also, next wartime invention: air mines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition
Some random googling:
Firework like ground mines for drones: https://youtu.be/tFpH57oNZZA
Shotgun mines that shoot down aircraft: https://threattec.com/how-threat-tec-new-anti-aircraft-mine-...
Anti drone nets hanging from balloons: https://english.nv.ua/amp/russia-testing-balloon-suspended-n...
https://www.xponential-europe.com/en/Media_News/Magazine/Art...
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=firefox-b-d&hs=p...
Meanwhile, Musk and Trump are pointing figures at each about who set the speed limit on Starlink/shield terminals, which apparently affects interceptors. The USA also stopped giving Ukraine ballistic missile warnings.
[0] https://x.com/United24media/status/2112192976055140726