Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 02 Jun 05:11
collapse
wont be satisfied until crimea is theres again. China can chip and retak historic lands, “norther manchuria”, although they are pretty much taking over russia economically(through thier natural resources in thier remote regions.
Yeah, people see China sending stuff to Russia and think they’re helping, because they’ve been told they’re “allies”. China is gaining a lot from Russia’s failure though. If they don’t actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
I saw a comment not too long ago about how China should convince Russia to get out of the war, as if it’s harming China. People just don’t understand the geopolitics going on. I don’t expect them to, but people should at least be aware no state is doing anything out of kindness. It’s always at least attempting to benefit themselves. For Europe, Ukraine losing would be a horrible result, for example. There may be a humanitarian aspect, but there’s always something being gained.
If they don’t actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
China has plenty of land already. Why would they officially want something with piss poor infrastructure and corrupt officials. It’s a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn’t really have an option but to sell. It’s also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders. Also, that’s what China has been doing already for quite a while in Africa (and likely in other places too).
Are you kidding? China has always wanted the eastern part of Russia. Also, China not wanting it would apply to Russia too, right? If it’s worthless, why is anyone claiming it? It obviously isn’t worthless. At minimum, control of the coast and rivers are valuable. There’s also tons of natural resources there.
It’s a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn’t really have an option but to sell. It’s also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders.
That is buying what they want. And moving borders isn’t that hard. They just need to reach an agreement. It’s not like they have physically go and move some line. Borders don’t exist in reality. It’s just what states agree to say they control. The biggest issue would be going in and collecting taxes and whatnot. China’s got the beurocratic infrastructure to handle that pretty easily though, and it’s not like there’s many people or much wealth (in the people) there anyway. It’s all about the resources. Like you said, they’ve been doing it in Africa. Why wouldn’t they do it in their backyard?
It actually kind of is. Depending on the laws on both countries. There was a petition that Norway would’ve gifted a top of one mountain to Finland when Finland celebrated 100 years of independence. Border would’ve moved something like 20 meters in the middle of nowhere, without any resources or pretty much anything else of any value. It would’ve just made the officially highest spot in Finland a bit higher.
It just wasn’t legally possible. Constitution in Norway says that the only way to lose land is to lose it in a war and changing their constitution isn’t really practical just for that kind of feat. Also there was more or less serious discussion that what if Finland claims a “war” against Norway and conquers that hilltop, but that would’ve meant that Finland (not a NATO member at a time) would be in a war with a NATO country, which is not trivial either.
There was also legal issues on Finland side of things too, but those would’ve been far simpler to resolve.
I don’t know about legal situation in Russia nor in China, so that might not apply, but in general countries tend to have legal limits on how they can lose or gain land. China has not annexed areas from Africa, they’ve just bought the rights for resources and use them as they see fit, but internationally agreed borders stay where they are. If they actually took land from Russia that would cause other kinds of legal issues, like having to build stuff in there to meet their legal minimum standards, set up administration and whatever their legal system requires. So, in many ways it’s just far easier to buy what they want and leave the border and land ownership politics out of the equation.
What do you mean he won’t allow it? If it’s literally selling it off for military aid, which is something he critically needs, that seems exactly like something he’d do.
I don’t see many people moving into Siberia no matter who owns it though. Few people live there, and few want to. It’ll mostly be for control of waterways and resources, but also for strategic control to push Russia away from its more critical locations.
It’s going to get removed any second now just believe in yourself 🙏
Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 02 Jun 13:23
collapse
Are you intentionally misunderstanding my point? I didn’t make any negative statements about people of certain nationalities or ethnicities. I just mentioned a hypothetical to show the racism and hypocrisy of the original commenter and the mods
PhoenixDog@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 11:15
nextcollapse
I’ve seen “Death Death To The IDF” on here plenty of times. I also don’t believe that wishing death on people who participate in unmitigated genocide should be frowned upon.
Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 02 Jun 12:24
collapse
But they said they wanted the russian soldiers to die, not the russian military to be dissolved. “Death to the IDF” is against the institution IDF not singular soldiers.
And don’t forget the dehumanising language which certainly would have gotten me banned if I said the same about Israelis (at least on lemmy.world).
To be fair i DID SAY preferably alive so it’s literally true that i did the opposite of call for their death :p
They need to go home though. Back home to Russia. Not Ukraine.
That said, I DO IN FACT believe the Jewish peoples should have a safe nation to live in. ISRAEL IS NOT SUCH A PLACE. They should go back to Europe and stop trying to colonize indigenous people. Or hell, I would LOVE for them to live right here in New England! I will in fact NOT shoot rockets at them because I want them to live in peace and safety HERE, FAR AWAY FROM PALESTINE
Making death wishes in general shouldn’t be tolerated, I think that’s a basic principle to uphold.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 10:35
nextcollapse
Brilliant!
Ukraine is today in a better position than at any time before in the war. I hope eu can continue to increase support and by doing so create a new European defence paradigm with Ukraine at it’s core.
“Europe” is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to “Europe”, which is what the conversation you’re responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it’s a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 02 Jun 12:25
collapse
So Europe is supposed to support Ukraine against . . . Europe?
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 10:48
nextcollapse
cause conflict with Russia
Are you talking about a new conflict and not the current literal invasion? Because they kinda already crossed that bridge. Then it got blown up like 2 or 3 times.
At the core of the defense paradigm. Since Ukraine has a gigantic military (currently more personnel than even France), pretty cutting edge work on drone and anti-drone warfare and has been fighting for years against the EU’s biggest land threat. They’re not saying Ukraine is at the core of Europe the continent…
Previously the European states learned that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well. They’re on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, are subject to Russian influence operations that are not especially appreciated and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity. Plus the occasional bombing and constant rhetoric against them. So obviously they will prefer to back Ukraine rather than letting Russia absorb it, become stronger and start eyeing the next country.
that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well
Which power was that?
and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
and constant rhetoric against them
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Germany and the USSR were carving off regions and conquering small states left and right in the lead-up to WWII, both in independent adventures and their team-up via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Munich Agreement is pretty egregious with Hitler claiming it was the last territorial demand he had in Europe and Chamberlain coming back claiming he had achieved peace for our time. Only for it to turn out that Germany would use all the fortifications, industry, manpower and resources it had gained at the expense of its neighbor to roll over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So Germany became a much more imposing force than it had started out as because folks were content to just watch it snowball and not help Czechoslovakia defend itself.
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
The rhetoric does matter when Russian politicians are threatening the EU all the time by saying they’ll nuke them, that ex. Baltic independence isn’t legal, that they’re states at war, etc. But there’s concrete action too. A Russian drone strike just hit an apartment in Romania and Medvedev is saying it won’t be the last one. They’ve set off parcel bombs in EU countries. Blown up ammunition depots. Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries, cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit… and even if it weren’t doing all of that, a country that conquers smaller neighbors is plenty concerning on its own.
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That’s the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I’m sure that, considering you’re claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you’re now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
It was ultimately stopped with world war in the way it turned out, but that could have been headed off far less bloodily earlier on. If the powers that be had not gifted the Sudetenland to Germany then Czechoslovakia actually had a pretty decent set-up to defend with many fortifications at the rugged borders, far more defensible than the flat north European plain Poland had to defend against a Germany with millions more people, vast amounts of looted gold reserves and extra years of deficit spending to build a far more massive army. It could have held on while the west mobilized and attacked and wrecked Germany’s military via multiple fronts on a much smaller regional scale.
Going back earlier with the remilitarization of the Rhineland the German troops had orders to immediately retreat and if they saw any armed resistance or so much as a single French uniform. The demilitarized Rhineland was key to the cordon sanitaire of French alliances that ringed Germany.
Expansionist states don’t become easier to deal with as they grow bigger so unless you already have and expect to keep amazing relations you should probably not them keep growing unchecked. And even if you do have amazing relations you have to keep in mind that politics can change on a dime and throw that in peril.
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
Glad to see you’ve graduated on from Russia posing no threat to EU to positing that it’s only fair for them to be threatening. And against big threats you prepare countermeasures, such as not letting them swallow up your neighbors.
It doesn’t confuse me. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, as Ukraine is not a template.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 19:20
collapse
Look, take it easy. I know you are a kid, because you lack the self-confidence to ask people what they mean (and you shared a cartoon). But I can tell you, people that ask look way smarter than people that try to make it into a weird confrontation.
Today you can just paste stuff into chatgpt or something and let it explain and for sure write a better response than you did, no offense.
Plus, if you want an honest exchange of opinion, you must likely won’t get it with an arrogant behavior, but by taking a few minutes and replying with something thoughtful. You got my 10 minutes, but that’s done. Have a nice evening.
How embarassing then. Anyways what people are refusing to tell you (because it’s obvious) is that being at the center of a paradigm and being at the center of a geographical landmass are different things.
Ok, double-checked the definition, it means exactly what I thought it does. You’re going to have to explain your argument like an adult if you want me to respond further to explain how you are wrong.
Anyways /uj for a second, “paradigm” has more than one definition. I think you’re using a different one than we were, which is roughly “a method or framework for thought”. A paradigm is a way of thinking about something, or a set of tools and methods used to do so. This is the definition used in the phrase “paradigm shift” and is pretty common; it overlaps with, but is different to, using “paradigm” to refer to an exceptional example of something to replicate. Saying Ukraine will be at the center of the european defense paradigm means that it will be used as a foundational point of reference when discussing defense, and its capabilities will be key to our defense strategy.
Saying Ukraine will be at the center of the european defense paradigm means that it will be used as a foundational point of reference when discussing defense, and its capabilities will be key to our defense strategy.
And again, that is meaningless unless you’re claiming you will replicate Ukraine’s defense in other places.
Nor is Ukraine “foundational”, unless you think that all of Europe is a former part of the USSR that was also the center of WWII against the Russian state of the time. If you’d like to suggest some other country that fits that “paradigm”, I’m all ears.
Ukraine isn’t foundational - it’s a proxy war now abandoned by the US that too much of Europe has decided to let anchor it.
treehugger6@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 11:29
nextcollapse
Zelensky is a traitor to Ukrainians. He’s making deals with the US and helping Israel. I don’t believe we’re being told everything anymore. If the world wanted to stop Putin and help Ukraine, they would. I’m not denying reality - Russia did invade Ukraine. However, the world betrayed Ukraine in 2014 when they let Russia take Crimea. This is just an exercise in supporting military industrial complex. There was an attack in Romania just a few days ago, and NATO did absolutely nothing (and as somebody from the Netherlands it’s my duty to say - fuck Rutte, goddamn traitor).
I am aware of that. I am also aware that the US attacked Iran.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 01 Jun 11:53
nextcollapse
TRUMP attacked Iran. The rest of us want nothing to do with it. Only about 6 people support this war, and all of them are MAGA traitors
Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Jun 12:14
nextcollapse
Trump won the popular vote. Period. You can’t have your country elect a pedonazi and then pretend like he is not your democratically elected president. He always have at least 40% of the population approval. He’s the potus and represents the US.
This may come as a shock to you, but he wasn’t unanimously voted in as president. There are tens of millions of us that actively voted against him. Those that did and do support him can’t pretend like this isn’t the consequences of their actions, but the rest of us sure as shit can.
Even among the traitors and idiots that did vote for him, even the majority of those don’t agree with his war in Iran.
Have you have lived somewhere where you didn’t agree with your democratically elected official? It’s possible to be critical of that person’s actions and not be culpable for them.
Unfortunately, you are correct that he does represent the US, and that’s damage that will probably outlast my lifetime, but representation doesn’t mean reflection, and his actions don’t reflect the majority opinion in the US right now.
I voted in every election in my province/county for the past 20 years and none of the party I’ve voted for have ever been elected. I don’t like either of my Prime Ministers, federal and provincal, but they have been democratically elected and are my representatives. trump his your president, stop acting like he’s not and fix your own mess.
I explicitly stated that he does represent the US, but that many of us didn’t vote for him or support him. Both can be and are true. We don’t want a war in Iran, but as you’ve pointed out, Trump was democratically elected, and there are processes to stop the war. Unfortunately, it’s not anything we can kick off as citizens.
There are protests, but when your healthcare and that of your family is tied to your employment, missing work to protest is a good way to not have a job, income, or healthcare. It’s not a simple as, “make change happen”.
Generalizing an entire population is a weak and shitty argument. You can do it if you want, but it just makes you look narrow minded and out of touch with how the world actually works.
The whole point is that the entire US doesn’t want a war with Iran and most don’t, even those that voted for Trump in hindsight don’t want it. They fucked us and got the country to this point, but war with Iran isn’t a popular opinion regardless of past actions.
suigenerix@lemmy.world
on 01 Jun 19:35
nextcollapse
All true, but It’s all about perspective. Trump won the election promising repeatedly that he wouldn’t start new wars, and would in fact end wars.
And depending on which polls you follow, the approval rating for the attacks on Iran are as low as 27% (Reuters/Ipsos, March 2026). But all polls conclude that the majority of US citizens do not support the war.
So this is definitely not something the US voters directly signed up for. Voting for a president is not a mandate for that president to operate on wholesale deception.
The only good thing about his first term was he didn’t start new wars and he did, obliquely, end the war in Afghanistan with his petty checkmate Biden penultimate act in office.
Americans should have known he was a lying liar who lies but that part was true at the time.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 02 Jun 14:22
collapse
No he didn’t, he cheated, and EVERYBODY knows it! This ridiculous idea that the only time in his entire life that he didn’t cheat on anything was the one election that he had to win to avoid a life sentence in prison, and he had the assistance of his two best friends Putin and Musk with the best financed and experienced hacking teams on the planet, but he chose to play it “Fair & Square,” because that’s the kind of guy he is.
I’d like to believe you but do you have any kinf of proof that this happened? Otherwise it would be just like him, whem he claims h won against Biden. I have no doubt that he will cheat, now that he is president, but I don’t think he did at the last election. Maga is a real thing, half of the US is facsist.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
on 03 Jun 12:56
collapse
Maybe if the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries didn’t immediately slam the lid on any discussion of investigating the election by declaring the election “Fair & Square” immediately after the polls closed, instead of demanding any kind of verification from corrupt traitors.
All they had to do was flip enough votes in one race, in seven states. That’s all. And he won every single one of them in a highly contested, extremely tight race? Simply not plausible, and not even statistically probable.
Those swing states had millions of straight Democratic tickets with Trump at the top. Who votes like that? Have you ever met someone who votes like that? Ever see one on TV? Wouldn’t news orgs want to put together a panel of those Democratic Trump voters, and see what’s up with them? So why didn’t we see any? Maybe because they couldn’t find a single person who voted that way?
Common on, just use your basic Critical Thinking Skills, and you understand that the whole thing stinks. Does it makes sense that MAGA would ever do ANYTHING “Fair & Square?”
I mean, would that just mean that he clearly cheated and that the vast majority of your country is either too stupid to see it or just doesn’t care? Not sure this is better than him winning.
The US state attacked Iran. They have been planning this since 1979. I do not blame American people for it. But putting the blame on only Trump lets the real culprits escape from questions unscathed.
Ukraine offered to help defend Iran’s neighbouring countries against drone attacks since they have experience with that. Also ukraine has issues with Israel as well, they are buying stolen ukrainian grain from russia.
Iran is not attacking neighboring countries. They are attacking US military bases in those countries. It’s self defense. If those countries want to be US bitches, then they should reap what they sowed
I mean, fine. Just saying what Ukraine offered. I don’t think zelensky betrayed anyone. Offering to help defend things is something else than bombing someone.
Kinda sounds like Zelensky is doing what he needs to do to survive, and if that means allying with Israel then so be it, because he has his own country to deal with.
And he’s right to do so. Zelensky’s job is to kick the Russians out of his country, he has to do whatever it takes to make that happen, and he has to put the lives of his citizens first. Yes it sucks but he has to stop the genocide in his own country.
War is a terrible thing, leaders have to make terrible decisions.
Yeah I think he is doing excellent considering the situation. And he’s not even working with Israel I think considering they are fucking then over by buying stolen grain from Russia.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 13:14
collapse
It’s insane that some people think Zelensky should make a stand against Israel. Like wtf. He has other priorities right now.
The fact that the US is an extremist authoritarian regime does not excuse the fact that Iran is an extremist authoritarian regime. Iran is gladly attacking gulf countries. They’ve been wanting to do that for decades and finally they have an excuse to do it.
The sad part is that civilians are getting killed in this war between authoritarian narcissists.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 02 Jun 05:13
collapse
except US is the true aggressor in the region, and his responsible for IRANS current regime’s existence.
Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Jun 06:00
collapse
Iran is not attacking neighboring countries. They are attacking US military bases in those countries.
Absolutely delusional
treehugger6@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 07:27
nextcollapse
It;s true, Deal with it
Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Jun 09:58
collapse
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Manama 1 March 2026
Bahrain International Airport 1 March 2026
Mina Salman Port 2 March 2026
Port of Duqm 1 March 2026
Fairmont The Palm, Palm Jumeirah, Dubai 28 February 2026
Can’t imagine Ukraine would harbor terribly much sympathy for Iran given the tens of thousands of Shahed drones that have been bombarding their cities that were either made in Iran or based on Iranian drone designs licensed to Russia. They probably figure that if Iran was fine starting this by selling such weapons to Russia that were certain to be used on Ukraine, then turnabout is fair play. They have basically no economy in Ukraine so they’re desperate for any way to make a buck to put back into military production for fending off their gigantic neighbor, anyway.
If Putin hadn't decided to forcibly annex parts of Ukraine in the first place, many Russian sons would still be alive and Zelenskyy perhaps wouldn't be seeking help from the "wrong" people (not that I think that's an entirely valid way to think about it.)
And as best as I can tell Zelenskyy is not in favour of the way Israel is going about what they're doing in Palestine, and I'm sure he very much recognises the parallels with what's happening to his own country.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jun 15:01
nextcollapse
Early on Zelensky supported Israel (I remember because I was very dissapointed).
Later on he just shut up about it, which I take it as the pragmatical position of not wanting to lose support of two large very pro-Israel allies - the US and Germany - by voicing criticism of Israel whilst at the same time not wanting to actually support Israel after it was clear they were commiting a Genocide.
As we remember from the whole “did you even thank us” circus at the White Wouse, he is a person who has had to endure a ton of bullshit for the sake of his nation.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 02 Jun 05:14
nextcollapse
Putin doesnt care about the non-muscovites and st.petersberg, hes mostly sending the ethnic russians/poorer regions to thier deaths.
yeah, pretty sure zelenskyy looks at what israel is doing to a palestine and recognizes it as what russia wants to do to ukraine. He’s not going to be friendly toward a country that embodies russia’s aspirations for brutality.
oh yes. it’ll change alright. it’ll change to russia losing even more territory ;p
putin is sure to announce one day that ukraine taking back crimea and crushing all russian forces within its borders will have “put them right where we want them!” and that it was all part of his ‘brilliant’ strategic planning.
Drone tech has had exactly the same effect machine guns and precise artillery had in WW1: an advantage of the defense over the offense, which turns the war into one of attrition.
Neither side is able to do sweeping maneuvers and break through defensive lines until the other side’s ability to fight is completely exhausted.
This war won’t end before Putin is gone, one way or the other.
Why would that be, that drone warfare advantages defense?
For an offensive action you need to concentrate enough forces and material in one area to achieve a breakthrough.
In Ukraine, there is now a “grey area” between the fronts which neither side controls but is permanently patrolled by drones, similar to WW1’s “no-mans-land”.
It’s up to 20-30km wide, and any vehicle entering it is destroyed by drone swarms.
Crossing it on foot takes up to a week, and less than 10% make it through alive.
This makes it impossible to bring heavy equipment to the actual front line for an assault, or even re-supply your soldiers hiding in trenches there.
The main difference between WWI and Today’s trench warfare the the level of intelligence available, combined with the ability to precision-strike.
It’s interesting because drones are very mobile, able to be deployed close to the front, and extremely deadly, but simultaneously limited. The heavier payload ones can also be longer range, but counter-UAV technology (mostly jamming) makes these harder to use. In comparison, the shorter-range drones can be sent via cable - impossible to jam, but limited flight distance due to the trailing wire + weight.
The application of drones on the battlefield also favors the defender. The small-payload drones are exceptional at taking out moving vehicles and light infantry, and overhead imagery (via drone or satellite) is nearly omnipresent. With neither side able to secure complete air power, the normal target softening approach of airstrikes followed by troop movement isn’t viable, and then drones take out even the most spread-out groups moving forward. The result is that the doctrinal 3:1 attacker ratio that favors defenders is even more lopsided with drones. I fear that we’ll see a greatly increased use of autonomous weaponry as a result, which is extremely dangerous for humanity.
Madison420@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 14:56
nextcollapse
The long range ones are increasingly small aircraft running on dead reckoning for final or loss of comms, ie. Jamming has very little effect at this point.
Are autonomous guns that are moved via servos and aimed via AI cameras a thing yet? I imagine simply trailers with 10-20 rifles that just blast any and all drones with mostly standard munitions. Projectiles should be much faster so it should be possible to shoot any drone down at close enough range, and it should be much cheaper so eventually you should be able to just defend against drone swarms with enough auto turrets.
I imagine we’re still far from the technological peak of drone warfare.
bitwize01@reddthat.com
on 02 Jun 22:10
nextcollapse
There are weapons that use sensor fusion already, with computer vision being used mostly on the offensive side. The issue for fixed defensive emplacements is that the attack drones are quite fast, and small for their lethality. The fusion is built off radar, acoustic (sound) and visible spectrum, but isn’t reliable and only recently portable. Humans (which have excellent sensing capability) have been in the loop with aimed jammers, and this has become standard equipment at the platoon level.
Timely detection is hard, and the interception is tricky too. Costly interceptors work better than bullets, and can protect a larger area, but even a 95% interception range isn’t super effective, as we saw with some of the $1b radomes lost by US Forces this year.
Personally, I think we’ve sadly only seen the start of autonomous, self-guided ‘suicide’ drones. These are the weapons that terrify me. Not accountable, cheap, and they can easily be turned against civilian infrastructure. Computer vision is robust, but shrinking the sensor + decision maker still needs work (at least, thats what the unclassified info tells me)
Yeah definitely scary - once you can mass produce drones or combat robots in the millions they become weapons of mass destruction.
I still imagine robots shooting normal caliber guns far better than soldiers can would be a game changer. There was this article about Iran simply producing massively cheaper and that is why they won the war, and overwhelm the expensive toys and defenses of the US. Just state owned weapon manufacturing with long term stability in planning. So if you can take down a drone with 100 bullets it’s going to be cheaper than 1 expensive interceptor drone.
TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone
on 03 Jun 01:24
nextcollapse
I’d imagine something with lasers that fry the drones would be more likely. Like that guy who built a mosquito killing auto-targeting laser for his backyard. No reloading and can shoot drones down all night and day as long as it’s got power.
What you just described I’m pretty sure the United States has, at least as air defense aboard Navy vessels. That is, I remember seeing a video with an automatic anti-air gun designed to shoot down missiles that sounds pretty close. This was during Gulf War I mind you, so the tech has been around for a while.
I dont’ see why they couldn’t put one of those on a truck or tank.
hamid@crazypeople.online
on 02 Jun 12:40
nextcollapse
ITT: People uncritically reading Ukrainian state propaganda saying the same thing it has been saying since the beginning of the war and has to say in order to maintain its funding sources and willing partners.
Look I’m not just a ml who loves Russia, I am just someone who reads a story like this and sees it for what it is- state propaganda saying state propaganda. It is pretty funnysad the same people who will cheer this article will look at RT and scream about how it is Ruzzian state lies.
This is a war. You can’t trust either sides propaganda. This is not independent, not verified and not really journalism
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world
on 02 Jun 13:05
nextcollapse
Oh no, you so smart. We so stupid. Praise you.
😂
People know what’s the deal. Especially people here. Things have changed, that’s not news, you can read that in European newspapers and you can read it between the lines in Russian ones.
I disagree with your conclusion as it applies here - but I appreciate the argument. (And upvoted, as it adds to the discussion). I think between these two nations one is the underdog and more in touch with people and reality.
That said, Zelinsky is absolutely a charismatic political leader and it’s healthy to critically analyze anything you hear from such sources. In this case, the statement is definitely a bit bravado nicely coupled with reassurance to their people. I do also believe it tracks with what’s publicly available on the warfront. Nonetheless, the interpretation is clearly biased (to make their own side look good).
Thank you for your thoughts. I also see you’re getting downvoted by the echo chamber. I appreciate it, at least.
That may be, but he still right. The frontlines are proof. Russia has failed to capture significant amount of territory in 3 over years. All the changes have been comically minor relative to the manpower and resources used, and so far this year, Russia has actually been losing more territory than they captured.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org
on 03 Jun 01:39
collapse
I’m pretty sure that russia started this war hastily without enough contemplation; otherwise they would have noticed they’re losing more than they’re winning, even if they’re “winning”. namely they’re losing their international respect.
threaded - newest
Take it all and do better for the people within
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
wont be satisfied until crimea is theres again. China can chip and retak historic lands, “norther manchuria”, although they are pretty much taking over russia economically(through thier natural resources in thier remote regions.
Yeah, people see China sending stuff to Russia and think they’re helping, because they’ve been told they’re “allies”. China is gaining a lot from Russia’s failure though. If they don’t actually take over land by the end of this, they will effectively control all the resources in large parts of modern day Russia.
I saw a comment not too long ago about how China should convince Russia to get out of the war, as if it’s harming China. People just don’t understand the geopolitics going on. I don’t expect them to, but people should at least be aware no state is doing anything out of kindness. It’s always at least attempting to benefit themselves. For Europe, Ukraine losing would be a horrible result, for example. There may be a humanitarian aspect, but there’s always something being gained.
China has plenty of land already. Why would they officially want something with piss poor infrastructure and corrupt officials. It’s a lot easier just to buy what they want, specially now when Russia doesn’t really have an option but to sell. It’s also politically much, much more easier than actually moving borders. Also, that’s what China has been doing already for quite a while in Africa (and likely in other places too).
Are you kidding? China has always wanted the eastern part of Russia. Also, China not wanting it would apply to Russia too, right? If it’s worthless, why is anyone claiming it? It obviously isn’t worthless. At minimum, control of the coast and rivers are valuable. There’s also tons of natural resources there.
That is buying what they want. And moving borders isn’t that hard. They just need to reach an agreement. It’s not like they have physically go and move some line. Borders don’t exist in reality. It’s just what states agree to say they control. The biggest issue would be going in and collecting taxes and whatnot. China’s got the beurocratic infrastructure to handle that pretty easily though, and it’s not like there’s many people or much wealth (in the people) there anyway. It’s all about the resources. Like you said, they’ve been doing it in Africa. Why wouldn’t they do it in their backyard?
It actually kind of is. Depending on the laws on both countries. There was a petition that Norway would’ve gifted a top of one mountain to Finland when Finland celebrated 100 years of independence. Border would’ve moved something like 20 meters in the middle of nowhere, without any resources or pretty much anything else of any value. It would’ve just made the officially highest spot in Finland a bit higher.
It just wasn’t legally possible. Constitution in Norway says that the only way to lose land is to lose it in a war and changing their constitution isn’t really practical just for that kind of feat. Also there was more or less serious discussion that what if Finland claims a “war” against Norway and conquers that hilltop, but that would’ve meant that Finland (not a NATO member at a time) would be in a war with a NATO country, which is not trivial either.
There was also legal issues on Finland side of things too, but those would’ve been far simpler to resolve.
I don’t know about legal situation in Russia nor in China, so that might not apply, but in general countries tend to have legal limits on how they can lose or gain land. China has not annexed areas from Africa, they’ve just bought the rights for resources and use them as they see fit, but internationally agreed borders stay where they are. If they actually took land from Russia that would cause other kinds of legal issues, like having to build stuff in there to meet their legal minimum standards, set up administration and whatever their legal system requires. So, in many ways it’s just far easier to buy what they want and leave the border and land ownership politics out of the equation.
No bc pootin won’t allow China to take over.
Lol it’d be wild to see China own Russia and a lot of Chinese ppl move in.
What do you mean he won’t allow it? If it’s literally selling it off for military aid, which is something he critically needs, that seems exactly like something he’d do.
I don’t see many people moving into Siberia no matter who owns it though. Few people live there, and few want to. It’ll mostly be for control of waterways and resources, but also for strategic control to push Russia away from its more critical locations.
and then have them restart thier nuke program. so that russia wont invade again.
Why is stuff like this allowed but if I were to call for the death of every israeli soldier I would probably get banned?
Would you? Would think it entirely depends on where you left such a comment
On the neoliberal lemmy.world I would almost certainly at least get my comment removed
It’s going to get removed any second now just believe in yourself 🙏
Are you intentionally misunderstanding my point? I didn’t make any negative statements about people of certain nationalities or ethnicities. I just mentioned a hypothetical to show the racism and hypocrisy of the original commenter and the mods
I’ve seen “Death Death To The IDF” on here plenty of times. I also don’t believe that wishing death on people who participate in unmitigated genocide should be frowned upon.
But they said they wanted the russian soldiers to die, not the russian military to be dissolved. “Death to the IDF” is against the institution IDF not singular soldiers.
And don’t forget the dehumanising language which certainly would have gotten me banned if I said the same about Israelis (at least on lemmy.world).
They actually said the opposite of what you said they said. That’s weird.
I think you’re safe: lemmy.world/post/47583805
But not from Israel.
To be fair i DID SAY preferably alive so it’s literally true that i did the opposite of call for their death :p They need to go home though. Back home to Russia. Not Ukraine.
That said, I DO IN FACT believe the Jewish peoples should have a safe nation to live in. ISRAEL IS NOT SUCH A PLACE. They should go back to Europe and stop trying to colonize indigenous people. Or hell, I would LOVE for them to live right here in New England! I will in fact NOT shoot rockets at them because I want them to live in peace and safety HERE, FAR AWAY FROM PALESTINE
To be fair, YOU DID SAY „orcs“ to describe Russians, that‘s dehumanization and a type of othering called Russophobia.
It’s not, it was reported and I removed it when I saw the report.
I in fact am calling for that.
Making death wishes in general shouldn’t be tolerated, I think that’s a basic principle to uphold.
Brilliant! Ukraine is today in a better position than at any time before in the war. I hope eu can continue to increase support and by doing so create a new European defence paradigm with Ukraine at it’s core.
Ukraine isn’t at the core of Europe though
It’s the only one that has real experience with modern warfare and technology in this century. So they have know how.
It’s going to be the outpost for the new EU/Nato does not matter where it geographically is, maybe you took that too literally.
Why does Europe want to ally with Ukraine? That will cause the conflict with Russia that you’re presumably saying we need defense against.
Europe includes Ukraine, and they are already allies, just without a mutual defense agreement.
Ukraine is not a member of any defense pact or the EU.
Ukraine receives security assurances under the Budapest memorandum (which Russia violated).
“Europe” is not a signatory to the Budapest memorandum. Neither is NATO, nor the EU. So how this applies to “Europe”, which is what the conversation you’re responding to is about, is a mystery at best.
The UK and US are signatories. NATO is not. Considering that NATO willfully violated the UN Charter (which the Budapest memorandum rests upon) by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, as well as later actions, it’s a pretty selective to claim that that is applicable.
Europe also includes Russia
So Europe is supposed to support Ukraine against . . . Europe?
Are you talking about a new conflict and not the current literal invasion? Because they kinda already crossed that bridge. Then it got blown up like 2 or 3 times.
Sorry, are you trying to claim that Russia has invaded an EU member?
No we use logic and not this back to the future Wodka brain trolling logic. Therefore we do not claim that, no…
Ok, so what literal invasion are you talking about?
the United States is halfway around the world, that doesn’t stop us from projecting power
How’s that working out for you?
Doesn’t matter how big your dick is when you’re trying to fuck a hornet nest.
Read again slowly.
Sit down and actually think about your statements.
Now try reading the entire sentence!
spoiler
Ukraine is at the core of the defence paradigm … not the core of Europe.
Defense of what? Using words you don’t understand doesn’t change the fact you haven’t defined what you’re trying to say.
Which is basically a tautology that just sees fighting Russia as a good thing on its own, but without any reason given.
So again, sit down and actually think about what you’re trying to say. You’ll come off far less stupid.
At the core of the defense paradigm. Since Ukraine has a gigantic military (currently more personnel than even France), pretty cutting edge work on drone and anti-drone warfare and has been fighting for years against the EU’s biggest land threat. They’re not saying Ukraine is at the core of Europe the continent…
Why is Russia the “EU’s biggest land threat”?
That’s exactly the point. Allying with Ukraine is the main thing that drives that.
Previously the European states learned that letting some major power go around willy-nilly annexing strips of land and entire states from their neighbors does not end well. They’re on Russia’s list of unfriendly countries, are subject to Russian influence operations that are not especially appreciated and there is some evidence to suggest that Russia would seek to reclaim lands from eastern EU states if given the opportunity. Plus the occasional bombing and constant rhetoric against them. So obviously they will prefer to back Ukraine rather than letting Russia absorb it, become stronger and start eyeing the next country.
Which power was that?
What evidence is that?
Because, again, the logic from you chicken hawks seems only to be that Europe must support Ukraine fighting Russia, because it is obvious Russia is an enemy, based on the fact that they are fighting Ukraine.
Notice the issue there? Nowhere is there any threat to Europe listed.
wait, so rhetoric is a casus belli now?
In that case, isn’t this NAFO style crap direct aggression? They’re very loud about how they’re willing to fight to the last Ukrainian - of course, not when they’d be in danger themselves - but how it’s good that Russians are dying.
Russia has made no threat I’m aware of to attack any EU member. If you have evidence of such, present it. Otherwise, your weasel words are just that.
Germany and the USSR were carving off regions and conquering small states left and right in the lead-up to WWII, both in independent adventures and their team-up via the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Munich Agreement is pretty egregious with Hitler claiming it was the last territorial demand he had in Europe and Chamberlain coming back claiming he had achieved peace for our time. Only for it to turn out that Germany would use all the fortifications, industry, manpower and resources it had gained at the expense of its neighbor to roll over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So Germany became a much more imposing force than it had started out as because folks were content to just watch it snowball and not help Czechoslovakia defend itself.
The rhetoric does matter when Russian politicians are threatening the EU all the time by saying they’ll nuke them, that ex. Baltic independence isn’t legal, that they’re states at war, etc. But there’s concrete action too. A Russian drone strike just hit an apartment in Romania and Medvedev is saying it won’t be the last one. They’ve set off parcel bombs in EU countries. Blown up ammunition depots. Violate their airspace, send assassins into their countries, cyberattacks, influence operations to boost separatists and groups like Brexit… and even if it weren’t doing all of that, a country that conquers smaller neighbors is plenty concerning on its own.
Yeah. And how exactly was Nazi Germany stopped, again? That’s the point you seem to be skipping over with your false equivalencies here.
Blow up their pipelines, seize funds, and the like too?
So color revolutions for thee but not for me are fine?
But hey, maybe we just have different ideas about what proper international relations look like. I’m sure that, considering you’re claiming Russia has attacked Europe, you’re now en route to fight in Ukraine, right?
It was ultimately stopped with world war in the way it turned out, but that could have been headed off far less bloodily earlier on. If the powers that be had not gifted the Sudetenland to Germany then Czechoslovakia actually had a pretty decent set-up to defend with many fortifications at the rugged borders, far more defensible than the flat north European plain Poland had to defend against a Germany with millions more people, vast amounts of looted gold reserves and extra years of deficit spending to build a far more massive army. It could have held on while the west mobilized and attacked and wrecked Germany’s military via multiple fronts on a much smaller regional scale.
Going back earlier with the remilitarization of the Rhineland the German troops had orders to immediately retreat and if they saw any armed resistance or so much as a single French uniform. The demilitarized Rhineland was key to the cordon sanitaire of French alliances that ringed Germany.
Expansionist states don’t become easier to deal with as they grow bigger so unless you already have and expect to keep amazing relations you should probably not them keep growing unchecked. And even if you do have amazing relations you have to keep in mind that politics can change on a dime and throw that in peril.
Glad to see you’ve graduated on from Russia posing no threat to EU to positing that it’s only fair for them to be threatening. And against big threats you prepare countermeasures, such as not letting them swallow up your neighbors.
Ummmm isn’t that the exact logic Russia is using to justify their aggression against Ukraine?
That’s one of the many claims they make, yes.
I see someone has explained the obvious already, so I’ll just defer to them.
the obvious being you guys don’t know what paradigm means, or that you have no reason to claim Ukraine is central to European defense against Russia?
Excuse me, but proactive and paradigm? Aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
I’m sorry the word paradigm confuses you, but we do have dictionaries. It’s easy too check the meaning of the word and not look stupid.
Also, if you don’t know what someone means, you can also ask, not just think they are stupid because you don’t understand them.
It doesn’t confuse me. It doesn’t mean what you think it does, as Ukraine is not a template.
Look, take it easy. I know you are a kid, because you lack the self-confidence to ask people what they mean (and you shared a cartoon). But I can tell you, people that ask look way smarter than people that try to make it into a weird confrontation. Today you can just paste stuff into chatgpt or something and let it explain and for sure write a better response than you did, no offense. Plus, if you want an honest exchange of opinion, you must likely won’t get it with an arrogant behavior, but by taking a few minutes and replying with something thoughtful. You got my 10 minutes, but that’s done. Have a nice evening.
Yeah, I’m middle-aged. You’re on quite a roll here.
Just don’t use words you don’t understand, it’s a bad look.
How embarassing then. Anyways what people are refusing to tell you (because it’s obvious) is that being at the center of a paradigm and being at the center of a geographical landmass are different things.
Ukraine is neither the center geographically nor strategically of any defense of the EU.
Yeah, once again, you don’t know what that word means. I suggest you look it up.
Ok, double-checked the definition, it means exactly what I thought it does. You’re going to have to explain your argument like an adult if you want me to respond further to explain how you are wrong.
Oh, OK. What is the replicable pattern of “defense” that is Ukraine, then?
You seem to mean strategy. Ukraine is not the center of European defense strategy, but at least that word isn’t just nonsense.
Yes, this does feel like I’m talking to a 3 year old
The beat you can do is “no u”?
Anyways /uj for a second, “paradigm” has more than one definition. I think you’re using a different one than we were, which is roughly “a method or framework for thought”. A paradigm is a way of thinking about something, or a set of tools and methods used to do so. This is the definition used in the phrase “paradigm shift” and is pretty common; it overlaps with, but is different to, using “paradigm” to refer to an exceptional example of something to replicate. Saying Ukraine will be at the center of the european defense paradigm means that it will be used as a foundational point of reference when discussing defense, and its capabilities will be key to our defense strategy.
And again, that is meaningless unless you’re claiming you will replicate Ukraine’s defense in other places.
Nor is Ukraine “foundational”, unless you think that all of Europe is a former part of the USSR that was also the center of WWII against the Russian state of the time. If you’d like to suggest some other country that fits that “paradigm”, I’m all ears.
Ukraine isn’t foundational - it’s a proxy war now abandoned by the US that too much of Europe has decided to let anchor it.
How about you read the full sentence, dude.
Zelensky is a traitor to Ukrainians. He’s making deals with the US and helping Israel. I don’t believe we’re being told everything anymore. If the world wanted to stop Putin and help Ukraine, they would. I’m not denying reality - Russia did invade Ukraine. However, the world betrayed Ukraine in 2014 when they let Russia take Crimea. This is just an exercise in supporting military industrial complex. There was an attack in Romania just a few days ago, and NATO did absolutely nothing (and as somebody from the Netherlands it’s my duty to say - fuck Rutte, goddamn traitor).
Iran is supplying drones to russia. Of course they aren’t on their side.
I am aware of that. I am also aware that the US attacked Iran.
TRUMP attacked Iran. The rest of us want nothing to do with it. Only about 6 people support this war, and all of them are MAGA traitors
Trump won the popular vote. Period. You can’t have your country elect a pedonazi and then pretend like he is not your democratically elected president. He always have at least 40% of the population approval. He’s the potus and represents the US.
This may come as a shock to you, but he wasn’t unanimously voted in as president. There are tens of millions of us that actively voted against him. Those that did and do support him can’t pretend like this isn’t the consequences of their actions, but the rest of us sure as shit can.
Even among the traitors and idiots that did vote for him, even the majority of those don’t agree with his war in Iran.
Have you have lived somewhere where you didn’t agree with your democratically elected official? It’s possible to be critical of that person’s actions and not be culpable for them.
Unfortunately, you are correct that he does represent the US, and that’s damage that will probably outlast my lifetime, but representation doesn’t mean reflection, and his actions don’t reflect the majority opinion in the US right now.
I voted in every election in my province/county for the past 20 years and none of the party I’ve voted for have ever been elected. I don’t like either of my Prime Ministers, federal and provincal, but they have been democratically elected and are my representatives. trump his your president, stop acting like he’s not and fix your own mess.
I explicitly stated that he does represent the US, but that many of us didn’t vote for him or support him. Both can be and are true. We don’t want a war in Iran, but as you’ve pointed out, Trump was democratically elected, and there are processes to stop the war. Unfortunately, it’s not anything we can kick off as citizens.
There are protests, but when your healthcare and that of your family is tied to your employment, missing work to protest is a good way to not have a job, income, or healthcare. It’s not a simple as, “make change happen”.
Generalizing an entire population is a weak and shitty argument. You can do it if you want, but it just makes you look narrow minded and out of touch with how the world actually works.
The whole point is that the entire US doesn’t want a war with Iran and most don’t, even those that voted for Trump in hindsight don’t want it. They fucked us and got the country to this point, but war with Iran isn’t a popular opinion regardless of past actions.
All true, but It’s all about perspective. Trump won the election promising repeatedly that he wouldn’t start new wars, and would in fact end wars.
And depending on which polls you follow, the approval rating for the attacks on Iran are as low as 27% (Reuters/Ipsos, March 2026). But all polls conclude that the majority of US citizens do not support the war.
So this is definitely not something the US voters directly signed up for. Voting for a president is not a mandate for that president to operate on wholesale deception.
He also already had a previous term that proved that his promises meant nothing.
The only good thing about his first term was he didn’t start new wars and he did, obliquely, end the war in Afghanistan with his petty checkmate Biden penultimate act in office.
Americans should have known he was a lying liar who lies but that part was true at the time.
No he didn’t, he cheated, and EVERYBODY knows it! This ridiculous idea that the only time in his entire life that he didn’t cheat on anything was the one election that he had to win to avoid a life sentence in prison, and he had the assistance of his two best friends Putin and Musk with the best financed and experienced hacking teams on the planet, but he chose to play it “Fair & Square,” because that’s the kind of guy he is.
Anyone who believes that deserves to get conned.
I’d like to believe you but do you have any kinf of proof that this happened? Otherwise it would be just like him, whem he claims h won against Biden. I have no doubt that he will cheat, now that he is president, but I don’t think he did at the last election. Maga is a real thing, half of the US is facsist.
Maybe if the MAGA comedy act of Schmuck & Jeffries didn’t immediately slam the lid on any discussion of investigating the election by declaring the election “Fair & Square” immediately after the polls closed, instead of demanding any kind of verification from corrupt traitors.
All they had to do was flip enough votes in one race, in seven states. That’s all. And he won every single one of them in a highly contested, extremely tight race? Simply not plausible, and not even statistically probable.
Those swing states had millions of straight Democratic tickets with Trump at the top. Who votes like that? Have you ever met someone who votes like that? Ever see one on TV? Wouldn’t news orgs want to put together a panel of those Democratic Trump voters, and see what’s up with them? So why didn’t we see any? Maybe because they couldn’t find a single person who voted that way?
Common on, just use your basic Critical Thinking Skills, and you understand that the whole thing stinks. Does it makes sense that MAGA would ever do ANYTHING “Fair & Square?”
I mean, would that just mean that he clearly cheated and that the vast majority of your country is either too stupid to see it or just doesn’t care? Not sure this is better than him winning.
Anyway these are allegations, not proofs.
The US state attacked Iran. They have been planning this since 1979. I do not blame American people for it. But putting the blame on only Trump lets the real culprits escape from questions unscathed.
Ukraine offered to help defend Iran’s neighbouring countries against drone attacks since they have experience with that. Also ukraine has issues with Israel as well, they are buying stolen ukrainian grain from russia.
Iran is not attacking neighboring countries. They are attacking US military bases in those countries. It’s self defense. If those countries want to be US bitches, then they should reap what they sowed
I mean, fine. Just saying what Ukraine offered. I don’t think zelensky betrayed anyone. Offering to help defend things is something else than bombing someone.
Kinda sounds like Zelensky is doing what he needs to do to survive, and if that means allying with Israel then so be it, because he has his own country to deal with.
And he’s right to do so. Zelensky’s job is to kick the Russians out of his country, he has to do whatever it takes to make that happen, and he has to put the lives of his citizens first. Yes it sucks but he has to stop the genocide in his own country.
War is a terrible thing, leaders have to make terrible decisions.
Yeah I think he is doing excellent considering the situation. And he’s not even working with Israel I think considering they are fucking then over by buying stolen grain from Russia.
It’s insane that some people think Zelensky should make a stand against Israel. Like wtf. He has other priorities right now.
Not even remotely close to a valid response to what they said.
Reread, every word.
The fact that the US is an extremist authoritarian regime does not excuse the fact that Iran is an extremist authoritarian regime. Iran is gladly attacking gulf countries. They’ve been wanting to do that for decades and finally they have an excuse to do it.
The sad part is that civilians are getting killed in this war between authoritarian narcissists.
except US is the true aggressor in the region, and his responsible for IRANS current regime’s existence.
Absolutely delusional
It;s true, Deal with it
Riiiiiiight
Self defence. The US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism since it’s conception
Moving goalposts much? Your initial statement was that they only attack military bases.
They also bombed Syria and Azerbaijan which have zero American bases
Can’t imagine Ukraine would harbor terribly much sympathy for Iran given the tens of thousands of Shahed drones that have been bombarding their cities that were either made in Iran or based on Iranian drone designs licensed to Russia. They probably figure that if Iran was fine starting this by selling such weapons to Russia that were certain to be used on Ukraine, then turnabout is fair play. They have basically no economy in Ukraine so they’re desperate for any way to make a buck to put back into military production for fending off their gigantic neighbor, anyway.
If Putin hadn't decided to forcibly annex parts of Ukraine in the first place, many Russian sons would still be alive and Zelenskyy perhaps wouldn't be seeking help from the "wrong" people (not that I think that's an entirely valid way to think about it.)
And as best as I can tell Zelenskyy is not in favour of the way Israel is going about what they're doing in Palestine, and I'm sure he very much recognises the parallels with what's happening to his own country.
Early on Zelensky supported Israel (I remember because I was very dissapointed).
Later on he just shut up about it, which I take it as the pragmatical position of not wanting to lose support of two large very pro-Israel allies - the US and Germany - by voicing criticism of Israel whilst at the same time not wanting to actually support Israel after it was clear they were commiting a Genocide.
As we remember from the whole “did you even thank us” circus at the White Wouse, he is a person who has had to endure a ton of bullshit for the sake of his nation.
Putin doesnt care about the non-muscovites and st.petersberg, hes mostly sending the ethnic russians/poorer regions to thier deaths.
yeah, pretty sure zelenskyy looks at what israel is doing to a palestine and recognizes it as what russia wants to do to ukraine. He’s not going to be friendly toward a country that embodies russia’s aspirations for brutality.
He has said he wants Ukraine to be a “big Israel”. That was 2022. Israel was just as bad back then, as it has been since it was created.
Ukrainians broadly favour Israel, but since the latest genocide younger people increasingly support Palestine.
I accept that you have corrected me. I hope he will change his tune.
Fair enough. I share your hope. After all, Hungary has been a sign that things can change.
Are you okay?
Whaat?? Why’s Zelensky a traitor?
Because Russian bot account.
Why do you have a brand new account? What happened to treehuggers 1-5?
What are you talking about
Your obvious ban evasion.
That is by far the worst bait I’ve ever tasted
Sigh.
I don’t want to even respond, but did you check with Ukrainians if they think Zelensky is a traitor?
What aren’t we told? A grand conspiracy? Everything is being told, everything, you just need to listen.
Ok.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0b28687f-8432-454f-be36-426296d0ed2c.png">
Said the tankie
Typical western propaganda . But Russia keeps take lands if even it is too slow . Russia depleted but Ukraine too !
Da!
Good, screw Russia. I hope they lose everything.
is that why RUSSIA " is researching ways of forcing the territories they already hold to be permanent" recently.
That will change. The first 1560 days oft a 3 days special military Operation are always the hardest!!!111
oh yes. it’ll change alright. it’ll change to russia losing even more territory ;p
putin is sure to announce one day that ukraine taking back crimea and crushing all russian forces within its borders will have “put them right where we want them!” and that it was all part of his ‘brilliant’ strategic planning.
Drone tech has had exactly the same effect machine guns and precise artillery had in WW1: an advantage of the defense over the offense, which turns the war into one of attrition.
Neither side is able to do sweeping maneuvers and break through defensive lines until the other side’s ability to fight is completely exhausted.
This war won’t end before Putin is gone, one way or the other.
Why would that be, that drone warfare advantages defense?
WW1 era weapons advancements like machine guns advantaged defense, because these new weapons were not easily mobile. But drones are extremely mobile.
For an offensive action you need to concentrate enough forces and material in one area to achieve a breakthrough.
In Ukraine, there is now a “grey area” between the fronts which neither side controls but is permanently patrolled by drones, similar to WW1’s “no-mans-land”.
It’s up to 20-30km wide, and any vehicle entering it is destroyed by drone swarms.
Crossing it on foot takes up to a week, and less than 10% make it through alive.
This makes it impossible to bring heavy equipment to the actual front line for an assault, or even re-supply your soldiers hiding in trenches there.
The main difference between WWI and Today’s trench warfare the the level of intelligence available, combined with the ability to precision-strike.
It’s interesting because drones are very mobile, able to be deployed close to the front, and extremely deadly, but simultaneously limited. The heavier payload ones can also be longer range, but counter-UAV technology (mostly jamming) makes these harder to use. In comparison, the shorter-range drones can be sent via cable - impossible to jam, but limited flight distance due to the trailing wire + weight.
The application of drones on the battlefield also favors the defender. The small-payload drones are exceptional at taking out moving vehicles and light infantry, and overhead imagery (via drone or satellite) is nearly omnipresent. With neither side able to secure complete air power, the normal target softening approach of airstrikes followed by troop movement isn’t viable, and then drones take out even the most spread-out groups moving forward. The result is that the doctrinal 3:1 attacker ratio that favors defenders is even more lopsided with drones. I fear that we’ll see a greatly increased use of autonomous weaponry as a result, which is extremely dangerous for humanity.
The long range ones are increasingly small aircraft running on dead reckoning for final or loss of comms, ie. Jamming has very little effect at this point.
Are autonomous guns that are moved via servos and aimed via AI cameras a thing yet? I imagine simply trailers with 10-20 rifles that just blast any and all drones with mostly standard munitions. Projectiles should be much faster so it should be possible to shoot any drone down at close enough range, and it should be much cheaper so eventually you should be able to just defend against drone swarms with enough auto turrets.
I imagine we’re still far from the technological peak of drone warfare.
There are weapons that use sensor fusion already, with computer vision being used mostly on the offensive side. The issue for fixed defensive emplacements is that the attack drones are quite fast, and small for their lethality. The fusion is built off radar, acoustic (sound) and visible spectrum, but isn’t reliable and only recently portable. Humans (which have excellent sensing capability) have been in the loop with aimed jammers, and this has become standard equipment at the platoon level.
Timely detection is hard, and the interception is tricky too. Costly interceptors work better than bullets, and can protect a larger area, but even a 95% interception range isn’t super effective, as we saw with some of the $1b radomes lost by US Forces this year.
Personally, I think we’ve sadly only seen the start of autonomous, self-guided ‘suicide’ drones. These are the weapons that terrify me. Not accountable, cheap, and they can easily be turned against civilian infrastructure. Computer vision is robust, but shrinking the sensor + decision maker still needs work (at least, thats what the unclassified info tells me)
Yeah definitely scary - once you can mass produce drones or combat robots in the millions they become weapons of mass destruction.
I still imagine robots shooting normal caliber guns far better than soldiers can would be a game changer. There was this article about Iran simply producing massively cheaper and that is why they won the war, and overwhelm the expensive toys and defenses of the US. Just state owned weapon manufacturing with long term stability in planning. So if you can take down a drone with 100 bullets it’s going to be cheaper than 1 expensive interceptor drone.
I’d imagine something with lasers that fry the drones would be more likely. Like that guy who built a mosquito killing auto-targeting laser for his backyard. No reloading and can shoot drones down all night and day as long as it’s got power.
Right! That exists, at $3 per laser shot.
What you just described I’m pretty sure the United States has, at least as air defense aboard Navy vessels. That is, I remember seeing a video with an automatic anti-air gun designed to shoot down missiles that sounds pretty close. This was during Gulf War I mind you, so the tech has been around for a while.
I dont’ see why they couldn’t put one of those on a truck or tank.
ITT: People uncritically reading Ukrainian state propaganda saying the same thing it has been saying since the beginning of the war and has to say in order to maintain its funding sources and willing partners.
Look I’m not just a ml who loves Russia, I am just someone who reads a story like this and sees it for what it is- state propaganda saying state propaganda. It is pretty funnysad the same people who will cheer this article will look at RT and scream about how it is Ruzzian state lies.
This is a war. You can’t trust either sides propaganda. This is not independent, not verified and not really journalism
Oh no, you so smart. We so stupid. Praise you.
😂
People know what’s the deal. Especially people here. Things have changed, that’s not news, you can read that in European newspapers and you can read it between the lines in Russian ones.
<img alt="" src="https://crazypeople.online/pictrs/image/56a073fb-c640-4017-9ab9-5a67f302dc50.gif">
This is the most thought you’ve ever put into a responce. Try harder next time.
It was a special operation at the beginning. It’s still going.
I think it’s safe to say the war isn’t going how Russia wants it to, or zelensky would have been replaced/killed by now
Thank the lord someone said it.
I disagree with your conclusion as it applies here - but I appreciate the argument. (And upvoted, as it adds to the discussion). I think between these two nations one is the underdog and more in touch with people and reality.
That said, Zelinsky is absolutely a charismatic political leader and it’s healthy to critically analyze anything you hear from such sources. In this case, the statement is definitely a bit bravado nicely coupled with reassurance to their people. I do also believe it tracks with what’s publicly available on the warfront. Nonetheless, the interpretation is clearly biased (to make their own side look good).
Thank you for your thoughts. I also see you’re getting downvoted by the echo chamber. I appreciate it, at least.
That may be, but he still right. The frontlines are proof. Russia has failed to capture significant amount of territory in 3 over years. All the changes have been comically minor relative to the manpower and resources used, and so far this year, Russia has actually been losing more territory than they captured.
I’m pretty sure that russia started this war hastily without enough contemplation; otherwise they would have noticed they’re losing more than they’re winning, even if they’re “winning”. namely they’re losing their international respect.