Without knowing more details it would seem to be a lot less risk to transport wounded soldiers in those MAUL armored sarcophagus type of containers, than to be airborne and exposed to enemy fire.
In other hand you have 3 axis plus if you reduce proportion you can at any moment without adding any power dodge enemy. Skilled operator may be able to hit and this is why they added swarm of suicide drones to protect carrier
> “Due to intense enemy drone activity and the presence of landmines, evacuation using conventional unmanned ground vehicles was impossible,”
Simple. Soldier left as is will survive with probability=0. UAV medevac has probability of success strictly > 0.
In the situation that Ukraine is, which is a desperate lack of money, ammunition ("thanks" to the US), weapons and soldiers, anything that purely exists to lift troop morale is already worth the effort, and if it even saves only one brave defender, it is more than worth it.
Except in reality they largely don't. Exceptions are the prison squads and alike, but the majority of the russian army consists of volunteers whose numbers are limited and Putin had to openly declare repeatedly there will be no mass mobilisation and those who are mobilized not put to combat in Ukraine. So despite some soviet military doctrin remaining, also the russian side had to learn soldiers are not expendable. (remember they had to bring in Korean soldiers?)
Putin also declared he didn't want a war with Ukraine mere days before he started one [1]. You cannot believe a word that comes out of the mouth of any Russian official.
And yet they're still sending in troops with barely any ammunition worth the name. The Russian M.O. against the Ukrainian fortifications still is meatwaves.
> remember they had to bring in Korean soldiers?
And from what one can hear from the usual milblogger/OSINT/analyst crowd, the NK troops face brutal casualty rates as well [1].
For NK it's still a good deal, enough will survive the ordeal and return that they can teach their own army a bit about modern warfare.
[1] https://kyivindependent.com/north-korean-troops-took-over-7-...
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/08/20/russia-and-ukraine-a...
And, if this method got "industrialized", they'll probably use survey drones to do a scan first before more expensive bigger drone gets deployed.
Damn, how long they been fighting now? Years, as far as I can remember. You know sometime I think human beings don't deserve anything pass the tree stick age.
It becomes a whole lot more complicated if you have other options and have to implement triage.
But you're right. Airborne things behind opposing lines are harder to destroy. Still doable, though, with missiles and drones. I guess the hope here is it's fast enough to evade drones and also that the Russians aren't going to want to risk expensive aircraft and pilots to kill a guy that might die anyway or be too disabled to return to the fight.
Bigger drones would be slower and easier to spot, but even then - if you're not ready and waiting it'll be gone before you have time to react. The only consistent solution for anti-drone warfare is automated. Or nets.
“Drone” is well associated with flying in common language. The headline (Ukraines claim) is accurate enough.
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.
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.
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 ?
Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.
3000 km or around 1864 miles.
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 in a major conflict between the USA and China around the First Island Chain. (Let's hope we don't have to find out for sure.)
Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary. Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.
Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.
Examples are the RAM-2X, the Helsing HX2, and whatever drones they use that automatically identify and seek out stationary aircraft on Russian airfields.
Also you're still not remotely competetive with drones that can be carried and operated by infantry at that price point. Who's going to do reconaissance so you even know where to strike before you fire that missile? A drone provides all of that in a package that'd still be less than 1/10th the cost.
AI today cannot effectively distinguish a 'convoy' from other vehicles on the road.
Many vehicles may not have military markings - it's hard for a human to make the inference.
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.
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.
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 situation. If an adversary has AWACS then they're not going to use their tracking radars so the F35 has nothing to launch at.
There are all sorts of things adversaries can do to spook 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.
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.
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'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.
I give it 1-2y.
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.
If you have to fight longer than that even US runs out of the expansive stuff and then drones win.
Do we have evidence even a single helicopter has been shot down by a drone?
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.
/s
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
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.
So far the only drone carried airborne were Ground grone drops on the back of the enemy, some with grenade launcher drones.
Drones can be hidden near the front, and will carry individual soldiers plus equipment. Nobody has 20 manpads at ready, and would be funny to shoot S300 at them. They can be used for short jumps - go over the immediate front line, or over a river, or a mine field. Doubt they'll carry 200 pounds for over a few clicks - but enough to get behind the enemy.
Drones in contrast have much less payload and range, but they can be made extremely cheaply (a DJI Agras T100 spray drone with about 75kg payload is ~13.000 €!), more difficult to hit due to lower size, and anything above 5 arms is pretty resilient to prop damage.
1. very advanced with drones 2. caring about their soldiers
Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.
this was a favorite of mine when I first saw it: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/9/what-are-dragon-...
Also, next wartime invention: air mines.
https://www.xponential-europe.com/en/Media_News/Magazine/Art...
https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=firefox-b-d&hs=p...
Applying this to war though just means more war
Russia must be completely cut off from the rest of the world financially until they leave Ukraine alone
But unfortunately that's never going to happen, at least not for the next 800 days
Can you explain why?
I agree that Russia should be further isolated, but with China and India close by, that's not possible.
Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/
The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.
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.
Ukraine will be grabbing Russian soldiers off the field within 12 months, I predict.
Edit: they've already been trying.
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?
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.
---
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...
This notion of 'defending the homeland' is in many ways a modern concept.
Plebes did not view the local principality as 'theirs' - another prince coming to take over just means a 'choice between lords'.
Obviously, it's different if the Romans are coming into German tribal areas, but, 'state nationalism' as we undertstand it is a modern concept.
Invading people to 'spread an idea' was mostly an Islamic/Arabic thing, and then Napoloenic in modern era. Very rare in history.
And propaganda is usually pointless, it's obvious who is invading who - there is no 'media' to control the narrative within, obviously, the local folks in towns were instructed what to say but this is low-grade propaganda.
I'm not sure what the peak of state nationalism was, but I think we're well beyond it. There's not a country in this world that I'd die for, I don't feel even remotely bad about that, and I think this view is the norm. In the future all the borders and systems we know will be long since shuffled around. Why should I care about perpetuating any given state today? Give me a place where I can reasonably safely raise a family and earn a living, and I'm good to go. I couldn't care less if it's under El Presidente or Gandhian Democracy. I'd obviously prefer the latter, but not to the point that I'm willing to die to prevent the former.
I'd also add that I think we're probably beyond it on the order of centuries. Every war since (and including) the US Civil War has relied heavily on forced conscription. If the only way you can get people to fight for you is by force, then clearly there's no grand ideology anywhere but in the propaganda.
Well then you are just myopically stupid and willfully ignorant of history if you DGAF whether you live in a democracy where priorities are determined, at least attempted to be determined, by the people, vs by an autocrat.
And you obviously DGAF about your children, or the future of society.
Under Autocracy everything gets worse, down to the point where the people cannot tolerate the starvation and revolution is fomented.
Of course there is the occasional benevolent dictator, and those systems have the advantage of being able to do better long-range planning and mroe rapid changes of plans. But they are not stable and inevitably a malicious or greedy dictator or oligarchy takes over, and things start getting irretrievably worse, and the population starts dying of impoverishment.
Does it really matter if you die of impoverishment from the leader's stealing or war from the leaders' theft?
The only way forward for humanity is for democratic governments to ensure continued and improved democracy AND fight expansionist autocracies to contain and eventually eliminate or convert them.
If we fail to do that, it will be only years before life devolves into feudalism of a few lords and everyone else hopeless peasants. And no, you won't be one of the lords.
Again WW1 is such a great example of so many horrible things in the 'metagame' of the war itself. The propaganda there was framing it, genuinely, as 'The War to End All Wars.' It's easy to mock now, because not only did it end nothing, but led directly to the worst war in modern human history, but you have to keep in mind that the propaganda was making this literal claim, and you certainly had some significant chunk of people that believed that - perhaps some that even died for it. But alas, no 'this time was not different', as usual.
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...
[2] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/russian-a...
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?
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.
In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.
It also doesn't seem to be working all that well in the Middle East, which looks more like a standstill. Even in Ukraine the actual holding of ground is mostly manned.
Iran vs US shows the opposite. Stronger economy is a huge vulnerability, low human life cost is a big advantage. Economy matters a lot, but if one country can allow itself to lose 80% of it's resources in the war, and another will capitulates long before 5% loss, the first will win no matter the size of the economy.
It's interesting to imagine a parallel WW2 where the Japanese emperor did not tell the war council to end the war, and they just continued to fight, as the council wanted. It seems that surely Japan would have lost, but the shape this would take when you have a people, and not just a leadership, unwilling to surrender is not at all clear.
sigh
The point of war is to kill people.
Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails.
Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity.
And if a doctor has a surgery that goes bad and the patient died, they may have killed someone, but there was no violence.
You could have a war that's entirely based around infrastructure damage, and you could warn people away from incoming attacks.
The point of wars usually isn't death.
Well I'll quote the sentence to make it clearer, I guess.
https://ukraine.ua/invest-trade/ukrainian-inventions-that-ch...
And the recent drone tech is saving many lives and lots of money.
As someone who lived through Ukraine’s 90s and early 00s, “we” wouldn’t apply it that much.
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.
drone pickup is basically a jet pack
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50156201 and marked it off topic.
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.
> 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.
Off-topic tangents and political/ideological battle are always forum-killers. HN is only here after two decades because we work so hard to avoid it.
If you have an actual new idea on how to make HN more interesting, you’re welcome to share it. Otherwise, please stop wasting everyone’s time.
>Use of kompromat has been common in the politics of Russia[7] and other post-Soviet states
Surely they wouldn't do the things that they usually do with Trump, who visited Russia in 1987 upon invitation by, more or less clearly, the KGB?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
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.
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.
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.
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.
That said, I personally disagree with the idea of killing your own to avoid capture.
However Israel has and does evacuate soldiers.
https://ukrspecsystems.com/blog/pd-2-uav-tested-for-organ-de...
I'd actually assumed it'd be commonplace by now, but I can't find too many stories about it.
Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of interesting/innovative going on with regards to drones in Ukraine.
There probably aren't a lot of scenarios where it makes sense sense to pick an injured guy up with a drone, but it seems like a plausible last resort option.
It is a story with strong PR value.