Ukraine blows up five jets ‘deep within Russian territory’

She knows it's a multi-kill!

How do I stop these images from appearing?

They are getting really obnoxious.

Eh drone is just cost effective version of CAS. I think most modern jets bomber/fighter could carry out precision strikes without you ever seeing or hearing them.

Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol

Or get chased around by explosive FPV drones and Ali-express quadcopters dropping grenades.

And that's before someone with more resources than Ukraine inevitably makes an airplane load of these things that just automatically go for anything vaguely human shaped.

I take want to see a bunch of Trumpers on mobility scooters waving AR-15s take on the US army. It'll be hilarious.

The idea of Patrick Swayze screamin WILDCATS and then him, Jennifer Grey, Josh Peck, and whichever Hemsworth it was fighting off hordes of communists with the power of their machismo has ALWAYS been stupid. Even a well trained and well drilled militia won't have sufficient anti-armor capabilities to handle a few Strykers. It is amazing how much Ukraine fought back in the early days of the war when support was limited. But if they hadn't gotten all those Javelins and NLAWS they would have had no chance. Even a barely functioning tank or bmp on a ridgeline is still death to infantry without anti-armor capabilities.

But consumer grade drones would potentially be a mild counter to that. It is still incredibly unlikely that duct taping grenades to a drone are going to do anything to even a lightly armored vehicle. But planes/helicopters are INCREDIBLY fragile... and are often next to giant tankers full of fuel. Albeit, the answer to that is likely more computer vision attached to the anti-air defenses.

Same with trenches. Was watching a youtube about the new american APC prototype and it is back on the OICW airburst bullshit. Which is genuinely valuable for taking out entrenched troops. But someone literally building I Did A Thing's lawn dart drone would have that capability for a fraction of the price.

Drones

Ayoo

Most of what we're sending isn't money, it's assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn't real dollars, it's the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they're needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.

We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we'll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won't be to the same level as Russia is weaker.

It's not "another country's war"

In some ways it's a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.

I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.

We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.

It's not that the money isn't there, lol. We just choose not to use it.

Then as a peace loving person ... why support continued fighting?

Fighting Russia only leads to more war and towards what outcome? Completely defeat, embarrass and throw Russia up against a wall they can't back out of? They would be forced into a corner where they would eventually use a nuclear option. If they are given the choice between defeat or suicide ... they might take themselves and millions of people with them.

I'm all in support of Ukrainian sovereignty and fighting for one's country ... but if it means risking the lives of millions of people around the world ... what sense does that make?

If we are capable of financing billions towards violent solutions ... why not instead finance billions towards a peaceful resolution?

Stop financing the war .... if everyone is spending billions on a war machine to just fight -> then there will be endless fighting

if you stop the financing and instead spend a few million on peaceful resolution, negotiation and just simply talking, the fighting will stop and there will be resolutions ... it won't be a simple fix, there will be complications, disputes and wins and losses by both sides (everyone can argue the details about it in whatever way they want) .. but the end result will be an end to the fighting.

Otherwise, if everyone keeps wanting to spend billions on fighting ... the fighting will never end.

As much as that makes sense and everyone probably agrees .... then why are western nations hedging their bets that the other side won't launch a missile, even as they escalate the fighting.

That is Russian Roulette on a global level if you ask me.