The drone war on the ground has changed ground combat, but air dominance for either side would completely change the balance of the fight. Great job Ukraine, slow and steady seems to be winning the race here.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I like your dam analogy, I think its one of the better ones ive seen on this topic.

[–] MartianRecon@lemmus.org 1 points 36 minutes ago

A friend and I were talking about it and he likened it to a controlled demolition as well. You don't need to vaporize a building to make it collapse, you just need to hit the correct structures for it to collapse on it's own. Both work, but holes in a dam is more gradual than a controlled demolition in my mind.

What Ukraine has been doing for years now is extremely measured and smart warfare. They've been holding where they can, ceding ground where they can't, and they have been methodically taking out logistics, AAA, and radars. These irreplaceable things eventually will create gaps in coverage, which can lead to increased air dominance in those localized areas. That air dominance will translate into gains on the ground, as drones can't do shit to fighter jets yet.

It's costly warfare in terms of the manpower Ukraine has lost, but it's really smart fighting.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also losing the air war becomes a very slippery slope very quickly, the basic strategic mechanisms at play heavily favor the winner winning even harder the more they win.

A lone air defense system is just a target, it only becomes a counter when it is integrated in a network of supporting air defenses and other elements.

Once the sky is full of Ukrainian drones hunting down anything that dares to turn on a radar or present itself as an obstacle to Ukraine's relentless long range drone strikes, from directions Russia cannot even begin to predict where from.... not only has Russia fallen behind in a crucial element of the fight, they have been kicked out of the air war and had the door locked behind them so they can't get back in.

Another point, the more that drones are used to take out air defenses, the closer Ukrainian aviation can get to lob hammer bombs on Russian positions, which also has a massive non-linear effect upon the frontline calculus.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

yup. there's no quick replacements coming for those BUKs, and they're EXPENSIVE as fuuuuck. And russia may not even possess the tech required to replace them at this point.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

And russia may not even possess the tech required to replace them at this point.

Even more likely after they blew up Russia's 2nd largest microchip facility.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago

My bet is that as the russians are doing absolutely everything to pretend all is a o kay (remember the kremlin narrative is that they ate "unstoppable"), the first sensed weakness is actually the start of the downfall. Recently Ukraine explodes an air defense radar a day it seems, that is just not sustainable at all, and Ukraine doesn't seem to be slowing down, more going faster and faster.

Good luck Ukraine, slava Ukraine!!

[–] Nangijala@feddit.dk 11 points 1 day ago

Fuck Russia.

Ukraine ❤️ ❤️

[+] lmdnw@lemmy.world -24 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Russian “civilians” in Crimea deserve to also be targeted. They’re no better than West Bank settlers. More dead Russians will mean an increasingly safer Ukraine.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This is a disgusting idea

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago

It appears that one potential goal is to take out the air defence, show that they can destroy the Kerch bridge but leave it intact, then deny fresh water into Crimea (it comes in from the west). This puts them under siege, with a path out still, and a deadline.

Just targeting them gives Russia propoganda and makes the Russian people think Ukraine is evil and resist them. That's not what you want. Forcing them to leave still makes them scared and costs them money, and it forces them to spread the message wherever they end up. This is a much smarter move.

[–] rockerface@lemmy.cafe 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are still Ukrainian citizens living on most of the occupied territories, including Crimea. Burning down the whole place, unfortunately, isn't an option as they're effectively hiding behind hostages.

[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago

Delulu take tbh

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Does it matter if the Russians moved there before or after Russia captured Crimea from Ukraine?

[–] lmdnw@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yes and don’t sanitize your language. Russia stole the land through violent invasion and didnt even have the balls to do it openly and had to send in their unmarked mercenaries. Prior to Russian invasion, Russians who moved to Crimea immigrated and became Ukrainian. After Russia invaded, illegal Russian colonists (re: settlers) moved in and stole Ukrainian land.

[+] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca -13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This is all going to be over within six months one way or another. The dynamics of this might factor in somewhere along the line but there is a 0% chance that we get to a year from now in the same state of affairs that exist today.

[–] FlordaMan@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I thought the same last year, and the year before and the year before…

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 15 points 2 days ago

And before that, I didn't think Russia would be willing and or dumb enough to invade.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why would you think that? Ukraine is doing okay now but they have a lot of ground to win. Russia has made it clear they don't care about the cost to then and so they will grind on so long as they have any land, and maybe longer

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but everything is in the toilet for russia, and they can't claim anything else, so I'd just dismiss what the kremlin says.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was until very recently. Nice windfall from oil price spike should give them plenty of funds

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That won't last and it is just a drop in the bucket compared to what they'd need. Also, that is just economic, russia is on a death spiral everywhere else too.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Total Military & Security Budget: For 2026, Russia has budgeted approximately 16.84 trillion rubles ($217 billion) for "national defense" and "national security."
Daily Estimated Spending: This equates to roughly $595 million per day spent on the military and internal security apparatus combined.
Daily Windfall: Russia is earning an additional $150 million to $550 million per day in fossil fuel revenues compared to its February averages.
Price Advantage: The global shortage has allowed Russia to narrow the "sanctions discount" on its Urals crude. Urals is currently trading around $62 per barrel, comfortably above the Kremlin’s budget target of $59.

The Strait will be economically unviable for 2-5 years minimum now they've laid mines, and their profits are only going to increase as Europe inevitably has to start buying more from them.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

8 (potential) mines and you jump to conclusions...

2-5 years? Why not 1 to 100?

Believing the russian states numbers too lol!

And europe "has" to buy oil from russia, you sure believe the kremlin propaganda.

Lol

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don't need 100 mines to stop trade; you only need the possibility of one.

Full minesweeping operation across contested waters: 6–12 months minimum under favorable conditions

Insurance markets require a sustained incident-free period: 6–12 months after clearance

2 years is a floor estimate. 2-5 the likely range, it could go higher. Proxy actors funded by Russia retain the capability to re-mine at any point, restarting the clock

If the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the US is the only supplier with enough scale to even attempt to fill the gap. To get that gas, Europe would have to outbid Asia. This will result in energy rationing & industrial shutdown.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Focusing on the only point where you're not totally off the rocker won't help lol. A shame because those kind of discussions are usually interesting.

Putin is losing and there is nothing anyone can do more than prolong the suffering.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Wtf are you on about I addressed all your points apart from the number which is estimated by combining: independently observed oil price moves, export volumes, the discount at which Russian crude sells & the share of extra revenue that actually reaches the Russian state.

If you have a better number im all ears.

Before this shock, Russia looked like it had about 1 year of relatively easy fiscal cushion left. With oil prices rising due to the Strait disruption and a temporary U.S. waiver allowing delivery of some stranded Russian cargoes, that timeline is likely extended, possibly by a significant margin, wtf is controversial about that ? Oil is currently just above the level that stabilizes Russia’s budget.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sorry I thought you had more points, your whole idea that the straight of Hormuz will be closed for 5 years is actually your only point it seems and it is just not true. There are iranian tankers crossing it now.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

My point was *economically unviable.