this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
185 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2411 readers
1132 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (2 children)

When Ruzzia sabre rattles the world shrugs at the impotent little dictator-ette

When Ukraine gives a warning the people know to take it seriously

Says a lot

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 days ago

Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

For now. No real evidence of Ukrainian long range strikes at this stage is there?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Yes. Quite a lot of evidence.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well they have been blowing up oil field so they absolutely could do it if they wanted. If the airports have shut down anyway then what's the point in wasting the drone? The smart move would be to start using drones only when they don't shut the airports down, just to make the point.

It's not a threat against the airports, it's a notification that military operations are ongoing and civilian planes might be caught in the crossfire

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wdym? Ukraine has hit Moscow repeatedly now.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Those I believe are hypothesised to be locally launched drones. Limited in their capacity. Long range strikes from Ukraine would look like a lot of missiles. Which would run a very real risk in airspace

That's not my understanding, every source has indicated Ukraine has significant long range drone production. How would locally launched drones work, the sheer numbers involved would require insane amounts of smuggling and infiltration.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

No. They’re launched from Ukraine. Additionally the “flamingo” cruise missile has hit targets 2200km away.

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There doesn’t even have to be

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Someone will call their bluff eventually then. And the next time it will then be ignored. Warnings like this need to be backed up by a long range strike in order to demonstrate the warning is real

It's not a bluff, it's a warning so civilians don't get caught in the crossfire. It's on the airlines head (and the insurers) if they ignore the notification.

[–] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

It’s only a bluff if they don’t follow through.

Ukraine will bring down Ruzzia

[–] square@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Ukraine isn't threatening to shoot at civilian planes. They're saying Russian airspace is a conflict zone and civilians should be worried about things like someone with an itchy trigger finger manning air defence accidentally making another, or multiple, mistake(s) like MH17 and PS752.

[–] fake@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Which makes it even funnier that they're flinching over the mere suggestion.

[–] deft@lemmy.wtf 12 points 2 days ago

Tankies on life support

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

Why would airlines be going anywhere near Russia or Moscow after what Belarus did?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For some reason people still live there

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

That doesn't mean we have to let them come to our countries, or help fly them back home for them.