Ukraine claims first drone evacuation of wounded soldier | Hacker News Reader

Ukraine claims first drone evacuation of wounded soldier

nbcnews.com

420 pointsyzydserd341 comments

They've been doing drone evacuations for years. What makes this different is the drone is flying.

I wonder what is the risk analysis here?

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.

Hitting a ground target is much easier.

A ground target is one 50cal or smaller round, or one RPG or antitank round, from oblivion. Airborne things are harder to destroy.

Whilst I do understand your point it's hard to argue that a drone would fare any better against a 50cal round. They are infamously, very fragile.

The flying drone is more agile, as well as moving faster and less predictably. More difficult to hit than a ground vehicle.

There's a video on YouTube which shows a world champion shotgun shooter try to shoot down drones before they get to him. His success rate - knowing the drones are coming, ready to go with a loaded shotgun and with elite skill - is really bad. It really opens your eyes to just how scary drones on the battlefield are. You need to hit every single one of them to survive. They just need one to get through to kill you.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mORdXxZ2uKU

Depends on the speed and agility, at minimum 70kg body weight before accounting for the drones mean it's quite a heavy aircraft, not necessarily agile without burning the battery

The battery only has to last 5 to 10 minutes for this to be useful, because adding a second battery to drop just before picking up the wounded wouldn't be hard so loiter time wouldn't be much of an issue if they go down that route. Also multi-copters become more efficient flying in a reasonably straight line compared to high-g manoeuvrers or hovering in place.

Bullets, rockets, and anti-tank rounds aren't that big of a threat to a vehicle going from the front lines to the rear area. The threats are mines, artillery, and drones.

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.

it's in the article's subtitle

> “Due to intense enemy drone activity and the presence of landmines, evacuation using conventional unmanned ground vehicles was impossible,”

It's not. Ukraine roads are filled with armoured vehicles which needed only 1 hit to become roadblocks. To be functional Ukrainian army is transforming them into Mad Max like vehicle before sending to fight and they still are a little more safer because if drone pilot is skilled enough and adjust both vehicle and drone speed he might succeed in hitting weak spot. Changing direction to left or right on bumpy road when you chasing with max it's possible can be death sentence plus you must take in the equation all trash on the road with may destroy weals

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

Apparently a big concern is mines.

And Mud

And I imagine time. A significant issue for a lot of medical situations.

> I wonder what is the risk analysis here?

Simple. Soldier left as is will survive with probability=0. UAV medevac has probability of success strictly > 0.

Now add 100s or 1000s wounded at the same time, some can heal, and go back out to fight, some cannot, some will die during transport. The drone might be shot down, some areas are cleared. Simple? Not at all.

Risk calculations aside, don't forget to take into account how this could impact soldier morale. Just knowing that if injured a giant flying drone will attempt to airlift you to safety, regardless of how hopeless the situation on the ground looks like probably is a huge boost to morale.

... particularly if you know the other side treats their soldiers like the Star Wars CIS treated droids - completely and utterly expendable cannon fodder.

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.

".. particularly if you know the other side treats their soldiers like the Star Wars CIS treated droids - completely and utterly expendable cannon fodder."

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 had to openly declare repeatedly there will be no mass mobilisation

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.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60392259

The fact remains russia does not send in forced conscripts en masse (only in exceptions they officially had to apologize for).

You consceeding that they dont except when they did and dont see that the after the fact 'apology' will somehow mean they wont again when they decide its worth doing like last time. Their words are worthless

I did not claim Putin will never call for a mass mobilisation. I debated the claim they can afford to not care about the lives of their soldiers.

> also the russian side had to learn soldiers are not expendable.

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-...

Yeah, they don't care so much about the lives of korean soldiers. But the claim was "their soldiers" which is usually talking about russians. But yes, they also did not care so much about the Ukrainian "russian" conscripts forced to fight. But they do care about russian soldiers from "the motherland". They have to out of basic necessity.

A rah-rah attitude is great, but one should never underestimate an opponent. The reality is a stalemate with small groups occasionally moving past the front line. No meatwaves. This is true for both armies.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2026/08/20/russia-and-ukraine-a...

Well, it's a war, some people will die. But if drone saves one, that's one life goes on, at least it's very important for that individual life, people often forgot about that when they drown themselves in numbers.

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.

If the alternative is certain death the answer it remains simple: do you have the drone to and can you afford to send it? -> give it a try.

It becomes a whole lot more complicated if you have other options and have to implement triage.

It still is simple.

Probability of death = 1 vs probability of death < 1.

I think they mean compared to the self-driving road vehicles they've been using for evac, not compared to abandoning the soldier.

The entire battlefield is landmined

The Russians target the ground vehicles with drones and artillery. From what I understand, in some areas they've been completely unable to evacuate casualties. Guys are dying from infections and wounds that could easily have been treated by people with the right expertise and equipment.

The main enemy fire here are FPV drones. The flying evacuater gets out of danger quicker, even if it is spotted by a reconnaissance drone.

Slowly dying in no man's land vs. a chance to make it out alive makes it a fairly tempting risk to take. I can totally understand the Ukrainians trying such stunts with their wounded when the alternative wouldn't be a medivac chopper, but watching them perish in agony through the spotter drones. Even if was a 50/50 chance to crash and or be intercepted I don't think many wounded soldiers would hesitate at a chance to fly to an aide station or even proper surgical care in minutes instead of hours, days, or more likely never. Acute pain and the expectation to die otherwise shift the risk tolerance completely.

Thats called a UGV, not a drone.

Yes, it's a UGV. It's also a drone.

doesn't look like a ground vehicle

Nobody in this industry calls a UGV a drone.

Here is an example from the industry calling it a drone: https://www.blue-bird.tech/en/category/products/nazemnyj_dro...

Not only is that not true, you might be surprised to discover another term for flying drone is "UAV".

I've seen the term ground drones quite a lot

This seems like an arbitrary line with no reason to hold it. "Drone" refers to how it functions (remotely or autonomously), not how it moves.

The German company Avilus has shown a medevac drone, I don't know if it's been used to transport a live human (even uninjured) for a test yet.

https://www.xponential-europe.com/en/Media_News/Magazine/Art...

https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=firefox-b-d&hs=p...

Seems odd to make a purpose-specific drone like this. The modular ones give much larger breadth, especially when you are constrained to being underground, etc.

It also seems suitable as a general purpose cargo delivery UAV for military purposes. Likely its utility is somewhat limited by endurance and range with current battery tech. As I recall from when I first saw that design about 1.5 years ago they're marketing the same thing for many purposes. It just happens to be large enough to theoretically carry one man on a litter.

If they can pull them out, they can also drop fresh ones down.

Not sure if that is better than just using a helicopter however.

> 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.

And less noisy.

Can not see the drone and shoot it down using thermal camera or ir seeking missile

You can definitely see the drone and person with thermals, and can engage with thermal or electro optical tracking.

I’m sure you’re right, in absolute terms. Still, a SAR helicopter with jet turbines and a multi person crew is much more visible than a battery powered electric drone carrying one man alone.

Probably harder to hit six single-soldier carrying drones than one helicopter.

A lot of the wounded soldiers that are getting these heroic evacuations have lost weight, months of combat and limited nutrition, blood and limb loss.

Fresh soldiers, with a combat load, might be too heavy. Or simply risky

You could have separate drones bring the gear.

If you weren't improvising with a bomber, you could also just build a slightly larger drone.

Heavy lift drones are pretty common, a 150kg or more payload is enough for a soldier with his individual equipment. The are pretty short ranged but they only need to reach to a few kms into the grey zone and back.

See e.g. the KF 150 multi copter. And it's sub $50k

Yeah, more weigh less range. 100 KG human with body armour/rifle, and a small combat load would be around that 150KG limit.

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.

Non US soldiers don't tend to be that heavy.

Because it's not America with Vietnam/ Iraq war mindset.

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.

Piloted aviation is still very much alive. US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses. Drone capabilities will continue to improve but for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions and remote piloting doesn't work in a hostile EW environment. We'll increasingly see manned/unmanned teaming with the drones pushing forward while the manned aircraft trail behind, but close enough to exercise tight control.

> for now the autonomous flight control software is incapable of complex, dynamic missions

I give it 1-2y.

Missions in Ukraine Russia achive same results for 1000 times cheaper. Real war nowadays is cheap and mass produced.

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 ?

Those cheap drones and missiles are only effective against relatively soft, static targets. As I already explained above, manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments. Maybe that will change in a few years but not today.

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.)

Ukraine is already using drones that can autonomously identify and seek out even moving targets, without any operator required during the terminal phase.

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.

We've had this capability for years. We have had missiles that could identify a convoy, strike its front and back to block it, and then hit targets inside, all on their own.

The difference is that those missiles are expensive multi-million dollar munitions, while these drones are mass produced for less than $20k/unit and yet are still capable of taking out heavy armor.

Even cheaper if armor is the only goal.

Wrong on the first count (last I saw they were well below $200k a pop), and the second count comes with significant loss of anti-armor capability.

I'd be curious to learn what advanced self-guided missile can accurately strike targets just a measly 70km away for $200k, and what the supporting infrastructure and hardware costs to buy and run.

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.

Okay, now it's obvious you're just posting whatever to "win" a discussion without any familiarity with the subject. I suggest you start educating yourself by familiarising yourself with the Brimstone missiles, 1996 tech in service for over 20 years at this point.

Brimstone meets none of the criteria, not for self-guidance, nor for range (especially not when launched surface-to-surface). Plus you'd have to bring a launch platform within range of Russian air-defense/frontlines to even use it.

First - the munition you quoted does none of the things you indicated it might do a few posts ago, and second - your gasligting people for being 'uninformed' when you've literally just proven yourself wrong with you own quote?

there are quite some american defense strategists, that criticize the dependency on large contractors that have no interest in providing economical capabilities over large government contracts.

No, this is only true in the most limited sense; nobody has because the AI literally has not existed for that until recently. And it's hugely complicated by the fact that we don't know even where a convoy might be, or how to differentiate it from the myriad of other vehicles.

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.

I'm pretty sure anti ship missiles have known to recognize ship types and steer to weak points for quite some time.

Yes, a hulking mass of steel out on an empty ocean is significantly easier to target than identifying traffic on a road, with occlusion, other traffic, hills, other vehicles etc. Radar alone enough for anti-ship, not for 'convoys' etc..

it covers 99% of the need for fraction of the costs and is way more scalable in manufacturing and operations. Nobody ain't sending a single F-35 into that environment, US won't allow that (we all know why). Plus US completely destroyed trust into its products globally, they can become worse than extremely expensive paperweight on a whim of a single senile sick man.

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.

>>manned aircraft are still the only platforms capable of executing critical missions in complex, dynamic environments.

Only if the mission is not against a peer adversary. Manned aircraft cannot bomb russian refineries. Manned aircraft cannot cross the frontline in Ukraine.

America is also a second rate power, just ask the Houthis and Iranians.

The Houthis have no airforce, no professional army and no navy and yet they control the red sea.

Who qualifies as a first-rate power, then? I'd say they're still one. It's just that fighting insurgents has always been difficult, even when your commander-in-chief isn't a dumbass.

No-one.

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.

Houthis do not control the Red Sea; they can harass some ships, and be a huge pain, but not control.

Not really though

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.

> Russia's S300/S400 can absolutely down everything the USA has including F22 and F35 - stealth is an 'advantage' not 'cloaking device'.

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.

I don't mean to be demeaning but this statement betrays the wrong model of how these systems operate.

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.

You moved the goalposts. You originally said S300/400 could down any US stealth plane. Now you are saying that S300/400 can down any US stealth plane in concert with many other capabilities.

I don't think it's a matter of moving goalposts but rather a matter of what's implied when talking about these AD systems. S400 and S300 are primarily designed to operate as an integral part of an AD networked components. Iran didn't have the integrated network of S300 or S400, and Russian prior offers to provide it were declined. We do not know S400 capabilites against the F-35 planes, but there is some evidence that they might be fairly effective. This was a concern when Turkey purchased an S400 system ("It is not possible to both fly the F-35 in space where the S-400 is significantly operable." - Mike Pompeo) - Washington cancelled the deal with Turkey because of concerns that its low frequency radar can track and analyze F-35 operations (there are multiple sources on that).

That’s false . Ukraine is hitting moving targets with middle strike every single day with ai that knows what to strike. More capable than any f-35 in that regards .

> Ukraine is sending drones for 2000 miles deep into Russian territory. F-35 plus payload is not capable of that .

Source on the drones actually flying that far? I would assume they're forward positioned.

https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/drones-reach-russia...

3000 km or around 1864 miles.

What is wild to me: That is more range than a state of the art Tomohawk cruise missile.

Also wild that if it can happen to Russia, it can happen to other countries.

Yes to hit something 1864 miles away you need to maneuver. Most likely it did > 2000 miles .

Russia and Ukraine are using what they can do though. That doesn't mean that a different Air Force couldn't work differently. The US has a lot more airplanes in the Air Force plus a lot more planes in the Navy. They could be used potentially. We don't know what would happen, but the generals in the US military still think the manned planes would have a powerful role and would change the situation in Ukraine.

The US - Iran capability gap is orders of magnitude larger than the Ukraine - Russia gap.

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.

I've never seen a helo anywhere near UA frontlines. Would be over in seconds.

There are multiple occasions when drones were hunting russian helicopters. Tough target to kill with one FPV drone.

It is not anywhere near a daily occurence. Beginning of the war or on the rs side, sure, but it's suicide for a rs helo to come into Ukrainian territory at this point.

Yes, but they're generally not right at the front.

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.

They had them in the first months of the war but a lot got shot down.

Right...even Ukranians are now saying that they hope they won't be in a too disadvantageous position during the eventual negotiations. So that's where the war is at right now.

The USA is unable to support ground troops in either sphere be it Houthi territory or Iran.

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.

The US is more than capable of deploying and supporting a Marine Expeditionary Brigade in either Iran or Yemen. That it has not is a political decision.

The Russians also tell themselves the same.

That’s a red herring

Unfortunately this is one example where the only proof is actually being able to get the job done. Taking Venezuela isnt proof of anything or a judgement of capability. Today we have an actual test and so far, the USA has failed.

No, the US cannot deploy an expeditionary force of any size anywhere in (hostile) Yemen or Iran without it coming under fire relatively quickly. Light units without support or reinforcements will be overwhelmed in a matter of time.

Minor coastal incursions, sure. Tiny special forces operations, maybe.

There's nowhere for Marines to hunker down for any length of time.

There are so many things wrong with your post that either you're trolling or so wildly misinformed that it amounts to the same thing.

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.

A few months back there was a F15 i think that went down, the cause is irrelevant and pilots ejected over Iran in the mountains. The rescue guys got them but they didnt use the Ospreys they used hercs and regular chopper.

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.

Ukraine is not Iran.

> US and Israeli 5th generation aircraft took minimal losses in the recent strikes on Iran despite some fairly capable defenses.

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.

Old-school piloted aviation is good for the first 3 months because you have missile stocks that you can launch from further away with basically 0 risk.

If you have to fight longer than that even US runs out of the expansive stuff and then drones win.

The very reason Trump and his drill sergeant in Pentagon refuse to commit boots on the ground is even they realize how it's going to be. ISR footage of American servicemen dying with no chance of rescue would be bad for ratings.

American aviation also lost the war.

>Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors.

Do we have evidence even a single helicopter has been shot down by a drone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbmBpJSrYI

And just to be clear, there were previous videos of interceptions and near interceptions that just didn't look so photogenic so weren't widely distributed. This video was not where things changed.

Did the helicopter go down?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XV8eVcQXcQ4

shows a different event but two angles. Again many videos like this.

Do we have evidence there's even a war going on there?! I've never seen a single video, but they keep shipping money and weapons over there.

How there could be a war if Trump had finished it in 24 hours?

Did you respond to the right comment?

Multiple and two in the last month.

There are zero American helicopters that are even able to fly from any friendly base or ship to either Houthi or Iran. All american ships that could support a landing are thousands of kms away. The Carriers are thousands of kms away in the Indian because of drones and missiles have pushed them back.

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.

But that's because of IAD, not drones.

Thanks for confirming all my other points are correct, one minor disagreement hardly matters.

Well, okay, but your point wasn't related to the discussion. What I was asked was for evidence helicopters were shot down by drones.

Where did i say the helis were shot down by drones ?

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.

The text I was responding to was "Helicopters are extremely vulnerable for drone interceptors."

Of course they are, how does that change my observation ?

Piloted aviation is alive and well in Russia/Ukraine for missle trucks lobbing glide bombs from BVR

Also Ukr uses them to shoot down incoming drone/missiles.

There’s no way anyone is getting a helicopter anywhere near that front line.

Transporting wounded soldiers has become a significant problem in recent years.

Ukraine in recent days destroyed bombers with drones. They were faster and dodger than any heli you could send. Also drone can go low but still in the air, heli most either land or stay relatively high.

Also heli is much laughter and easier to spot

And the lost of why would you not send it goes on and on

As of a couple of weeks ago, they’ve been using drones to deploy remote-controlled robots that fire rockets behind enemy lines.

https://youtu.be/tIJy0sLzfl4?is=fJfZkiC1vVvtkgiR

They can't really use helicopters because they get shot down. It's partly economics. A heli is ~$10m, a stinger like missile ~$100k so they shoot it. If a drone is ~1-10k they tend not to.

Full size video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmT6EL16hRA

I found an even better video about the rescue here: https://hromadske.ua/en/viyskovi/272791-ukrainian-troops-res...

The soldier self amputated his left leg using a knife. He also survived 491 days on the front line. Brutal. This guy is a real-life Rambo.

    > "I had a blunt knife that I'd previously used to open canned meat."

More info about soldier's experience here: https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/surrounded-by-russi...

Misleading title, and the article takes until the third paragraph to mention it was a flying drone evacuation. Without that specification, this would have merited a (2023) in the title (the year is a rough guess).

The ground ones are usually called UGV (unmanned ground vehicles).

“Drone” is well associated with flying in common language. The headline (Ukraines claim) is accurate enough.

As an english-as-a-second-language speaker, I learnt quite late that the original meaning of drone is a male bee, and that the modern drone is called like that because it is a small flying thing that buzzes with their propellers. Perhaps that’s useful for others.

In my country literally nobody would call road unmanned vehicle a drone.

I'm waiting for the first drone-carried human airbirne assault.

So far the only drone carried airborne were Ground grone drops on the back of the enemy, some with grenade launcher drones.

How would that be different from a regular helicopter based airborne assault?

Helicopters are orders of magnitude more heavier, expensive and difficult to operate. And they are very vulnerable to an opponent damaging the props.

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.

You'd need at least 150-200 kg payload to account for thinks like clothes and equipment ;) but indeed, the difference with the cost of purchasing, flying and servicing the helicopter are stark.

Was it two years ago, or even longer, that Akhmat troops claimed Ukrainian drones tried to abduct their men in the field? Who knows, it might end up actually happen one day. Wild.

Pretty horrifying prospect really. Imagine the buzzing of a huge drone descending upon you from nowhere, before it just grabs you with its metal arms, and whisks you away into the sky, lol.

Guess it's better than dropping nades on top of you, maybe :/

It wouldn't need to drop grenades. It could pick you up, fly high enough, and drop you to your death. Never runs out of ammo, just batteries.

This is pretty horrifying. Bonus points if you hit somebody on the way down?

Bullets are probably more economical.

It's usually an fpv with some explosives up their bearded ass.

If a drone wanted to kill you, it would use a bullet. Cheapest and easiest way, with the least risk to the drone.

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.

Cheapest and easiest way to kill people is starvation and disease. Bullets are quick but relatively expensive compared to that

Slow which makes it costly in terms of active war

Cutting supply lines is a legitimate and very much used tactic.

While it is in modern days you don't cut supply lines to starve people to death, you start cuts supply lines to cut them off from munitions. The space used to transport a singular artillery shell could feed a human for several days, probably even weeks depending on what you put in the space. The modern military tries to be firing thousands of artillery shells per day. So if you can eliminate just a few artillery shells, you can make a difference. Whereas, if any your people are hungry but not starving to death.

Not targeted. While it's true that starvation and disease are usually the biggest killers in any armed conflict, they tend to kill the poor, helpless non-combatants, because the military tends to redirect food and medical care toward soldiers or other key personnel. This makes these strategically ineffective. People will die from starvation and disease in large numbers, but usually not the people who pose a threat to you.

Yeah they're not going to 'snatch and drop' gadzooks.

They're going to 'snatch' because they want prisoners to exchange, they want info, etc.

for the Russian soldiers, it would certainly be a better fate than remaining on the field for a few more tens of minutes before they die (on average). AFAICT, they are treated better in Ukrainian POW camps than in the Russian deployed positions

Depends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_of_Russian_soldiers_in...

Right, highlight the one incident on the Ukrainian side vs the standard war-crimes treatment by the Russians, and yes, there are also a number of incidents during capture on the both sides.

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

I think ideologically extreme volunteers on either side are more likely to commit war crimes than regular troops. The incident I linked above was perpetrated by the Kraken Battalion, which is basically the Kharkiv chapter of the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment (formerly based in Mariupol). Similarly, the horrific video of the castration/execution of a Ukrainian POW seemed to be related to Rusich, the Russian neo-Nazi volunteer unit.

There are actually quite a few more documented incidents of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side than the one I linked to, but I think I would agree that there's probably more on the Russian side. I don't consider the amount of POW abuse on the Ukrainian side to be negligible though, nor would I expect it to be given how bitter this war is.

Yes, I'm sure it is not negligible, since it never is, even with the best-disciplined military. Adrenalin runs pretty high when people are trying their best to kill you and all your family, friends, and countrymen.

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.

Dude, the guys in the Tornado Battalion, who were convicted of absolutely horrifying sexual violence and other atrocities during the 2014 war, were pardoned and released from prison shortly after the war started. What kind of signal was that supposed to send?

Not great, but are you equating the turmoil right after Yanukovych was deposed, Crimea was invaded and occupied by Russia, and there were serial interim governments with a the more stable govt that came after?

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.

Sorry I wasn't clear, the crimes happened in the 2014 war, the pardon was in 2022 a few months after Russia attacked IIRC.

Well since you enjoy whataboutism so much, russia sent all mass murderers it had in prisons that actually volunteered right into the battles (given their sentences vs 6 months of service its not illogical choice from certain perspective). And many of those (given, often just murderers, not mass murderers) that survived walked free after required service period. This reportedly included some cannibals.

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.

That you had to dig all the way back to the crimes of an irregular unit in 2014 is telling.

'The Basic Principles of War Propaganda' [1] might be worth a read to you. Wiki offers its ten key points:

---

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...

The Russians certainly read their war propaganda textbooks. They have that list well covered.

Yes, every side in every war says essentially the exact same things dating back at least many decades, and I suspect centuries, if not millennia.

Not everything is reducible to "both sides" every time

In general I'd agree, but I'd almost add #11 to the list from that book 'This time it's truly different.' This is always said, and I do genuinely believe in some instances there's a very strong argument for it to be true - like WW2. But in the overwhelming majority of wars, no it's not.

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.

You are lucky to have life uneventful enough to discuss this subject in a detached manner being smart and enligthened about it all.

On the contrary, I think it's people that have never lived through much of anything that imagine outcomes that just aren't real at all. For instance China is literally a dictatorship, by the first line of their own constitution, a massive surveillance state, have widespread censorship, and at least pretend to be communist. Yet life there is, in general, quite good for most people.

And I've had the opportunity to live through far worse, yet life remained pretty decent throughout outside of times of violent conflict, which I've also gotten to live through. Such conflicts are probably unavoidable since it will always be the final way in which irreconcilable differences have one side impose its position, but should be terminated at the earliest reasonable point, and certainly kept as small scale as possible. But I think that once you get to experience the worst, you start to realize that all of the political stuff, though fun to debate about, is mostly just petty people politicking for power with perfidious propaganda.

This is not to say all systems are the same. They are not, and I do think some are better or worse than others. But they run far closer than most who have never experienced 'the other side' think. But I also do not think we should all just aim for the 'best' system, because all systems have their pros and cons, even more so when speaking of a given moment in time. And so having a diversity of different system is the best way to ensure we never end up as the worst of worlds in terms of outcomes, even if it also ensures that we'll never end up as the best of worlds.

Not really though.

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.

If Ukraine allowed men to leave their country, they'd have already collapsed. You have an army that's formed largely by trapping people in a country-sized cage and then dragging them in off the streets, in many cases - literally. There are some nationalists, but they make a negligible percent of all forces. It's a game of lords, as it nearly always is.

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.

>>I'd obviously prefer the latter, but not to the point that I'm willing to die to prevent the former.

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.

If you don't see that Western democracies are headed towards revolution, then I think you must be keeping your eyes closed. The system matters much less than the leadership. Macron is at 16% approval, watching Celine Dion concerns while France burns. I'm not fond of petty political jabs, but the imagery of such was just too perfect to not mention. Germany's Merz has managed an absolutely remarkable 10% approval rating. Like how do you even get 90% of people to think you're doing a bad job? It's remarkable in a way.

Then there's the UK - I'm not even sure of who their latest leader is. They go through PM's faster than some people change their underwear, and they all rather smell like shite. In democracy the whole ideal is that you can pick another direction with new leadership, but when it's always the same crap with a difference face - you're eventually going to see things go boom. In the US we tend to have popular leadership, relative to Europe, but the sides are becoming so antagonistic and divided that we're basically a powder keg waiting for some sufficiently tumultuous event to set it off.

In general I think Plato's views are highly insightful, and strongly recommend "The Republic." In his view, systems are inherently cyclical, and all will repeatedly end - often in a rather unpleasant way, and transition to another system, eventually cycling back where they began only to begin the process again. This class warfare nonsense is meaningless to me. I couldn't care less about being a lord or a peasant. I want to raise my family, have a roof over my head, and frankly I don't need all that much more to be relatively content. People who want will never stop wanting, no matter how much they have. I find it a very sad way to live, and hopefully can instill the same values in my children.

Holy shit, it's so accurate.

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!

Just because a claim is used as propaganda, does not mean it can not be or is not true.

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...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

I don't even know where to begin with such a one-sided list, and I don't have time to track down citations, but just for (6), it is well-documented in Western media (though nearly buried at the time) that Ukraine fired butterfly mines into residential areas of Donetsk for at least several days--a clear war crime. I have seen video of this, but of course I recognize it could have been staged like much Russian propaganda. In this case, though, it was confirmed by multiple Western media outlets.

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 list is not one-sided, it is factual

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.

I don't believe there's a realistic solution to ending the war that doesn't essentially freeze the conflict along the line of contact like Korea. I don't think Putin wants all of Ukraine except as a pliable client state, but I do think that in the long run, in addition to the Donbas (which he already mostly occupies), he wants the entire Black Sea coast (as well as inland "Russian cities" like Mykolaiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv), and to turn Ukraine into an economically unviable landlocked rump state. That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

There now, do I still sound like a Russia apologist?

No, you just sound like someone who has become confused by all the noise (primarily generated by Russia and its apologists).

We agree: Putin does not like any reasonable outcome and shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

You have just described a deal that Zelenskyy has indicated he would accept and Putin has already repeatedly rejected — freeze the existing lines of conflict, and allow Ukraine to remain sovereign and fully arm itself.

Putin has repeatedly flat-out refused to allow Ukraine to have anything but a crippled military.

The obvious intent is to leave Ukraine so weak it can easily invaded again, so it will either bow to every Moscow demand or will simply be fully invaded and destroyed at a time of Russia's convenience.

Why?

Because Putin can NOT tolerate any condition under which Ukraine is free to be successful or independent, and especially to join NATO (which has proven for 3/4 of a century to be purely defensive).

Moreover, Putin is now stuck, as he has broken the tacit deal with the people that he can lead with corruption and adventurism as long as the people aren't obviously burdened and standards improve. Now, he's killed a half million men, the remainder are broken monsters he can't return to society without breaking it, and he can't just declare victory and end it and still keep his position (or likely his life).

Beyond those local goals, Putin has himself said his goal is to recreate the Russian Empire, beyond just the USSR territories. It is behind all his hours of lecturing on (twisted versions of) history. He will not merely stop at Donbas.

Putin also always follows Lenin's rule: "We probe with bayonets, where we find mush, we press on, where we find steel, we withdraw.".

The only actual solution is to push back so that Russian cannot economically or militarily continue, then arm Ukraine to the teeth (whatever border they end up with).

Autocrats like Putin do not stop unless they are forced to stop.

Turkey figured it out in 2015; a pair of Russian fighters violated Turkish airspace for less then two minutes; Turkey shot them down. Problem solved, hasn't happened since.

The problem is all the EU politicians are afraid of Russia breaking up, as if it will be somehow worse than Russia reasserting imperialism. EU only enforcing a no fly zone over UKR, applying the frozen RU assets to UKR rebuilding, and hard-sanctioning RU oil and isolating RU politically would do it. But they are all too politically chicken and want to kick the can down the road. Meanwhile Russia is already waging hybrid war to break up the EU.

Globally, and historically, the fight is always rule by the people or rule by the few.

If the rest of us fail to fight, everything WILL be taken from us by the few, the despots and the oligarchs. It may not be immediate and total, but it will be inevitable. Unless we fight at every step.

  > That means that once a peace deal is signed, Ukraine will need to be permanently armed to the teeth, much like South Korea. That would ensure they can defend themselves without NATO membership. If Putin doesn't like that outcome, well he shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

Russia demands heavy restrictions on the size of the Armed Forced of Ukraine, essentially turning it into a small, lightly armed, and easily defeatable infantry force, with a veto on any foreign military assistance to Ukraine if Russia were to attack them again. The goal of this is cartoonishly obvious, and makes a peace deal unrealistic, too.

Just to add to the sibling comment, Zelenskyy just publicly (again) stated on Fox news [0] he would accept exactly the deal you proposed — freezing the conflict on the current lines, and doing so in a way that prevents it from returning, i.e., your "Ukraine armed to the teeth", security guarantees, and sovereignty.

This is a manifestly unfair deal, rewarding Russia for open aggression in violation of every international law and its past agreements. Yet Ukraine is willing to do it (the President says so with confidence he will be backed by the other governmental bodies needed for approval and implementation).

Putin has already rejected those kinds of deals, and I have no doubt he will also reject this.

That is because the 100% cause of the war is Putin, his immediate desire to eliminate Ukraine as an independent and successful state, and his longer-term goal to reconstitute the Russian empire.

The sooner you recognize this reality, the sooner it will make sense to you.

[0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/world/articles/zelenskyy-says-agr...

Put yourself in the shoes of Russia for a moment. You're in a favorable position in a war and you're being offered a "deal" that is 'hey let's stop the war so i can rearm and reman. you can hold onto your claimed land for now, but only dejure - we'll have ourselves a little chat about who really owns it, later.' Why would 'you' even think of accepting this "deal"?

Imagine the roles were reversed, and somehow Ukraine managed to fully push back Russia, claimed a significant amount of land on the Russian border and was continuing to make very slow but steady advances all the while Russian forces seemed on the verge of collapsing due to manpower issues. And oh yeah Ukraine had up to something like 20 million more soldiers they could also mobilize into the war if necessary. Would you expect Ukraine to accept a ceasefire with no concessions besides Ukraine being 'allowed' to continue holding the land they already held, and only dejure at that, with Russia making completely clear its intent to rearm and reman?

This is not at all a effort genuinely intended to end the war. When you're at a disadvantage in war, ending it is going to require concessions that can be difficult to accept. The reason you make these concessions is because they'll be even more painful as your position further deteriorates.

Except that Ukraine's position is not deteriorating, but it's significantly better than a year or two ago due to strike drones that became operational in March/April 2026, and expected to improve further when FP-7 and FP-9 ballistic missiles become operational in large numbers in late 2026/early 2027.

You are using some very poor sources if they have given you the idea that Russia has 20 million soldiers to mobilize. Russia is facing a severe shortage of manpower too, made worse by the fact that they rely on constant costly attacks by small groups of infantry that have very short lifespans, whereas Ukraine is increasingly automating the war and relying on unmanned weapons more and more. For example, Ukraine reached parity in drone strikes in early 2026 and is now carrying out more drone strikes than Russia. It's increasingly rare for Russian soldiers to meet any Ukrainians before they die; about 80% Russians die by drones as drones have become significantly more lethal. In 2024, drones killed about 1/3 of soldiers on impact. Now they kill about 2/3 of them.

Also, the "slow but steady advances" are a complete Pyrrhic victory if you look at the numbers. Russia has gained less than 1000 sq km this year at a cost of at least 100 000 lives. Ukraine is over 600 000 sq km in size. The daily number of casualties hit a new record a few days ago, exceeding 2000, about half of which are deaths. Russia has no hope reaching the territorial control it had 30 days into the war, let alone anything beyond that. It is by all objective measures one of the worst military disasters in the entire Russian history.

Thank you for basically acknowledging Putin has zero interest in any peace other than Ukraine's full surrender.

Putin in the immediate term is trying to achieve by talking what he cannot achieve on the battlefield. And NO, Putin does NOT have millions more soldiers available. Russian daily KIAs are accelerating and he's already making deals for more NK troops.

The aggressive moves in Europe, ramping up every kind of hybrid warfare, active measures, and dezinformatsiya pressure they can muster shows the Ukrainians are winning with the deep strikes. Russia can not defend its many soft targets, is already in massive deficit and depleting it's sovereign funds, and will lose much more as Ukraine's new Flamingo missiles come online.

Requires concessions. Right. UKR already TODAY offered to give up 20% of their territory and condemn those Ukrainian residents to the torture and death offered by the Russians. You do not think that is a concession?

What concessions are the Russians making at the 'peace' tables? NONE. The Russians stick to their maximalist demands of taking ALL of the "annexed" oblasts they can not even take with the full might of their (declining) military, AND demand Ukraine basically disarm and become a vassal state.

Where are the Russian concessions? They do not exist.

This alone shows who is the aggressor and who is the defending victim.

Get real.

I notice you refused to answer the question I asked. I won't pick on you beyond that observation. Though one fact I would hit on - yes, Russia does have many millions of more soldiers available. Russia has not even declared a general mobilization. Ukrainian estimates put their potential there at 20 million soldiers, 5 million already with military training. [1] That's a very conservative estimate, given that Russia has 143 million people and compulsory military training, but even if we roll with that estimate, it justifies my claim.

This is why Ukrainian propaganda always insists that Russia is on the verge of a general mobilization. This is a war that's not going well for Ukraine fighting with nearly all their forces, while fighting against an enemy fighting with a very small fraction of their potential forces. This is also why Ukraine is targeting oil. It has little chance of shifting the status of the war, at least not in the foreseeable future, and is damaging Ukraine's relation with the US. It's being done simply in an effort to try to change the nature of the conflict, regardless of the cost or efficacy. These types of actions are a frequent visitor in the latter stages of conflicts.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Armed_Forces#Russo-Ukr...

  >  Ukrainian estimates put their potential there at 20 million soldiers

That is the theoretical maximum potential if you conscript absolutely everyone, every single male, in eg 20-45 age range: https://www.populationpyramid.net/russian-federation/2026/ By that measure, Ukraine has millions of soldiers available, too.

That is pratical only in the event of total societal breakdown like Nazi Germany in its final months when there was no economy left and institutions like schools, hospitals, factories and utilities had ceased to work. Everything was thrown to the front while the people in cities were malnourished, had no power nor running water, and died of minor diseases due to lack of medical supplies.

Putin is too afraid to even announce a regular mobilization and resorts to dirty tactics coercion of poor rural ethnic minorities to fill the ranks, because the backlash that would follow a general mobilization would be a major threat to Putin's grip on power. Look up the effect of soldiers' mothers movement during the Chechen wars, or how the forced conscription into the Soviet-Afghan war (620k people over a decade) contributed to the disintegration of the USSR. Educated middle-class people accustomed to European lifestyle won't go to the front to get slaughtered like IQ 80 villagers who are up to their necks in payday loans; they will resist and cause major disruption among the productive urban population that keeps the country running.

These millions of soldiers exist only on paper. The actual situation on the ground is pretty dire. Ukraine hit another all-time record yesterday, killing or disabling 2250 Russians in a single day. The entire month of October is trending to hit a record too, 50k casualties in a single month. Russian recruitment target is 34k per month.

The question you asked (Positing UKR taking parts of RU, etc.) *inherently presumes* the counterfactual of Ukraine being an aggressive, expansionist dictatorship. Ukraine is zero of those things, and the question is irrelevant. But IF the actual UKR had taken significant RU territory, and was offered a peace deal allowing them their full sovereignty and territorial integrity, they would immediately take the deal.

Your mobilization numbers are fantasy, and Putin has held off declaring mobilization not because he thinks he does not need to but because it would require drafting people from the middle classes near Moscow instead of the rural impoverished territories that can be ignored politically. A full mobilization could end him. If he had enough people, he would not be getting soldiers from North Korea and deceiving Africans to put into their meat grinder

Yes, Ukraine has a manpower problems also. They are solving it through innovation. And it is working. Just look at the verified death counts from both sides

You really are a persistent apologist for Putin, not some kind of middle ground arbitor you hold yourself out as.

Shall I simply quote the propaganda patterns? "10. Whoever casts doubt on our propaganda helps the enemy and is a traitor." It's silly. And I think you're obviously not answering in good faith. Militaries who have the advantage in a conflict do not accept peace without significant concession. There's even a precedent for my hypothetical in this war. Early on in the conflict Ukraine was doing quite well, and it was Russia looking for a ceasefire, overtly to rearm and reman.

And at that time it was Ukraine rejecting any calls for a ceasefire without major concessions from Russia. They wanted the immediate and unconditional return of all land as a precondition to even beginning to negotiate, where they would have sought further concessions like reparations to agree to peace. And beyond that they were making statements, in public - let alone private, such as "[Russia] must be defeated, be subjected to a painful defeat, as painful as possible." [1] These are not the words or actions of a country that'd just agree to peace, without major concessions, if they were trending towards a potential absolute victory. But of course no country would. It's the nature of war. The side with an edge will expect significant concessions to end a conflict.

And, obviously a general mobilization would cause major backlash within Russia, but they'd almost certainly be just fine. They're not mobilizing because they don't need to. There's also no such thing as a "verified death count." Again going back to our propaganda list: "7. We suffer few losses, the enemy's losses are considerable." On top of both sides actively lying, they also likely don't even really know themselves, especially Ukraine. The overwhelming majority of their military is made up of forcibly conscripted people, many of whom would flee at the first opportunity. They certainly know the dogtagged KIA, but likely simply have no idea exactly how many of the missing are fertilizer, and how many managed to make their way to freedom. They also have a motivation to not know, to defer the KIA compensation payments.

[1] - https://www.euronews.com/2022/05/22/us-ukraine-crisis-podoly...

If you think there are lots of Ukrainian government supporters still living in the Donbas then you are delusional. The ones there were fled long ago.

The residents of the city of Oleshky in the Donbas, who have been literally starving to death under the Russian siege for months would like a word. The Pope managed to arrange a cease-fire long enough to provide food and evacuation, see how long it goes.

You ignore how much prevents Ukrainians from migrating or evacuating temporarily Russian-occupied territories. There is a river with many bridges out, the roads are mined, and the Russians run human safaris hunting civilians. But sure, everyone could have gotten out.

You are also just spewing the standard Russian concern-trolling line about "Russian speakers in Ukraine".

You may be fooling yourself about being some kind of "unbiased" observer, but you aren't fooling anyone else.

And in the latest news: Residents of occupied Oleshky who wish to escape to free Ukraine will not be allowed to cross the Dnipro River – which is less than 4 km away. They will be taken to occupied Crimea or to the Russian Federation, where they will be subjected to coercive measures.

NO, the sides are not even close to the same. Stop stanning for Russia

Wasn't that Terminator: Salvation?

Instead of grabbing anyone this could be a real game changer. Enemy soldiers could surrender even deep behind enemy lines, signal their intentions with a white flag, and be evacuated to safety. It could also make taking prisoners much easier and safer, since there would be no need to send troops into hostile territory to retrieve them.

The basis is that it became known that POWs are treated fairly and decently.

It's coming soon.

Ukraine will be grabbing Russian soldiers off the field within 12 months, I predict.

Edit: they've already been trying.

could do with some for the phone snatchers in London

A net shooting drone that pops an expanding weather balloon would get anyone you need off the ground and then plenty of time to collect then while they are floating around

China was rescuing people from floods by drone many months ago

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

* https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/j6z8eh

> Applying this to war though just means more war

Can you explain why?

I agree that Russia should be further isolated, but with China and India close by, that's not possible.

If you are invaded you're in a war whether you like it or not. At that point there are three ways to end up with less war. Surrender, force a truce, or win.

"until they leave Ukraine alone" part is not needed. They should be a pariah state and they deserve that for much longer than Ukraine war.

People trapped in Floods have been rescued by drones

Are the floods a battlefield? Were the people soldiers?

It occurs to me that heavy-duty flying drones could be the ultimate platform for solo skydiving.

It reaffirms that Ukrainians are:

1. very advanced with drones 2. caring about their soldiers

Disclaimer: I am a proud Ukrainian.

The stuff the front line hackers are doing is incredibly impressive

Do you have more information about that, an article or something?

You kind of just need to follow the drone news like this article and you can see over the course of the last few years the kind of wild stuff they figure out.

this was a favorite of mine when I first saw it: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/9/9/what-are-dragon-...

Thanks. The fault is mine though. Thought you were talking about "hackers" in the breaching networks sense, not in the sense of engineering innovative mechanical solutions. Either way, impressive what Ukraine is capable of coming up with.

That’s happening also but I mean more classic hardware/firmware hacking

yay war crimes

Slava Ukraini!

I too, live in Ukraine, and I have full faith in the UA army. Their sincerity and self-sacrifice and determination is undefeatable.

NGL, reading this gave me the feels...

Also, next wartime invention: air mines.

Loitering munitions are already a thing. You just need to combine that concept with interceptor drones. Actually I'm not sure autonomous interceptors are a thing yet, so that might be the blocker.

600km/h autonomous interceptors are around...

...hmm, yeah, now that you mention it. Those generally have pretty big targets though, with IR signatures. I'm not sure how much of that translates directly to subsonic drone-on-drone violence. (In general it's just a matter of time, of course.)

This is a thing already

Do you have a link with details?

I wish I knew more to share but I've read about a few things from floating mines as I think the comment was implying to "jumping" mines that are on the ground but launch or shoot up at low altitude aircraft to uav "loitering munitions" (not really a "mine" but the point is roughly the same).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loitering_munition

Some random googling:

Firework like ground mines for drones: https://youtu.be/tFpH57oNZZA

Shotgun mines that shoot down aircraft: https://threattec.com/how-threat-tec-new-anti-aircraft-mine-...

Anti drone nets hanging from balloons: https://english.nv.ua/amp/russia-testing-balloon-suspended-n...

I hope in the future all wars are fought by drones. Just don't make them unstoppable like in that Horizon videogame.

I hope there are no future wars.

The point of war is to kill people.

The point of war is enforcing your will through violence. You can skip the violence, but then bullies would essentially be unrestricted.

Do you think there is a difference between killing people and violence ?

You can have violence without killing people, for example in torture the goal is generally not to kill the recipient.

And if a doctor has a surgery that goes bad and the patient died, they may have killed someone, but there was no violence.

But you can't have killing without violence.

I guess if you get extremely broad with the term but starvation isn't often classified as violence.

If the starvation is intentional it's a kind of violence ?

Smallpox, radiation leaks, freezing to death etc are all causes of death that can be engineered but not generally labeled as violence. What definition are you using?

"War" for the sake of "war" is pointless. It should be tied to a political objective for some kind of gain.

Ideally, it would be the last resort in limited capacity when diplomacy fails.

Otherwise you're unleashing horrors on humanity.

There's no single point to war. It can be anything from enjoying the destruction and killing and torture and lack of rules, to "retribution" (for people who are into thinking of other people in terms of arbitrarily and vaguely defined groups), though creating chaos to get political advantage, to distraction from political issues, or really whatever...

That's not necessarily true. The point of war is to force control. You can force control without killing people. Economically, psychologically, digitally, etc. Killing people is one of the ways but not the only way to wage war.

Indeed - anti-personnnel mines are intended to maim, not kill, because severely wounded soldiers or civilians are a greater drain on enemy resources and morale than a quick death.

> The point of war is to kill people.

You could have a war that's entirely based around infrastructure damage, and you could warn people away from incoming attacks.

ah right, good point. Let's have more wars then.

Do you think that's what I was arguing?

Well I'll quote the sentence to make it clearer, I guess.

Never happened.

Even if it hasn't happened, it would still be a relatively normal war if it happened.

The point of wars usually isn't death.

Logic would indicate that if it didn't happen, it would not be normal if it did now.

Logic would not dictate that. It would be notable but still a pretty normal war. There have been major attacks that are only strikes on infrastructure, and some of them do warn ahead of time so people can evacuate. Deciding to only use that kind of attack is a valid option that makes sense as a "taking the high road" PR tactic.

the point of war is to get past bargaining frictions and make it clear what a mutually acceptable settlement looks like

I hope not. This looks like a nightmare world constrained only by basic manufacturing.

World War I called. It wants its "horror at the concept of industrialized warfare" back.

In World War 1, countries had to contend with the political unsavoriness of sending their youth to go die in droves.

In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.

From the point of view of "the market" I imagine that it's profitable rather than merely costless.

sigh

> In asymmetric drone warfare stronger economies can nearly “costlessly” conquer less wealthy economies.

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.

And I think this generalizes. War is basically a game of morale. Whoever's morale breaks first, loses - in both battles and wars. This is precisely why Afghanistan managed to defeat both the USSR and the USA. They will fight you to the very last man without even having a hint of morale issues. And then after they're all dead their children will do the exact same. And then their children's children. They simply will never surrender, and that makes them practically impossible to defeat. Iran is showing themselves capable of the exact same.

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.

Materiel isn't free! Had everyone forgotten the "cross of iron" speech from Eisenhower?

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.

Hold is, but attacking often isn't

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In any case, most actual fighting will be done by small robots, and as you go forth today remember your duty is clear: to build and maintain those robots.

Contrast this with the supermarkets getting hacked in France.

As a Ukrainian, I really wish my country could innovate in areas other than evacuation of wounded people from our own soil.

is this not a good innovation?

It is a good innovation in the same way a shield is a good innovation. Perhaps people do not always want to innovate in the area of war, but instead doing something else, but they are forced to innovate like this.

it also feels like it could be a replacement to the electric scooter at some point?

drone pickup is basically a jet pack

It's a good innovation.

The whole situation that required that innovation is not.

How would you have avoided that "whole situation"?

I do have an opinion on that but this is not a discussion for HN.

In short: I believe it was avoidable.

They are many... you should be proud. I am.

https://ukraine.ua/invest-trade/ukrainian-inventions-that-ch...

And the recent drone tech is saving many lives and lots of money.

Doesn't this have potential applications in disaster relief?

https://inkorr.com/en/litna-zinka-v-kostantinivci-napisala-v...

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.

From outside it seems that Ukraine is not really given a choice right now but to defend itself. I wish for a soon end to the war so your beautiful country can prosper again and your people can start healing.

I think the poster's point was, "Imagine what we could be applying our ingenuity to if the bastards invading us would only piss off."

> "Imagine what we could be applying our ingenuity to if the bastards invading us would only piss off."

As someone who lived through Ukraine’s 90s and early 00s, “we” wouldn’t apply it that much.

Could you be elaborating more? What is better than evacuating the injured ?

Not having shit neighbours that invade you would be nice

It's not like they can up and move their country

Indeed. Ukraine is - and always was - a tech and innovation powerhouse and it is very sad to see the continued degree of distraction caused by russia. Let's hope the midterms will at least muzzle trump to the point that the tide will turn. I can't believe it is almost 5 years now. Very frustrating.

[flagged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat

>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...

Do you really think there's anything Trump is afraid of any secret that could be worse than what we already no? There's not. The idea that he's manipulated by Russia is just stupid.

Yes, sex with underage models and directly receiving money from Russia would be worse than what's currently known. Things can always get worse - that includes Trump's reputation.

That's already what's expected from his participation in the Epstein parties. It changed literally nothing.

> even Republicans are beginning to wonder what dirt Putin has on Trump.

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).

> What dirt could they possibly have on him that would actually matter to the voters that voted for him last time?

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.

I wish “even Republicans” but that party stands for nothing any more, it isn’t even conservative. It’s the most bizarre and morally bankrupt thing I’ve seen in American politics and I’ve been paying attention since the 80s.

Please don't post political/ideological rhetoric on HN. It doesn't matter how correct your position is or how correct you feel it is; it only leads to back and forth arguments between people on opposing sides, and that's just what we're trying to avoid. Please aim for curious conversation at all times here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50156201 and marked it off topic.

Setting aside the politics and the personalities, if we focus on the technology and the lessons in how to produce, iterate, and deploy I think there's enormous value in looking at what Ukraine has to offer from a tactical and strategic standpoint. It's a fact that countries and organizations are rushing to benefit from that aspect of this war, from NATO states to organized crime. Unless we imagine that data from this war isn't being actively pursued by any party that thinks they have the ability to adapt their local conflicts to a "new way of fighting", it's a matter of intense intellectual curiosity.

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.

Sure, and there's a place for discussion about that (though whether HN can host such a discussion without it spiraling into a hellish flamewar is not something we can be confident about).

That aside, in this context the issue is that the comment very much didn't set aside the politics and the personalities.

Of course, I was just trying to extract a bit of good from the bad.

No need for dirt. Putin simply funnels money to Trump and that's enough.

back to reddit kind sir

Active discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50155237

Another Ukrainian innovation using drones: transporting transplant organs.

https://ukrspecsystems.com/blog/pd-2-uav-tested-for-organ-de...

I think this has been done before, as early as 2022, according to this article: https://globalnews.ca/news/8583562/drone-delivery-organ-tran...

I'd actually assumed it'd be commonplace by now, but I can't find too many stories about it.

Not exactly the same but Zipline has been transporting medical supplies in Africa for almost a decade (in the US I think they're mostly focused on food delivery which is more profitable) https://time.com/5295821/ziplines-drones-are-saving-lives/

To be precise, innovation doesn't mean invention. I never claimed that Ukraine was the first to invent organ delivery, but it definitely keeps innovating in this field.

Anyway, the point is that there is a lot of interesting/innovative going on with regards to drones in Ukraine.

Basically like during nam with helicopter. And many were destroyed mid flight. Plus this is PR stunt. Do OSINt how many drones needed by Ukrainian side per month. That means that many destroyed EVERY MONTH. Now imagine one of them carry wounded soldier.

Presumably less likely to get destroyed than a suicide drone, or one sent further into enemy controlled areas.

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.

I’d expect there’s many situations where sending a helicopter would be considered too dangerous for the crew, but the lack of medical care on a drone seems like a big limitation.

Drones are not at equal risk in all missions and neither are wounded soldiers in equal need for evacuation. A long list of Americans have died in helicopter accidents while receiving medical transport but a much longer list had their lives saved by those same basic methods.

Evac drones will have a lower destruction rate than kamikaze drones per month, for obvious reasons. If I imagine a kamikaze drone carrying a wounded solder, it better be in Rambo VII because that's ridiculous.

It is a story with strong PR value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com