Exactly this. I think the rest of us need to be less afraid and start shooting russians that violate our borders instead of asking them nicely to leave.

Same goes for ships cutting cables. I would enjoy seeing one of those ships being promptly sunk. No questions asked. Essentially telling russia “We know what you’re doing, and we’re done fucking around”.

There ought to be rules of engagement

There are: When you positively identify an enemy soldier that has not surrendered and is combat capable, you are allowed to engage them. That’s what this soldier did.

There is no law stating that you need to make your presence and intent known before engaging the enemy.

It’s not a war crime to shoot an enemy after they mistake you for their own. That’s on them.

It would be a war crime if he feigned surrender (in which case they would have taken his weapon) or injury (which he clearly wasn’t), or was wearing insignia indicating that he was russian (which we cannot conclude from this video). Regarding the last point, it seems highly unlikely that a single Ukraine soldier would be sent alone behind enemy lines with russian insignia in the hope that something like this would happen.

There was a report on this: Appears the guy was part of an assault and lost contact with his unit. These russians messed up bad (the Ukrainian was likely fluent in russian) and got killed for it. That’s what happens in war. When you mess up, you’re liable to get killed for it. There’s no law of warfare preventing the enemy for exploiting your mistakes.

Not a war crime unless he was wearing russian insignia, which I see no reason to believe he was. Both sides are using a lot of the same gear, and plenty of Ukrainians speaking fluent russian.

I agree with the sentiment that this isn’t directly bad as long as they’re fighting the russians. However, if their motivation to fight is just to learn how to use UAV’s for a cartel, they’re likely to desert at the moment shit hits the fan. This hurts morale badly.

Secondly, the countries in which the cartels operate will be more inclined to actively take Ukraines side if they take this seriously.

Finally,

You can’t prosecute ppl for crimes they did not yet commit.

To be frank: Yes you can (in a sense). Planning a crime (robbery, murder, etc.) can often be prosecuted as a crime in itself, often under the condition that the person in question appears capable or near-capable of doing whatever they were planning to do.

I think we’ll see either a back line (political) collapse, that causes a massive retreat/treaty, or: Gradual degradation to the point where a small breach in the russian position causes a massive route like what we saw in Kharkiv. Unmechanised forces stretched so thin and with so low morale that just a small crack causes a massive collapse and the subsequent capture and/or elimination of massive amounts of equipment and personnel, which makes russia unable to continue the war.

Beijing denounces the sanctions as a threat to economic cooperation.

… yes. That’s exactly the point.

That looks like an awesome initiative! It was unclear to me whether they could adjust detonation range, but it seemed like they couldn’t. Perhaps that was deemed unnecessarily complex?

Regardless, with a 25 cm spread at 100 m I can imagine that an MG or a couple soldiers laying down a small barrage of these would make for an effective “flak shield”, much more effective than ordinary ammo.

I agree with everything you’re saying here, fibre optic drones are in no way perfect. If they were, they would have been used even before EW became so prevalent (as you point out).

However, they remain unjammable. That was really all I was pointing out. Despite their flaws, fibre optic drones remain highly lethal weapons, that soldiers need a means to defend against. I think tactical-level light AA seems like a good tool for the task. Of course, this kind of AA would be just as effective against radio-controlled drones, which is just a bonus.

I think there are two major reasons hard AA is needed, no matter how much EW and counter battery you have.

Fibre optic drones hard-counter EW. They are literally immune to jamming, and have grown quite prevalent. The only way to stop them is to shoot them down or cut the wire (short of a massive EMP).

Drones are different from artillery in that you can’t trace them back to their origin just by spotting them. Additionally, they can be operated by two guys sitting in an underground bunker 10 km from the zero-line, which are far less exposed than an artillery piece. The operators could even be in a moving vehicle.

So, put simply, guys manning front-line trenches or conducting assaults need a way to protect themselves from a threat that can be immune to EW, and be practically impossible to trace back to the operator on short notice. This requires some tactical-level weapon to physically shoot down the drones.

Not to say that what you’re pointing out isn’t important, but I would imagine EW and especially counter battery to be higher-level tasks than a 10 man squad.

Honest question: I’ve seen several videos of people shooting down drones, and obviously, it’s very hard to hit them. There are often discussions about cost-effective means of countering cheap FPV drones. Is there a good reason light (i.e. man-portable) flak guns haven’t made an entry yet?

Quite simply, I’ve wondered several times what is preventing anyone from equipping their soldiers with 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm flak rounds that can be fired from standard rifles/MGs. There is of course the issue of programming the detonation distance, but I can imagine several ways of potentially achieving that, for example a muzzle-mounted piece that programs the ammo on exit, or something you attach to the magazine itself.

With the extreme prevalence of drones, I would imagine that ensuring that every soldier, or at least every squad, has a couple mags of flak ammo that they could use to tear up any drone within 100 m would be a massive benefit.

Exactly, and in addition to artillery support, we see in Ukraine today that massive amounts of breaching equipment (mine clearing vehicles, portable armoured bridges, etc.) are required. A mine field is capable of stopping pretty much any armoured assault if they lack mine clearing equipment (as we’ve repeatedly seen). However, it was clearly shown in Iraq what a large number of armoured vehicles with explosive mine clearing charges can do.

It’s not enough to give Ukraine tanks. If they’re going to succeed with an armoured push of the kind they tried through Robotyne, they need dozens of mine clearing vehicles, man-portable mine clearing equipment, and mobile frontline AA as well.

One major hurdle that needs to be overcome is a way to defend such armour against drones. I’m guessing that some kind of light and cheap AA is already pretty far along in development.

I think its important, as you point out very well, to remember that what is most effective in Ukraine today doesn’t need to be what “would have been” most effective if Ukraine had access to it.

You point this out for artillery, where FPV drones appear to have largely replaced heavy artillery. However, can partly be explained from lack of guns/shells.

I think the same may be true for heavy tanks. Neither Ukraine or russia seem to be using a lot of heavy tanks, however I think that may in part be explained by lacks in breaching equipment, and lacks in mobile frontline air defence. I don’t think “armoured fist” assaults led by dozens of heavy MBT’s are necessarily outdated, but I think Ukraine lacks the equipment to pull them off.

The guy on the left has a hand on his shoulder. It can’t be the guy in the middle’s hand, so it appears the guy on the right has a very long arm. Or it’s a hovering “extra hand”.

Here you can donate directly to Ukraine.

If you prefer to donate “generally”, just click “donate now”. If you prefer a specific project, just select one from the list. There are two projects for air defence systems now that are close to reaching their goal!

It’s crazy to see how the other soldiers that aren’t being targeted are just walking calmly by, waiting for their turn.

Might have had a gun that he dropped when getting off the bike. Then again, it would make most sense to have it on a strap, so it looks like he might actually not have had any gun at all. Wouldn’t be the first time.

Oh, absolutely. The best option is of course to have enough of everything. However, the past 20 years we’ve seen a bunch of western militaries phase out a bunch of their older, simpler equipment in favour of a few high-tech systems.

I think my point is that it may be a mistake to discard large volumes of older systems and replace them with a few new systems. If/when a war happens, we’re going to need large volumes of simpler gear as well as the few specialised and modern systems we’ve developed the past 20 years.

I do believe most western armies have gone a bit too far into “a few advanced” over “many simple”.

If I’m going to war I would prefer to have 200 Leopard 2A4 with me over having 20 Leopard 2A8. Same goes for aircraft: I would rather have 100 F16 than 10 F35. If only because a realistic war has a long front, and those few pieces of advanced equipment can’t be everywhere at once.

We shouldn’t forget that during WWII, the allies typically had the technologically inferior armour, but won out because it was easier to build and maintain, and they had more of it.

This looks like a turning point in European defence production. When civilian manufacturers begin directly contributing to the defence industry we may be on the verge of massive increases in military production.

What drove western production to obscene highs during WWII was exactly this shift.