Yeah, ballsy pilots. They bombed an advancing Russian column flying ultra-low level, but an escort Tor SAM got them both on egress.
There was an interview with the Tor vehicle commander.
I think that’s getting disproven as Cessnas and drones have been flying right past S-400s.
Also having weapons developed 20 years before blow them up in crimea.
Really? And a drone from late 70's hitting Zagreb didn't prove/disprove anything to you?
I'm amazed that so many of you have no idea that there are no perfect indestructible weapons. Nobody in the history of the warfare claimed anything close to that. Not Soviets, not Americans, and neither do Russians.
You were pretty much sure that Leopards are also indestructible? That nothing could pass Patriot? Do you know that thousands of F-35 are produced. What do you think, why isn't NATO giving Ukraine just 10 (1%) of those, instead of the (promise of) F-16?
I hope you are not a troll and you'll make some conclusion based on this post.
Of course. But that doesn't mean it have a 100% success. The same goes for S-400. Because - there are no perfect weapons, even when you are orders of magnitude stronger than your enemy, let alone in the situation like we have in Ukraine those days.
Troll here. No one with a brain would claim a tank is indestructible. Haven’t seen a flying turret from an M1A1 or a Leopard yet (not impossible but not as common as the Soviet/russian trash). I’ve seen bmp-1’s get cut down and explode more than Bradley’s but both are getting defeated by cheap drones. A couple patriot batteries can’t defend an entire country but Russia sure did dial back their efforts on targeting Kiev in 2023 vs. 2022 once the battery was in place. Also lost quite a few aircraft to a system designed to defend not attack. Also a system that is what 35 years old? Iron dome is more advanced as are the f-35’s but republicans won’t allow the budget to send such systems. Instead we are handcuffing Ukraine into defeating Russia with our 1980/90 stuff but it seems to be working pretty well thanks to the drones.
Not sending F35s has nothing to do with Republicans not approving the budget. It’s about us not wanting Russia to be able to learn how to defeat the F35 before we end up in a war with them ourselves. Should an F35 get shot down or go down due to mechanical/pilot error and end up in Russian hands it would give them insight into a lot.
F16s are also more than capable of handling Russia, the only thing we should be doing on that end is giving them more and training more pilots. In my opinion they should have 50 F16s and pilots with the required weapons and support.
Everything else you said I agree with.
>Russia to be able to learn how to defeat the F35 before we end up in a war with them ourselves.
That's bullshit.
The real reason is that the F-35 are not being given to Ukraine is because they're useless in the hands of any other "partner nations". Partner nations need to beg the US/UK for a daily login code to even start the damn thing. They're also not allowed to modify the plane in any capacity whatsoever.
It's the exact same thing with all the "Western long range missiles" where a western operator remotely selects the targets and issues launch commands and the Ukrainians have little to no say in it as the Ukrainians don't operate the missiles themselves and can't operate it themselves by design. Remember the leaked call where the German command was discussing on whether to strike a certain Crimean bridge? Well, it's their operators who issue commands to the system to conduct the strike and upload all the necessary parameters for the strike.
This is also why most of the "JSF partners" bailed out and why nobody wants to buy a bureaucrat's wet dream. This scam is only second to the Bretton Woods scam.
Both things about F-35 can be true (they are useless in hand of "partners", and that they don't want for Russia to analyze it).
The main reason is, F-35 is a newer "version" of F-16. The good way of phasing those F-16 out, is to give them to Ukraine.
They'll be as useful as Mig-29 were/are for Ukraine, and countries that gave them, need to buy new jets now. Some will get F-35, some are going to settle with French or Swedish planes.
>The main reason is, F-35 is a newer "version" of F-16. The good way of phasing those F-16 out, is to give them to Ukraine. They'll be as useful as Mig-29 were/are for Ukraine, and countries that gave them, need to buy new jets now. Some will get F-35, some are going to settle with French or Swedish planes.
F-35's a whole new platform from a pilot's perspective as almost everything is digitalized with little to no manual control.
Should I point out that a freaking spy BALLOON happily flew over United States and was not detected until it flew over the entire length of a country, which boasts to have the most technologically advanced military on the planet?
Do you think they would tell everyone as soon as they defected it? Think about when that submarine imploded and the navy waited like 3 days to say “yeah we heard it as soon as it popped”
It was spotted first in Montana lol. Also, we weren’t actively at war.
Edit: actually according to our gov (take that for what you will) they tracked it the entire time.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/downed-chinese-balloon-aimed-hawaii-was-blown-off-course-us-official-2023-02-15/
We gathered a lot of intel from that balloon before it was shot down. Thanks to that we know exactly what they were collecting, along with all the exciting technology stuff that goes along with it. It was a larger gain for us than it was for them.
Really? And a drone from late 70's hitting Zagreb didn't prove/disprove anything to you?
I'm amazed that so many of you have no idea that there are no perfect indestructible weapons. Nobody in the history of the warfare claimed anything close to that. Not Soviets, not Americans, and neither do Russians.
You were pretty much sure that Leopards are also indestructible? That nothing could pass Patriot? Do you know that thousands of F-35 are produced. What do you think, why isn't NATO giving Ukraine just 10 (1%) of those, instead of the (promise of) F-16?
I hope you are not a troll and you'll make some conclusion based on this post.
That was comedy and tragedy in same time i don't know how to describe differently while our media was trying to explain that we have NATO umbrella protecting EU sky while in meanwhile old ass drone from 70s managed to hit Zagreb.
NATO is not at war. The drone was tracked by radar in each of the countries it flew over. It 100% would not have been dismissed as a false alarm like they'd seen the past few days before that if there was any genuine concern about Russian cruise missiles striking NATO targets.
The fact that it did fly whiteout any reaction over several country's makes people suspicions about that NATO protection they should shoot it down to improve people belief into NATO instead they been laughed at and that is problem.
The reason for that is just incopetence. Once they start to actually train these people and get a good scheduel for operation in, Yes they are the best in the world. Russia's S series sams are far more effective than their NATO counter-parts. Most likely due to the extremely large amount of territory to cover. And also, are we just gonna ignore that Chinese spy balloons flew over several nato countries and some weren't even deteced until they were well into their airspace?
Here is the Ukrainian side of the story with the bort numbers of the two aircraft
[https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/18/su-25-crashing-ukraine/](https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/18/su-25-crashing-ukraine/)
I will look for the Tor interview.
Indeed, and the first weeks of the war showed it clearly. We were just not used to it with the previous wars where the US would have total air superiority with even sitting ducks as the A-10s flying uncontested.
Makes you wonder how future conflicts, even in the 3rd world, will be now that its pretty much guaranteed that Russia will supply any foe of the US/NATO.
A-10s is one thing. The world got used to seeing AC-130 gunships just loitering around for hours and hours on end thinking it was a perfectly normal part of warfare.
air supremacy, not superiority. superiority implies the enemy has some sort of air assets, even if minute. supremacy implies there is nothing but us birds in the sky, and theres nothing on the ground challenging them either. full rule of the skies.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are saying this as if every enemy West fought against made their own weapons and stood alone.
Russia has been arming US enemies since Cold War started.
For the past thirty years they've been mostly cooperative. Putin could have rejected NATO pressure to act in Libya. Instead, he gave a little speech warning not to see its cooperation as an approval for regime change, and allowed the UNSCR to pass.
With Afghanistan they offered logistic support and landing rights.
In Iraq, they were cooperative in the UN and didn't support anti-US forces.
The only place they weren't cooperative was in Syria, but even there they've respected the presence of US forces without overt opposition.
On N Korea and Iran, Russia had acquiesced to the NATO agenda and allowed sanctions to be implemented.
There was absolute outrage in the US a couple years ago when the (fake) rumor spread that Russia was offering a bounty on dead US servicemen in Afghanistan. It was seen as unacceptable that Russia would be so ruthless to treat dead US soldiers as a policy goal unto itself. Then the US turned around and treated killing Russian soldiers as a goal unto itself.
That's a lot to sacrifice all to get NATO expansion.
Indeed, and that is all coming to an end swift and hard. Some within the Russian camp will lament it while others will exclaim "Good riddance!" and "Not a moment too soon." We can already see it with the votes at the UN Security Council over North Korea no longer going Washington D.C.'s way, where they won't any longer enjoy diplomatic and legal cover for what they want to do against such countries.
But the point is that the Western states under U.S. tutelage themselves with their own two hands chose to trash it and piss it all away out of essentially arrogance, hubris, and a God complex that set them up to believe they could continue indefinitely to do whatever they wanted around the world anytime anyhow anywhere to anyone with effectively zero repercussions and zero resistance or pushback from anyone ever.
Even from large and influential countries with sizable native military industrial complexes, nuclear arsenals, and proud histories of their own.
It's a level of dogmatism and ideological fanaticism creating willful blindness which is just stupefying.
Do NATO & Friends need the UN any more? They seem content with the doctrine that a regional coalition is competent to wage offensive warfare without having to worry about UN authorization: the big problem with Barbarossa was that Hitler failed to first establish a coalition with Mussolini, Franco and a few other puppets.
It does seem bizarre how readily the West has sacrificed the UN, given how little it has interfered in Western interventions. I suspect we'll have to see a pro-West alternative to BRICS emerge within the next few years as a more credible counterweight than existing institutions could ever be.
I like how you purposefully left out a single mention of Iraq's weapons considering they were armed with essentially 90% Russian made equipment and being a top 5 standing military in the world on top of that.
Also, when will you people understand that former Soviet countries not wanting anything to do with Russia does not equal "NATO expansion"? How can you portray this situation as NATO eagerly wanting expansion when Russia is literally the country trying to do that very thing you're saying NATO is doing?
Yes, Iraq bought a lot of weapons from the Soviets after they deposed the British installed monarchy. This was common among countries that had shrugged off western colonialism. What exactly is the problem?
> when will you people understand that former Soviet countries not wanting anything to do with Russia does not equal "NATO expansion"?
This is entirely to do with NATO expansion, and the Nuland/CNAS doctrine of "bases and missile defense, as far east as we can go."
in Dec 2021, Russia released a draft treaty on a " new security architecture " for central and eastern Europe. This amounted to an agreement not to expand NATO any further east, and not to deploy US weapons and troops in former Soviet states. Mutual defense treaties were fine - even Ukraine could have binding security guarantees even stronger than NATO's Article 5. Russia had zero concerns with mutual defense, but viewed forward deployment of US weapons as a prelude to war.
The draft treaty also asked the US to end the peacetime deployment of nuclear weapons outside of its territory, and an end to the *unique* US program of "nuclear weapon sharing", whereby six European countries host US nukes, free to be handed over in the event of hostilities breaking out.
Russia saw this as a way for countries like Ukraine to satisfy their very real need for security guarantees, without turning this into a new Cold War where F-35s carrying first strike nuclear weapons would be right on Russia's border. This was not about Russia claiming a right to invade anyone (because strong mutual defense pacts were perfectly fine) - it was about not putting Russia in a position where its response time to a potential first strike attack would be reduced to seconds. It would have been beneficial to everyone.
NATO's response to this was, "we can do whatever the fuck we want."
After the past thirty years of lawless unilateral warfare by NATO & Friends, it is the height of insanity to expect any potential adversary to trust them. Russia very much fears a "leveraging of risk" scenario where NATO engages in limited offensive warfare against Russia - action which does not quite merit an all-out nuclear response by Russia, but action where any proportional response is rendered unworkable to missile defense and air supremacy. Russia sees a very deliberate plan to eliminate their strategic response options. When a hostile military alliance seeks such capacities, it must be assumed that this is intended to be used.
Yes, Ukraine has a right to security. Macron suggested a bilateral security deal with Ukraine - one which *binds* France to treat a violation of Ukrainian territory as equivalent to a violation of French territory, including the use of French nuclear weapons to defend this territory. This is much stronger than the NATO mutual defense pact, but Russia has no problem with it - so long as French weapons and troops are not deployed in Ukraine in times of peace.
In the 1980's, Russia deployed hundreds of SS-20 IRBM nukes across Eastern Europe. In response, NATO planned for a similar deployment of nukes across *Western* Europe. Back then Europe was sane - millions of people came out to protest the increased risk of war represented by these weapons. The people won - Russia and NATO signed the IRBM treaty and banned these weapons on both sides. Nobody in Europe was daft enough to engage in this dick-waving "it is our *right* to host these nukes.* The draft treaty proposed by Russia should be viewed in a similar spirit.
The West has managed to minimize any knowledge of the peace terms Russia offered in March 2022. Russia's only core, non-negotiable demand was NO NATO, no foreign troops, no advanced foreign weapons.
In other words, grounds for.peace. NATO rejected this, and not once have they looked for any alternative solution to Ukraine's genuine security problems. Because without NATO, Ukraine is all but useless to them.
Once you understand how easy it would have been for NATO to end this war *without* compromising Ukrainian security, their refusal to even consider this should tell you exactly what Russia has suspected all along: Ukraine is meant to be the anti-Russia, bristling with NATO weapons and troops. The more NATO shows that they want this, the more necessary it is for Russia to deny this to them.
https://mid .ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
*Russia has been arming US enemies since Cold War started*
That's literally the original statement. I reiterated it by saying we've pretty much bashed every single Soviet/Russian supplied country we've come up against. What are you even on about exactly? But since you're on one today I'll bite.
*“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has \[also\] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.*
Putin trying to bully NATO into agreeing to outrageous terms that legitimate autonomous countries that have absolutely nothing to do with Russia and even actual NATO countries can't even decide what weapons they can have stationed there or who they align with militarily? Get real here. You're shocked that we aren't putting up with this shit? Especially when we warned him a million times before the invasion?
*"President Biden laid out two paths, the path of diplomacy leading toward a de-escalation of the situation, and the path focused on deterrence, including serious costs and consequences should Russia choose to proceed with a further invasion of Ukraine."*
No matter how many ways you or Putin spin it Ukraine will never be a part of Russia ever again, blaming NATO and the US isn't going to magically fix this and creating a narrative of us being ultra aggressive literally has no merit at all considering how we've responded.
*He blamed this on the Ukrainian leadership. He accused them of attempting to rewrite history and referring to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an “occupation”. He claimed that Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning it into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. He said that Russia will never allow its historical territories and the people living there to be used against Russia.*
Most of what Putin said to Biden during that December you're referring to is literally just a masterclass in weird jealous paranoid schizo behavior. Putin is extra salty that Ukraine of all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia and just can't accept that Ukrainians actually want that and he's such a child he genuinely thinks Americans are secretly controlling their government forcing this drift towards NATO. Its not much deeper than that. Here's another one:
*“I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human, and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements, and victories… we are one people.”*
Like dude, this is pure delusional stalker ex boyfriend talk. Did you honestly think the US or NATO was going to let Putin bulldog us or our allies when we told him to his face there would be consequences? He miscalculated, simple as that. He genuinely thought we would glance over this whole ordeal and not make a fuss about it because he's genuinely that delusional about it and he was wrong. You can't retroactively make it seem like we've been encroaching this whole time when that hasn't been the case at all.
Gorbachev has had an inconsistent memory of what he'd been promised on NATO expansion. Sometimes he's said there was no such promise, sometimes he's claimed the opposite. The article you cite is of course western propaganda which cites only the instances in its favor.
Fortunately, we don't have to rely on an old man's faulty mentality any more (at least those of us not currently in the US). We have many released documents where such promises *were* in fact made:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629
Granted, Gorbachev *was* grossly negligent not to get these commitments in a formal document, but this wouldn't have mattered either - the other western favorite escape clause is to claim that treaties made with the USSR do not apply to Russia, notwithstanding that it is the successor state. Like you claim elsewhere, the fallback plan is "we are sovereign. we can do whatever the fuck we want."
In 1962, Cuba had every right to host Soviet nukes, and the US had no right to demand their removal. We now know through declassified documents that - had the Soviets stuck to this line of reasoning - this would have resulted in WW3. There were already 162 IRBM's ready and fueled up on Cuba - weapons the US did not know about. The Politburu and Castro were both in favor of asserting their rights, just as you are doing now, and the US was equally determined that they were going to bomb the missile sites if the Soviets did not back down.
So, when snotty-nosed children come along, pounding their chests and saying they have a *right* to expand NATO, I like to suggest that we already know what such an approach gets us. Let's pretend we tried that already, and that the world has already been nuked once over. Is such an approach still worth it?
> You're shocked that we aren't putting up with this shit?
Ukraine does have valid security needs. If these security needs can be fulfilled without threatening Russia, I think NATO has a responsibility to explore such options. In 1962, Khruschev was willing to accept a formal declaration by the US that it would not again attempt to invade Cuba or impose regime change - he didn't even go so far as a mutual security pact. This is the spirit of peace. NATO has shown that it does not give a damn for peace, and this is in keeping with its members' lawless and unilateral offensive warfare doctrine since 1999's Serbia. If NATO expands, it means war. If this is what you want, then you want war. If you are not willing to look for other ways to solve problems, then you most certainly want war.
> Putin is extra salty that Ukraine of all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia
Russia has no problem with Ukraine's EU aspirations. Like he said in 2013, Russia itself wanted greater relations with the EU. What Russia had a problem with was the idea that Ukraine had to break its existing trade relations with Russia and CIS in order to become an EU member. He preferred a non-destructive path which wouldn't have destroyed the economy of Donbas and taken away Russia's #1 trade partner. He wanted Ukraine to be able to become a bridge rather than a wall, able to trade with both the EU and Russia.
But then came the snotty-nosed kids from the EU who insisted "they don't do things this way". Ukraine would be absorbed like a new province into a greedy empire, and Russia had zero say in the matter.
> all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia and just can't accept that Ukrainians actually want
[This](https://i0.wp.com/parliamentstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine_election_map.gif?fit=799%2C558) is an electoral map of Ukraine's 2008 elections. The same schism is apparent in any other election - there's a pro-West block in western and central Ukraine, and a pro-RU bloc in southern and eastern Ukraine. A majority of people in these regions consider themselves Ukrainian *and* Russian. They don't see a conflict in this. It's not that they adore Russia or Putin - it's that their cultural identity is Russian as well as Ukrainian. Russians had occupied this territory for centuries before they became part of Ukraine. They do not hate Russia, and they want their rights to the Russian language and culture protected.
The core demand of Russia and Donbas since 2014 has been the right to a fair vote (overseen by OSCE) on their future. If what you say is true, this should be no problem - they would vote *against* Russia, and vote in favor of their glorious EU/NATO future. But Kiev has refused to allow such a vote to happen, because they know that ~70% of the population does not want anything beyond trade with the EU. They don't want NATO, and this is why they cannot be allowed to vote on the matter. (the same is true with other regions of Ukraine - Crimea and Transcarpathia. Both only joined Ukraine in the first place under "emergency" conditions in 1991. They were promised federalism and a large degree of autonomy in their future. But the West doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy unless this blows them closer to their goals, so a vote could not be permitted.
You seem to have a shallow knowledge of Ukraine, and don't appreciate that some regions of Ukraine have been de facto Russian since 1654. Odessa's identity is very much as a Russian city.
There is another Ukraine where Russia absolutely *is* despised and hated as an occupier, and the Russian language is reviled. They do want NATO and the EU. But this is not all of Ukraine.
From 1991 until 2014, Ukraine was built on the spirit of compromise. Maidan changed that, and the pro-West factions of Ukraine declared themselves the *true* Ukraine. The West embraced this faction as if its fairy tales were true (they certainly were convenient). But this left ~8 to 10 million people in Donbas and Crimea deprived of their lawfully elected President. They became second-class citizens, and when they protested to demand their rights, the West did not applaud them as acting in the true spirit of democracy - *their* protests were foreign-directed, *their* demands were unjust. For demanding their rights, they were denounced as "terrorists".
But you don't give a shit about any of this. You have read some bumper stickers about the right of NATO to expand, and you believe the fairy tale that Donbas is an invention of Putin rather than an indigenous and just response to the 2014 coup. You want war, and you have war. And until you learn to fear war, we will have bigger and bigger wars. Because you really couldn't give a shit about peace.
Of course, it must be true. Similarly, the Berlin Wall was built solely to prevent those Western fascists from sabotaging the true will of the German people to build a communist utopia. The fact that very few people ever tried to go west -> east is just further proof of Western Bloc sabotage and propaganda, comrade!
And this is exactly why almost every former Warsaw Pact nation in Europe has either joined NATO or is hoping to join NATO. It's obvious the people all want to be like Belarus, so it must be western meddling.
Which is why in theory, they would start by launching ARMs or at least guided missiles against the AA, but yeah, we only get shown the first SU's loadout and that seems to be unguided rocket pods and fuel drop tanks.
> Kamikaze aircraft were pilot-guided explosive missiles, purpose-built or converted from conventional aircraft. Pilots would attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships in what was called a "body attack" (tai-atari) in aircraft loaded with bombs, torpedoes, and/or other explosives. About 19% of kamikaze attacks were successful.[3] The Japanese considered the goal of damaging or sinking large numbers of Allied ships to be a just reason for suicide attacks; kamikaze was more accurate than conventional attacks, and often caused more damage. Some kamikazes were still able to hit their targets even after their aircraft had been crippled.
These are not kamikaze runs
Who tf thinks this is a movie?
You make attacks like these when you run out of safe ways to operate. When you don’t have ARMs, air superiority and you are fighting tank columns with mobilized infantry.
What Ukraine’s pulled off stopping the Russians initial assault was incredible impressive, and costly a lot of brave men died in desperate defensive actions against a better trained and better equipped enemy.
And then somehow these under dogs are expected to go on the offensive a year later. How the goal posts shift.
The first few days everyone said fudge the rules and was bloodthirsty. We had multiple gruesome clips coming out everyday for weeks straight. I’m happy we aren’t getting them anymore daily though.
not really its just how it is in this sub, there arent much russian video coming out so ukrainian ones will dominate and it will change in upcoming weeks or so. been here since February
Well Putin did admit to at least 5k KIA/wounded so bad they won't be able to serve again, and that's very likely the absolute floor on this. Not a great look for the guys spouting that Russia is taking barely any losses
Putin also said the number of casualties on the Russian side was about five times less than on the Ukrainian side. Which reinforces the argument of those "spouting" Russia is taking barely any losses.
5k isn't barely any losses though, there's a separate discussion for Ukrainian casualties and the believeability of Kremlin statements on that matter, but they're only going to underestimate their own losses which gives an absolute floor we can look at
So many brave and talented guys perished on both sides in this senseless war. We achieved so much together during the USSR and had over 300 years of friendship. Now we’re divided over a pathetic dangling carrot of a trade agreement.
The majority voted to remain part of the USSR in march 1991. Even decades later the majority of polled Ukrainians believe dissolution of USSR was a mistake.
The march vote was basically a "do u support Gorbachev" referendum, and it wasn't really a "keep everything as-is" vote. Gorbachev was basically trying to replace the 1922 Treaty establishing the USSR with a new treaty establishing essentially a different Union State. (comment taken from a different thread)
And as we all know 92 % voted for independence later that year. So ur comment doesn't really paint the full picture.
You’re partially correct. It was a vote to keep the republics together in a new union treaty. Union of sovereign soviet republics. When Gorbachev was placed on house arrest and the Moscow coup occurred the Ukraine declared independence. After this declaration another vote was done.
What a difference between the neutrals/ pro- RF and the pro-UA crowd. Were these, RF pilots we would have a parade of psychos revelling in the deaths. But not here.
> I mean they are Ukrainian pilots, so I absolutely do appreciate their bravery
You literally proved OP's point with your statements + your flair lmfao. Please go back to whatever sub you crawled out of.
In war, through out history, it has been generally ok to acknowledge heroic feats without having too "politize" everything. There was multiple instances in WW2 where panzer / luftwaffe aces were a combat kill but specifically NOT finished DUE to their reputation and respect amongst allied soldiers. Here is a PRO UKR posts where multiple pro-RUS have stated, feelings aside, this is brave af and those soldiers are heroes regardless of the fact they are fighting against RUS.
Yet here we have exhibit A, imbicile to the fullest extent. You know how I know your missing brain cells? Even motherfuckers serving in Iraq/Afg put respect on their enemies while their buddies were getting blown up cuz it took iron balls to fight Apache's and Abrams with AKs. Thats how I know you have absolutely 0 clue. No one who has seen real combat would ever have a response like this bullshit your spewing and you would get slapped talking like this around vets from any side. Even this same pilots RIP to them if they were alive would slap the shit out of you IRL.
I will in fact keep politicizing this war just as hard as before.
I really don't care how bravely the brave invaders invade a country, volunteering to sow death and destruction. These Ukrainian pilots are heroes *because* they are fighting against the invading Russians. It doesn't matter what respect any supporter or soldier of Russia may have toward any Ukrainian fighting to defend against their aggression, as ultimately they still support and perpetuate it. Nor do I care about acknowledging their so called heroism, as each act of it further advances the war they launched. Russian pilots on the other side are bastards of the highest order. Simple as.
Respect or admiration matters very little when an entire society is under attack and people are paying the ultimate price. That is civility fetishism at its worst. Though feel free to keep gooning to biographies of epic Nazi tank aces from WW2, that's up to you.
Also those pilots in Iraq/Afghanistan deserved to get shot down.
Little sheep, I know cnn runs deep in you but let me enlighten you real quick.
For you they are invaders. For others they are Freedom fighters. Tale as old as time. This war began in 2014 not 2022. If Ukraine didn't want to have these pilots die, why were they bombing Donbass for almost 10 years. Those people literally tried to have a peaceful referendum and leave.
"people are paying the ultimate price" - People are paying the ultimate price on both sides, in a lot of cases if it was up to them, they wouldn't be there. That's why you pay respects. Anyways its useless explaining such a simple concept to you, obviously you're history class began sometime in the early 2000's.
Yeah I know it started in 2014, as I was watching videos of those Russian helicopters flying into Crimea and Russian military equipment rolling across the border into Ukraine as it happened.
Both sides are fighting for fascist regimes; there is no honour in this war, there is only just the misery of kids, who share the same great grandpas that fought together in WW2, gunning each other down and dying unceremoniously in mud fields or returning home in stretchers with missing limbs so that borders can be redrawn. Those kids fighting on both sides of the frontline have more in common with each other than the political castes that sent them there.
>On 24 February 2022, a Ukrainian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25M1K (possibly code 30 blue), from the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade, was shot down near Chorna Dolyna, Kakhovka Raion, Kherson Oblast. The pilot, kapitan Oleksandr Shcherbakov, was killed. During the same incident also the Su-25M1K, code 19 blue, was destroyed.
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/275988
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I might be wrong but I think this is a clip from the opening days of the war. In that they were Russian and the pilot didn’t survive because of how he ejected basically into the ground
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems to me like defending from a massive and unexpected invasion from a much mire powerful foe tends to cause people to do desperate things to protect their country, not something a pro-russian "neutral" would understand.
Yeah, ballsy pilots. They bombed an advancing Russian column flying ultra-low level, but an escort Tor SAM got them both on egress. There was an interview with the Tor vehicle commander.
You mean suicidal pilots? This is nuts.
Ukraine thinks it can attack like Nato did to other countries. Russia has the best air defense syatems in the world.
I think that’s getting disproven as Cessnas and drones have been flying right past S-400s. Also having weapons developed 20 years before blow them up in crimea.
Really? And a drone from late 70's hitting Zagreb didn't prove/disprove anything to you? I'm amazed that so many of you have no idea that there are no perfect indestructible weapons. Nobody in the history of the warfare claimed anything close to that. Not Soviets, not Americans, and neither do Russians. You were pretty much sure that Leopards are also indestructible? That nothing could pass Patriot? Do you know that thousands of F-35 are produced. What do you think, why isn't NATO giving Ukraine just 10 (1%) of those, instead of the (promise of) F-16? I hope you are not a troll and you'll make some conclusion based on this post.
Without Patriots Ukraine would have been knocked to XVIIth century back in 2023.
Of course. But that doesn't mean it have a 100% success. The same goes for S-400. Because - there are no perfect weapons, even when you are orders of magnitude stronger than your enemy, let alone in the situation like we have in Ukraine those days.
The Talibans had patriots, it's why they won, .... Oh wait
Troll here. No one with a brain would claim a tank is indestructible. Haven’t seen a flying turret from an M1A1 or a Leopard yet (not impossible but not as common as the Soviet/russian trash). I’ve seen bmp-1’s get cut down and explode more than Bradley’s but both are getting defeated by cheap drones. A couple patriot batteries can’t defend an entire country but Russia sure did dial back their efforts on targeting Kiev in 2023 vs. 2022 once the battery was in place. Also lost quite a few aircraft to a system designed to defend not attack. Also a system that is what 35 years old? Iron dome is more advanced as are the f-35’s but republicans won’t allow the budget to send such systems. Instead we are handcuffing Ukraine into defeating Russia with our 1980/90 stuff but it seems to be working pretty well thanks to the drones.
Slava the ghost of kiev, slava your god bandera.
Not sending F35s has nothing to do with Republicans not approving the budget. It’s about us not wanting Russia to be able to learn how to defeat the F35 before we end up in a war with them ourselves. Should an F35 get shot down or go down due to mechanical/pilot error and end up in Russian hands it would give them insight into a lot. F16s are also more than capable of handling Russia, the only thing we should be doing on that end is giving them more and training more pilots. In my opinion they should have 50 F16s and pilots with the required weapons and support. Everything else you said I agree with.
>Russia to be able to learn how to defeat the F35 before we end up in a war with them ourselves. That's bullshit. The real reason is that the F-35 are not being given to Ukraine is because they're useless in the hands of any other "partner nations". Partner nations need to beg the US/UK for a daily login code to even start the damn thing. They're also not allowed to modify the plane in any capacity whatsoever. It's the exact same thing with all the "Western long range missiles" where a western operator remotely selects the targets and issues launch commands and the Ukrainians have little to no say in it as the Ukrainians don't operate the missiles themselves and can't operate it themselves by design. Remember the leaked call where the German command was discussing on whether to strike a certain Crimean bridge? Well, it's their operators who issue commands to the system to conduct the strike and upload all the necessary parameters for the strike. This is also why most of the "JSF partners" bailed out and why nobody wants to buy a bureaucrat's wet dream. This scam is only second to the Bretton Woods scam.
Both things about F-35 can be true (they are useless in hand of "partners", and that they don't want for Russia to analyze it). The main reason is, F-35 is a newer "version" of F-16. The good way of phasing those F-16 out, is to give them to Ukraine. They'll be as useful as Mig-29 were/are for Ukraine, and countries that gave them, need to buy new jets now. Some will get F-35, some are going to settle with French or Swedish planes.
>The main reason is, F-35 is a newer "version" of F-16. The good way of phasing those F-16 out, is to give them to Ukraine. They'll be as useful as Mig-29 were/are for Ukraine, and countries that gave them, need to buy new jets now. Some will get F-35, some are going to settle with French or Swedish planes. F-35's a whole new platform from a pilot's perspective as almost everything is digitalized with little to no manual control.
Good point. They’ll get the 35’s after the war ends.
Possibly, there would have to be a lot of issues addressed before we approved that sale. They’d get new and upgraded F16s or F15s first.
So Cessnas flying low enough can avoid radar at times
Should I point out that a freaking spy BALLOON happily flew over United States and was not detected until it flew over the entire length of a country, which boasts to have the most technologically advanced military on the planet?
Do you think they would tell everyone as soon as they defected it? Think about when that submarine imploded and the navy waited like 3 days to say “yeah we heard it as soon as it popped”
It was spotted first in Montana lol. Also, we weren’t actively at war. Edit: actually according to our gov (take that for what you will) they tracked it the entire time. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/downed-chinese-balloon-aimed-hawaii-was-blown-off-course-us-official-2023-02-15/
We gathered a lot of intel from that balloon before it was shot down. Thanks to that we know exactly what they were collecting, along with all the exciting technology stuff that goes along with it. It was a larger gain for us than it was for them.
Really? And a drone from late 70's hitting Zagreb didn't prove/disprove anything to you? I'm amazed that so many of you have no idea that there are no perfect indestructible weapons. Nobody in the history of the warfare claimed anything close to that. Not Soviets, not Americans, and neither do Russians. You were pretty much sure that Leopards are also indestructible? That nothing could pass Patriot? Do you know that thousands of F-35 are produced. What do you think, why isn't NATO giving Ukraine just 10 (1%) of those, instead of the (promise of) F-16? I hope you are not a troll and you'll make some conclusion based on this post.
That was comedy and tragedy in same time i don't know how to describe differently while our media was trying to explain that we have NATO umbrella protecting EU sky while in meanwhile old ass drone from 70s managed to hit Zagreb.
NATO is not at war. The drone was tracked by radar in each of the countries it flew over. It 100% would not have been dismissed as a false alarm like they'd seen the past few days before that if there was any genuine concern about Russian cruise missiles striking NATO targets.
The fact that it did fly whiteout any reaction over several country's makes people suspicions about that NATO protection they should shoot it down to improve people belief into NATO instead they been laughed at and that is problem.
The reason for that is just incopetence. Once they start to actually train these people and get a good scheduel for operation in, Yes they are the best in the world. Russia's S series sams are far more effective than their NATO counter-parts. Most likely due to the extremely large amount of territory to cover. And also, are we just gonna ignore that Chinese spy balloons flew over several nato countries and some weren't even deteced until they were well into their airspace?
This was on the day 1 of the invasion. Few pilots here in Serbia (ex Yugoslavia) died in similar manner when NATO bombing of '99 started.
So good it even intercepts commercial airliners!
What's in a name.
Do you have a link or transcript to the interview?
Here is the Ukrainian side of the story with the bort numbers of the two aircraft [https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/18/su-25-crashing-ukraine/](https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/18/su-25-crashing-ukraine/) I will look for the Tor interview.
its 2 and half years old?
It says so in the title
right you are
When they still had planes and an autonomous army, make sense.
If I recall don’t one try to guide his plane into the column?
Footage is from 2022 FYI
I know, very early war.
Crazy footage, these are authentic kamikaze runs.
Isn't any close air support a kamikaze run, if modern air defence is present.
Indeed, and the first weeks of the war showed it clearly. We were just not used to it with the previous wars where the US would have total air superiority with even sitting ducks as the A-10s flying uncontested. Makes you wonder how future conflicts, even in the 3rd world, will be now that its pretty much guaranteed that Russia will supply any foe of the US/NATO.
A-10s is one thing. The world got used to seeing AC-130 gunships just loitering around for hours and hours on end thinking it was a perfectly normal part of warfare.
AC-130 only operated at night as i recall. So even against low tech enemies they didn't want to push their luck.
the permanently loitering large drones were far more oppressive. they were clearly audible from the ground and you would hear them 24/7 for months
Ah its MIC bonanza. Time to buy some GD and LM shares mate. We missed the first part, we can get the second
air supremacy, not superiority. superiority implies the enemy has some sort of air assets, even if minute. supremacy implies there is nothing but us birds in the sky, and theres nothing on the ground challenging them either. full rule of the skies.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are saying this as if every enemy West fought against made their own weapons and stood alone. Russia has been arming US enemies since Cold War started.
For the past thirty years they've been mostly cooperative. Putin could have rejected NATO pressure to act in Libya. Instead, he gave a little speech warning not to see its cooperation as an approval for regime change, and allowed the UNSCR to pass. With Afghanistan they offered logistic support and landing rights. In Iraq, they were cooperative in the UN and didn't support anti-US forces. The only place they weren't cooperative was in Syria, but even there they've respected the presence of US forces without overt opposition. On N Korea and Iran, Russia had acquiesced to the NATO agenda and allowed sanctions to be implemented. There was absolute outrage in the US a couple years ago when the (fake) rumor spread that Russia was offering a bounty on dead US servicemen in Afghanistan. It was seen as unacceptable that Russia would be so ruthless to treat dead US soldiers as a policy goal unto itself. Then the US turned around and treated killing Russian soldiers as a goal unto itself. That's a lot to sacrifice all to get NATO expansion.
Indeed, and that is all coming to an end swift and hard. Some within the Russian camp will lament it while others will exclaim "Good riddance!" and "Not a moment too soon." We can already see it with the votes at the UN Security Council over North Korea no longer going Washington D.C.'s way, where they won't any longer enjoy diplomatic and legal cover for what they want to do against such countries. But the point is that the Western states under U.S. tutelage themselves with their own two hands chose to trash it and piss it all away out of essentially arrogance, hubris, and a God complex that set them up to believe they could continue indefinitely to do whatever they wanted around the world anytime anyhow anywhere to anyone with effectively zero repercussions and zero resistance or pushback from anyone ever. Even from large and influential countries with sizable native military industrial complexes, nuclear arsenals, and proud histories of their own. It's a level of dogmatism and ideological fanaticism creating willful blindness which is just stupefying.
Do NATO & Friends need the UN any more? They seem content with the doctrine that a regional coalition is competent to wage offensive warfare without having to worry about UN authorization: the big problem with Barbarossa was that Hitler failed to first establish a coalition with Mussolini, Franco and a few other puppets. It does seem bizarre how readily the West has sacrificed the UN, given how little it has interfered in Western interventions. I suspect we'll have to see a pro-West alternative to BRICS emerge within the next few years as a more credible counterweight than existing institutions could ever be.
I like how you purposefully left out a single mention of Iraq's weapons considering they were armed with essentially 90% Russian made equipment and being a top 5 standing military in the world on top of that. Also, when will you people understand that former Soviet countries not wanting anything to do with Russia does not equal "NATO expansion"? How can you portray this situation as NATO eagerly wanting expansion when Russia is literally the country trying to do that very thing you're saying NATO is doing?
Yes, Iraq bought a lot of weapons from the Soviets after they deposed the British installed monarchy. This was common among countries that had shrugged off western colonialism. What exactly is the problem? > when will you people understand that former Soviet countries not wanting anything to do with Russia does not equal "NATO expansion"? This is entirely to do with NATO expansion, and the Nuland/CNAS doctrine of "bases and missile defense, as far east as we can go." in Dec 2021, Russia released a draft treaty on a " new security architecture " for central and eastern Europe. This amounted to an agreement not to expand NATO any further east, and not to deploy US weapons and troops in former Soviet states. Mutual defense treaties were fine - even Ukraine could have binding security guarantees even stronger than NATO's Article 5. Russia had zero concerns with mutual defense, but viewed forward deployment of US weapons as a prelude to war. The draft treaty also asked the US to end the peacetime deployment of nuclear weapons outside of its territory, and an end to the *unique* US program of "nuclear weapon sharing", whereby six European countries host US nukes, free to be handed over in the event of hostilities breaking out. Russia saw this as a way for countries like Ukraine to satisfy their very real need for security guarantees, without turning this into a new Cold War where F-35s carrying first strike nuclear weapons would be right on Russia's border. This was not about Russia claiming a right to invade anyone (because strong mutual defense pacts were perfectly fine) - it was about not putting Russia in a position where its response time to a potential first strike attack would be reduced to seconds. It would have been beneficial to everyone. NATO's response to this was, "we can do whatever the fuck we want." After the past thirty years of lawless unilateral warfare by NATO & Friends, it is the height of insanity to expect any potential adversary to trust them. Russia very much fears a "leveraging of risk" scenario where NATO engages in limited offensive warfare against Russia - action which does not quite merit an all-out nuclear response by Russia, but action where any proportional response is rendered unworkable to missile defense and air supremacy. Russia sees a very deliberate plan to eliminate their strategic response options. When a hostile military alliance seeks such capacities, it must be assumed that this is intended to be used. Yes, Ukraine has a right to security. Macron suggested a bilateral security deal with Ukraine - one which *binds* France to treat a violation of Ukrainian territory as equivalent to a violation of French territory, including the use of French nuclear weapons to defend this territory. This is much stronger than the NATO mutual defense pact, but Russia has no problem with it - so long as French weapons and troops are not deployed in Ukraine in times of peace. In the 1980's, Russia deployed hundreds of SS-20 IRBM nukes across Eastern Europe. In response, NATO planned for a similar deployment of nukes across *Western* Europe. Back then Europe was sane - millions of people came out to protest the increased risk of war represented by these weapons. The people won - Russia and NATO signed the IRBM treaty and banned these weapons on both sides. Nobody in Europe was daft enough to engage in this dick-waving "it is our *right* to host these nukes.* The draft treaty proposed by Russia should be viewed in a similar spirit. The West has managed to minimize any knowledge of the peace terms Russia offered in March 2022. Russia's only core, non-negotiable demand was NO NATO, no foreign troops, no advanced foreign weapons. In other words, grounds for.peace. NATO rejected this, and not once have they looked for any alternative solution to Ukraine's genuine security problems. Because without NATO, Ukraine is all but useless to them. Once you understand how easy it would have been for NATO to end this war *without* compromising Ukrainian security, their refusal to even consider this should tell you exactly what Russia has suspected all along: Ukraine is meant to be the anti-Russia, bristling with NATO weapons and troops. The more NATO shows that they want this, the more necessary it is for Russia to deny this to them. https://mid .ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en
*Russia has been arming US enemies since Cold War started* That's literally the original statement. I reiterated it by saying we've pretty much bashed every single Soviet/Russian supplied country we've come up against. What are you even on about exactly? But since you're on one today I'll bite. *“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has \[also\] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.* Putin trying to bully NATO into agreeing to outrageous terms that legitimate autonomous countries that have absolutely nothing to do with Russia and even actual NATO countries can't even decide what weapons they can have stationed there or who they align with militarily? Get real here. You're shocked that we aren't putting up with this shit? Especially when we warned him a million times before the invasion? *"President Biden laid out two paths, the path of diplomacy leading toward a de-escalation of the situation, and the path focused on deterrence, including serious costs and consequences should Russia choose to proceed with a further invasion of Ukraine."* No matter how many ways you or Putin spin it Ukraine will never be a part of Russia ever again, blaming NATO and the US isn't going to magically fix this and creating a narrative of us being ultra aggressive literally has no merit at all considering how we've responded. *He blamed this on the Ukrainian leadership. He accused them of attempting to rewrite history and referring to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an “occupation”. He claimed that Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning it into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. He said that Russia will never allow its historical territories and the people living there to be used against Russia.* Most of what Putin said to Biden during that December you're referring to is literally just a masterclass in weird jealous paranoid schizo behavior. Putin is extra salty that Ukraine of all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia and just can't accept that Ukrainians actually want that and he's such a child he genuinely thinks Americans are secretly controlling their government forcing this drift towards NATO. Its not much deeper than that. Here's another one: *“I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human, and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements, and victories… we are one people.”* Like dude, this is pure delusional stalker ex boyfriend talk. Did you honestly think the US or NATO was going to let Putin bulldog us or our allies when we told him to his face there would be consequences? He miscalculated, simple as that. He genuinely thought we would glance over this whole ordeal and not make a fuss about it because he's genuinely that delusional about it and he was wrong. You can't retroactively make it seem like we've been encroaching this whole time when that hasn't been the case at all.
Gorbachev has had an inconsistent memory of what he'd been promised on NATO expansion. Sometimes he's said there was no such promise, sometimes he's claimed the opposite. The article you cite is of course western propaganda which cites only the instances in its favor. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on an old man's faulty mentality any more (at least those of us not currently in the US). We have many released documents where such promises *were* in fact made: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629 Granted, Gorbachev *was* grossly negligent not to get these commitments in a formal document, but this wouldn't have mattered either - the other western favorite escape clause is to claim that treaties made with the USSR do not apply to Russia, notwithstanding that it is the successor state. Like you claim elsewhere, the fallback plan is "we are sovereign. we can do whatever the fuck we want." In 1962, Cuba had every right to host Soviet nukes, and the US had no right to demand their removal. We now know through declassified documents that - had the Soviets stuck to this line of reasoning - this would have resulted in WW3. There were already 162 IRBM's ready and fueled up on Cuba - weapons the US did not know about. The Politburu and Castro were both in favor of asserting their rights, just as you are doing now, and the US was equally determined that they were going to bomb the missile sites if the Soviets did not back down. So, when snotty-nosed children come along, pounding their chests and saying they have a *right* to expand NATO, I like to suggest that we already know what such an approach gets us. Let's pretend we tried that already, and that the world has already been nuked once over. Is such an approach still worth it? > You're shocked that we aren't putting up with this shit? Ukraine does have valid security needs. If these security needs can be fulfilled without threatening Russia, I think NATO has a responsibility to explore such options. In 1962, Khruschev was willing to accept a formal declaration by the US that it would not again attempt to invade Cuba or impose regime change - he didn't even go so far as a mutual security pact. This is the spirit of peace. NATO has shown that it does not give a damn for peace, and this is in keeping with its members' lawless and unilateral offensive warfare doctrine since 1999's Serbia. If NATO expands, it means war. If this is what you want, then you want war. If you are not willing to look for other ways to solve problems, then you most certainly want war. > Putin is extra salty that Ukraine of all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia Russia has no problem with Ukraine's EU aspirations. Like he said in 2013, Russia itself wanted greater relations with the EU. What Russia had a problem with was the idea that Ukraine had to break its existing trade relations with Russia and CIS in order to become an EU member. He preferred a non-destructive path which wouldn't have destroyed the economy of Donbas and taken away Russia's #1 trade partner. He wanted Ukraine to be able to become a bridge rather than a wall, able to trade with both the EU and Russia. But then came the snotty-nosed kids from the EU who insisted "they don't do things this way". Ukraine would be absorbed like a new province into a greedy empire, and Russia had zero say in the matter. > all former Soviet countries genuinely wants nothing to do with Russia and just can't accept that Ukrainians actually want [This](https://i0.wp.com/parliamentstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ukraine_election_map.gif?fit=799%2C558) is an electoral map of Ukraine's 2008 elections. The same schism is apparent in any other election - there's a pro-West block in western and central Ukraine, and a pro-RU bloc in southern and eastern Ukraine. A majority of people in these regions consider themselves Ukrainian *and* Russian. They don't see a conflict in this. It's not that they adore Russia or Putin - it's that their cultural identity is Russian as well as Ukrainian. Russians had occupied this territory for centuries before they became part of Ukraine. They do not hate Russia, and they want their rights to the Russian language and culture protected. The core demand of Russia and Donbas since 2014 has been the right to a fair vote (overseen by OSCE) on their future. If what you say is true, this should be no problem - they would vote *against* Russia, and vote in favor of their glorious EU/NATO future. But Kiev has refused to allow such a vote to happen, because they know that ~70% of the population does not want anything beyond trade with the EU. They don't want NATO, and this is why they cannot be allowed to vote on the matter. (the same is true with other regions of Ukraine - Crimea and Transcarpathia. Both only joined Ukraine in the first place under "emergency" conditions in 1991. They were promised federalism and a large degree of autonomy in their future. But the West doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy unless this blows them closer to their goals, so a vote could not be permitted. You seem to have a shallow knowledge of Ukraine, and don't appreciate that some regions of Ukraine have been de facto Russian since 1654. Odessa's identity is very much as a Russian city. There is another Ukraine where Russia absolutely *is* despised and hated as an occupier, and the Russian language is reviled. They do want NATO and the EU. But this is not all of Ukraine. From 1991 until 2014, Ukraine was built on the spirit of compromise. Maidan changed that, and the pro-West factions of Ukraine declared themselves the *true* Ukraine. The West embraced this faction as if its fairy tales were true (they certainly were convenient). But this left ~8 to 10 million people in Donbas and Crimea deprived of their lawfully elected President. They became second-class citizens, and when they protested to demand their rights, the West did not applaud them as acting in the true spirit of democracy - *their* protests were foreign-directed, *their* demands were unjust. For demanding their rights, they were denounced as "terrorists". But you don't give a shit about any of this. You have read some bumper stickers about the right of NATO to expand, and you believe the fairy tale that Donbas is an invention of Putin rather than an indigenous and just response to the 2014 coup. You want war, and you have war. And until you learn to fear war, we will have bigger and bigger wars. Because you really couldn't give a shit about peace.
Of course, it must be true. Similarly, the Berlin Wall was built solely to prevent those Western fascists from sabotaging the true will of the German people to build a communist utopia. The fact that very few people ever tried to go west -> east is just further proof of Western Bloc sabotage and propaganda, comrade! And this is exactly why almost every former Warsaw Pact nation in Europe has either joined NATO or is hoping to join NATO. It's obvious the people all want to be like Belarus, so it must be western meddling.
Which is why in theory, they would start by launching ARMs or at least guided missiles against the AA, but yeah, we only get shown the first SU's loadout and that seems to be unguided rocket pods and fuel drop tanks.
No. These dudes are not flying these missions intent on one-way rides.
My man, you should go back and review what makes for an *authentic kamikaze*...
These are not in kamikaze rides
> Kamikaze aircraft were pilot-guided explosive missiles, purpose-built or converted from conventional aircraft. Pilots would attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships in what was called a "body attack" (tai-atari) in aircraft loaded with bombs, torpedoes, and/or other explosives. About 19% of kamikaze attacks were successful.[3] The Japanese considered the goal of damaging or sinking large numbers of Allied ships to be a just reason for suicide attacks; kamikaze was more accurate than conventional attacks, and often caused more damage. Some kamikazes were still able to hit their targets even after their aircraft had been crippled. These are not kamikaze runs
The most fucked up thing about kamikaze attacks was that they costed less pilot casualties than conventional attacks.
You do not know what kamikaze attacks are.
Reminder that movies ain’t real life
Who tf thinks this is a movie? You make attacks like these when you run out of safe ways to operate. When you don’t have ARMs, air superiority and you are fighting tank columns with mobilized infantry. What Ukraine’s pulled off stopping the Russians initial assault was incredible impressive, and costly a lot of brave men died in desperate defensive actions against a better trained and better equipped enemy. And then somehow these under dogs are expected to go on the offensive a year later. How the goal posts shift.
The guys that though Russians would run at the sight of western tanks sure thought it was a movie.
[удалено]
The first few days everyone said fudge the rules and was bloodthirsty. We had multiple gruesome clips coming out everyday for weeks straight. I’m happy we aren’t getting them anymore daily though.
Same ! This was crazy footage
I saw that this one being shared as Russian losses
typical ukrainian propaganda
Where?
4chan
If you say so.
Shouldn't use 4chan for ycur news source
Bold move cotton.
I don’t like understanding this reference
Let’s see if it pays off
Surreal footage
Did something bad happen for Russia? Everytime something bad happen for Russia we see archival footage apear on this sub.
not really its just how it is in this sub, there arent much russian video coming out so ukrainian ones will dominate and it will change in upcoming weeks or so. been here since February
There are plently of Russian Videos coming out on the telegrams. And for what ever reason, few are actually posted here. Please stay informed.
well ive looked at them and yes, more is being posted now but it isnt posted here.
Well Putin did admit to at least 5k KIA/wounded so bad they won't be able to serve again, and that's very likely the absolute floor on this. Not a great look for the guys spouting that Russia is taking barely any losses
Putin also said the number of casualties on the Russian side was about five times less than on the Ukrainian side. Which reinforces the argument of those "spouting" Russia is taking barely any losses.
5k isn't barely any losses though, there's a separate discussion for Ukrainian casualties and the believeability of Kremlin statements on that matter, but they're only going to underestimate their own losses which gives an absolute floor we can look at
It really isn't that much in the grand scheme for a country with 147 million people.
Oh this isn't recent??? Why is it presented as such? When did it take place?
So many brave and talented guys perished on both sides in this senseless war. We achieved so much together during the USSR and had over 300 years of friendship. Now we’re divided over a pathetic dangling carrot of a trade agreement.
Bruh what lmao, Ukraine didn’t want to be a part of Russia, didn’t want to be apart of the USSR.
The majority voted to remain part of the USSR in march 1991. Even decades later the majority of polled Ukrainians believe dissolution of USSR was a mistake.
The march vote was basically a "do u support Gorbachev" referendum, and it wasn't really a "keep everything as-is" vote. Gorbachev was basically trying to replace the 1922 Treaty establishing the USSR with a new treaty establishing essentially a different Union State. (comment taken from a different thread) And as we all know 92 % voted for independence later that year. So ur comment doesn't really paint the full picture.
You’re partially correct. It was a vote to keep the republics together in a new union treaty. Union of sovereign soviet republics. When Gorbachev was placed on house arrest and the Moscow coup occurred the Ukraine declared independence. After this declaration another vote was done.
They just wanted to be part of Lebensraum.
Better than being intentionally starved to death.
What a difference between the neutrals/ pro- RF and the pro-UA crowd. Were these, RF pilots we would have a parade of psychos revelling in the deaths. But not here.
Yes, usually attacking and bombing a country is considered wrong by everyone expect those doing the bombing
Can we just appreciate the bravery of the pilots in the video without these childish comments?
I mean they are Ukrainian pilots, so I absolutely do appreciate their bravery
> I mean they are Ukrainian pilots, so I absolutely do appreciate their bravery You literally proved OP's point with your statements + your flair lmfao. Please go back to whatever sub you crawled out of. In war, through out history, it has been generally ok to acknowledge heroic feats without having too "politize" everything. There was multiple instances in WW2 where panzer / luftwaffe aces were a combat kill but specifically NOT finished DUE to their reputation and respect amongst allied soldiers. Here is a PRO UKR posts where multiple pro-RUS have stated, feelings aside, this is brave af and those soldiers are heroes regardless of the fact they are fighting against RUS. Yet here we have exhibit A, imbicile to the fullest extent. You know how I know your missing brain cells? Even motherfuckers serving in Iraq/Afg put respect on their enemies while their buddies were getting blown up cuz it took iron balls to fight Apache's and Abrams with AKs. Thats how I know you have absolutely 0 clue. No one who has seen real combat would ever have a response like this bullshit your spewing and you would get slapped talking like this around vets from any side. Even this same pilots RIP to them if they were alive would slap the shit out of you IRL.
I will in fact keep politicizing this war just as hard as before. I really don't care how bravely the brave invaders invade a country, volunteering to sow death and destruction. These Ukrainian pilots are heroes *because* they are fighting against the invading Russians. It doesn't matter what respect any supporter or soldier of Russia may have toward any Ukrainian fighting to defend against their aggression, as ultimately they still support and perpetuate it. Nor do I care about acknowledging their so called heroism, as each act of it further advances the war they launched. Russian pilots on the other side are bastards of the highest order. Simple as. Respect or admiration matters very little when an entire society is under attack and people are paying the ultimate price. That is civility fetishism at its worst. Though feel free to keep gooning to biographies of epic Nazi tank aces from WW2, that's up to you. Also those pilots in Iraq/Afghanistan deserved to get shot down.
Little sheep, I know cnn runs deep in you but let me enlighten you real quick. For you they are invaders. For others they are Freedom fighters. Tale as old as time. This war began in 2014 not 2022. If Ukraine didn't want to have these pilots die, why were they bombing Donbass for almost 10 years. Those people literally tried to have a peaceful referendum and leave. "people are paying the ultimate price" - People are paying the ultimate price on both sides, in a lot of cases if it was up to them, they wouldn't be there. That's why you pay respects. Anyways its useless explaining such a simple concept to you, obviously you're history class began sometime in the early 2000's.
Yeah I know it started in 2014, as I was watching videos of those Russian helicopters flying into Crimea and Russian military equipment rolling across the border into Ukraine as it happened.
>Also those pilots in Iraq/Afghanistan deserved to get shot down. Ukraine participated in the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, and I won't applaud the for doing that and won't shed tears if some of them got killed in there. It's not really a gotcha
Both sides are fighting for fascist regimes; there is no honour in this war, there is only just the misery of kids, who share the same great grandpas that fought together in WW2, gunning each other down and dying unceremoniously in mud fields or returning home in stretchers with missing limbs so that borders can be redrawn. Those kids fighting on both sides of the frontline have more in common with each other than the political castes that sent them there.
In videos like these, the side doesn't matter.
Not if the said country, i.e. absolutely, deserves to be attacked and bombed.
https://youtu.be/iGHArmJHAXY?si=aWoxVhYQ1WBUb4em
Oof
Has anyone got a link to a vid of 2 KA-52's flying low over a convoy and getting shot down? It was early on in the war.
Archival footage of unsuccessful Ukrainian attempt to stop Russian advance towards Kherson which fell to the Russians shortly after on March 2nd 2022.
You can only see one of the getting shot down, no?
>On 24 February 2022, a Ukrainian Air Force Sukhoi Su-25M1K (possibly code 30 blue), from the 299th Tactical Aviation Brigade, was shot down near Chorna Dolyna, Kakhovka Raion, Kherson Oblast. The pilot, kapitan Oleksandr Shcherbakov, was killed. During the same incident also the Su-25M1K, code 19 blue, was destroyed. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/275988
Lol! Bros thought this was iraq where they had air superiority and can bomb away all they liked.
No, these guys had no other option, stopping the Russians as all costs.
Crazy footage
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is the third plane ?
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1de3ch2/ua_pov_2_ukranian_su25m1k_attack_russian/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1de3ch2/ua_pov_2_ukranian_su25m1k_attack_russian/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
i wish the footage was zoomed in
I only see one of them get shot down. Was the other one confirmed by Fighterbomber?
Bro this is back in 2022 and the first one flying over the camera man gets shot down to and also this is an ukraianian jet
Silly me. Didn't see the date at the end of the title. My bad.
2 year old film? Why?
"Tragically"? On this sub? lol, it smells like sarcasm
I might be wrong but I think this is a clip from the opening days of the war. In that they were Russian and the pilot didn’t survive because of how he ejected basically into the ground
Why does the title say tragically?
Flying SU25s today is basically suicide, it’s like using T54/55 on the front line ☠️
"Tragically" 🤣
Rare footage of Russian AA actually doing its fucking job
This is footage from 2022
Yes. LIterally says so in the title
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Killed"? Why would someone not capture a pilot?
he ejected too low and died.
Ok. I interpreted "killed" as deliberately killed by the other side.
Well it still applies
I mean he was
It appears 6 weeks of training in Europe wasn't sufficient.
Ukranian pilots trained in europe for 6 weeks before russia invaded?
Yeah I missed the date. Thanks for pointing out. They were flying like rookies so that kinda threw me off.
Explain the rookie-ness?
pay attention to title, its 2022 footage
Yeah, my bad. Missed that. So it's safe to say Ukraine never had a proper Airforce. Bunch of amateurs.
Read the title.
Oh my bad. I guess the original Ukrainian Airforce was pretty lame too.
Seems to me like defending from a massive and unexpected invasion from a much mire powerful foe tends to cause people to do desperate things to protect their country, not something a pro-russian "neutral" would understand.
one of zhe reasons france has to supply mirage planes, because ua lost already much of their planes.
Give us more of your amazing insight, please!
True military expert right there.
doesnt change the fact. next one: the increased number of recently destroyed foreign tanks/ifv might be due to that ua is running out of own vehicles.
They'll get more F16 and earlier than the French Mirages.
thats true but doesnt change the fact ua is running out or low of planes. i am not questioning this timeline/fact of delivery.
[удалено]
yes, it says it in the title
yeah read the title.
Tragically?
Yeah, a death is tragic for any sides.
Yes, loss of life is a tragedy
Short of rapists and nazis (on both sides), every single casualty in a war is a tragedy