this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
109 points (100.0% liked)

Ukraine

8272 readers
867 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Supposedly, an RS-26 was launched from Astrakhan and targeted at infrastructure in Dnipro.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] atro_city@fedia.io 14 points 2 hours ago

Russia declares US missile base in Poland a target

uh... that would get all of NATO involved, wouldn't it?

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago

Well I guess we should be giving Ukraine some ICBM's next. Or would that not be fair? :')

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 24 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Well, I'm sure the US military complex is excited to test whether they can swat these out of the sky with their expensive toys. Now they have a chance to try.

And the more Russia launches, surely that technology will improve

[–] smokeysnilas 13 points 5 hours ago

So this is confirmation then that the storm shadow strike hit someone important?

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 14 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

How do we know this is the first and not just the first successful launch?

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Afaik, ICBMs are trackibly loud. It's difficult to fire one without everyone noticing immediately

[–] slurpeesoforion@startrek.website 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

But are failed launches trackable? My point is that this may not be the first attempt. If their missile systems are anything like everything else in their arsenal, a successful launch is a one off exception.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

They probably are afterwards. Most sat pics trained on that have some kind of image recognition stuff running in the background and they flag that. Apparently that's how that Satan failure was also firstly detected

Edit: I also wouldn't be so sure about the ICBMs being in the same state as everything else.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

A failed launch, as in an initially successful launch that went wrong in the air, can afterwards be spotted even on commercial satellite images: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/09/satellite-images-suggest-test-of-russian-super-weapon-failed-spectacularly/ The usa and nato probably know long before those amateur spotters do.

If the rocket fails to launch at all when the button is pressed, then noone will be allowed to know probably. It could be that they tried to launch 10 and only 1 ignited, or maybe there was just the one. Russia isn't going to tell the truth about anything so it's anyone's guess. If it fails to ignite, then I'd expect them to just pack up the rocket again and continue to pretend doing maintenance and have soldiers guarding the stuff.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 53 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (8 children)

ruzzia is running out of everything and using its last reserves.

EU and NATO need to pool together every resource to bankrupt this rotten state and drive it from Ukrainian soil. The defeat has to be so harsh that the ruzzkis won't be able to cross any border forever. Confine them to their own country, period.

[–] ThePrimitive@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago

Pretty sure they did this as nuclear sabre rattling in response to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks, not because of resource constraints.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 58 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

America here.....heh. We're gonna be useless come January!

Actually we might even be working against the cause. It would not surprise me to see trumps cabinet do shitty things like sending russia weapons and money.

In fact, I'm basically expecting it.

Just know that it's not ALL America. Just like 52% of us......or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.

[–] Vikthor@lemmy.world 39 points 7 hours ago (7 children)

…or, I should say 52% of the 2024 voting public.

No. I hold those who didn't vote accountable too.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Actually we might even be working against the cause.

That would mean destruction of NATO. No European country can be in a defense alliance with a country that actively support an invasion by Russia in Europe.

[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Trump doesn't care about the NATO. He thinks it's a big US-led charity organization that protects the weak, poor other countries who rally under the umbrella because murricah is just so superior and cool. I don't think he actively seeks to destroy it, but if his actions lead to its downfall, he would not be upset at all.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

It wouldn't. The U.S. is a big part of NATO, but NATO will live on without the U.S. the European Union has very much the same clauses - even the U.K. would still be part of that.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 hours ago

That would mean destruction of NATO.

IIRC that's an explicit Project 2025 goal, but maybe I misremember.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Yep, he's probably ending nato. Or at least he keeps promising to do that, and there's nothing that will stop him, so.... Good luck! We'll all fucking need it!

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

If Trump continues the policies of his first term, but dial it up as many say he will. He will destroy not only NATO, but American international influence in general, because nobody can trust USA. That will do a lot of harm to American economics especially over time, USA has essentially decided the terms for international trade since WW2, helped by their many allies, ending that will be very costly for USA.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

After how we treated the Kurds, I cannot believe anyone still trusts us. We have a lot of shit in our house that needs cleaning, and we sure do seem to be shooting all the maids....

[–] coyootje@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's not even 52%, in the end it's ended up being 50% VS 48.3%. He barely got half of all votes with the overall gap only being 2.6 million votes. That's razor thin, the only reason it worked out the way it did (apparent "easy win") is because of the electoral college system, which is a bit biased towards conservatism anyway by giving quite a bit of power to smaller, less populated states.

Besides that, I do agree that it's a bit of a question what will happen. I've seen people say that Rubio and Waltz appear to indicate a slightly different course but no one really knows besides the coming government.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 5 points 4 hours ago

Numbers are still coming in, but Trump is less than 50% currently.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] errer@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I’m curious how the allies know an ICBM isn’t a nuke

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 17 minutes ago

You don't, which why (aside from cost) nations don't use them as toys.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 22 points 6 hours ago

Until it explodes, you don't.

[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You wait till it explodes and check the NDDS.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Dyatlov: What does the dosimeter say?

Akimov: 3.6 roentgen. But that's as high as the meter...

Dyatlov: 3.6 - not great, not terrible.

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 16 points 7 hours ago (6 children)

Seems like a bit of a waste to launch an intercontinental missile at a country next door, on the same continent. Isn't Russia supposed to have plenty of short and mid range ballistic missiles? I guess they must be running low.

I was under the impression that ICBMs weren't all that great for conventional warheads. Their payload capacity isn't enormous and their accuracy tends to be relatively low- which matters not a jot if you're firing nukes (which do a lot of bang per kilo, and where a few hundred metres either way isn't likely to be critical), but not so great for dropping normal munitions.

[–] Fermion@feddit.nl 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Launching just one sounds like the primary purpose is for messaging, not taking out whatever single target. They want to remind Europeans that they aren't safe just because they live far away. The west has been getting numb to the constant threats of using nuclear weapons. I believe this launch is to give those threats more weight again.

The US will no longer be a threat to Russian ambitions come January. Expect an urgent fear campaign to get the rest of NATO to no longer want to stick their necks out for Ukraine.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Nah, we're not numb. But the fact of the matter is, we can't change anything and letting him win is not going to work, because what's the alternative? Being subjugated or attacked at a later state?

Putin should not forget however, that "we", the EU, also have Nukes and will retaliate, if push comes to shove. Those threats are meaningless either way.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

It was to send a message similar to how the Iranian drone attack on Israel in April was to send a message that they can launch a bunch of $2,000 drones and cause Israel to have to launch $2 million missiles and aircraft to take them out.

[–] Streetlights@lemmy.world 22 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

I suspect the use of an RS-26 was meant to serve as a provocation/response to the recent ATACMs strikes.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Intressting. So by delivering more of them to Ukraine we lower Russias arsenal.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Ukraine has not received ICBMs, articles stating Ukraine has received long range missiles are wrong, Ukraine has only received SHORT ranged missiles. up to 300 miles. It's longer range than artillery, but not long range missiles. Long range missiles have several thousand miles range.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Obviously. ICBMs are pretty much useless to Ukraine and without nukes to Russia as well. They are acurate enough to destroy something using a nuke. So missing by a few hundret meters is fine. With conventional explosive that is however pretty much useless.

This is most likely the answer for Biden allowing the use of those short range system and it would be wonderfull to see Russia blow up its nuclear missiles for nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›