this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2025
194 points (99.0% liked)

Ukraine

10827 readers
565 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

Matrix Space


Community Rules

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.

🌻🀒No content depicting extreme violence or gore.

πŸ’₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title

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

❗ Server Rules

  1. Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
  2. No racism or other discrimination
  3. No Nazis, QAnon or similar
  4. No porn
  5. No ads or spam (includes charities)
  6. No content against Finnish law

πŸ’³ Defense Aid πŸ’₯


πŸ’³ Humanitarian Aid βš•οΈβ›‘οΈ


πŸͺ– Volunteer with the International Legionnaires


See also:

!nafo@lemm.ee

!combatvideos@SJW


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 71 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Escalation? YOU are the ones who for the past 3 years have been trying to destroy Ukraine. What should have been a 2 week "special military operation" has now become a 3 year embarassment, and total collapse of your military, your countrys resources, and your young male population for generations to come. Essentially putin, YOU have now gone down in history as russias biggest embarassment. You crippled your own country. And the worst part (for you) is that all of this is because you wanted a lasting legacy. And if you had just done nothing, you'd have gone down as the guy who rebuilt russias economy after the post cold war fallout years. If you just did nothing, you would be in a decent position today. And the rest of the world would still think your military is far stronger than it is/was.

Instead, you pulled back the curtain, showed the whole world how weak you are. You lashed out, issued empty threats, had no way to follow through with your threats, and now you expect us to believe you have the balls to nuke anyone?

You nuke Ukraine, or anyone for that matter, and ALL countries reign down upon you. That nuke would instantly be the end of russia, which has stood for over 1000 years. You would be the cause of it's permanent end.

Then again, you ARE known to be very stupid, and make the dumbest choices.

Loser.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm not sure Putin is on Lemmy.

[–] msage@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

nah, those aren't his lackeys. those are just useful idiots with yellow fever cosplaying as commies because they like the outfits.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

WELL HE'S NOT ON MYSPACE!!! (joking)

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 2 points 1 week ago

Despite this mad truth, it's still not too late. GTFO of Ukraine, return all people you stole, submit to international criminal courts, pay reparations. Peace can be profitable, everyone will eventually drop sanctions; your country can not just survive but thrive!

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are doing very well striking the oil infrastructure with homegrown solutions, so they would actually want the tomahawk for the tougher military targets, like command and control, airfields, supply bunkers etc.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Airstrip strikes are a waste of money. They are quick and cheap to repair.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're confusing "Airfield" and "Runway". One is a strip of asphalt/concrete, the other is a giant collection of expensive stuff like planes, fueling facilities, ammo stores, workshops, etc etc.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yes.

They are quick and cheap to repair.

well, make up your mind. are they quick and cheap or filled with expensive stuff?

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I did confuse the landing strip with the whole installation hangar and all.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That depends on exactly what you hit. Some things are quick and cheap, some things are expensive and slow. They are often located near each other.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

ukraine seems to be doing a pretty good job on the accuracy front so far. of course, to be fair it kinda helps when they can just drive truckloads of drones up to the target inside russia.

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It depends how big and extensive the craters are, there is a reason the UK spent so much effort bombing fastjet airstrips in the Falklands War with a globe spanning Avro Vulcan bomber strikes.

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

edit there is more controversy over the effectiveness of this than I thought vs. it being a glorified PR program for the air force... which it clearly was to a large degree.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No see. Gorbachov bla bla and then Yeltsin lol.

Therfore russia not bad.

Also westoid fuck you.

But yeah, fuck em.

[–] krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

For a second i somehow thought he will go out there in the battle using nothing but a throwing axe lol

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

"How many Orcs can I kill today?

Too many to count, don't get in my way

I shoot a mofo in the throat with my bow

Tomahawk chop is my death blow!"

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

I'm going to continue interpreting it that way because it is very funny.

[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I bet the Triads are being totally normal about this lol

[–] astropenguin5@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hopefully we should see some flamingos doin stuff soon

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

I have a hankering for Swan Lake.

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Kremlin is a military target right?

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No I would not consider it a military target, a top military building HQ could be considered a target but I would think the international community would deem the literal capital of the country a non-military target.

[–] lysol@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Nope, politicians are not military targets. And that makes sense. Nobody would ever talk and try to settle things diplomatically if they could be legally assassinated while doing so.

Also, you can't have a Nuremberg-style trial with the responsible people if you kill them. The military are following orders and doing what they are told (well, hopefully). The politicians are the ones with the highest responsibility for an invading army. An army serving the state won't invade unless politicians tell them to.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

What about Putin, who's not a politician but a dictator warlord?

[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

All I'm hearing is "Yes, in fact it's one of the most important ones!"

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I'm sure the fact that politicians tend to come from wealthy backgrounds has no factor whatsoever...

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think he should continue using other weapons too. I doubt there are enough tomahawks to only use them.

Edit: maybe he is only personally going to use tomahawks now. This makes more sense. I’d only use the best too if I was at the top.

I thought the same thing, then I realized "I think they mean they won't use them for civilians (duh) or infrastructure (less duh)."

"Only" as in "not for other targets" not "exclusively using THs."

[–] eurisko@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

And you know he means it.