Spyke

Nice psy-op. Now Putin will have to order everyone to be there, and they'll all be watching the skies instead of his dumb parade.

86
feddit.org

War against a stronger enemy is an exercise in allotting your military resources where they're most effective.

Officials are easier to replace than infrastructure, unless you manage to whittle the enemy supply of manpower, experience and training capabilities down so far that candidates are similarly scarce.

12
boonhetreply
sopuli.xyz

On the other hand, the optics of being unable to protect the literal military parade... Might change some Russians' minds about how good and strong of a leader Putin is.

Either one works, really.

4
feddit.org

Then drop something aimed at the will of the people, not the military power. Letters from captured Russian troops to their loved ones, candy for the children, propaganda...

Getting it all past their air defense sends a message to those who care about military strength. The letters may show that you're treating prisoners well (even if they don't all make it to their recipients). The candy... well, happy children are probably the most benevolent kind of psychological warfare.

Collateral civilian damage will be used to galvanise resistance. Hence, violent strikes may end up backfiring (but don't have to - nothing in war is ever quite certain).

3

So far russians hitting our civilian targets didn't do them much good. I can't imagine the reverse will help us.

3

I mean, the amount of competence in the Russian military was clearly already low.

I cant imagine how useless any replacements will be.

2
zd9reply
lemmy.world

hey let's not add more micro plastics to the environment please. Just use old fashioned munitions like a normal army.

24
Dultasreply
lemmy.world

I can only imagine what a horror show it would be if glitter was tiny flakes of glass. Makes fiberglass pale in comparison.

17
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Sand is basically glitter, no? It is silica (glass), yet not sharp or irritative. In fact, there are pulverizing machines that turn glass bottles to sand that is nearly indistinguishable from beach sand. Just crush it a bit more? I donno. I'm not a glitterologist

3
Ænimareply
lemmy.zip

I'm not a glitterologist

Don't go to school for it, either. I'm $3.50 in debt and that was before this dumbfuck war! I'll never recover financially for that degree and only Mark Rober will hire me. I CAN'T WORK FOR PEANUTS, MARK, I HAVE LOANS!

3

I hear there's a lady that lives in on a lake that'll help you take care of that $3.50.

3

Basically any sort of powder you can inhale is generally bad for you, any sort of rock powder especially.

1
Squizzyreply
lemmy.world

You are concerned aboutplastics when refineries are on fire?

I am not happy for the environment but I see it as a justificable action by Ukraine.

2
zd9reply
lemmy.world

Yes. For example if we have 10 million tons of crude oil in the ocean, it would still be bad to add another 10 tons into the ocean. War is bad enough for the environment, lets focus on killing the bad guys not destroying European nature.

2
Squizzyreply
lemmy.world

Yeah Im all for the environment, just dont think having a view on a hypothetical prank during a war is necessary. It would have been easier to suggest confetti as an alternative and move on.

2

It's the internet. Everyone has a strong, entitled view about every stupid inconsequential thing lol

But I always try to spread environmental info anytime it comes up. The environment and climate is by far the most important topic for me.

1
teyrnonreply
sh.itjust.works

The world is drowning in plastic, like 10 years ago 90% of all plastic ever produced had been made in the preceding 10 years, and massive new plastic production has come online since then. Like this is a big problem it's not going away either. Recycling is worse than landfilling, they have Untold innumerable additives that are toxic and in recycling they get released into the air, and the Recycled product is worthless as well, they do it to say they did it because the pr campaign to foist the blame on to Consumers from the 90s or whenever it started.

2
Squizzyreply
lemmy.world

Im not proplastic... it just not worth raising on a hypothetical relating to an active invasion and war for survival.

3

That is true, it's neither here nor there in regards to this war for survival, this war to refuse to be enslaved by the Imperial Rus.

1
teyrnonreply
sh.itjust.works

No, and Alex Jones' dumbass comments aside, it is endocrine disruptors like atrazine the second most popular herbicide that are turning frogs hermaphroditic at concentrations as low as several parts per billion, and wiping out populations. To say nothing of the insect populations which are down 90% over the last 30 years, and that is worldwide. Something is fundamentally wrong and pollution is the main factor.

Cry havoc... https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered/

And release the frogs of war.

0

Your joke is dumb, and heaping scorn on a very real issue, making you a tool. No offense brah.

0

Strategic ambiguity. Better keep all the AA near Moscow, Vladimir.

Oops. So mych critical oil infrastructure not in Moscow...!

32
anarchist.nexus

Kyiv will for sure be present at the parade with drones, but i wouldn't be surprised if they sent chocolate and usb-sticks with information what is really happening at the front instead of explosives.

18

This would be the best approach. Just let thousands of USB sticks parachute down below into the hands of average Russians.

12
feddit.org

Bombing civilians has historically galvanised resistance rather than undermining the enemy. The supply deliveries by air and candy drops during the Berlin Blockade did way more for sympathy and morale. Give them chocolate and information and you'll achieve more than by confirming you're the cruel enemy they've been told you are.

7
Womblereply
piefed.world

Terror bombing civilians is a losing strategy for sure, but I do think a demonstration that your enemy is less all powerful than they claim by hitting a high profile military parade is different to that.

2
feddit.org

It's a risky gamble. If you manage to get anything dropped on the people there, I think that should show the enemy's vulnerable air defenses plenty enough.

1
Womblereply
piefed.world

Sure, I have no idea if it actually is a good idea for them to try. Just that it wouldnt be the same as deliberately targeting civilians.

2

I agree; I'm just saying it would be a gamble (as opposed to targeting civilians, which would be quite unambiguously bad, as just about any instance since the Nazis bombing Britain and the allies bombing Germany should have shown).

1

Or just a flyer that reads something along the lines of: "If these were bombs, Putin would have failed you. Thankfully, we are more civilised than that"

5

Note they didn't say anything about soldiers marching. Because those are cheaper to replace than machines.

2

And russian mobile carriers reported possible outages on 5-9 of May in Moscow, probably to prevent drone operations. There is something in the cooking only intel agencies of these two countries know about. Either that, or a psyop to make people actually watch the parade four years into war.

8