I really think you need to go and reread ZWQbpkzi’s comments Yog, they’re literally not commenting on the direction of the war or whether the drones can win. You’re being needlessly aggressive in arguing completely unrelated points to what they’ve actually said.
Not effective, most effective, as in not as ineffective as other weapons they have access to. They’re speaking in relative terms solely within what the equipment available to the Ukrainian military at the moment, not absolute terms of winning a war.
I feel like we’re talking past each other here. What I’m saying is that it only makes sense to talk about effectiveness in the context of achieving overarching goals. Your frame measures effectiveness within Ukraine’s constraints saying that drones are better than sticks. My frame measures it against actual war goals like halting Russian advances. It’s like saying that if I jump out of a plane and my parachute doesn’t open, then it’s more effective for me to flap my arms than not.
OK, sure, whatever, let’s use your framework - FPV drones are more effective at halting russian advances than their infantry, tanks, and artillery. The point that I told you 3 comments ago that you are talking past is that Ukranian soldiers are going to say they don’t have enough regardless of actual stock, because they’re the best weapon they have available to field against the russians.
So now fpv drones aren’t having any effect on the Russian forces? They’re literally as effective as standing around doing nothing? Why has it taken so long for Russia to take over then?
What point are you even trying to make? That Ukrainians aren’t claiming they need more drones? It’s your article that makes the claim.
I really think you need to go and reread ZWQbpkzi’s comments Yog, they’re literally not commenting on the direction of the war or whether the drones can win. You’re being needlessly aggressive in arguing completely unrelated points to what they’ve actually said.
But what does effective even mean in that context?
Not effective, most effective, as in not as ineffective as other weapons they have access to. They’re speaking in relative terms solely within what the equipment available to the Ukrainian military at the moment, not absolute terms of winning a war.
I ask again, most effective at doing what?
…attacking russian positions? What else would the Ukrainian Army be using weapons for?
I feel like we’re talking past each other here. What I’m saying is that it only makes sense to talk about effectiveness in the context of achieving overarching goals. Your frame measures effectiveness within Ukraine’s constraints saying that drones are better than sticks. My frame measures it against actual war goals like halting Russian advances. It’s like saying that if I jump out of a plane and my parachute doesn’t open, then it’s more effective for me to flap my arms than not.
OK, sure, whatever, let’s use your framework - FPV drones are more effective at halting russian advances than their infantry, tanks, and artillery. The point that I told you 3 comments ago that you are talking past is that Ukranian soldiers are going to say they don’t have enough regardless of actual stock, because they’re the best weapon they have available to field against the russians.
Flapping my arms when I fall out of a plane is more effective than not flapping my arms.
So now fpv drones aren’t having any effect on the Russian forces? They’re literally as effective as standing around doing nothing? Why has it taken so long for Russia to take over then?
What point are you even trying to make? That Ukrainians aren’t claiming they need more drones? It’s your article that makes the claim.