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.
The point I’m making is blindingly obvious. The drones aren’t changing anything. The end result will be exactly the same whether Ukraine has the drones or not.
So what? What does that have to do with ZWQ’s comment? What relevance does it have to why Ukrainian soldiers are saying they need more? This is why I told you to reread the comment, you, like I said in my original comment, have spent this entire conversation talking past everyone else here to make a point nobody is disagreeing with or cares about.
What makes you think your opinion on relative and absolute effectiveness means anything to Ukrainian soldiers? Do you really think they give a single fuck what weapons some armchair general thinks they should have if they want to win the war, compared to the things they can actually access?
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.
The point I’m making is blindingly obvious. The drones aren’t changing anything. The end result will be exactly the same whether Ukraine has the drones or not.
So what? What does that have to do with ZWQ’s comment? What relevance does it have to why Ukrainian soldiers are saying they need more? This is why I told you to reread the comment, you, like I said in my original comment, have spent this entire conversation talking past everyone else here to make a point nobody is disagreeing with or cares about.
What makes you think your opinion on relative and absolute effectiveness means anything to Ukrainian soldiers? Do you really think they give a single fuck what weapons some armchair general thinks they should have if they want to win the war, compared to the things they can actually access?