Frankly any army will constantly complain about being short on their best weapons to drive up production. AFAIK the fpv drones are the only thing they have really going for them.
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
52 points (98.1% liked)
news
24153 readers
875 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The FPV drones are nothing more than the latest wunderwaffe narrative in the west. The reality is that artillery is still by far the biggest source of casualties, and Russia outguns Ukraine by a huge amount. However, even when it comes to drones, Russia is producing them on an industrial scale now, while Ukraine is making them artisanally in small workshops.
You're completely missing my point. The FPV drones are Ukraine's best weapon. And they need more of it because the west won't provide them with the artillery they need. So these drones are their best bet.
Also the FPV drones Ukraine is actually making aren't wunderwaffes. They're made as cheaply as possible in people's kitchens as volunteer efforts. Just look at the pictures from the article you can can see they aren't gold plated bullshit like the predator.
Drones are not a replacement for artillery, and they aren't going to be the decisive factor in who wins the war. If they were, then Russia would still win, because Russia is producing them industrially.
They’re made as cheaply as possible in people’s kitchens as volunteer efforts.
This is precisely what I was referring to when I was talking about the artisanal mode of production in Ukraine.
Drones are not a replacement for artillery, and they aren’t going to be the decisive factor in who wins the war
@ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net is entirely correct though.
Ukraine's logistics pipeline for artillery has collapsed because Biden decided to play trade war. US was the only real supplier, and now US itself cannot rearm because of China's dual use controls that happened in response to CHIPS. Europe can't rearm them either because they did not have capacity and now China has stepped up rare earths export controls so they're hitting foreign car markets.
This has been a complete US failure because the US decided to spread itself too thin on multiple fronts trying to reassert unipolarity. The artillery situation is effectively starving the Ukrainian army. So like @ZWQbpkzl@hexbear.net said drones are their best bet. Of course drones can't replace artillery because even if Ukraine could have industrial production of drones, or if the Democrats spawned a loot crate for them, they're more expensive unit for unit, it's a losing logistical strategy to begin with. Beyond that procuring artillery in NATO countries or for NATO aligned countries is a fever dream dream right now. No artillery essentially exists for them to have. It's not an option.
The reason Russia has artillery is because it transitioned to a war economy and it's a net antimony exporter now.
The trade war isn't the key reason the US can't keep up with Russia, the real problem is that the west lacks the industrial base to produce weapons and ammunition at the rate they're consumed. There's absolutely nothing special about drones here. Russia now has the advantage in drones for the exact same reason it has advantage in artillery and all other weapons. It can produce them at industrial scale.
Meanwhile, it's pure nonsense to claim that Russia has transitioned to any sort of a war economy. Military spending in Russia is around 8% of GDP right now. If you want to see what an actual war economy looks like that would be the US during WW2 with around 40% of the GDP being directed towards the war.
Russia tripled it's artillery production from 2022 to 2025 to about 250,000 shells/mo, it's doubled it's tank production and it makes more missiles than it has ever made. Yeah it's 8% of the GDP, and 20% of all manufacturing jobs. Prior to 2022 it spent between 3 and 5% with an average around 4%. Russia is a significant weapons exporter to begin with too. So it's literally doubled it's output. We're not getting into the cash going into the consent factories either. That is a war economy.
The US prior to the war produced 14,000 shells / month. Russia already had a huge lead on production to begin with. They are going to likely miss their target of 100,000 shells/mo that they set for end of 2025, it currently is hovering around 60,000 shells/mo AFAIK. However SCAAP isn't even running at full capacity, because they need to pass a bill to unlock emergency capacity. In practice the US has quadrupled its shell production prior to the Ukraine war. The last time the US was running at around 8% of GDP was Vietnam at 9.3%. Korea was at 14% and they dropped more bombs than all bombs in WW2. In the modern era 40% GDP spend on defense means the world is fucking over. Not only is production more efficient but so is the killing. US needed 40% GDP to build enough boats to get 16 million soldiers over the Atlantic. We're talking a limited mail order conflict here in comparison.
A significant impediment is that the Red team is in power and wants US tax money to be funneled to American oligarchs and warlords and not Ukrainian ones.
The other one is lack of supplies, there's a TNT, nitrocellulose and an antimony shortage, all related to dual use export controls.
Nobody is saying Russia hasn't expanded its military production, but it's clearly not a war economy because majority of the economic activity is occurring in the civilian sector. Russian overall economy is very clearly not oriented around military production. For comparison, the US isn't officially at war and around 10% of manufacturing demand is dependent on defense spending, with overall military budget absolutely dwarfing Russia. Meanwhile, the US obviously was not a war economy when it was invading Vietnam either.
The lack of ability to produce explosives in large volumes is just part of the bigger problem of the deindustrialization in the west. Western economies became financialized, and most industry moved out to cheaper labour markets. The west now finds itself facing a peer adversary, it's run through its existing stocks of weapons, and it is unable to marshal production to keep up. Russia has won the war of attrition against NATO. The US is stating to realize this, but Europe is still utterly delusional.
If you want to see what an actual war economy looks like that would be the US during WW2 with around 40% of the GDP being directed towards the war.
but it’s clearly not a war economy because majority of the economic activity is occurring in the civilian sector.
Then the US in WW2 ALSO DOESN'T COUNT because it was only 40% of GDP. What the fuck is your argument?
You're right WEST BAD. Is that what you want to hear? That was never in question.
You're being intentionally obtuse here. 40% of the economy being devoted to the military obviously means that civilian economy becomes affected and society is restructured around military effort. That's what makes it a war economy. If you go to Russia today, you'll hardly know there's a war going on. From the perspective of a typical Russian, it's the same as when the US was invading Iraq. They know in the abstract sense that there is a war going on, but it does not affect their daily lives in any way.
You’re right WEST BAD. Is that what you want to hear? That was never in question.
I don't know why you're braying at me now in all caps. I merely pointed out that the reason the west is losing the proxy war in Ukraine is due to the fact that the west is unable to keep up with Russia in terms on industrial production. 🤷
The difference between World War I and World War II and all of the subsequent wars that explains the military spend is that it was the end of the second industrial revolution in the West. War was fully mechanized in the first half of the 20th century. So until a technological breakthrough of the magnitude of the second industrial revolution happens next to such instability as the beginning of the 20th century there will never be another "war economy country" by your measures. Armenia hit 18% of GDP just to lose Artsakh, that's literally the biggest percentage spend in the post WW2 era.
Whether there will or will not be another war economy is not the argument here. What I'm trying to explain to you is that calling Russia a war economy is a misuse of the term. A true war economy means subordination of civilian production to military needs. Russia fails this test because there is no civilian sacrifice. Consumer imports have rebounded, unemployment is at record lows, and civilian sectors such as retail and hospitality show growth. Moscow restaurants aren’t turning into shell casing workshops.
There is also no visible economic reorientation, and civilian industries operate near-normal, with no mass conscription of factories or labor. Nor is there any austerity to support the war. The state still funds non-war priorities avoiding wartime measures like rationing or forced savings.
Referring to this as a war economy grossly exaggerates Russia’s mobilization. It’s an economy funding a war, not one restructured for survival-level warfare.
Kaliningrad has literally reintroduced the card system this year. Kamchatka has also done this. Tatarstan is likely next if they don't just put the kibosh on the whole thing and tell people to deal.
This is literally modern rationing, except capitalist realism style since Governments are no longer powerful enough to keep market-clearance price by volume alone with a globalized market.
Also the CB is dropping rates because the first quarter of this year was a 1.4% vs 5.4% in 2024.
Anecdotally, my friend has been running a pretty successful consumer good for Russians, 3d printed war gaming figurines. He expanded like crazy 2020-2023 quit his job and everything had 3 employees somewhere near 30 printers. He's back working SE for a western company because the sales have been unstable and he didn't want to fire someone, but he cannot work on it full time anymore.
Ah yes, Kaliningrad, Kamchatka, and Tartarstan, the pillars of Russian economy. It's incredible how you're utterly incapable of just admitting you're wrong.
It's pretty silly to use anecdotal arguments when there's actual statistical data available. The World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country. The IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies. Those are the facts of the situation.
None of what you said matters in regards to economic reorientation of a war economy. You're just saying the top line of the economy was good in 2024. Most war economies are boom economies. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.
No, I'm saying that the civilian economy had not had to make any meaningful sacrifices to finance the war. I've explained this to you repeatedly in several different way, yet you continue to ignore what I actually say. At least I actually provided a definition of what a war economy is, meanwhile you haven't even bothered doing that. You just declared that Russia is a war economy without any actual justification for that statement. You are just incapable of staying on topic even on your own terms with your own definitions.
Yeah it's not "civilian sacrifice" when your poorest get priced out of food so that you have to bring back rationing through cash assisted means. Cool. Cool. You're a self professed Marxist huh?
I literally linked you World Bank and IMF studies showing that standard of living in Russia went up across the board, but here you are back again with personal attacks in lieu of having any actual counterpoint to make being the clown that you are. If you want to see what actual "civilian sacrifice" then look no further than Europe where there is a collapse in the standard of living, and now there's a talk of massive reorientation of the economy towards military spending. That's an example of an actual war economy.
Why are you assuming that I'm arguing Ukraine can win the war? I'm just saying that this is really just propaganda to mobilize more production of FPV drones. Is me questioning you on that enough for you to make such assumptions?
This is precisely what I was referring to when I was talking about the artisanal mode of production in Ukraine.
And that by definition makes it not a wunderwaffe. You cannot make wunderwaffes in your kitchen.
I'm not assuming that. I'm just noting that it doesn't even matter how effective the drones are. My overall point is that there's nothing special about drones. Russian advantage in the war stems from having a stronger industrial base than the west.
It does matter how effective the drones are if the drones are the most effective thing the Ukrainians have. And your still trying to have a completely different discussion about whether its enough to win the war.
If we agree that drones aren't changing the direction of the war, then they're by definition not effective at accomplishing anything other than dragging things out.
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.
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?
I explained my position very clearly and repeatedly. If nobody here cares about what this is all is for then y'all are just trolling.
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?
The one thing the supply of drones is unequivocally achieving is ensuring that more Ukrainians die to achieve the exact same outcome that would've been achieved faster without the drones, which is that Ukraine will lose the war. So, I suppose you're right that the drones are effective at ensuring there is more suffering in the process of achieving the outcome.
I should revise my earlier analogy. It's not so much like flapping your arms while you're falling, it's stabbing yourself in the eye with a rusty fork on the way down.
So no, you don't have anything relevent to ZWQ's comment to add to the conversation, you just really really need to let everyone know that fpv drones arent dangerous actually and in fact are creating new russians, not killing any.
You really are one of those people who just need to argue for the sake of arguing.
then they're by definition not effective at accomplishing anything other than dragging things out.
they're by definition not effective except at being effective defense.
Flapping my arms when I fall out of a plane is more effective than not flapping my arms. 🤷
not effective at accomplishing anything other than dragging things out.
Flapping my arms when I fall out of a plane is more effective than not flapping my arms.
Yes, that's literally the same statement.
If it can drag out the war then it's actually effective even if its only to buy them time to negotiate.
its like you don't even know what your own words mean.
Wait, wait, wait, you genuinely think this is going to work in their interest in the end? 🤦
Let's just review how that's worked out so far. Before the war started, Ukraine could've implemented Minsk agreements and kept all of its territory. Two weeks into the war, it could've simply agreed not to join NATO, and kept most of its territory. Then in 2024, it could've just lost Donbas and Luhansk, now Ukraine going to lose everything east of Dnepr. Every single day the war continues Ukrainian position deteriorates, and they will lose more people and territory as a result. If this goes long enough there's not going to be an Ukraine left.
Buddy, I understand you'd really prefer if that was my position but I've told you repeatedly its not. It is either an insulting lack of reading comprehension or willful ignorance that you keep insisting that's my position. Let me spell my position out for you:
- FPV drones are an effective form of munitions.
- Ukraine relies heavily on FPV drones for its defense.
- Without them Russia would've been in Keiv many months ago.
- FPV drones are made cheaply by volunteers in Ukraine.
- Ukraine's claims of having an FPV drone shortage could just be propaganda to motivate their own populace to produce more.
This is all I have ever tried to claim. But you somehow keep wishing I was some pro-Ukraine lib because in that fantasy you can win some internet points.
maybe you can help me, a dumdum with poor reading comprehension, to parse this then
If it can drag out the war then it’s actually effective even if its only to buy them time to negotiate.
And yes, nobody is arguing with you that fpv drones are a form of ammunition. Whether Russia would've been in Kiev or not without them many months ago is debatable however. You simply have to look at the size of the front and the numbers of people involved to see that a few thousand drones a day cannot possibly be the decisive factor in Russian advance.