672
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

The advanced S-400 ‘Triumf’ air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service and navy, Ukrainian intelligence sources said The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, Ukrainian official Anton Gerashchenko said

Ukraine used drones and missiles to take down an advanced Russian air-defence system worth US$1.2 billion early on Thursday, according to multiple reports.

The advanced S-400 “Triumf” air-defence system was destroyed in a joint operation by Kyiv’s security service (SBU) and navy, the BBC and Reuters reported, citing Ukrainian intelligence sources.

The attack off the coast of Yevpatoriya was orchestrated through the use of aerial drones and Neptune domestic missiles, per Anton Gerashchenko, a Ukrainian official writing on Telegram.

Yevpatoriya is a coastal city in the west of occupied Crimea, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 127 points 11 months ago

The air-defence system fired its rounds to shoot the drones down, thus revealing its location, Rybar reported. Ukraine waited until it had fired all its ammo, then targeted it with cruise missiles.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 86 points 11 months ago

Killbots have a hardwired kill limit.

[-] drolex@sopuli.xyz 47 points 11 months ago

Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own drones at them...

[-] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago
[-] Danc4498@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 months ago

Seems too obvious, though. What protections do other air defense systems use?

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 21 points 11 months ago

They keep a reserve of missiles for defense instead of blowing their load on likely decoys.

[-] Intralexical@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Ideally you duct-tape a grenade to each of your "decoys" so it doesn't really matter either way which target they choose to prioritize

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

See drones that cheap make everything harder, but you don't shoot them down if you know your enemy has a serious cruise missile capability in reserve.

Hard math though, hide your position or stop incoming.

[-] melonlord@lemmy.ca 7 points 11 months ago

Paper and paper derivatives. Like cardboard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Baited, lawl

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blaubarschmann@feddit.de 118 points 11 months ago

Why does every news article nowadays repeat itself at least 2 times? There are almost the exact same sentences twice. You don't even have to read past the abstract because there is no other information at all in the actual text. And besides, you avoid having to scroll past 7 gigantic ads

SEO, AI generated content

[-] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m so happy. I thought it was just me noticing this. I really dislike when the headline is the headline, summary and first paragraph. By the time I get to the substance of the article I’ve read the first paragraph three times.

[-] shrugal@lemm.ee 32 points 11 months ago

I think it's because the first paragraph is usually preview content for news aggregators and search engines, so it's used as an appetizer.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Probably stems at least in part from the essay format a lot of us were taught in school.

Intro: tell em what you're gonna tell em

Body: tell em

Conclusion: tell em what you told em

[-] hansl@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

You probably got taught wrong. At least that’s not what I learnt (early 90s);

Intro: what’s the problem? Background stuff.

Body: here’s a solution and what else we looked at

Conclusion: tie back solution to problem and what further stuff we could talk about.

[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Less right vs wrong than just the way it was done. It's the product of word/page requirements that encourages us to fluff the everliving fuck out of our papers.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] mookulator@mander.xyz 8 points 11 months ago

Because they don’t care about quality in depth content. They’re just in it for the clicks. Probably had an algorithm fill in the remaining paragraphs

[-] Lantech@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

Did you ever have to write a paper in school with a minimum page or word count?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Wahots@pawb.social 76 points 11 months ago

Just as a heads up, SCMP is a bit of an iffy source, being owned by alibaba and run as a near state owned paper. At one point, it was also owned by Murdoch as well.

Since the change of ownership in 2016, concerns have been raised about the paper's editorial independence and self-censorship. Critics including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, and The Atlantic have alleged that the paper is on a mission to promote China's soft power abroad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Morning_Post

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 38 points 11 months ago

I noticed that the fediverse really isn’t great at noticing unscrupulous people and sources, so it’s heartening to see this.

[-] JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

SCMP is an odd one, as they commonly publish articles critical of the CCP.

They seem to operate along the lines of 'we can't stop anti-CCP news, but at least we can soften the blow for select audiences.' Or something like that. They're definitely an interesting case, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
[-] etuomaala@sopuli.xyz 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The South China Morning Post article is a carbon copy of the BI article. That is typical of disinformation outlets. 4/5 of the news is copy pastad from reliable sources, and the other 1/5 is total bullshit. Russia Today operated like that for years, and probably still does.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 11 months ago

It's hardly like China is favouring Ukraine, so I don't see how the article being from the SCMP matters

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 56 points 11 months ago

Whoooaaa... The South China Morning Post is reporting this in this kind of tone? Now that is a shifting of the tides, they didn't have to talk up how "prized" it was. No wonder Putin is cozying up to Kim.

Never thought I'd see the day where Russia comes crawling to North Korea, but if Xi's support is starting to wilt this much, they're going to need anyone they can get.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 51 points 11 months ago

They even threw this in for shits and giggles:

This would not be the first time Russia accidentally revealed its location by attempting to shoot down Ukrainian targets.

Last week, Ukraine said it was able to attack Russian soldiers after they attempted to shoot down a Ukrainian flag that was attached to helium balloons and flew into occupied territory.

[-] Reverendender@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

It’s like Looney Tunes, but with blood

[-] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

I want to upvote you twice: once for the apt comparison, and again for spelling "Tunes" right.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

I don't think there was any support from China in the first place it's just that China didn't want to cross Russia publicly. They probably did remind Russia of the nuclear guarantees they gave to Ukraine in private, which is why we hear Russia threatening the west but not Ukraine, and then sat back while Russia dug its own grave. Publicly opposing Russia might have stopped Russia from doing that. Generally speaking, you can expect the Chinese to be shifty just as you can expect Yanks to whip their dick around and the Swiss to profit by harbouring money.

And while some Chinese munition was found in Russian stockpiles it's overall quite little, probably arriving there via third parties. If China actually backed Russia up with hardware things would look quite different.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] uis@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago

Here's how it went:

  1. Few waves of drones were sent
  2. AD spent their ammo on cheap drones
  3. Missile strike before AD was reloaded
[-] aport@programming.dev 12 points 11 months ago

Literally baited their turret

[-] bookmeat@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago

Article is misleading. These systems are never a single unit. There's parts spread around where radar is separate from launchers, and other components etc. It's not clear in the article what exactly was destroyed.

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 15 points 11 months ago
[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago

I'm making a note here, huge success.

[-] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

It's hard to overstate Russian incompetence

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nogooduser@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

They should have had two so that they could protect each other.

[-] uis@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Also s300 and s400 did protect each other. Didn't help.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
672 points (100.0% liked)

World News

38471 readers
1906 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS