this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
142 points (98.6% liked)

Europe

7298 readers
1127 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SrMono@feddit.org 23 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (4 children)

That doesn’t sound cost efficient.

Edit: Some are missing the point.. I'm totally in favor for intercepting those bastards. But in sum I believe that stuff like skynex (30-35mm shrapnel ammo) or manpads are more cost efficient. Poland produces a leading solution with its Piorun manpad.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 20 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You can't really put a price on sovereignty or human life.

[–] SrMono@feddit.org 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

No. My edit above makes that clear, too. But in a long run you cannot spent costly manufactured, even scarce rockets to down cheap drones, or even decoy drones.

It will deplete the stocks which are getting filled back too slowly. That’s why the Gepard is such a success in Ukraine. It catches all the slow moving targets at minimal cost.

[–] WaterSword@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Those dutch F-35s are already deployed in that region for this exact purpose. It’s not like they flew over there from the Netherlands just for these drones.

[–] SrMono@feddit.org 3 points 5 days ago

I edited my comment, but scrambling F-35s and wasting rockets on cheaper drones, will never be effective. I added some infos above to make the point more clear.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Probably cheaper than letting them crash and explode in Poland, triggering article 5.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

Maybe. But then again, maybe not in the long run.

[–] remon@ani.social 4 points 5 days ago

This is a quite comprehensive video, but it does touch on the economics of defense vs offense. But it's a tough watch if you're not used to it.

[–] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Mobilise 100,000,000€ jet, and fire a 100,000€ missile to shoot down a 5,000€ drone

Winning

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Russian invasion would be way more expensive

[–] gressen@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago

The Russian Shaheds probably cost on the order of $20-50k. The damage they can do can easily be greater than one sidewinder.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You rather they bomb 1,000,000€ buildings and kill 1000 lives (worth infinite)?

[–] Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Not at all, we just need to be prepared for when they escalate.

Economy often wins or loses a war.

If they keep sending cheap drones and drain our military budget, and we don't do much in return they're gaining ground

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Debating the cost effectiveness of political moves.

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Should 5k€ worth of missiles with million€ with of equipment.

Not sure I would be bragging about it.

The EU should update their war handbook. It's not the 90s anymore.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That first sentence gave me an anyeurism. Was it supposed to be "Shot 5k€ worth of drones with millions of € worth of equipment" ?

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 days ago

Yeah. That makes more sense than whatever I wrote 🤷

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Both of those costs are irrelevant. The important question is what does the thing those missiles were going to hit otherwise cost. There is a difference between hitting a busy hospital complex and an empty field. If the missiles would have killed someone (seems likely!) I'm demanding you put a cost on human life as well before you ask if it was worth the cost.

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Those costs are very relevant in war. If it's cheaper to attack than to defend, then an attacker can just keep attacking until the defender is no longer able to defend.

If you value human life to the point that nothing but the best will do, you'd have tanks helping every child cross the street. Valuing human life means efficiently using resources to defend it.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Even if defense costs more, if you are a larger economy you can still outlast the attacker and win. And economy isn't even the right measure as being attacked tends to create a willingness to defend at higher costs than an attacker is willing to spend even if their economy is on paper bigger.

Which is to say the most important question for the defender is the value of what you defend, followed by the likeliness of an attack. Only after knowing those numbers can you ask how much you are willing to spend on defense and if it isn't worth it.

[–] SebaDC@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You make assumptions that are pretty wild...

Even if defense costs more, if you are a larger economy you can still outlast the attacker and win.

Wow!

You realize that behind these drones, you have the Chinese economy? Is the Polish economy larger?!?

The point I'm making is exactly the reason why Ukraine was able to survive until now. They have been investing heavily in cheap, large scale technologies, while Russia started a war "old school".

Now this is changing, with Russia relying more and more on drones.

[–] vandsjov@feddit.dk 2 points 4 days ago

You realize that behind these drones, you have the Chinese economy? Is the Polish economy larger?!?

In this case, the Polish and Netherlands armies - so probably closer to be the EU or NATO.

The point I’m making is exactly the reason why Ukraine was able to survive until now. They have been investing heavily in cheap, large scale technologies, while Russia started a war “old school”.

I'm sure Ukraine would have had lost much more by now, if they didn't get a lot of help from the outside. However, I don't know how much they have spent compared to how much the help they have been given.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 days ago

I was with you until you "demanded" shit.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Hey they got 4 out of 21!!

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How could they fly over most of Ukraine undetected?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Some flew through Belarus, but also why wouldn't they? Ukrainians obviously concentrated on those going for the cities. What a weird question.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

why wouldn’t they?

Because Ukraine seemed to shoot down most of the drones. I had assumed that they use Helicopters to follow them and shoot them down.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 5 points 5 days ago

Ukraine does a lot of different things to shoot down drones. Drones do a lot of things to avoid all of those things. We call this an arms race.

While helicopters have been tried to shoot down drones they are not used very often because they don't work well compared to other options.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

They do not.