Ukraine struck Russia’s largest oil refinery, located in the city of Omsk, on Monday, marking what its forces say was its furthest-ever drone attack in the war.
The Omsk facility, which processes about 21 million tons of oil a year, is in Western Siberia and about 1,700 miles from Ukrainian territory — roughly the distance between Los Angeles and Houston.
And the greatest and second largest army of the world, didn’t even notice a few foreign drones traveling 1700 miles across their land! I wonder who’s gonna fall out of a window for this.
Ukraine has been systematically destroying all air defense and radars. What remains is now around Moscow and Putin’s home. Even if detected, stopping the drones without defense is hard.
Put in Put out
Maybe. Or maybe they just drove them there in the back of a truck and are saying this to freak the Russians out even more.
Lol! I like that more
Im a little out of the loop, why are they suddenly able to do this now? What changed in their capabilities?
Ukraine has developed very impressive drone technology in a very short time. It is expected that multiple nations will actually try to make deals to acquire Ukrainian drones at the current NATO summit because they are so good now. So Ukraine is no longer dependent on others to sell them drones. They‘re selling them now.
For example, these drones can use terrain as guidance, so GPS isn’t required for navigation. This also allows them to fly at a very low altitude, avoiding Russian air defense. They’re also very resistant to jamming and have advanced autonomous capabilities, so they can “finish the job” on their own if the link to their operator is severed. Also, they’re very cheap, so it’s possible to overwhelm Russian defenses by swarming them.
In summary, they‘ve developed incredible killing machines that are able to act autonomously, which is very good for them right now but probably not very good for humanity in the long run.
In summary, they‘ve developed incredible killing machines that are able to act autonomously, which is very good for them right now but probably not very good for humanity in the long run.
It’s possible that this becomes the new “mutually assured destruction” we had back in the 20th. Basically, a cold war brought on by drones instead of nukes. It could mean a near-future of peace, however uneasy. I can’t say that living with the looming propagandized threat of the USSR was good, but I think it was a far sight better than being in an active shooting war with them.
a cold war brought on by drones instead of nukes
Oh great now I am worried about drones carrying dirty bombs.
That’s exactly what people are worried about happening.
Dirty bombs are a meme weapon, they’re not really effective except for scaring people who don’t know that they’re not effective
I think that is a crazily optimistic take. Even if countries were to stop outright drone warfare and keep things to cyber attacks and economic warfare there would be nothing to stop them from using the tech to attack their own citizens.
US constitution has already proven to be worth about as much as Lloyd and Harry’s I.O.Us.
It’s much harder to control their production, though. They don’t need enriched uranium and huge facilities, you can put them together in your bedroom (not at scale, obv.)
Yeah no because all we will have in response to that is the excuse for the psychos to deploy AI fueled “defense” anti-drone “security” drones flying nonstop 24/7 everywhere. Mechanized mafioso anyone?
The difference is nobody ever felt comfortable nuking their own civilians. I think chemical weapons are a better comparison. Autonomous drones will become illegal and unacceptable in warfare, but for riot control less lethal ones will be common and occasionally an authoritarian leader will use the military grade ones on minority groups or dissidents.
Smart countries are scrambling to buy Ukraine cheap effective next-generation drone warfare weapons. This is developing into a very lucrative market for them.
probably not very good for humanity in the long run.
Eh. C’est la vie. We had a good run.
There was a Black Mirror episode featuring the Boston Dynamics “Dog” robot thing with a machine gun on it, and hunting people down, they are terrifying. It’s like being hunted by a zombie tbag doesn’t eat or sleep or get tired and won’t stop.
Flying drones are a whole new level of scary beyond that.
zombie tbag sounds pretty horrifying
Screams in British
That was a great episode, scary foreshadowing of the future, but still a great episode.
And for all of this goodness we had Vlad the Invader to thank. Just think where we all be without Vlad!
They’ve been specifically targeting Russian Air defenses for awhile now forcing them to spread what little they do have even more. Since NATO have been pussies about providing them long range precision munitions they’ve had to spend time to develop their own cruise missiles like the Neptune and Flamingo the latter of which has entered regular production and has a range of 3000km.
Ukraine is now the premier world class developer of advanced drone warfare equipment and counter electronic jamming systems.
They basically reinvented the Nazi V1 with their Flamingo, and although only small % get through, it’s devastatingly accurate against refineries.
Meanwhile, Russia uses the old Nazi strategy of launching very expensive rockets at apartments with civilians in cities, doing 0 strategic damage to Ukraine war capabilities, just like the Nazi V1 and later V2 was used and was relatively useless despite its high price.
Oh, and Ukraine can shoot at almost all Russia’s refineries and weapons factories, but Russia can’t do it back because Ukrainian can always import from refineries and factories in France, Germany, etc, beyond the NATO border…
Why are all your call backs to nazis?
Look at the v1. Then look at the flamingo. It’s almost like they pulled an 80 year old drawing out of a drawer for their design! And the Russian tactic of causing panic and terror is exactly what Nazi’s did with bombing London! I do it because it makes sense. This special military operation got so out of hand the world wars are almost the only historic wars worth comparing it too. Just hope he gets hanged by a mob like Mussolini or shoots himself in his bunker soon…
Maybe just try mixing it up a bit, most jet powered cruse missiles end up looking like a V1 (that itself was not a new layout) for one example. You can vary your references by pointing to non nazi examples, not all the time but throw in an alternative at least some time. It is not like the nazi’s even invented much, like the terror strikes to London where tried in ww1 for another example. They where kinda shit after all and its just weird to use them like a measuring stick to everything.
Where I’m from, they are the measuring stick for “authoritarian state goes total war over ideology and fucks up” in a modern/mechanised way.
And that’s a fine use, but to also use them in measuring Ukrainian technical development is still odd.
I just really found the flamingo resembles it. I’m no current rocketry expert, so in my brain seeing pictures of a Flamingo referenced to something historical I do know and which I think is very widely known. There’s nothing more to it than that.
Comparing fascist Russia with fascist Germany seems pretty par for the course.
“If the boot fits” ~ Woody the Cowboy
I mean sure? But why also talk about Ukraine in the nazi context? Its not even really wrong, just weird.
Yeah that’s literally just that guy.
He’s trying to stir up shit.
Wanna know too
The article says that they’re jet launched.
That makes sense, they’re flying sorties over Siberia to launch drones in the last mile.
Its called adapting to new situation
We need some research into how effective drone strikes against refineries are to stop climate change. Are they a net gain in carbon emissions, considering the cost of manufacture and the prevented emissions?
You need to cut demand. If the price goes up, refineries are just build elsewhere.
There can be demand destruction from high prices
This. See how the hormuz crisis has caused many to pivot to renewables.
Perhaps, but you can’t tell me Russia can build them faster than Ukraine can destroy them. And in the meantime it means millions of fewer barrels worth of greenhouse gas emissions.
They can be built outside Russia.
Sure, but that’s not a solution for Russia’s own energy demands
I was thinking more of the globalized market for oil.
If Russia can export less refined oil, that can encourage the construction of new refineries elsewhere. This could negate the impact of drone attacks on reducing CO2 emissions.
But as others have said, there’s demand destruction that can have an effect.
How many years does it take to build a refinery from scratch? 3? 8? And perhaps a new refinery elsewhere will be a tad cleaner?
The real outcome however, could be that Russia tries to quickly apply bandaids to their broken infrastructure to get it up and running again fast. And that way their oil refining could become more polluting than ever.
I think on the global scale, Hormuz has a way bigger influence on helping many countries move towards renewables faster.
Raise the price enough, and the sold amount will drop. Also, people/industry will begin to look for alternatives.
Yes, there’s even a name for this: demand destruction.
In many cases it’s cheaper to replace it with green alternatives. The refineries have competition from windmills, solar plants, etc. It’s not a given that new refineries will fill the gap in the market that destroyed refineries leave.
I do expect the destruction of refineries to be more positive for the climate than if they had continued producing. Especially if you factor in the demand for reliable supply and strategic availability of energy.
You need to cut demand. If the price goes up
Prices going up does help cut demand.
Back in the '70s when oil prices spiked, people started buying more fuel efficient cars, and drove less.
Today, after the Hormuz related price increases, demand for EVs has abruptly increased.
If the price of oil continues to increase, that trend will also continue.
drones are cheap.
Maybe in the past but there’s more alternatives now.
Gotta make it worse.
There’s the emissions from while it’s on fire plus some of the chemicals in it are worse after being burned like that then in regular emissions. Or become other environmental issues on their own once released/burned.
Then the emissions from building a new one.
It’s so much better to just shut it down because no one needs it than blow them up
Then the emissions from building a new one.
In Russia’s case, depending on how things go, that many not apply all that much.
If things go far enough it might lead to Ukraine striking construction sites of oil refineries. Still not great, but much less worse than an actual running refinery.
Do you think it won’t be rebuilt at all?
Here’s to hoping! Fuck Russia.
Also on the comparison of “on fire” vs used as fuel - IDK about the emissions during the refining process, but when gas or diesel is burnt as fuel in a car, there are typically several emissions control systems reducing the pollution produced
I doubt the majority of engines consuming oil are euro-5 compliant: cargo ships, airplanes, military vehicles, electricity generators, water heaters, tractors, none of these typically use catalytic converters.
Good point, I was just thinking about cars. Cars are what typically takes the blame for pollution, but it’s really more the big industries doing it at scale
And the military.
Well, the oil is going to get burned eventually, so it’s a question of “burn the refinery now” or “continuously burn oil from ongoing production now and in the future”.
deleted by creator
Lmao, no.
TIL Siberia is way bigger than I expected. I knew it was big, but it looks like it’s more than half of Russian landmass. It can’t all be the climate I’m picturing, right? Like it borders Kazakhstan, so I figure at least part of it has to have hot summers
Siberia is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to Siberia.
Still fits at least twice into Texas! /s
That is for the infinite universe, not for finite Siberia. However, the largeness of Siberia is much better at demonstrating the concept of infinite than an actually infinite land mass.
Well, damn. You need to find a closer chemist.
Siberia is actually 3/4ths of Russia’s landmass. The northern parts are taiga, which are giant uninterrupted forests. The shores of the Arctic Ocean are mostly tundra. In the southern parts the taiga gives way to steppes.
In the northern parts the climate has warm but quite short summers and long cold winters. In the southern part, where most of the population lives, they have the same climate as southern Canada/New England just less humid. The Western parts are also covered by warm winds that originate from the Middle East and hence have higher temperatures than their more Eastern areas. For reference in Novosibirsk, which is the largest city the average yearly summer temperatures reach 25 degrees Celsius but temperatures can also spike to as high as 38 degrees.
So yeah Siberia is not all some barren tundra as most people imagine.
Though is that comparison corrected for the projection? Texas is farther south than Siberia and with the usual projection used, you can only compare the sizes of things at the same latitude. It’s the same thing that makes Greenland look as big as Africa when it’s closer to the size of South Africa.
Though is that comparison corrected for the projection?
Yes. Check it out here: https://truesize.net/en/
lol, you got me, that’s what twigged it for me- I figured Siberia would start further east of Ukraine than Texas is of California
“Do you know how many time zones they have?” “Uh, yessir. Uh, four … uh, no sir. I never really studied that up.” “Eleven.” “Eleven. It’s not even funny.” “Eleven.” “Eleven. That’s, that’s ridiculous.” “Eleven.”
This is the comment I came looking for. Thank you, Dr. Bob.
The train that crosses Siberia takes 4 days to cross it, running 24 hours a day (with 30 min stops once or twice a day).
most of it is icy forest where it’s too cold to do agriculture (in the north). there’s a thin latitude where the weather is good for agriculture. south of that it’s not the heat but the drought that’s the problem. up north you have shortage of sunlight, south you have shortage of water. that’s why the fertile area is narrow.
Oh, It turns out that what some friends in Russia reported was true. They said they had to queue for about two hours just to buy fuel.
Personally, I say California should be controlled by Australia.
Australia is a bad choice cause they’ve been low-key screwing up their country quite badly.
Their economy and social policies are great under Labor, it’s only when the grift fascists are in power that all the money goes to oligarchs.
… Why?
I replied to the wrong post somehow, this was supposed to be under the post of Trump saying Iceland should be under US control.
It probably makes a bit more sense there (I also don’t think California should be under Australia’s control, it was just snark)
I also don’t think California should be under Australia’s control
Too bad, we have already established a beachhead with the eucalyptus.
They did it back to us too with Radiata Pines
I found your comment to be very appropriate - even for this post. And I agree with you.
Greenland, not Iceland.
Well, they both might benefit from eachother’s expertise in fighting wildfires…
I’d prefer someone less racist than the current California locals, not more.
I wonder if Ukraine got the idea from Iran?
I don’t mean that as an accusation, but… well, Iran basically has the world economy’s throat. And I know Ukraine’s drones just got the capability, but Iran had to be a fantastic reminder of how fragile an oil economy is.
They’ve been occasionally attacking oil infrastructure since the beginning of the war. Used to be their “allies” asked them to please tone that down a bit. I guess Ukrainians finally stopped giving a shit.
They saw how quickly nations fell to their knees when you disrupted the flow of oil.
NATO is all in on supporting Ukraine despite the Orange dickhead’s threats.
Backing Trump and MAGA has really backfired for Russia.
What? No it hasn’t.
Trump cut American aid. Russian win? Nope what Russia really wanted was for Trump to make Ukraine agree to a peace that included ceding territory to Russia. Trump could only do that by leveraging American aid. Which is gone now because Trump is stupid and easily angered.
And what Russia REALLY didn’t want was for it’s delicate rusting oil industry to be dismantled by a Ukraine who is no longer being held back by American aid conditions.
Ukraine started their “long range sanctions” program years before Trump attacked Iran. It’s getting more attention now because the years of consistent damage are starting to add up, but it’s certainly not new. People who pay attention have always known the economic vulnerability of the oil market.
That and their drone production ramped up so much that they can “sanction” Russia far more often now
I imagine a huge game of whack-a-mole between Russia and Ukraine. Russia moving air defenses trying to anticipate Ukrainian strikes, and increasingly failing.
You can move air defenses but you can’t move the refineries, bridges and other infrastructure
Quick cover the refineries! Oh shit they but Moscow, redirect the defenses to cover Moscow! Oh fuck they hit Moscow, redirect the defenses to reinforce Putin’s bunker! Oh blyat, they hit the refineries…
There’s accusations that they’re mostly kept around Moscow and Putin’s compound, and stay there.
Which is pretty stupid IMO, as I imagine killing Putin is a Pandora’s Box Ukraine does not want to open. And shelling civilians in Moscow is just cruel, and makes no tactical sense in lieu of other targets…
You’re probably right. It’s never wise to make a martyr out of your enemy, and Zelensky is vastly more wise than Putin. And Trump.
Well, Putin is actually a “moderate” of sorts in Russian politics. There are some scary, more nationalist and extremist, figures he keeps in line that would be happy to fill the power vacuum.
It’s not even predicable anymore, as Putin’s already killed the most “obvious” popular ones, like Prigozhin.
That’s what I meant.
Maybe they could kill Putin, without him becoming a martyr. But Ukraine doesn’t know what comes after Putin.
In a country with so many nukes, that could be a literally catastrophic gamble.
That’s a good point. I didn’t know there were hardliners with that much power.
If you’re interested in further reading, ISW sometimes covers this figures in their Ukraine updates.
You might be particularly interested in the nearly successful Wagner rebellion, where a Russian mercenary company drove a convoy to Moscow and almost made it, largely unopposed by the Russian military. Some joined him:
Putin was always paranoid, but this is the reason for the extra recent paranoia, FYI.
Can you imagine being a comedian playing a president on TV then get elected actual president and then get handed one of the largest existential crises in the country’s history and just acing it?
I think we should have way more comedians in power, like I think Jon Stewart would also be an amazing leader, as would Stephen Colbert.
NICE SHOT BROS!!!
Pretty sure they didn’t fly ‘all’ the way there ;)
Not all drones are fpv quadcopters.
I am fully aware of that. :)
In this case, no, they were on jets. But some drones can. The MQ-9 “Reaper” drone has a 1200 mile range. That’s not just a short run.
they were on jets
Is that confirmed? Their FP-5 drone has a 1900 mile range, so it wouldn’t exactly need the assistance of being fired from a jet for extended range capability. I don’t really know what the benefit would be considering the north and eastern border is being controlled by Russia atm. I guess it may just be safer to fire it from a jet than doing a shoot and scoot.
From the article:
Denys Shtilierman, the chief designer of Ukrainian munitions firm Fire Point, wrote on X on Monday that a new variant of his company’s FP-1 drone was involved in the strike.
The FP-1 is one of Ukraine’s most prominent long-range one-way attack drones. The fixed-wing platform typically carries a payload of up to 60 kg, with an initial range of 1,000 miles, later extended to 1,600 miles.
Shtilierman, however, said on Monday that the jet-launched drone’s latest version can fly 2,110 miles, easily eclipsing the distance between Ukraine and Omsk.
The last paragraph was what I was getting at, given that the FP-1 range is just a tad short.
Ahh, that makes more sense. I figured they were using the fp-5 just for the range. Makes sense firing the fp-1 from the air would add a bit of range though, guess you wouldn’t have to fight to gain altitude.
A couple years ago (? damn is hard to keep the time on these things) they had this awesome case of deploying drones from trucks that drove into russia.
This I remember and this was the point I was trying to make but people are stupid.
There’s also a fairly large contingent of special forces behind enemy lines in Russia at the moment as well.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. Probably the smilies. The headline does say “drones flew all the way to Siberia,” so it would be reasonable for the reader to assume the drones made the trip themselves without more information.
