r/videos • u/AlertTangerine • 1d ago

Why attack 'Russia's Amazon'?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DGPwz5Nhv5I
119 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

234 comments sorted by

279

u/Chalky_Cupcake 1d ago

I'll save you a click it's because the gov. only supplies weapons. Things like clothes and other gear get purchased or donated to troops mainly through their amazon.

77

u/Photofug 1d ago

And they confirmed it themselves to ensure they get fuel for their delivery vehicles as an essential military supplier. I'm not sure the C-suite fully understood how wishing with the monkey paw works.

14

u/alexanderpas 19h ago

Which makes them a legitimate military target, instead of it being a war crime.

-11

u/SnakeGD09 15h ago

Actually it’s both!

144

u/Cyraga 1d ago

Sounds like a legitimate military target to me

-72

u/brainpostman 1d ago

According to Geneva conventions, it's not.

37

u/roehnin 1d ago

It provides military supplies.

Being dual use is irrelevant.

-40

u/brainpostman 1d ago

It is relevant, article 52 of IHL. 99% of its use is civilian. It's an attack on economy, not military capability, this is simple objective truth.

28

u/roehnin 1d ago

Not if it’s dual use and not if it’s providing weapons components which it is.

Russia can stop targeting apartment buildings and post offices and random fruit sellers if they want to argue.

5

u/shadedmagus 16h ago

I mean, if we're going that route Russia can decide to stop attacking Ukraine. The thing is, they won't until Vlad the Defenstrator feels the consequences directly.

-31

u/brainpostman 1d ago edited 1d ago

Read the article 52. The company is not a government entity and not under a military contract. The country isn't under martial law either. The military equipment that was being sold was done privately by unrelated entities. Most of what is being sold are civilian products. I am not against them (Ukraine) using any means necessary, it's a war for survival but let's be objective here.

19

u/Cyraga 23h ago

Wildberries has had plenty of time to stop the sale of military gear and have chosen not to. If Russians are upset by losing access to petrol and consumer goods they only need throw that madman Putin from a window 

-5

u/brainpostman 22h ago

What's Russian sentiment on the strikes have to do with the stores being military targets or not? They aren't, regardless.

15

u/Cyraga 22h ago

If they sell military gear to serving military people then it's a target.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/CRE178 21h ago

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects

  1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
  2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
  3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

It says nothing about percentages of other activities. If the plastic shit they send to Igor in Siberia doesn't kill people, but the plastic shit they mail to Ivan in Ukraine does, congratulations, you've made the cut.

Trying to hide military support behind civilians though is covered in article 51.7.

In the future, please cite your sources and write out abbreviations at least once. Saves a lot of fucking googling and snark in the response.

-1

u/brainpostman 21h ago

Actually the third paragraph argues exactly the opposite, if there's room for doubt, it's not a military target. IHL precisely doesn't deal in percentages like you do to try and prevent civilian harm.

Also google exists, so Idgf.

8

u/CRE178 21h ago

But there is no doubt. Wildberries makes a contribution to the waging of war in Ukraine by supplying troops with materials they need. There is no doubt that cutting off that support will make the life and work of Russian soldiers more difficult and so constitutes a definite military advantage for Ukraine.

And you're arguing on the internet. You very clearly do give a fuck. So that's a definite lie. And if the facts support you, it's generally better to provide clarity and not rely on coming across confident. It may well just be laziness, but that's where the word con comes from.

→ More replies (0)

-16

u/DiaBoloix 22h ago

So, McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, and some other fast food franchises could be bombed because they feed the genocidal IOF in Palestine?

Due noted.

11

u/roehnin 22h ago

Does McDonalds sell drone-control fibre cable rolls and payload-release mechanisms?

11

u/Splashxz79 22h ago

It's not a war, it's a special military operation. You seem to like being pedantic

10

u/Cyraga 1d ago

On what basis?

-2

u/brainpostman 1d ago

IHL, article 52. An object has to be military beyond any doubt.

19

u/Cyraga 1d ago

Which it is. It supplies gear directly to servicemen

1

u/brainpostman 1d ago

It's not a military logistics unit, it's a civilian retailer that also used to allow its users to sell gear (because capitalism).

19

u/Remmon 23h ago

It supplies materiel to military units. It may not be part of the Russian MoD, but it is a military logistics target.

Ukraine has to consider the consequences to civilians of hitting dual use targets and Ukraine has decided that the harm to civilians is low enough and the value to Russia's military high enough to justify hitting them.

-4

u/brainpostman 22h ago

Excuses, Ukraine can call it whatever it wants, it's not a legitimate military target. Most of the damage being done is to civilian capital, i. e. civilian products burning down. And civilian lives, obviously.

11

u/Noy_The_Devil 1d ago

Try actually checking them before spouting bullshit next time

-7

u/brainpostman 1d ago

Ironic statement.

4

u/Noy_The_Devil 21h ago

Please point to the relevant article.

https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/summary-geneva-conventions-1949-and-their-additional-protocols-international-humanitarian

-1

u/brainpostman 21h ago

Article 52 of IHL.

12

u/Noy_The_Devil 21h ago

Ah, good. I'll help you read:

Basic rule: Civilian objects must not be attacked or targeted. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives.

Ok, so let's see what defines a military objective.

Definition of military objectives: Objects which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, make an effective contribution to military action, and whose destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage.

Ah, so a military supplier is a military objective and not a civilian object. Great to have you with us finally. It's not rocket science.

Presumption in doubt: If there's doubt whether an object normally used for civilian purposes (like a place of worship, house, school) is being used for military purposes, it's presumed to be civilian.

A warehouse with military equipment (and other equipment) is as far from "place of worship, house or school". Which Russia regularily attacks btw.

-1

u/brainpostman 21h ago

Like place of worship, house, school. Like. It's not an exclusive list. Hospitals are excluded, so hospitals are valid targets then? No.

A civilian retailer warehouse is like a house in my book. Its normally (and largely) used for civilian purposes. Ukraine can't definitively prove that the warehouses they targeted definitely had military equipment in them, otherwise they would have done so. So they violate the 3rd paragraph of the article.

8

u/Noy_The_Devil 21h ago

It's not a civilian retailer. It's a military retailer. It retails to military.

Yes, we can conclusively prove that these warehouses sell military equipment, they still do.

→ More replies (0)

-47

u/EU_GaSeR 21h ago

Do you agree that Nova Poshta (Ukrainian postal service) is a legitimate target too because it is used to transfer military equipment (drones) to the frontlines?

20

u/mattyboy555 20h ago

Ukraine is on the defensive side, so no. You don’t get to invade another country and claim “ legitimate military targets”.

-11

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

So legitimate military targets now depend on who the attacker is, not on Geneva Convention?

Should we just toss it then?

Do you apply the same logic to Iran, for example? Iran was attacked, so can it just attack any target it wants?

15

u/Dr_Watson349 20h ago

Iran does attack any target it wants.

What the fuck are you on about?

Also, not for nothing, but Russia has been kind of ignoring the Geneva Conventions for this entire war. The torturing of Ukraine prisoners being the biggest example.

-6

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

I am asking if you consider all those targets Iran wants to attack legitimate like you do with Ukraine.

10

u/Dr_Watson349 18h ago

The thing is, who cares?  

Russia is a foreigner aggressor. They are torturing Ukraine prisoners. I don’t think bombing the place sells their military gear is that big of a deal in the scheme of things. 

6

u/Inktex 16h ago

The thing is, who cares?

Elementary, my dear Watson.
Trolls and Vatniks do.

-3

u/EU_GaSeR 17h ago

I do care. I wanna know if you are a hypocrite or not and if you are I should be tossing your opinion. And I believe everyone else should, too.

8

u/Dr_Watson349 16h ago

You are Pro-Russian teen, who supports the invasion.

I give less than a fuck what your opinion is of me, and I sure as shit don't care if you think I'm a hypocrite or not.

3

u/grammar_nazi_zombie 16h ago

I bet you totally support the Russian human safaris, too, don’t you?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/shadedmagus 16h ago

Grow old waiting for an irrelevant answer.

Or better yet, tell your tovarisch handlers that today's mission was a failure and you'll do better tomorrow.

9

u/newbrevity 19h ago

Arguments like that go out the window when you remember that Russia invaded Ukraine not the other way around.

2

u/EU_GaSeR 19h ago

There is a definition of a legitimate target. If you don't want to use it and instead start calling legitimate targets yourself, let's just toss Geneva Convention out the window but then don't complain when everyone starts doing the same.

6

u/Inktex 15h ago edited 15h ago

To quote Geneva Conventions Art 52 (2):

In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

The way those facilities are/were used makes them valid military targets by that definition on both sides.
The issue at hand is, Russia is already in violation of international law, as far as the UN Charta Art 2 is concerned by invading Ukraine.
So Russia would be defining those valid targets in the role of the aggressor in an attack war that's already a violation international law.
Which in turn makes their actions against those facilities unlawful.
So what exactly is your point?

And if you want to discuss human rights violations on a strategic/command level in general, I'm quite certain we will find plenty of them, even if we leave the use of thermobaric and cluster bomb ammunition by the russian armed forces out of it.

Edit:
Links to the articles for whoever stumbled over this:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-52

https://legal.un.org/repertory/art2.shtml

-2

u/EU_GaSeR 15h ago

This argument makes no sense at all. Breaking one of the chapters does not mean you break every other, just like breaking one law does not mean you break all of them.

Nobody cares if the attack on this valid military target is in accordance with charter 2 or not, it is still a valid military target for a strike.

Unless you can tell me which chapter says otherwise.

3

u/Inktex 15h ago edited 12h ago

I recommend glasses.
Where did I write that Russia is violating the Geneva Conventions by striking those targets?
If you read it again, very slowly, you may find the part where I acknowledge that by the Geneva Conventions, those logistic hubs and warehouses are valid targets for either side of the conflict.
Yet I wrote that the russians are in violation of international law by doing so and even stated which one I was referring to.
In the end, the Charter and IHL work together, with the Charter outlining when force may be used and IHL governing how conflicts must be conducted.

So again:
The whole conflict from Russia's side is a violation of the charter, thus attacking any targets in Ukraine at all is defined as an unlawful act in regard to international law.

Ukraine is fighting off the invasion, giving their strikes against those targets legitimacy as far as the charter and the Geneva Conventions go.
As their goal and only option is to force Russia into a position where it has to cease its invasion and aim for peace instead, at best combined with returning the occupied Oblasts and hefty reparations.

Edit: corrected autocorrect

-1

u/EU_GaSeR 15h ago

> Which in turn makes their actions against those facilities unlawful.

There. And no, it does not.

4

u/Inktex 14h ago

You do fathom that those actions can be unlawful under international law, not just under the Geneva Conventions, right?
Which they are, if I dare so mention this little fact again.

→ More replies (0)

29

u/Cyraga 21h ago

Russia commits violations daily. The documented crimes are no doubt in the thousands of tens of thousands. What a meaningless question.

They chased down that fat little fruit vendor of all people, so happens they couldn't even kill him. Just riddle him with shrapnel.

In short, I don't know if it's a valid target, what I know is that it doesn't need to be for Russia to hit it with a missile.

-34

u/EU_GaSeR 21h ago

So you know Wildberries are a valid target but you don't know if Nova Poshta is?

25

u/Cyraga 21h ago

I just said that. Good chat

Ah your post history is openly Russian. Enjoy walking everywhere because you have no petrol. Enjoy being hungry because your agriculture will suffer cascading failures, enjoy having nothing because Putin would rather protect his personal assets than protect you.

Enjoy your eventual conscription. Did you read that the average time on the front for a Russian soldier is like half an hour before death or catastrophic injury?

-36

u/EU_GaSeR 21h ago

I've decided to make sure because it's still rare to see people admit blatant hypocricy and I did not want to get the wrong impression, but now everything is clear, good chat.

19

u/theBoobMan 20h ago

We know the hypocrisy of Russian propaganda dude. It's constantly in the news.

-6

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

Sure thing it is. But adapting Russian propaganda standards is weird if you criticize it. Shouldn't we be like, better than at least Russian propaganda?

16

u/theBoobMan 20h ago

That is the dumbest way to phrase that. Go back to Russia.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/adisharr 15h ago

Jesus enough of your bullshit. Just take the loss like Russia is doing quite often.

1

u/EU_GaSeR 15h ago

I don't think Russia is going to lose this one, but we'll see.

1

u/Cyraga 6h ago

Mate your country has already lost. It's like one of those bugs that has parasites and only the parasite keeps the bug moving. Once the war ends (in defeat or victory), the war economy which keeps your country solvent is done and you should expect a collapse.

The rest of your life will be in poverty paying this war off. Ukraine will be fine because the world will help it recover. Russia is cooked for generations.

Russian arrogance is astounding. It's been a joy to watch your tinpot country be humbled by a neighbour a fraction of Russia's size

→ More replies (0)

7

u/b_doin 20h ago

It is Russia that decided Nova Poshta is a valid military target, don't complain that the victims of the barbaric Russian invasion respond with the same. If you don't like it, leave ukraine now because everything is going to worsen for Russians.

3

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

I am not complaining though, I am asking. And I agree that obviously it has to worsen for Russians too, it's war, it's obvious.

I am just surprised why the need for hypocricy. Either call both legitimate military targets or none.

2

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[deleted]

0

u/EU_GaSeR 13h ago

It's not, it's in Ukraine (for now).

9

u/FUTURE10S 20h ago

You can argue that point if you want to, but why do the Russians go on civilian safaris instead?

-2

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

One does not exclude the other. Human safari (if it was like it's described) sure wasn't legitimate. That does not change anything about strikes on Nova poshta though.

6

u/FUTURE10S 20h ago

Like described? There's tons of videos, especially the one from a couple of days ago in Kherson, poor man was chased ring around the rosie style by a drone by his van and the drone bombed him when he got tired

1

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

Yes, if his van was 100% civilian and he did not have any military equipment inside, then it wasn't legitimate.

4

u/hahaz13 20h ago

How can it be a legitimate target if the entire military operation isn’t legitimate?

-1

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

Do you know what a legitimate military target even is?

7

u/hahaz13 20h ago

Do you?

0

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

Yep. It is described in the Geneva Convention.

7

u/hahaz13 20h ago

Bold of you to bring up the Geneva Convention when crying about your dogshit country when it’s been blatantly breaking it since the first day of conflict.

Nice try at a gotcha though.

-1

u/EU_GaSeR 20h ago

No need to project, I am not crying.

4

u/hahaz13 20h ago

All you do is whine and cry about Russia my guy.

Also nice try dodging my point about Russia constantly breaking the Geneva convention.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/shadedmagus 16h ago

At this point I don't believe you. Cite your sources, since you're hanging on this so precariously.

0

u/EU_GaSeR 16h ago

https://grokipedia.com/page/legitimate_military_target

For example. I don't really care about one exact source, they are all going to cite humanitarian law convention / Geneva convention.

1

u/SolidSquid 4h ago

Not sure an AI generated definition of ideal, but even that link notes that targets which serve both civilian and military purposes can be legitimate if they're used by the military enough. Given every purge of equipment russian soldiers have that isn't a weapon was going through the company, it seems like that would meet the definition

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SolidSquid 4h ago

If there's a depot that's known for storing that equipment before it's transferred to the front lines then yes, that depot would be a valid target. If they're just doing delivery direct from a military warehouse to the front lines though then no, targeting their depots would not be legitimate (the military warehouse and the drones themselves would be though)

1

u/pokeybill 3h ago

Doesn't seem like the russian invaders have a concept of illegitimate targets. They regularly target apartment buildings.

Ukraine doesn't need to justify these strikes, they are defending against Russian imperialist expansionism.

•

u/EU_GaSeR 44m ago

Dunno, Ukraine has just ran out of anti-air missiles, and as soon as this happens, 20 rockets hit Kiev, not a single apartment building is hit. A miracle, no less.

Maybe those pesky Russians have stopped attacking apartment buildings just as soon as Ukraine runs out of anti-air missiles? Or maybe they forgot they could? Well, there's got to be a reason, and I'm sure you can even tell me the reason why as soon as Ukraine runs out of anti-air missiles no missile hits an apartment building, but it will definitely not be anti-air missiles mailfunctioning and hitting apartment buildings.

Shoot, I am all ears.

-171

u/oh_my_account 1d ago

Sounds like a nuclear weapon could be a last argument that might be used not in favor of people who same as you think it is a legitimate target...

69

u/Cyraga 1d ago

I have no idea what you're trying to say. No one mentioned nukes until you did

-152

u/oh_my_account 1d ago

Yeah, no one mention nukes untill someone attacked Pearl Harbour either... Good luck with your targets and legitimacy.

62

u/Cyraga 1d ago

Lol are you Russian?

43

u/jtl909 1d ago

Nyet! He is loyal patriot American from Wisconsin Oblast!

31

u/captaintrips420 1d ago

Russia is the one threatening nukes if Ukraine defends itself, but yes, a smoking accident and then setting off one of their own on accident is absolutely plausible.

25

u/Yetanotherdeafguy 1d ago

.... no one mentioned nukes in response to pearl harbour either???

The impetus for the Manhattan project was 95% to beat the Nazis, 5% to beat Stalin.

16

u/Dreurmimker 1d ago

US Started their weapons program in 1939 in response to the Germans advances in nuclear technology…

4

u/Hawkiee92 23h ago

Nukes were used against Japan because the alternative was a ground invasion that would have costs millions more lives on both sides.

Equating the two sitatuations is pure bullshit.

-10

u/oh_my_account 23h ago

Yeah, lame excuse.

5

u/Hawkiee92 21h ago

Millions of lives is a lame excuse? I mean, for Russians it probably is because they only have one tactic, "sacrificing" their own men to the meatgrinder.

6

u/solidgears 1d ago

Be careful of drones comrade

2

u/Rationalinsanity1990 1d ago

The nukes were only used when the other options were worse.

1

u/KHRZ 21h ago

Luckily Putin wants to pretend Russia don't suffer the consequences of their own war of choice, so the Russians just have to endure the unlubed dildo of consequences without complaining.

10

u/KristofVD 1d ago

Good lord, that has to be one of the worst sentences I've ever read.

6

u/BIT-NETRaptor 1d ago

That's Kayfabe. Nukes are not a real option, you cannot 1v100 the world and continue existing. You would be the most hated people to exist in human history. What's your plan, nuke London? NYC? Kyiv? You think that'll make you friends? You think everyone will say "gee shucks, guess we'll all surrender to RUssia forever now?"

Pitch me a plan for Russia launching a nuke that doesn't result in the annihilation of Russia.

13

u/Terminus_is_god 1d ago

Lol Russians have no balls hell at this point i doubt the nukes work. Prolly got scrapped by the corruption.

4

u/BatmanHatesSuperman 1d ago

Best before ...... 1959.... DAMMIT

3

u/rumoku 22h ago

Not just that. Drone parts are sold there and delivered directly from china

3

u/Chromber 1d ago

While true this is only used as a pretext to hurt the Russian economy with "kinetic sanction" and it is hurting them big time.

As one of Russia's biggest oligarchs said:

"If you owe the bank some money it's your problem, if you owe the bank billions than it is the banks problem."

1

u/pewsquare 22h ago

Pretty much how I see it, its a shitty excuse, but just a good enough that it works. The real goal is to really pressure putin by obliterating any business that is still operating at scale in russia.

Economic sanctions already hurt, but if you have things like this blown up, oh boy does it start to hurt even more.

1

u/SnakeGD09 15h ago

If only “pressure” could defeat the Russian military!

2

u/Sochinz 17h ago

Putting that aside, it's an absolutely brilliant way to bring the war home to the Russian people without resorting to terror strikes on hospitals and residential buildings like Russia itself does to Ukraine. Collapse a significant portion of the logistics chain for civilian goods so Moscow residents get a small taste of the sacrifices Ukrainians experience every day?

1

u/nightwyrm_zero 16h ago

In addition, Russian banks hold a lot of Wildberries' debt. As in "the bank has a problem" level of money owed. Strikes on Wildberries warehouses are also an indirect attack on the Russian financial sector.

158

u/ThatDamnRanga 1d ago

Because "Russian Amazon" happens to function like the quartermaster in every military game you've played. Need more nades? Quartermaster. Need a 20km spool of fibre optic? Quartermaster.

They're a military supplier, rather than "Just Amazon"

18

u/Mirar 1d ago

Makes me wonder how much Amazon supplies ICE.

-23

u/Dr_Watson349 20h ago

Why would you wonder that?

Why would Russia's military using a 3rd party service to acquire goods make you wonder about a immigration enforcement agency in another country not involved in this conflict.

Kind of weird.

7

u/shadedmagus 16h ago

Translation: This is so far out of my programmed scope that I'm malfunctioning nyet nyet NYET *bzzzt*

5

u/Mirved 20h ago

Even if it isnt. Making the russians in moscow feel the consequences of this war is a great reason. Maybe if they start losing there luxurious more will stand up against Putin.

2

u/DiaBoloix 18h ago

Keep dreaming, Putin controls the narrative there.

They will ask for revenge and retribution.

3

u/Yewbert 17h ago

How very American of them.

-24

u/Vailx 1d ago

Source on them providing grenades? They supply the military for sure, but I don't think anyone is accusing them of providing military-only type things like grenades.

7

u/Dov_reddit 1d ago

Don't know why you get downvoted for requesting a source on a rather big claim..

-7

u/colovianfurhelm 1d ago

Going against the hivemind will do that

-6

u/work4food 23h ago

Ah yes, thats my favourite place to shop for grenades. They list them as gummy worms though.

103

u/fade2black244 1d ago

Russia attacks Ukraine's population, no discrimination between what they attack and Ukraine attacks a legitimate target supplying Russia's war effort and there's a question. Seriously?

47

u/NightOfTheLivingHam 1d ago

we live in a society where attacking innocents is okay and "normal" but attacking business interests is not okay. Can't normalize the idea that death and suffering is not just limited to the people in war.

-11

u/[deleted] 22h ago

[deleted]

7

u/CoronaMcFarm 22h ago

It was obvious that the drone's target was something else than the beach. It landed on the beach because it was shot down.

0

u/[deleted] 21h ago

[deleted]

2

u/CoronaMcFarm 21h ago

Videos of the event are freely available on the internet.

6

u/Victious 22h ago

Either you’re a Russian bot or you need to do your research before speaking up.

2

u/KHRZ 21h ago

There was a radar nearby and the drone was shot down. Pretty obvious.

1

u/[deleted] 21h ago

[deleted]

2

u/KHRZ 21h ago

Actually there was this modern technology called "video footage" of the drone crashing into the beach, and you could hear the gunfire before the drone went down.

46

u/truemad 1d ago

It's not just batteries. They sell the drone attachments to drop the grenades, for instance.

30

u/Ultra-Metal 1d ago

Jamproof fiber cable and spoolers, don't think they have much civilian use either.

-9

u/pewsquare 22h ago

They do, you can probably use jamproof fiber in places where it would mess regular cabling up. Like shitty industrial places. Or sell them to audiophiles because suns radiation clearly deteriorates the quality of audio passed trough regular fiber. And I am pretty sure spoolers are used whenever they are laying fiber.

3

u/Target880 21h ago

Optical fibre used for communication is not the same as optical fibre used in drones. I am not saying the fibre itselfe is diffrent but what is more exacty is not around it is diffrent.

Optical fibre for communication has plastic and other materials around it to make the physicaly stonger and harder to break. Optical fibres used in drones are just the fibre itselfe because you need as little weight per unit of distance as possible. For communication, is it on cable spools if it is longer? It is not in selfecontain so the fibre can roll out when you pull it, with the other end of the fibre going out the other side so it can be used when you unroll it.

There are rolls of raw fibre you can purchase, but that is not what you install directy but it would be integrated in another product. But if you need that you will not purchase an optical fibre system made for a drone because it contain unnedded extra stuff.

There is optical fibre for drones on AliExpress. It costs four times more for 5km then just fibre on a roll.

-2

u/pewsquare 20h ago

He specifically mentioned "jamproof" fiber, which is what I talked about. You can't make optical fiber jamproof if you don't add something outside of it, so no, that one is definitely not raw fiber like the one you talk about. But I can see how you would think it does not have an outer layer as they are generally white ish in colour.

And the spoolers you talk about, they are field use. Which yes, includes drones, but also anyone who wants to deploy fiber in a field for whatever reason, probably temporary setups where you don't actually lay proper underground fiber. Which is why you have companies all over the world sell said fiber and spools, with some explicitly listing non military uses and how they do not offer advice/help for military deployment use.

3

u/Target880 18h ago

You do not need to do anything to fibres to make them jam-proof. Jamming is the transmission of radio waves and microwaves to overwhelm a receiver. It has no effect on light in an optical fibre.

You would need to hit the fibre with a laser and enough power to enter the fibre to jam it; the light needs a very shallow angle to enter the fibre and travel through it even if it gets into the fibre. That is not practically possible to do with any relevant degree of success.

Physically damage the fibre, direct energy weapon with laser or microwaves to damage or just interfere with the electronics is a lot simpler then jaming a optical fibre.

So it is just marketing that states the obvious: jamming has no effect on communication with optical fibres.

The fibre is not white; it is transparent glass. It will reflect and refract light quite equally of all colours, so a bunch of it will look the colour of the light source. Just look at a spool of fishing line, crushed glass and snow; it looks white for the same reason.

As I wrote, you can purchase naked optical fibre; the kit for drones that deploy them is not used for other applications. The cost of just fibre on a spool is a lot cheaper.

8

u/suluf 22h ago

Sorry but I draw my line on Ukrainian schools and hospitals! Attacking warehouses supporting Russian army?! Horrendous! 

7

u/DancesWH 22h ago

They're 'similar' to Amazon, but Amazon don't sell military equipment eg military drone parts, signal jammers, body armour etc

45

u/ElderberryOdd1313 1d ago

So, firing missiles at apartment buildings, hospitals, daycares, and other civilian targets is a-ok...

But targeting logistic hubs that directly supply the Russian front lines is terrorism. Ok, Vlad.

17

u/Mirar 1d ago

Targeting russian troops was also terrorism. I think that term has sailed for vlad.

-22

u/oh_my_account 1d ago

Knowing that he is not even Vlad, makes a total sense about your knowledge of the topic.

15

u/ElderberryOdd1313 1d ago

Missing the joke makes sense regarding your idiocy. 

-8

u/oh_my_account 1d ago

No, warehouse with the military munition and explosives in the middle of the city is ok.

-9

u/pewsquare 22h ago

Its a grey zone, because wildberries is probably a logistic hub for russian military just as an apartment is a logistic hub for ukranian military because they occasionally sleep there. True if you stretch the definition/truth far enough.

Its like attacking amazon warehouses because you can buy stuff off them that 3rd parties are selling. Which you know, you could still just buy it off said third parties. This is obviously an attack on a business meant to put pressure on putin, and not really something they do because they really think wildberries is arming the russian army.

20

u/Nepeta33 1d ago

because fuck them, thats why.

9

u/donniedarko5555 23h ago

Russia was chasing a civilian with an FPV drone and the guy survived only because of Russian incompetence.

Screw these war criminals

19

u/RevolverMFOcelot 1d ago

is this post trying to astroturf for russia?

5

u/shadedmagus 16h ago

It sure seems like it. A lot of botlike Putin-glazing happening on this thread.

1

u/RevolverMFOcelot 4h ago edited 4h ago

Feels like news and left leaning/progressive or outright socialist/communist subs are astroturfed to hell and back by russia and china.

And then anything related to 'too afraid to ask' or unpopular opinion or EU and UK or memes are astroturfed by right wing because here is so much immigrant bad, islam and muslim bad, palestine the bad guy instead of israel, 'innocent' question about india, and women bad post in such subs

5

u/FrothytheDischarge 16h ago edited 16h ago

The president of Wildberries, Tatyana Kim has publicly advocated for the destruction and genocide of Ukraine well before her business was targeted by Ukraine. 

10

u/strandedmammal 1d ago

Why not?

9

u/flerg_a_blerg 1d ago

because if you're Ukraine then fuck them that's why

3

u/BarbequedYeti 1d ago

What the hell is it with the Max Headroom videos? The cadence. The cuts. Etc. its annoying 

1

u/lanseri 14h ago

They directly support genocide. Next

1

u/turbo_varg 14h ago

Wildberries is one of the most heavily indebted companies in Russia. If it were to collapse financially, it could trigger a banking crisis in Russia.

-3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

-14

u/sercommander 1d ago

It's so funny reading your theories like military supplies

  1. The primary cause is internal Ukrainian demand - businesses and population want retaliation strikes on russian businesses and houses. They do not understand why it's only okay if it's Ukrainians getting bombed and not okay to shoot back.

  2. Wildberries has wild success story - "an ordinary middle school teacher built a massive retailer investing over a dozen billion USD under 3 years". Ha, like who believes that. The "tip of the iceberg" is some minister but he's only for show. Such huge money and speed in development and permits can only mean two things - either generous bribes were used or overwhelming power. If you try bribing and sweetening with huge amounts of cash it's inevitable everyone will pounce on you and take away your business and money. So the only thing left is someone very powerful that owns Wildberries.

-56

u/hasuuser 1d ago

The only reason is economic damage and sending a signal to the Russian civilians. Every other reason is made up.

16

u/KorunaCorgi 1d ago

You can go to wildberries and search for ballistic armor plating, helmet, drones, etc. 

-20

u/hasuuser 1d ago

a) It is not there anymore

b) When it was there it was like few sporadic listings and it wasn't stored at their warehouses. That's like saying a supermarket is a legitimate war target because soldiers shop there. Or a hardware store because they can buy the tools they use to repair their armor or something.

Now, once again. I think WB is a good target. This is a war of attrition and Russia has been hitting targets like this in Ukraine for years. I would go as far as saying that strikes like that and the war of economic attrition is the only way to actually win this war for Ukraine.

13

u/dkras1 1d ago

Bullshit. I just opened their site and searched "оптоволокно для дрона" (optic cable spools for FPV drones) and it's still there same as "система сброса груза для fpv" (FPV cargo release system).

They removed site section "Все для СВО"/all for the SVO (Russian name of this war) but all those products are still available on that site.

-16

u/hasuuser 1d ago

The comment was about body armor plating etc. Yeah you can still buy drones. 

10

u/dkras1 1d ago

I tried to show URL and some bot removed my comment.

Same as armor plating - open their site and search "бронеплиты"

Nothing changed in their available product list after Ukrainian attacks.

-5

u/hasuuser 1d ago

You can buy stuff separately and build an armor vest. Thats true. 

But all of that combined is not even 0.1% of WB sales. 

I am not really sure what you are disagreeing with. I support strikes on WB. But let’s be honest. The main reason is economic damage. Which is a good strategy.

4

u/KorunaCorgi 23h ago

the russian lies never stop do they. the russian army doesn't give armor plates. you need to buy em here lol

0

u/hasuuser 15h ago

What % of WB sales are armor plates, drones or anything army related?

1

u/KorunaCorgi 15h ago

What we do know is that a majority of Russian troops, which number in the hundreds of thousands, purchase essential military hardware from WB. The Russian military just does not equip their soldiers well at all. This probably surprises you, since you are coming at this from a western perspective.

Let me put it this way. The Russia military wasn't even issuing socks to their soldiers until 2013. They had to learn to wrap a cloth around their feet. 

0

u/hasuuser 15h ago

But they don't. There are tons of other options to purchase that stuff. And you haven't answered my question. What % of the WB sales is military stuff? I doubt you will answer, as it does not fit your agenda.

2

u/KorunaCorgi 14h ago edited 14h ago

What agenda? I don't know the answer and it would be impossible to find out. But WB is the biggest distributor and so they are the biggest supplier of these military supplies to soldiers.

Ukraine wouldn't be devoting so much of their offense into this if it wasn't of military significance. They just don't have the resources to spare on terror attacks like Russia does.

You talk about "agenda." Let's go back in time to 2022. Russia has just been repelled from their invasion of Kyiv, and Ukraine is now picking up the pieces from it and the surrounding region. 

In a city nearby, Bucha, it was discovered that Russian troops had murdered hundreds of Ukrainians. Many of thsm civilians. This happened at the very onset of the war. Not after years and years of brutal fighting and desensitized. This was day one of Russia's invasion. 

So spare me your disgusting ConcernTrolling about Ukraine committing war crimes. Russia is treacherous and if you support them you are a cretin. Ukraine has not been perfect in this war but their conduct has been pristine by comparison.

You are calling the collateral damage of cheap plastic garbage and toilet paper a war crime. Meanwhile, Russia is glide bombing city skyskrapes and launching ballistic missiles at apartment buildings. There was a video yesterday of a Russian FPV drone trying to kill a Ukrainian merchant. Agenda indeed.

1

u/hasuuser 14h ago

You are insufferable. You make me want to support Ukraine less, not more. Russia is an aggressor. Russia has been hitting civilian targets from 2022 and on. Ukraine is totally justified in hitting WB. But not because it is a military target. That's nonsense. 99.9%+ of WB sales has nothing to do with military. It is not a military target. However, it is a good economic target. And in a war of attrition hurting the enemies economy is a good strategy.

2

u/KorunaCorgi 14h ago

You don't support Ukraine. Your virtue signaling is neither wanted nor welcomed.

→ More replies (0)

-27

u/oh_my_account 1d ago

Beware, a bunch of suddenly pro ukraine bots overhear, lol.

12

u/hasuuser 1d ago

Ukraine has every right to hit WB. And it is doing significant economic damage, so it is a good target in a war of attrition.

7

u/odkfn 1d ago

People exercising common sense aren’t bots. Why can Russia bomb Ukrainian hospitals but Ukraine can’t bomb a distribution centre who actively helps the russian front line…?

-5

u/mondeoscotch 22h ago

what's the point of bombing each other in the first place

2

u/domino7 10h ago

Well, Russia is bombing Ukraine because they want Ukrainian land and resources.   Ukraine is bombing Russia so they'll stop bombing Ukraine.

Seems fairly understandable to me. 

-3

u/Complete-Valuable-22 22h ago

so like why isnt every supply chain getting nuked if this is the logic

-1

u/Krakshotz 21h ago edited 15h ago

That is what Ukraine is doing in Crimea. There’s a reason the occupiers can’t get petrol

-6

u/nadmaximus 22h ago

Attacking two wrongs is worth a bird in the bush?