this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
487 points (99.4% liked)
Ukraine
10021 readers
333 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
🇺🇦 Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
🌻🤢No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
💥Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
❗ Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
💳 Defense Aid 💥
💳 Humanitarian Aid ⚕️⛑️
🪖 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, if you set a bomb off on a plane that is most likely fuel laden, you're not going to be able to fly that plane again. If the air frame isn't completely destroyed, it's going to take months or years to repair, functionally rendering it destroyed.
Right my point is we don't know how many "targeted" planes were actually hit. Like does that mean they launched drones with the intention of hitting them? Does it mean Zelinsky pointed to a satellite image and said "try to get that plane on the airfield"? I hope they get as many as possible but I'm still a little skeptical of the 40 plane claim. Let's wait and see, satellite images will be able to prove it one way or another.
There's drone footage already out there showing the planes burning.
Yeah I've seen drone footage of 4-5 planes burning though, not 40. It would not be the first time Ukraine has made a big exaggerated claim.
Edit: "🇺🇦 Andriy Kovalenko, head of Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation, reports that at least 13 Russian aircraft were destroyed and additional aircraft damaged during Ukraine’s large-scale operation "Spiderweb" on June 1." Downvote me all you want. Source
All I'd say is that isn't an exaggerated claim. They said 41 targeted, any assumption about how many were hit is not coming from them.
Equally, the quote you have provided confirms just that they know of at least 13 destroyed. It could be 41 were hit but only 13 destroyed.
This also implies:
The headline in this post says 41 hit. That is the clarification I was trying to make.
You're right, I apologise