IMHO these drones are much less dehumanising than artillery or missiles. Most of the time those who fire the artillery or the rockets never get to see the people they are killing, they enter some numbers and and press a button. Even those who provide the numbers might not see much as the would use clues and remote sensing stuff.

I understand your point but I disagree. Yes a human controls them and just like a remote human on the internet the people on the camera are just video game targets. There is no way to communicate with the drone operator. People do not hear each others voices and do not have a real human experience. The internet has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that people will destroy other people on the internet that they would otherwise be polite to in person. The drone operator has nothing to risk or lose other than the drone itself. The soldiers in the field have everything to lose.

If we are at the point where people are fighting drones, it is clearly time to escalate. I know this will be a wildly unpopular belief but it is time to get the soldiers out of the field all together and use longer range missiles or do unspeakable things that will truly shock the enemy into giving up or more realistically factoring in Russian history, just wipe out the enemy all together.

Russia understands this. In the past weeks they have loaded up over 7k nukes in their silos and subs. They have recently retrofitted all their massive bunkers.

To me the drone says "there is a large enough UA force close enough that your surrender can be processed with no danger of interference from your (former) command"; to you the drone continues "furthermore there is no dishonour in surrendering to the drone, because it is a significant escalation in the fight. You did your best, and must surrender now".

Does that make sense?

I totally get what everyone is saying, I just know it will not play out how people think it will. They might allow a handful of troops to surrender at first to condition them into thinking this is a thing. The problem is that Russia are past taking prisoners. The Russians have nothing more to learn from their enemy and have not even learned lessons from this war. Both sides are still using trench warfare. The Russians will just mow down the Ukrainians once enough of them start to surrender.

If people insist on using trenches, they will need to change the methodology to the tunnels used in the Vietnam war.

Maybe it's unpopular with you, but what's wrong with just getting the soldiers out of the field all together, period? Nobody invited the Russian soldiers where they are.

I like the idea but the way it's actually going down is awful. Russian soldiers that returned without permission are being brutally abused and made examples of. Youtube takes down the videos but you can find some of them on bitchute and 4chan.

(I kind of hope we solve the "reasonable amounts of peace" thing before that technical milestone is crossed.)

If people insist on using trenches, they will need to change the methodology to the tunnels used in the Vietnam war vs open trenches.

Shoot the fucking thing.

For the people pushing to surrender to a drone, if there is any assumption that one side surrendering will end a war or reduce risk of nuclear escalation, they are sorely mistaken. Russia will be attacking no less than seven countries sequentially should Ukraine fall. They have no choice on this matter. The planning for this started in 1991 and started going into action in 2014. The Russians have been planning to re-secure their new borders ever since the 90's. By new borders I am referring to land that resides in their neighboring countries, the former Soviet states. Russia itself can not be practically secured. They will not give up.