7 ms·
Sappers risk their lives to win Ukraine back, inch by inch
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ricardobeat 3y ago100+ countries have banned cluster ammunition 160+ countries have banned anti-personnel landmines Of course Russia, the US and China have not signed either of these, but still odd to read about it in a casual tone.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoThe rules don't apply to russia. The russians rape. The russians torture. The russians mutilate. The russians mass-murder. The russians shoot small children at close range in the head. The russians castrate prisoners of war. The russians execute their own fighters with rifles or by crushing their skull with a sledgehammer. The russians use chemical weapons. The russians use cluster bombs. The russians use white phosphorus. The russians cause ecological disaster. The russians threaten nuclear war. The russians steal children. The russians blow up schools. The russians blow up hospitals. The russians blow up power plants. And so on, and so on. And yet so many westerns will clutch their pearls when we give the Ukrainians the means to defend themselves.
- Torkel 3y agoSo, are they terrorists you say? Well, then. Classify them as such. => Any funding of them is now funding of terrorism. Including paying tax in Russia. Which means any and all companies doing business in and with Russia, and the individuals working in and for those companies now have to immediately stop, or else face jail... right? Seems like it could be super effective way of halting Russia? cf classification of Iranian's Revoutionary Guard as a terrorist org: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/01/23/eu-faces-growing-calls-to-label-irans-revolutionary-guard-as-a-terrorist-group https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/01/23/eu-faces-growi...
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoYes, the russians are absolutely terrorists, and should be classified as such. The European parliament have declared them as such, which is a start.
- Torkel 3y agoYeah - that seems to be about Russia being a state sponsor of terrorism (e.g. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221118IPR55707/european-parliament-declares-russia-to-be-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221118IP...) But what I would like to see is a situation where companies paying tax to Russia are seen as sponsoring terrorism. It would have insane reprecussions?
- sam_lowry_ 3y agoLike AB InBev, Danone, Auchan, Leroy Merlin, Decathlon (last three owned by the same French family, mind you).
- Torkel 3y agoThe list is INSANELY long. Most multinationals seem to be operating on a "business as usual" principle in Russia. If they all risk jail time, things will be different. Also consider that any purchases of anything from Russia would now also be classified as sponsoring terrorism. So no more Gasprom gas :P
- karmakurtisaani 3y agoThe rationale of not allowing cluster bombs is NOT based on what the enemy is doing, but the effects on the cluster bombs after the war. I'm not saying they should not be given to Ukraine, but simply pointing out that you're arguing the wrong argument. Edit: I have seen good arguments for giving the bombs to Ukraine, and tend to agree with them. I.e., their use is rather localized at this point of the war.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoThe cluster munitions are going to be used against russian defensive positions on agricultural UKRAINIAN territory. It's entirely up to Ukraine what they do with their own land. And the options at this point are: 1. Remove russian terrorists with cluster munitions, with the potential for civilian casualties. 2. Allow russian terrorists to continue raping, torturing, and murdering civilians in Ukraine.
- azalemeth 3y agoThe other one I've heard -- no idea how true it is -- is that the DPCIM bomblets that are inside these munitions are shaped charge & frag dual purpose ammunition which would be really really appropriate to drop one by one from a drone.
- docdeek 3y agoThe number of states ratifying these agreements can be misleading, and the simple majority of states agreeing to do something doesn’t always mean the powerful have stepped up, too. States representing nearly half the world (47/48% of global population) have not signed the Ottawa Treaty on anti-personnel landmines. More than half (+55%) of the world’s population lives in a country that is not covered by the cluster munitions convention. One of the keys to making these treaties useful is to have the most powerful states aligned on their aims and objectives - it matters a lot more to have (as you suggest) the US, Russia, China, India, and Pakistan signing on than it does many other smaller states.
- ricardobeat 3y agoNotably most of Europe is a signatory of both treaties.
- docdeek 3y agoIndeed, though also notably Finland was a hold out on the landmine treaty for a long time, and is still not a signatory to the cluster munitions agreement. Having a border with Russia and a history of conflict with Russia is part of the reason why.
- ethbr0 3y agoThe realpolitik of warfare treaties tends to be much more about "What will blunt my potential enemy's strength more than mine?" than ethics.
- dandanua 3y agoIt's still odd to read "whataboutism" after all what Russia did in Ukraine, breaking any possible war crime law, mass murdering and torturing civilians, using any weapons anywhere they want (except nuclear, although the nuclear power plant is likely mined), causing scorched earth by blowing the dam, etc etc.
- throwawayhhl 3y ago[flagged]
- rich_sasha 3y agoCluster munitions are very dangeorous to civilians, because they can lay unexploded in the ground for years, and, well, there are many of them. The issue is, what is more dangerous to Ukrainian civilians over the next decade or two - unexploded munitions, which can hopefully be mostly recovered after the war, or the Russians, who rape, burn, pillage, kidnap and murder indiscriminately? Certainly they are happy to create ambiguity over whether they would blow up a nuclear plant. Certainly given Russia is already covering the country with cluster munitions, I don't think it's unreasonable for Ukraine to use them, over their own territory. At the very least it's up to them.
- DoItToMe81 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rich_sasha 3y agoIt's not "good". It's bad. You have to figure out what kind of bad though, and what the alternative is. As it happens, alternative may very well be worse. And I'm glad you agree at least that PUTIN EVIL.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Our_Benefactors 3y agoYou’re overdramatizing this. The comparison was between the danger imposed on citizens by passive munitions vs an active invading force.
- screye 3y ago> who rape, burn, pillage, kidnap and murder indiscriminately Is there any legitimate source for this other than random bad actors or anecdotal propaganda from western news source. This isn't a 10th century Viking invasion.
- drewcoo 3y ago[flagged]
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoWere you complaining when the terrorist state of russia used cluster bombs against civilians in Ukraine? They've been doing it for 500 days.
- herewulf 3y agoApparently you missed the point that Ukrainians using cluster bombs will kill Ukrainians in the future. The idea that the increased effectiveness of DPCIMs will save lives is a rather theoretical argument. Perhaps it will be comforting to armless children in the future? Because that kind of casualty is a known fact.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoWe have armless children in Ukraine already today. You know who removed their limbs? The fucking russians.
- failuser 3y agoWhat law are they breaking exactly? And it’s not like Russia is abstaining from using mines and faulty Soviet cluster munitions with a lot of unexpected submunitions. What is your point?
- remarkEon 3y agoI don't think any law is being broken, and the convention that governs use of cluster munitions does not have the United States (or Russia or Ukraine for that matter) as signatories[1]. Maybe OP is thinking that there's some appropriations rule that this violates, but I doubt it. The broader point, though, is that this is yet another step up the escalation ladder for the United States and we're inching closer to direct involvement in a territorial dispute that has little strategic value for the US. Many don't like that fact, but it's still true. That we're doing this means we're either running out of things to give Ukraine, their counter-offensive is not going as well as expected or planned, or some combination of both. I can steelman an argument for US involvement, but it pretty much stops at degrading Russian combat power to the point where they can't project force anymore, outside of their nuclear deterrent. We've reached that point. There isn't really a coherent end game to this war as long as the US continues to print money and ship our weapons to Ukraine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munition...
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y agoThe west needs to start blowing up Russia's capacity to make stuff. We keep sending stuff to Ukraine, but it seems that Russia's capacity to replace it's own stuff isn't degrading... This way this will drag on forever.
- danparsonson 3y agoIf any other countries start bombing Russian territory then that's a massive escalation that risks triggering their nuclear doctrine and ruining everything. So don't hold your breath for that one.
- herewulf 3y ago[flagged]
- yakshaving_jgt 3y agoGet out of here, Chamberlain.
- frozenport 3y ago> 3. Russia will not back down having gained nothing (but the gain likely does not have to be physical). Idea is that they will coup and back down.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoIt almost happened like 2 weeks ago. It is really boiling inside Russia.
- herewulf 3y agoThat seems like a rather false hope. Russia doesn't have much of a track record for backing down. We can discuss the Prigozhin incident but no one outside of Wagner supported him. Nor does he seem to be in favor of withdrawing from Ukraine but rather assigning blame for mismanagement of the war. In fact, there are a whole host of vocal Russians ("ultranationalists") who seem to think Russia (and therefore Putin?) is not putting in enough effort. If there is a coup, the rest of the civilized world really may not like whoever replaces Putin.
- frozenport 3y agoUSSR fell apart, when the people saw their government and system as a complete fraud. Much to the surprise of Kremlin watchers. There is still hope for the Russian people
- herewulf 3y agoOne would hope but I recently watched a YouTube video of an Australian touring a shopping mall / grocery store in Moscow. It looked practically identical to a western version. Contrast that to the USSR where grocery shelves were routinely empty and there was no variety of items. Now maybe this is some kind of well funded information operation and sanctions really are working but there is no way the level of austerity is anywhere near the USSR's terminal levels. Until the Russian people's daily lives are adversely affected in a huge way, the comparative dissolution is not happening.