5 ms·

What 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 submuni

What 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 ago
I 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...
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Whatever the endgame is, Russia having a thousand fewer tanks, AFVs and artillery guns is better for USA, NATO, and European security. If we need to perpetually spend like 3% of our defense budget on Ukraine... That's fine? We're not really dedicated to it like the $Trillion/year we spent on Iraq or Afghanistan. One can even argue that all the data we are getting from Patriot systems and Drones is good for the Taiwan situation. Out defenses and weapons are being tested, while China's are not. We will have upgrades and improvements that we otherwise wouldn't have gotten thanks to Ukrainian war. From a purely selfish perspective, USA is a big winner of Ukraine/Russia war, much like the Nazi Germany was the winner of the Spanish civil war. A war in an allied nation where our weapons, doctrine and theories is tested puts us up in ways that money cannot buy. ----- We are learning how to spin up 155mm production lines and Stinger missiles thanks to the Ukrainian war. We've learned of the hole in our air defenses that drones pose. We've seen how naval drones work vs the Russian navy (and a preview for how it'd work vs the Chinese Navy). Etc. Etc. The only reason we are sending these cluster bombs is because we've failed to spin up production of 155mm shells fast enough, and our stockpiles of that shell were too shallow in practice. We've learned that Switzerland is not a reliable ally. We've learned that Germany's doctrine relies upon Swiss AA ammunition and that Germany is grossly unprepared to ramp up AA defense production. Good. We learned, our generals will remember and we will be in a better position when a real war hits us. This was all a test and we can use the results of the test to improve ourselves. And who knows? Maybe we can even keep Ukraine free and prosperous when it all ends. Might as well try our best to help them while getting all this valuable data.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaking - in a WWI scenario where a lot of new technology is clashing for the first time and we don't know what beats what. That's all well and good, but it has some interesting moral implications because it presupposes that we (the US) are keeping this war going intentionally as a means to allow our defense industrial base to tool up for a war in the pacific and test new technologies against the old Cold War adversary. If that is the reason, we should just be honest about it. Prior to 2016 Ukraine didn't exactly get the "bastion of freedom and democracy" treatment that it gets in the US press today, which has left me pretty skeptical of how its discussed in general. The war goes on if and only if the US continues funding it which suggest to me the opposite of your point, as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe. At what point do we "have enough data" and can stop the bloodshed?
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      > as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.
- failuser 3y ago
  Little strategic value? The largest country in Europe (besides Russia) that stopped supposedly the second best army in the world? Russia taking over Ukraine will have pretty grim strategic implication for the US. Russia had come back from worse? If you want Germany under Russian control in 30 years stopping giving Ukraine better weapons is the way to go.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    Can you actually articulate anything beyond vaguely waiving at the size of the Ukrainian land mass? Is there some hyper critical mineral they have that no one else has? >If you want Germany under Russian control in 30 years stopping giving Ukraine better weapons is the way to go. I'm struggling to understand how this would happen, given Russia is at the point where they're pulling out mothballed T-34s for this and Germany has its own defense industry with modern weapons systems across all levels of war. "If we don't start WWIII over the Donbass, it's on to Berlin for the Russians!" isn't a statement grounded in any evidence or reality.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      Is there some hyper critical mineral they have that no one else has? Actually the main concern in Ukraine is stopping the mass murder, rape and torture of civilians. Bet you didn't think of that.
      - failuser 3y ago
        Unfortunately, stopping mass murder, rape and torture is not a very compelling argument for pragmatists. As it was with WWI and WWII. Fortunately, there is a very good pragmatic argument for helping Ukraine win.
        lisasays 3y ago
        Indeed - there are plenty of obvious pragmatic reasons for Europe's not wanting to have to put up with a recidivist bully on its doorstep, long-term. On top of the stench of all the bodies in Bucha, Mariupol, etc. It's not like it's a big head-scratcher.

What 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 ago

I 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...

dragontamer 3y ago
Whatever the endgame is, Russia having a thousand fewer tanks, AFVs and artillery guns is better for USA, NATO, and European security. If we need to perpetually spend like 3% of our defense budget on Ukraine... That's fine? We're not really dedicated to it like the $Trillion/year we spent on Iraq or Afghanistan. One can even argue that all the data we are getting from Patriot systems and Drones is good for the Taiwan situation. Out defenses and weapons are being tested, while China's are not. We will have upgrades and improvements that we otherwise wouldn't have gotten thanks to Ukrainian war. From a purely selfish perspective, USA is a big winner of Ukraine/Russia war, much like the Nazi Germany was the winner of the Spanish civil war. A war in an allied nation where our weapons, doctrine and theories is tested puts us up in ways that money cannot buy. ----- We are learning how to spin up 155mm production lines and Stinger missiles thanks to the Ukrainian war. We've learned of the hole in our air defenses that drones pose. We've seen how naval drones work vs the Russian navy (and a preview for how it'd work vs the Chinese Navy). Etc. Etc. The only reason we are sending these cluster bombs is because we've failed to spin up production of 155mm shells fast enough, and our stockpiles of that shell were too shallow in practice. We've learned that Switzerland is not a reliable ally. We've learned that Germany's doctrine relies upon Swiss AA ammunition and that Germany is grossly unprepared to ramp up AA defense production. Good. We learned, our generals will remember and we will be in a better position when a real war hits us. This was all a test and we can use the results of the test to improve ourselves. And who knows? Maybe we can even keep Ukraine free and prosperous when it all ends. Might as well try our best to help them while getting all this valuable data.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Right, I'm quite amenable to the idea that this war is functioning as a gigantic test bed for modern 21st century weapons systems, and we are - generally speaking - in a WWI scenario where a lot of new technology is clashing for the first time and we don't know what beats what. That's all well and good, but it has some interesting moral implications because it presupposes that we (the US) are keeping this war going intentionally as a means to allow our defense industrial base to tool up for a war in the pacific and test new technologies against the old Cold War adversary. If that is the reason, we should just be honest about it. Prior to 2016 Ukraine didn't exactly get the "bastion of freedom and democracy" treatment that it gets in the US press today, which has left me pretty skeptical of how its discussed in general. The war goes on if and only if the US continues funding it which suggest to me the opposite of your point, as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe. At what point do we "have enough data" and can stop the bloodshed?
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > as an active war in Europe should distinctly reduce relative security in Europe Could you please explain your reasoning? The fewer tanks Russia has, the less they're able to mess around with other countries. That means fewer Russo-Georgian War (2008) events, because Russia's military is just left weaker overall. We need to ensure that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2014 to 2023) is the last destabilizing push Russia does in the near future. Sure, they can rebuild later, but we can make that rebuilding as costly as possible (ex: sanctions on chips and other strategic parts that they need to actually build these weapons). Russia's economy is not like ours. We can certainly outspend them in production. We know that they're using 152mm shells at a rate exceeding 155mm shells (because their shells are less accurate than our shells). And Russia's wartime economy is weaker than ours, they simply don't have as much production as us either (the combined might of NATO: not just USA but also Germany, Poland, UK, etc. etc). The war-materials they use in Ukraine they cannot use in other countries. This will prevent another Georgia-like or Ukraine-like situation, because Russia simply won't have the strength to mess around anymore. ---------------------- EDIT: In particular, we know that Moldova is on Russia's crosshairs. By making sure that Russia is stopped in Ukraine, then we save Moldova. Even if Ukraine is stalemated (or even conquered), the next country down the line has better security the more resistance we put up in Ukraine.
failuser 3y ago
Little strategic value? The largest country in Europe (besides Russia) that stopped supposedly the second best army in the world? Russia taking over Ukraine will have pretty grim strategic implication for the US. Russia had come back from worse? If you want Germany under Russian control in 30 years stopping giving Ukraine better weapons is the way to go.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Can you actually articulate anything beyond vaguely waiving at the size of the Ukrainian land mass? Is there some hyper critical mineral they have that no one else has? >If you want Germany under Russian control in 30 years stopping giving Ukraine better weapons is the way to go. I'm struggling to understand how this would happen, given Russia is at the point where they're pulling out mothballed T-34s for this and Germany has its own defense industry with modern weapons systems across all levels of war. "If we don't start WWIII over the Donbass, it's on to Berlin for the Russians!" isn't a statement grounded in any evidence or reality.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Is there some hyper critical mineral they have that no one else has? Actually the main concern in Ukraine is stopping the mass murder, rape and torture of civilians. Bet you didn't think of that.
    - failuser 3y ago
      Unfortunately, stopping mass murder, rape and torture is not a very compelling argument for pragmatists. As it was with WWI and WWII. Fortunately, there is a very good pragmatic argument for helping Ukraine win.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        Indeed - there are plenty of obvious pragmatic reasons for Europe's not wanting to have to put up with a recidivist bully on its doorstep, long-term. On top of the stench of all the bodies in Bucha, Mariupol, etc. It's not like it's a big head-scratcher.