"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (147 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

BREAKING NEWS - Turkey agrees to let Sweden join NATO:


Earlier today, Erdogan had said he would let Sweden join NATO if the EU started talks to admit Turkey to the Union. Seems like something has broken the log-jam. This is great news, IMHO.
Ten rubles says Hungary now blocks Sweden.

 
And Ukraine is using captured ones back at the Russians
As long as the Ukrainians restrict their strikes to within Ukraine I'm fine with them using anything below WMDs. Cluster munitions, flamethrowers, napalm, Novichok-laced MREs? As long as it kills Russians within Ukraine, go for it.

Though it has to be tempting to Zaluzhnyi to go from Kharkiv oblast briefly into Russia to flank around into Luhansk, aiming for Troitske.

IMG_2590.png
 
Last edited:
Russia is using thermobaric munitions that burn everything, against a democratic, western-leaning country it has illegally invaded. That's where the scorn should lay.
But it already does, so that's a bit of a strawman kind of argument.

Russia has also used White Phosphorous in civilian areas, and deliberately targeted and destroyed civilian infrastructure. You don;t need to do more than scratch the surface to find a long list of brutal Russian actions

The world has woken up to Russian war crimes and thats one of the many reasons why, aside from banana republics, dictatorships and nations of ignorami, the 'thinking world' is opposed and unified against Russia. I'm chary of anything that puts that unity in jeopardy, because this *is* a righteous confrontation with a illiberal, totalitarian, nationalist pseudo-dictatorship. Anything that blunts that is a wrong step IMO - abd is clearly a concern shared across multiple nations at diplomatic and political level.
 
They could and should have woken up after the russian brutaly in Syria showed up but it seems that sector was too unimportant for most nations. But it may at least have helped in providing more (hidden) assistance to Ukraine in rebuilding/retraining their army. But still awful to look into the past how long the europeans and other Nato members too for decision to send military hardware to Ukraine (tanks, fighting vehicles, rockets, not some small amount of helmets although better than nothing)
 
Turkey simply cannot become an EU member state. The main but not the single reason being it mililtary occupies the northern part of Cyprus, an EU member state.
Other reason if the notion of Europe has a meaning, only about 3 % of its territory is in Europe in the geographical sense, and only because it was taken by force.
"Taken by force" applies to vast swaths of many nations' lands.
 
These are folks who, if the truth is inconvenient, will simply lie. Worrying about their good opinion seems a fool's quest to me.

As for the neutrals of the world, sure, cluster bombs is a bad look. But the critics have the luxury of criticizing Ukraine because they're not fighting for national survival.
But its not 'neutrals' OR critics, is it? Its the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy - and the majority of NATO (and Europe.)

As for worrying about good opinion?

Some might say that after the lessons of Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan etc, the importance of needing world opinion and support and a lasting coalition of 'the willing', might have stuck in the minds of US planners - along with some kind of agreed plan on how things are going to be conducted long term. There's no irony that we're now marking 25 years since the invasion of Iraq. The concern over what kind of war is gong to be fought in Ukraine, how long its going to last and the incremental steps of escalation that are likely to happen, are entirely valid I think.

Many of the critical nations also have the unwanted 'luxury' that many commentators lack; experience of unexploded munitions in their own fields or city streets. That does tend to put a different perspective on things.

Lets play Devils Advocate a minute:

Of course the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival - but what ends justify what means? Whats the red line? Mustard gas a step too far? I mean, they'd be using it on their own land, fighting an invader who's already broken key tenets of the Geneva Convention. So why not? Expanding small arms ammunition? Flamethrowers? Not all nations are signatories to The Geneva convention... Do we supply them with weapons we wouldn't use?

Times change and public as well as military opinion changes on whats acceptable and what isn't. War - especially a war that is going to depend upon the cash sacrifice of tax payers and voters - is also a war of opinion and perception. Whether considered naive or not.

If those munitions are going to be broken down into bomblets, this is largely a non issue. If they get used en masse as tube or air-launched cluster munitions, there will be a backlash across mainstream European opinion. Whether its a large one or important in the long run or not, remains to be seen. But it simply cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand. Doing so makes the whole controversy become a QED as it also displays the attitude in some quarters towards diplomacy regarding their allies - which really would be a victory for Putin.
 
With Australia a smaller economy and being a non-NATO member, the Aussies are putting my country Canada to shame.


Shut your Poutine hole, Justin. And instead send more Leopard 2 tanks and start sending Bushmaster-armed LAV3s.
 
Of course the Ukrainians are fighting for national survival - but what ends justify what means? Whats the red line? Mustard gas a step too far?
Anything less than a WMD should be provided to and used by Ukraine. Poison gas, such as Saddam used on the Kurds is a WMD, so no. But everything else, napalm, flamethrowers, cluster munitions, Jewish space lasers? Yes to them all.
 
Imagine how this situation might have played out with cluster munitions:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back