The White House has confirmed that Ukraine is using US cluster bombs against Russian forces in the country.
National Security Spokesman John Kirby said initial feedback suggested they were being used “effectively” on Russian defensive positions and operations.
Cluster bombs scatter multiple bomblets and are banned by more than 100 states due to their threat to civilians.
The US agreed to supply them to boost Ukrainian ammunition supplies.
Ukraine has promised the bombs will only be used to dislodge concentrations of Russian enemy soldiers.
“They are using them appropriately,” Mr Kirby said. “They’re using them effectively and they are actually having an impact on Russia’s defensive formations and Russia’s defensive manoeuvring. I think I can leave it at that.”
The US decided to send cluster bombs after Ukraine warned that it was running out of ammunition during its summer counter-offensive, which has been slower and more costly than many had hoped.
President Joe Biden called the decision “very difficult”, while its allies the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Spain opposed their use.
The vast majority sent are artillery shells with a lower than 2.35% “dud rate”, a reference to the percentage of bomblets which do not explode immediately and can remain a threat for years.
The weapons are effective when used against troops in trenches and fortified positions, as they render large areas too dangerous to move around in until cleared.
Russia has used similar cluster bombs in Ukraine since it launched its full-scale invasion last year, including in civilian areas.
Reacting to the US decision to send the bombs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country had similar weapons and they would be used “if they are used against us”.
Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Ukrainian general in charge of operations in the country’s east, told the BBC last week that his forces needed the weapons to “inflict maximum damage on enemy infantry”.
“We’d like to get very fast results, but in reality it’s practically impossible. The more infantry who die here, the more their relatives back in Russia will ask their government ‘why?’”
He added however that cluster bombs would not “solve all our problems”.
He also acknowledged that their use was controversial, but added: “If the Russians didn’t use them, perhaps conscience would not allow us to do it too.”
Ukraine MOD has a program in place that databases every cluster munition fire mission. Demining eastern Ukraine is going to be a years long effort. Any unexpended ordinance will go into that effort. Countries that gave up cluster munitions have had their rose tinted glasses on too long and assumed war would be limited to foreign battlefields and not their back yards.
Ukraine is the country that is using them and they are the country that will have to clean them up. Seems pretty consensual.
“Consensual” or not these (I doubt anyone asked the people of Ukraine but I digress.) weapons are terrible.
Boo hoo Ukraine is using a weapon the Russia has been using since the beginning of the war. Whatever will happen if we give them high quality weapons that won’t fail as much as shitty Russian equivalents.
The tankies really came out for this one huh
Many countries (not the US, Russia, or Ukraine) consider cluster bombs illegal. I worry seeing people applauding the use of such weapons…
I’d prefer they don’t get used, but my preference for Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine is much greater. They’re mapping their usage and south and eastern Ukraine will need extensive UXO clearing with or without the use of cluster munitions.
That’s basically the excuse for every war crime…
If you say so
Would you mind torture being used for “Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine”?
No because that’s obvious harm, whereas cluster munitions are a potential future harm that needs to be fixed by clearing the battlefield of UXO with or without there being Ukrainian cluster munitions on the battlefield. Not to mention they’re already being used by Russia
So that’s where you draw the line in war crimes. It’s OK if a kid loses its legs in 10 years but not OK if it happens now…
Also, if the other guy is doing it, you can do it as well…
Neither side is a signatory of the now 13 year old ban, it’s not a war crime. I’m looking at the reality of the battlefield, which is already littered with more artillery rounds than likely any battlefield since the Second World War and realizing that this battlefield will be a disaster to clean up with or without the Ukrainians using rounds that will hopefully help them win. I am obviously against kids getting blown up
You do know cluster munitions are not considere a war crime, right? It’s a different agreement than the Geneva convention. Now, of course using it against civilians is covered (RU has done this, UA has not yet). What is mentioned in the Geneva convention is the responsibility to remove unexploded ordenances.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Cluster bombs are not a war crime.
Russia was using cluster munitions long before Ukraine. Ukranians are using the cluster munitions on their homeland to defend it. If people didn’t want cluster munitions to be used, then Russia should not have started using them.
American here. Cluster bombs, like any munition are weapon of war and are designed to kill. In a war, the goal is to end it as quickly as possible and if a cluster bomb can accomplish that goal faster more efficiently then I say use them.
Should you be dropping cluster bombs on cities full of civilians? Obviously not. But an open battlefield situation filled with trenches and tanks, they are effective tool.
In any case, it’s not like Ukraine and Russia are not firing other high explosive weaponry, bombs and mines are littering the landscape and will for hundreds of years to come. The only difference at this point is the delivery method of these weapons. There will be no shortage of unexploded ordinance left on the landscape after the war is over.
Yeah, but the big difference is these are small bombs, and a ton of them, that are really difficult to detect and clear. These things can be a buried for decades, and unlike a mine field someone could have walked or driven over it a thousand times before the one time it finally goes off or gets unearthed and someone picks it up not knowing it’s about to kill or maim them. And the place they’re dropping them might not be an urban area now, but what about in 40 years? The ones the US dropped on Laos, for example, are still killing people. There are millions and millions of them still to this day.
I disagree. Russia has already deployed millions of minds inside of Ukraine, which is a foreign country. Those mines will stay active and deployed for decades, if not hundreds of years just waiting for something to drive or step on them before they explode.
Don’t forget the so-called butterfly cluster bombs which have been used by Russia which changes color to a bright orange that makes it look like a toy to kids.
UXOs are in a state because the fusing failed. However, many of the clustered munitions that the United States still has in its inventory have a dual fuse to mitigate and reduce the number of UXOs to a very small percentage of the submunitions.
Germany years ago even developed cluster munitions with an electronic fuse that would completely fail within 24 hours of being deployed. Those had a 0% UXO rate. It’s too bad that the United States military hadn’t adopted that fusing system instead but it probably had other drawbacks.
In addition to the mines so, there are thousands of unexploded artillery shells that have been fired from both sides that are also a hazard.
–
My point is that it is way too late in the game to be complaining about certain types of munitions being used when any sane line in the sand has long been crossed by the egregious war crimes being committed on a daily basis by Russia. Well the human rights watch can complain about Ukrainian war crimes, this whole shit storm was kicked off by Russia and they still defend their genocidal campaign against Ukrainians.
Many of countries that have banned the use of their military forces using cluster munitions have their arsenals stocked with similar technology to deploy a large quantity of landmines over a large area via mortars or artillery. I find it extremely hypocritical. Eastern Ukraine is already now one of the most heavily mined areas of the world and will already take decades to demine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT2_mine As an example
Another: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/cluster0405/3.htm
Problem is they are really fucking effective.
That doesn’t really seem like a problem, except maybe for the Russians.
Sadly, the humanitarian concern of Ukraine’s use of cluster bombs is not the most important.
The real issue is why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs in the first place.
We’re not doing it as part of some strategy or for some kind of tactical advantage. We’re doing it because we don’t have anything else left to send them. We’ve run out of modern munitions and won’t be getting much more anytime soon. That’s why we’re sending Ukraine cluster bombs.
And the reason this article exists is because Ukraine is almost certainly not using them effectively, but they want to convince us otherwise. Cluster bombs don’t do shit to tanks or buildings. They were designed for targeting people hiding in the jungle. Why would anyone feel the need to write an article saying, “Hey, btw, these weapons you paid for are definitely working out really well. They’re super good at destroying Russians, for sure!”? I suspect it’s because they’re doing jack shit.
Cluster munitions certainly can take out tanks, but not all cluster munitions are made equally. There are several types. Just a quick Google search brings up the CBU-100 Rockeye II which is an anti-tank cluster munition.
We’re also sending them these because cluster munitions are no longer used by the US military. So it’s decomission or send them to be used. It’s cheaper to ship them then dispose of them.
And we haven’t ran out of modern munitions. We’re running low on AVAILABLE SURPLUS munitions to send them. But we are ramping up production to replace current stocks.
Regarding peace talks people here seems to want In February 2022 peace could have been made but NATO /US called up Boris Johnson who went to Ukraine the stop it and successfully did so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
What’s happens in Ukraine have been a topic for papers since the 1990s . It’s a proxy war where two competing oligarch fractions are fighting for dominance.
As Afghanistans president said Ukraine should have learned from them. When elephants dance…
The propaganda is so total that people rather see cluster bombs than peace. Fuck that.
Russia has repeatedly broken peace treaties and ceasefires with Ukraine. Their word means jack shit.
Next you’re going to suggest we just need to sit down for a reasonable conversation with Kim Jong Un…
And speaking of misinformation/propoganda, nice job trying obfuscate from the fact that Ukraine is fighting for their own sovereignty against an aggressor who’s committed genocide against their citizens, (with a recent history doing so in Syria as well).
You’re either purposefully peddling propoganda under the guise of a warning, or you’ve hypocritically fallen victim to it while warning against it. Either way, your statement is devoid of reality.
Removed by mod
I already responded to this elsewhere. Stop spamming shit.
Who’s got a rampant history of war crimes and genocide again?..
. . . .
Oh yeah, fucking russia!
Both sides are not the same and russia is the aggressor.
And I corrected you. Stop spamming. Oh yeah fucking NATO
What peace negotiations with Russia would result in Ukraine keeping its sovereign territory?
You mean the part where Ukraine has been ethnically cleansing for a decade and were the people living there want out of Ukraine?
deleted by creator
Fair is fair in love and war
Is this fair?
Don’t click if you don’t want to see horrific things
This has what to do with Ukraine exactly?
Fair is fair in love and war
Lmao that has nothing to do with the current conversation but thanks
Completely off topic and irrelevant
Sounds like they’re working. Good.
The war propaganda is working as intended
Who’s got a rampant history of war crimes and genocide again?..
. . . .
Oh yeah, fucking russia!
Oh yeah fucking NATO *fixed it for you
Good thing NATO isn’t in this war then.
Lol
If NATO was actually in this conflict it would be over already
Proxy war. Amazing that I am the bad guy for being against war crimes and ww3…
So like Vietnam, where the US wasn’t at war with China and the Soviets? Or like Afghanistan where the USSR wasn’t at war with the US?
lol and I’m obviously pro war crime and pro World War III because I don’t agree with you
Whataboutism. Classic from the russian playbook!
We’re not discussing NATO; we’re discussing Ukraine being invaded by russia, who has committed genocide against Ukrainian civilians.
Removed by mod
Literally a propoganda spamming account. Thank you for being so obvious in your approach that you out yourself to be blocked.
Again , point made in image. Interesting that the default for people like you match so well…
deleted by creator
War is hell. That statement is both true and has lost all meaning, because no one really feels it.
We should be negotiating a peace by now. The suffering of these cluster bombs cause is immeasurable, as is the general suffering of this war.
Imagine
spoiler
beating a puppy to death with a golf club
. Imagine the whole thing vividly, and then imagine
spoiler
pushing the pulpy body aside
and doing it again, and just repeating this exercise ad nausium for hours and hours. This is the kind of feeling we should experience when we read stories about this conflict, if we had any concept of what a war is. And when we debate whether to use cluster bombs, that’s like debating whether to use
spoiler
a nine iron or crush the puppy’s skull slowly with a boot
. One is definitely, definitely DEFINITELY WORSE, and should NEVER BE DONE, but both are awful and should make us so physically ill to think about that we would do anything at all – such as negotiate a ceasefire! – to avoid doing it.
Friendly reminder Russia is committing atrocities in the occupied territories. So any kind of negotiated “peace” that involves Ukraine giving up territory means them consigning all their citizens living there to torture, random executions, wanton sexual violence, having their children taken away, and worse!
That’s what you’re calling for when you advocate a “negotiated settlement”.
This reminds me of a time a few years ago when my husband and I were trying to sell a motorcycle. The short version is that we wanted $4k, and we get holding out, but the wait involved kept causing the motorcycle – which suffers when idle – to need further costly servicing before we finally sold it for $2k. Which was close to what we spent unnecessarily on servicing it while holding out for a better price.
The point is that you’re making some dangerous unexamined assumptions here. Let’s just remember that eventually, the fighting will end with a negotiation and a treaty. We don’t know what such a treaty would yield now, and we don’t know what it will yield if it happens later. We have no way of knowing that a treaty negotiated later is going to be better than one granted now.
More importantly, I don’t think you – or most of the people in this comment section – are factoring in the human cost to this war by the day. It’s probably not possible. It’s like picturing 200 billion ducks. Your brain is not capable of comprehending it.
I’m grateful I’m not responsible for doing this math and figuring out when the ideal trade off occurs, but it terrifies me that people are applying the same faulty logic that cost me $2k dollars when the stakes aren’t $2k, they are literally more human blood than our brains are capable of conceptualizing.
This isn’t some motorcycle, these are human beings that have had their land, lives and culture stolen from them.
The fact that the guy you replied to totally ignored all my points about, ya know, the ongoing genocide is fucking telling.
That guy is either a troll or is so naive it’s hilarious.
He’s happy to argue that Ukrainians should follow some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules of war while Russia targets apartment buildings with missiles.
Just down vote him and move on.
What an idealistic and utopian view. A sovereign country has been invaded, it has the right to use weapons it deems necessary to defend itself. What’s so difficult about that? Russia can pack up and go home, then there will be peace.
Not to mention, Russian forces have been using these types of munitions, but with much higher dud rates, already.
It’s their soil. They can do what they want to it.
And the ruskies are using them in civilian targets.
Beyond that, know what else has a chance of exploding well after the war and injuring or killing someone?
You know what both Ukrain and Russia have already use many thousands more of than Ukraine has been issued cluster munitions?
You know what no one is moralizing about so hard they shit their pants?
::: Landmines :::
Ukrainian cluster munition rocket attacks in the city of Izium in 2022 killed at least eight civilians and wounded 15 more, Human Rights Watch said. The attacks occurred in Izium and surrounding areas where Russian forces had arrived in March, seized control by early April, and remained in control until early September. A United Nations report also found that Ukrainian armed forces used cluster munitions in attacks on Izium between March and September 2022.
Ukraine uses them on civilian-occupied areas, too.
I’m sure other types of Ukrainian munitions have killed civilians as well given that the Russians use them as human shields.
It’s not good, I’m not happy about it and I’m glad I’m not the one who has to make the decisions.
However, I was talking about targeting civilians specifically.
And I don’t think your example is anywhere near the same ballpark as specifically targeting fleeing civilians.
The cluster munition attack with the highest known civilian casualties occurred on April 8, 2022, when Russia launched a Tochka-U ballistic missile equipped with a cluster munition warhead at a crowded train station in the eastern city of Kramatorsk as hundreds of people were trying to leave the area. A detailed Human Rights Watch investigation found that the attack killed at least 58 civilians and injured over 100 others.
These are pretty words used to gloss over the truth: war is hell. No one but the profiteers (on all sides) win.
Total victory, sovereignty, defend ITSelf, like a country is a person… These are all the ancient terms used to justify dragging confused children from homes and shoving rifles into the hands of young men who deserve to be trying to lose their virginity instead of their legs.
War is hell. Every bomb, every bullet should be fired in the service of firing as few after it as possible.
What is your solution and who’d benefit from it the most?
I have no idea. I’m not in any position to judge. All I can say – over and over – is that anyone who thinks that war can be waged for good does not understand war. There are only less-worse outcomes for the people at the front, and mostly fun and profit for the people making the decisions.
And you know what? We need to break a taboo: the US is run by people for whom the stakes are pride. Biden isn’t the worst of this crowd – that would be people like John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, etc – but Biden and Anthony Blinken and their cohort are all still immersed in a worldview where a whole generation of traumatized or wounded Ukrainian kids is a totally understandable price to pay to show the other world leaders that you’re the baddest bitch in the yard. And behind them are a huge crowd of American oligarchs who get so, so, so rich for each day a war goes on. The fact that pointing any of this out is taboo is just terrifying.
This is not a game, it’s a humanitarian crisis. I don’t know the solution, but I don’t think any of this is it.
the solution is easy. Hurt russia so much that they start negotiating on the terms of ukraine.
They started this war, not the americans, not the nato, it was russia who invaded this country 2014 and now wants to finish the job.
Your whole text makes me sick because it never addressed the russians as the evil force behind this war, so I don’t know if you are being ignorant, delusional or simply repeating russian propaganda by switching who is the foe and victim ins this war and stuffing it out with some pathetic quotes like “war is hell” over and over…
Really surprised that you did not quote Platon already…
Waging war to stop genocide is good. When your enemy refuses to negotiate in good faith, war is a necessary evil. What would the solution to the Third Reich have been if my grandparents didn’t take up arms to fight their warped sense of morality?
@andrewrgross @another_lemming
if you see someone unpacking a grenade to kill dozens of people through the lens of your rifle, do you shot ? Or is killing bad ?A peace now, with russia getting away with territory is letting the killer go. How many grenade left for the following years ? russia won t stop here.
That last part “They won’t stop here” is an argument that has no boundaries. It justifies ALL actions. Any action. Nerve gas. Targeting civilian centers. Putting sanctions on medical supplies.
I consider myself a strong supporter of Ukraine’s defense efforts, but there have to be moments – like when we start embracing CLUSTER BOMBS that will kill Ukrainian civilians years from now! – that we have to just ask: “is any and every effort to support Ukraine the right now right now?”
This will end one day. We need to find the path there. Saying, “don’t discuss diplomacy yet” every time raises the question of WHEN is the right time to even think about an end game?
Also, will anyone be around for the reconstruction? All this talk is so short-sighted. Where is any plan to actually WIN the war, and resettle the displaced? And rebuild the homes and schools? I’ve seen people in this comment thread say that they don’t give shit if the land is even habitable after this, they just want Russians DEAD. That’s not supporting Ukraine, that’s … I don’t have words for what that is.
That is not what I said and you know it. You use a slipery slope fallacy here. I only said we can use the same weapon they have used since day one to recover ukrainian territories.
Do not try to make it look like you are the only one for peace, no one want peace more than Ukrainians. And their action they are open to diplomacy, but not to be ruled by a tyran.
I have my familiy in ukr, I am all to help russians rebuild after war as we did with germany, but for now: OUT
I am on board with creating less violence but I weight it with not creating the ground for more violence in the future. Would violence stop after getting ceasefire now? Won’t it repeat? When it started in 2014 but then came to a slow burning everyone forgot about, it set a precedent that one may do that with minimum repercussions, and so it restarted anew in 2022. And so it may once again until doing that would be impossible for one reason or another.
Global MIC is evil but that’s a different issue. It should, in my mind, being fought against with international treaties for disarmament and creating allianced armies like NATO so no one would have or need it’s own military. But it’s a long game and we are likely to die from heatwaves before we agree to give up bombs.
Peace will happen when Russia removes itself from it’s sovereign neighbor. Until that happens, turn Russians into dog food.
You cannot give an inch.
Dogs shouldn’t be fed junk food.
Every war ends in a meeting. Negotiate a conplete Russian withdrawal, or Putin’s surrender. You can negotiate for anything, but fighting without talking while while communities are permanently displaced and traumatized is just sad evidence that defending Ukrainians lives or territory is no longer the US’s goal.
Are we doing this because we’re value Ukrainians? Or because we hate Russia?
There have been talks and negotiations. But if it’s clear again and again that there is no trust, where should these lead? If you know that any negotiation and agreement is unreliable, what’s the point? What’s the point of stopping fighting if this is just used as positioning by an enemy that doesn’t share your wish for peace or other values and doesn’t even respect your autonomy or self-determined identity? Think about the negotiations around Mariupol, where civilian evacuation routes were agreed upon by both parties to then be attacked. Or civilian infrastructure like Odessa just a few days ago and countless other examples.
I think your wish for peace is commendable, but it’s incredibly removed from reality.
- Russia is not ready for full withdrawl
- Explain to me how Russia will honor any agreement of our broke all precious ones over last 30 years
It is common in wars to fight and talk at the same time. Sometimes talking is done via secret back channels which the public will not find out about until many years after the war.
It is not possible to only talk when fighting has stopped, because for fighting to stop, you either need to negotiate a ceasefire by talking, or one side has to be annihilated, and then there is no one left to talk to.
We’re arming Ukraine to preserve the rule based order established after War II that dictates sovereign nations cannot have their territory unilaterally annexed by another nation. Allowing this to happen without support to Ukraine would only tell other despots looking to start wars of conquest that they are allowed to do so without repercussion.
I’m on board with that basic premise, but when we start arming them with cluster bombs? It seems like we need to at least pump the breaks and check what our goals are and where we’re willing to go. What about nerve gas? Land minds? Aerial war in the Russian mainland? I think even the people who disagree with me surely have some boundaries that they’re not comfortable with. This seems like a point for use each to inquire how much devastation is productive for the people who actually bear the brunt of these choices.
I mean, these cluster bombs WILL kill innocent civilians after the war. Are they on board with that? I highly doubt they’ve signed off on this particularly strategy.
The West has already armed Ukraine with landmines. Western mines typically deactivate after a set amount of time. Nerve gas isn’t a useful weapon because you can’t control the wind. You’re positing a slippery slope, which is a fallacy as at every step of the way we are able to say “no, that’s not a good idea”. As for who is dealing with the brunt of the suffering from this war, the Ukrainians, polls indicate a supermajority of support for Zelenskyy. His government has indicated that they cannot negotiate with Russia at this time as they do not negotiate in good faith. They want Russia in a position where they’re incapable of violating any agreements they make rather than another situation like the Minsk Accords where Russia just bided their time and invaded even more extensively.
Ukraine already demanded that Putin in Russia withdraw several times. Putin has refused. End of discussion.
As the people responsible for the war are the leaders of Russia, anything we say is irrelevant as we are not party to the conflict.
We are a party. We are supplying weapons now that are going to kill Ukrainian civilians for years after the war ends. That’s what cluster bombs do.
I fully support Ukraine’s defense. That means exercising some judgement over what we contribute to. So many atrocities have been committed in our name. Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Israel, Nicaragua, Iran… We need to put some lid on how many innocent kids are worth the hypothetical gains we’re expecting to get.
When this ends – it will one day end – I hope Ukrainians get a satisfactory deal. However I must ask:
-
It’s been said – often in bad faith – that eastern Ukraine is Russian-sympathetic. That a major faction may actually prefer Russian rule. I find this disgusting, but if it turns out to be true, are we prepared to follow their wishes? Or do we disregard that because it conflicts with our preferences?
-
If Russia keeps the current territory, are you prepared to contend with all the deaths that occur between now and then? If the deaths and trauma DON’T yield gains, will you say, ‘My god… Andrew as right. I insisted that more blood would yield a worthwhile gain and it didn’t. That blood was split for nothing.’
I think war is fucking hell, and I don’t think people are applying any judgement to their anger.
Personally, I think you have a very bad faith argument in believing that your argument holds more weight than the entire government and military organization of the country of Ukraine. It’s their decision to make, not yours. They have to live with the consequences, not you or me.
And arguing that Russia may permanently acquire land in Ukraine that they have invaded a year ago is completely illegal under international law.
-
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/wjU-ve4Pn4k?t=73
https://piped.video/wjU-ve4Pn4k?t=73
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
War is hell. That statement is both true and has lost all meaning, because no one really feels it.
We should be negotiating a peace by now. The suffering of these cluster bombs cause is immeasurable, as is the general suffering of this war.
Imagine ::: spoiler spoiler beating a puppy to death with a golf club:::. Imagine the whole thing vividly, and then imagine
spoiler
pushing the pulpy body aside
and doing it again, and just repeating this exercise ad nausium for hours and hours. This is the kind of feeling we should experience when we read stories about this conflict, if we had any concept of what a war is. And when we debate whether to use cluster bombs, that’s like debating whether to use
spoiler
a nine iron or crush the puppy’s skull slowly with a boot
. One is definitely, definitely DEFINITELY WORSE, and should NEVER BE DONE, but both are awful and should make us so physically ill to think about that we would do anything at all – such as negotiate an end to the war! – to avoid doing it.
What is there to negotiate? Russia can end the war whenever they want just by going home. Do you think Ukraine should just abandon its citizens in the occupied territories to the whims of a genocidal maniac?
I don’t have the energy for fights. Just look at some of the other comments I posted. The TLDR is that we need to always be guided by actually acting in the interests of vulnerable Ukrainians, and that requires ending the war, and negotiation is how wars end. It’s not surrender, it’s not appeasement, it’s how wars end even when you win. What’s happening now is mostly driven by US interests to weaken a geopolitical foe and is totally divorced from concern for the people on the ground. Cluster bombs prove it.
I don’t think you or me or anyone in this thread would ever, ever support the use of cluster bombs in a place where we intended to raise our children or children’s children. Does that make sense? Their use is just evidence that hurting Russia is the point. Negotiation is how you do the actual thing people seem to believe fighting does.
Russians are more dangerous than land mines. Even if you had to make that area impossible to live in, it is still better than having russians there.
*russian troops
Coscripts = russians. I stand by what I wrote.
Genocidal rhetoric.
Vast majority of russians support putin. So yeah, I stand by my words.
Genocide = killing whole or parts of a nation.
Saying russians could gtfo ukraine is not genocidal. No, genocidal is what the russian vermin is doing in ukraine.
Do you hear yourself? You’re honestly defending making an area uninhabitable?
This is madness. This is the kind of blind jigoism that leads people to believe that it would be better to slag the planet if it meant that the adversary died too. This isn’t a god damn movie, people. You’re talking about other people’s homes.
East ukraina = \ = whole planet. Yor logic is faulty.
Besides, it is much easier to remove unexploded cluster munition than russian vermin.
What is there to negotiate? Russia can leave Ukraine and the war is over. It really is that simple. Why are you advocating for some sort of negotiation?
Someone moves into your house, kills half your family, then holds up in your living room for half a year. Should you negotiate with them on the basis that they keep your living room now?
