Cluster bombs

[BeElBeeBub]

Are you denying the US (I think Biden) said using cluster bombs would be a crime for Russia?  (Not just civilians).

Obviously, I can't prove that every single person in the US *hasn't* said using cluster bombs would be a crime for Russia. You can't prove a negative.

But you could prove that Biden said it. Go find it.

The closest I could find was his press secretary's response to this question: 

 "There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that's true, what is the next step of this administration? And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that's illegal and potentially a war crime?"

To.which his press secretary replied:

"It is — it would be. I don't have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime."

Note the question *specifically* called out the use of CMs against civilians which would be a war crime if used in manner targeting civilians.

Ukraine's proposed use of CMs (against active enemy combatants occupying Ukraine territory) is wildy different from Russia's use of CM as a terror weapon against civilian populations in an invasion.


Again, I come back to: what (besides whine) can Russia do about it? They have zero escalation routes because they have already escalated.  Remember when supplying M777 artillery was the red line? Or HiMARS? Or Storm Shadow? Or hitting the Kerch bridge?

[BeElBeeBub]

Please be precise.  What is the name of this agreement that Russia violated, and when was it made?

Are you denying the US (I think Biden) said using cluster bombs would be a crime for Russia?  (Not just civilians).

The name of the agreement was the Budapest Memorandum, signed by Russia and Ukraine (plus others) on 4th December 1994.
The text can be found here
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

The relevent articles are:

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The United States of America:
1. Reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, Kazakhstan, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, Kazakhstan.
2. Reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

[Scott777]

I will make this really simple.for you.

The arrival of western military trainers was after Russia violated it's agreements dating back to the formation of modern Ukraine (and Russia) by invading and annexing parts of Ukraine.

Prior to that Ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed by those agreements. After Russia broke those, the west aided Ukraine by training Ukraine's poor military in western doctrine. Radical stuff like comms and logistics are important. Soldiers are valuable, so look after them with things like armour and medical support.

The only weapons the west supplied prior to the invasion were ATGMs which are primarily defensive weapons.

So Russia's breaking of the agreements protecting Ukrainian territory was the direct cause of western involvement in Ukraine. It's bad faith to then point to western trainers being in Ukraine as a.pretext for invading more of it.

Again you misiderstand.

Using CMs isn't a war crime. Many countries have agreed not to use them because of the post conflict risks. But they are not banned in the same way chemical weapons are.

The US criticism of Russian use of CMs centered on the manner in which they were used - specifically indiscriminate use on civilians.

On the one hand we have Russia using CMs on foreign soil as terror weapons against civilians as the aggressor in an invasion.

On the other hand we have Ukrine proposing to use them against military targets like trenches and armour formations on their own soil to repel an invasion.

The two situations are not remotely similar.

On a more practical level..... What are russia going to do about it? Aside from nukes, or blowing up a nuclear plant there isn't actually anything they can do that they haven't already either done or tried and failed to do.

Please be precise.   What is the name of this agreement that Russia violated, and when was it made?

Are you denying the US (I think Biden) said using cluster bombs would be a crime for Russia?  (Not just civilians).

[BeElBeeBub]

Why did you assume something "kicked it off"?  How about a desire for provocation, because, I repeat, the aim is primarily profit for arms industry, and possibly weaken Russia a bit, with long term goal of removing Russia.  If you think otherwise, it helps to say so.

I will make this really simple.for you.

The arrival of western military trainers was after Russia violated it's agreements dating back to the formation of modern Ukraine (and Russia) by invading and annexing parts of Ukraine.

Prior to that Ukraine's territorial integrity was guaranteed by those agreements. After Russia broke those, the west aided Ukraine by training Ukraine's poor military in western doctrine. Radical stuff like comms and logistics are important. Soldiers are valuable, so look after them with things like armour and medical support.

The only weapons the west supplied prior to the invasion were ATGMs which are primarily defensive weapons.

So Russia's breaking of the agreements protecting Ukrainian territory was the direct cause of western involvement in Ukraine. It's bad faith to then point to western trainers being in Ukraine as a.pretext for invading more of it.

Oh the hypocrisy.  The US said if Russia used cluster bombs, it would be a crime, and the UK currently agrees no one should use them.  So tell me, is it a crime for the US / Ukraine to use them?

Again you misiderstand.

Using CMs isn't a war crime. Many countries have agreed not to use them because of the post conflict risks. But they are not banned in the same way chemical weapons are.

The US criticism of Russian use of CMs centered on the manner in which they were used - specifically indiscriminate use on civilians.

On the one hand we have Russia using CMs on foreign soil as terror weapons against civilians as the aggressor in an invasion.

On the other hand we have Ukrine proposing to use them against military targets like trenches and armour formations on their own soil to repel an invasion.

The two situations are not remotely similar.

On a more practical level..... What are russia going to do about it? Aside from nukes, or blowing up a nuclear plant there isn't actually anything they can do that they haven't already either done or tried and failed to do.

[papasmurf]

That's just your opinion and you have no idea what would happen.

Neither do you.

[Nick]

It doesn't work, Nick.  It would have to be a bluff, because we would not, and probably could not, allow Ukraine in NATO while they are at war, and Putin knows this.  So it cannot be used as a deterrent.

That's just your opinion and you have no idea what would happen. 

[Scott777]

A succession date in the future does not put us at war, it signals that Russia has a finite time to leave or become engaged in war with NATO. The point I made was that Russia would not want that as everyone in the world, including Russia know their army is pants.

It doesn't work, Nick.  It would have to be a bluff, because we would not, and probably could not, allow Ukraine in NATO while they are at war, and Putin knows this.  So it cannot be used as a deterrent.

[Nick]

The only succession date they would give would be after Ukraine and Russia end the war.  Anything before that would not be given, as it puts us at war, and they don't want a proper war, they want a proxy war.  That's exactly why they did not give a date.  They are using a carrot and stick to keep a proxy war going, to sell weapons.

A succession date in the future does not put us at war, it signals that Russia has a finite time to leave or become engaged in war with NATO. The point I made was that Russia would not want that as everyone in the world, including Russia know their army is pants. 

[Scott777]

That is possibly the shittest argument you've made, and it's a pretty strong field.

You make a powerful response, and you may have won the debate with that alone.  🤣

Why have NATO member's troops been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2014?  What happened in 2014 to kick that off? Hummmmm....

Why did you assume something "kicked it off"?  How about a desire for provocation, because, I repeat, the aim is primarily profit for arms industry, and possibly weaken Russia a bit, with long term goal of removing Russia.  If you think otherwise, it helps to say so.

The CMs are a perfect solution, the US has loads they won't be using so they might as well be used by the Ukrainians who have a strong incentive to clear up afterwards.  It's unlikely the Russians will bother if they win.

Of course Russia and her sympathisers are pissed at this.  But what are they going to do? Short of using WMDs there is nothing that Russia hasn't already done.

Oh the hypocrisy.  The US said if Russia used cluster bombs, it would be a crime, and the UK currently agrees no one should use them.  So tell me, is it a crime for the US / Ukraine to use them?

[Scott777]

Really? With Putin as mad as a sackful of cats, I would not want to guarantee that.

That's just propaganda.  He is certainly no more mad than Biden.

[Scott777]

You're missing the point Scott, if we gave Ukraine a succession date Russia would be out of Ukraine as fast as they could. We know and they know their army is not worth a crap and would last less than a week against NATO. Putin would rather be humiliated by withdrawal rather than total annihilation.

The only succession date they would give would be after Ukraine and Russia end the war.  Anything before that would not be given, as it puts us at war, and they don't want a proper war, they want a proxy war.  That's exactly why they did not give a date.  They are using a carrot and stick to keep a proxy war going, to sell weapons.

[BeElBeeBub]

Yep.

I agree, unlike the US, Putin has the PLA on his border.  Right now, the East of Russia, including bits China would quite like, are relatively poorly defended.
Aside from Russian nukes, China could stroll into Eastern Russia if it wanted to.

[BeElBeeBub]

You are probably correct.  But Putin's actions are directly because of NATO and the EU trying to expand.  NATO has been in Ukraine since at least 2014.  Therefore the increased chance of joining NATO is because of NATO / EU plans to expand and NATO meddling in Ukraine.  Anyway, I'm not sure NATO will succeed in expanding into Ukraine (officially).  You don't actually know that's on the table.

That is possibly the shittest argument you've made, and it's a pretty strong field.

Why have NATO member's troops been training Ukrainian soldiers since 2014?  What happened in 2014 to kick that off? Hummmmm....

Likewise, the other way round.  Ukraine was supposed to win ages ago.  As I said, the cluster bombs are because Ukraine is running out of options, including ammo, and getting desperate.

Pretty much everyone, including Putin, thought Russia would steamroller Ukraine in a few days.  In fact the cries from people making your argument now tended to be "Why are we sending Javalin/NLAW to Ukraine when they will just get slaughtered? They should roll over and accept Russia".  That didn't happen. 

Ammunition is getting short on both sides and it this is a war of attrition. Russia has the advantage of massive stockpiles, but even they are running short.

The west's stock piles are equally massive but, unlike Russia, the west (and america in particular) don't want to run them down totally (cough, China) 

The west's production capacity is bigger but it is taking time to ramp up.  In the mean time there is a constraint.

The CMs are a perfect solution, the US has loads they won't be using so they might as well be used by the Ukrainians who have a strong incentive to clear up afterwards.  It's unlikely the Russians will bother if they win.

Of course Russia and her sympathisers are pissed at this.  But what are they going to do? Short of using WMDs there is nothing that Russia hasn't already done.

[papasmurf]

Yep.

Why? Putin take zero notice of anyone, I have to wonder if he is behind this:-

Ukraine war: Russian ex-navy commander shot dead while jogging in Krasnodar - BBC News

[Nick]

Are you sure?

Yep.