Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpellowHouse said:
And I wonder how many people here, if sat in a trench in Ukraine, clutching a red button to launch cluster munitions at the Russians ahead, would throw the button down, scream "tally ho" and run at the Russians .. because the cluster bomb is "not fair"? Very British! And shortly after, very dead.
Click to expand...

It's mostly about collateral damage. Chemical and biological weapons will kill or maim all unprotected people in an area and the latter will spread through civilian populations if a sufficiently infectious pathogen is used. Land mines and undetonated cluster bombs will lay hidden for decades until some unlucky sod triggers them.

Some weapons were genuinely regarded (later) as too cruel to soldiers though, for example, mustard gas and some other toxic gases, as they often caused blindness after use in World War 1 trench warfare.
 
Freakbro said:
Oh, sorry I didn't realise you were one of those herp derps, I thought you were actually a sensible poster. So all 100+ countries that have signed the treaty banning the use of cluster munitions are "lefties", gotcha.
Click to expand...

When I say "lefties" I am talking about the average Guardian reader who would want the US not to send cluster munitions and prefer Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back on a matter of principle. I was not referring to nation states.

Freakbro said:
Every stage of increasing supply of arms has caused someone to say it's escalatory and would cause us to be dragged in to the war.
Click to expand...

Even the Russians cannot argue that sending cluster munitions is escalatory when they have used them there themselves. Sending tactical nuclear weapons would be a different story as it would greenlight the Russians to use them too.

Freakbro said:
People said sending tanks would be escalatory, pretty sure the Russians had been using those since day 1
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say that. Surely, you see a difference between sending tanks and nuclear weapons?
 
esmozz said:
I did'nt post it because it should'nt need to be said.
Click to expand...

Of course that is the reason, can't possibly be ... because you simply didn't post about it at all.

Excuses only and deflection when that doesn't work, not much else of substance.

By all accounts so far the counter offensive is still under way, so rather than calling it done and accusing people of getting bored with it, perhaps best to let the Ukrainians get on with it and see what results they can bring about.

I think we as the UK should continue to show more support to Ukraine as we have done this whole time, and there is no arbitrary limit on when that should end.
 
Maple Leaf said:
Even the Russians cannot argue that sending cluster munitions is escalatory when they have used them there themselves. Sending tactical nuclear weapons would be a different story as it would greenlight the Russians to use them too.
Click to expand...

Except that's already what the Russians are saying! They do not of course mention that they already used clusterbombs but isn't it terrrible that the US is sending banned ammunition to the Nazis in Ukraine.
 
MikeTimbers said:
Except that's already what the Russians are saying! They do not of course mention that they already used clusterbombs but isn't it terrrible that the US is sending banned ammunition to the Nazis in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

They always say that about any new type of western weapon being supplied to Ukraine in an effort to deter more weapons from being supplied. They said the same thing about the supplies of depleted uranium shells for the Challenger-2 tanks we sent, even though they already use DU shells in many of their tanks' main guns. They are just dishonest pigs.
 
esmozz said:
The issue is that I tend to question everything both sides say - unlike you, who I suspect believe everything only one side say. It could be that the supply of these weapons is just a blip in the overal conflict as the sources you quote claim. Personally I doubt it, once a particular tool to wage war has been given to Ukraine, it's going to be very difficult to withdraw that weapon in the future. But time will tell.

Regarding the rest of your post.

I support Ukraine. I support Ukraine to exactly to point at which it is in this countries best interest to do so. Wherein lies that point is debatable but nonetheless it is there. That makes me realistic.

I hope sincerely that Ukraine can push Russian forces right back to the 1991 borders but have a realistic doubt about their ability to do so, militarily at least. To quote you...



But thats fine because I'm happy to refer you back to by post about COD players and Walter Mitty's - not that it gets us anywhere.

Because in all honesty, I think the only way Ukraine can win is if there is a seisemic shift in or complete collapse of the current Russian government. And that is because I have a historically more accurate view of what a grinding war machine that Russia is capable of fielding, given its size, its resources and a population of 144 million of which the current government will happy sacrifice in their millions to achieve its goals.

David and Goliath is just a story and fairy tales are just that.

I also have a realistic view of the current Ukrainian counter offensive, in that it is on a ticking clock. If you really think western populations won't tire of this very quickly and start to question the increasingly larger and larger amounts of money poured down a seemly black hole, against a backdrop of crumbling education systems, NHS failures and general infrastructure in this country, to say nothing about the fact our own armed forced have fallen to their lowest ebb in 80 years.

We better all hope Ukraine starts to make significant progress in this war. Because the longer this goes on the harder it will be to overcome those fortifications, cluster munitions or not and a stalemate is a loss and thats where it seems to be going.

If you prefer, I tend to consider all outcomes of this war, good and bad, and where that leaves us in the wider geopolitical world.

And all the cheerleading and cope in this thread is'nt going to change that.
Click to expand...

I do try to look at both sides, the problem is that one side is basically a known liar. Rybar (nickname liebar), ayden being two prolific russian posters who use old footage basically lie regularly.
Like the footage after the free Russians attacks where they setup the photos.

So what I do is I don't believe anyone specifically, I tend to be drawn to the ones who show geolocated footage and images. Because that is basically truth.
Now sure it could be faked, but if your going to say that then its pointless looking at anything or commenting at all.

You say you hope and then you start quoting David and Goliath, which is probably made up nonsense anyway.

Yes the longer the war goes on the more it will potentially get harder for Ukraine.

Glad to see you have retreated from your nonsense about the failed counter offensive, which TBH is just Russian lies at this point in time. Careful on some of those sources you use.

I don't know if people will loose interest. I mean there were people who were forgiving up Ukraine immediately on here. Those simple sorts only see themselves, what's in it for me.
The support for Ukraine has nothing to do with the NHS or anything else. Thats simply nonsense at the levels of expenditure we have and how the military works.

Cheerleading. Why is that time after time those who have no real argument are the sorts that use this kind of language.
Its not cheerleading at all.
 
Maple Leaf said:
It's mostly about collateral damage. Chemical and biological weapons will kill or maim all unprotected people in an area and the latter will spread through civilian populations if a sufficiently infectious pathogen is used. Land mines and undetonated cluster bombs will lay hidden for decades until some unlucky sod triggers them.

Some weapons were genuinely regarded (later) as too cruel to soldiers though, for example, mustard gas and some other toxic gases, as they often caused blindness after use in World War 1 trench warfare.
Click to expand...
However if you are the one using the weapon, and you know where it is used because you've properly documented it's use, and it's hit the area you've aimed it at, you can close that area off after the war and concentrate on cleaning it up.

Given how heavy and indiscrimate the use of unreliable munitions by the Russians has been, some relatively small munitions where 2-3% fail to detonate in a known area is nothing compared to the larger ones the Russians keep dropping, and the vast numbers of other unexploded munitions that have been left behind by poorly trained conscripts who have in all likelyhood never been taught how to safely place a mine for best effect, let alone why it's important to note where you placed it*.

People keep talking about "oh it's going to take hundreds of years because look at X country", completely ignoring that the use in that country was likely not properly documented, used less reliable munitions, and included all unexploded ordinance that needs to be cleaned up.

there is quite a difference between clearing up munitions from just 30-40 years ago that were not documented, and modern munitions and methods of documenting their use - IIRC every western country for example has specialist training in how to lay mines etc, not just on "how to place them" but emphasising the need to accurately document them, if for no other reason than the unit that takes over your position knows where they are.


*One of the main reasons you want to properly document placement of things like mines is so you can try and draw the enemy through the "active" area, whilst your own people know the safe route.
 
Last edited:
Cluster munitions are terrible but if Ukraine want to use them on their own soil.... Well good luck to them and the farmers and civilians in the future.
I'm sure the Russians won't escalate it futher, maybe a few more landing in markets and housing estates coming soon..... If russian artillery had good access to them they'd be dropping 2 or 3 on every massed assault that came.
 
Last edited:
Maple Leaf said:
They always say that about any new type of western weapon being supplied to Ukraine in an effort to deter more weapons from being supplied. They said the same thing about the supplies of depleted uranium shells for the Challenger-2 tanks we sent, even though they already use DU shells in many of their tanks' main guns. They are just dishonest pigs.
Click to expand...
DU hasn't been used in Ukraine by Russia, which will probably change once the Challengers are used.
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
DU hasn't been used in Ukraine by Russia, which will probably change once the Challengers are used.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true to be honest.

Edit, newsweek one of the ones that reported on it

www.newsweek.com

How Russia has used depleted uranium shells

Moscow claimed there was a "nuclear component" to depleted uranium munitions, which are used by the armed forces of countries including Russia.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

As article says however they are really tank vs tank munitions and there hasnt really been that much of that.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
In what respect?

They don't get blown up on impact so the main delivery mechanism is basically still intact.

The Ukrainians are putting a lot of effort into recording war crimes. So keeping evidence from civilian attacks etc.
Click to expand...
Oh that's Ukraine collecting ok got it duh. Lol. Totally missed the obvious
 
Last edited:
Lord-Jaffa said:
Do you have any reports that state it's being used? They certainly have it in their Arsenal, but Putin stated a few weeks ago that they haven't been used so far (but will be once challengers are doing so)
Click to expand...

I linked an article. As it says for many of the tanks they are a standard part of the equipment.

They wont have used many as there haven't really been tank on tank battles.

Putin stated... about as trustworthy and reliable as Trump don't forget
 
The thing is, the leftie media such as the BBC only seem to be reporting cluster munitions = bad, as they could result in future casualties, such as civilian ones. They negate to mention that not supplying them would likely prolong the war, also resulting in casualties. On balance the longer a foreign force such as Russia and its mercenaries are occupying part of Ukraine, who knows how many more war crimes they'll commit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom