The UN is not here to enforce anything. It’s a forum for nations to talk to each other, in the hopes that a peaceful resolution can be reached. They condemn things in the hopes that this soft pressure on heads-of-state makes them reconsider their actions.
Unexploded cluster bombs will be discovered in Ukrainian dirt for generations to come — probably by farmers and children. The UN has to condemn it.
UN is irrelevant in some sense I guess but that depends on what you expect them to be. If they could enforce things everyone would leave at once. It’s a place where countries can talk to eachother that might otherwise not. And that is at least worth something.
High ranking UN official obviously speaking in official capacity said that UN rejects use of cluster munition. Imagine being the sort of scumbag who jumps in to defend the use of cluster munitions.
You spend all day posting sketchy ass news from sketchy ass websites that have sensational, nonsense headlines.
This is serious shit, not your play place. The use of cluster munitions and the US’ decision to send them are very important, very real things that are happening.
I don’t have an opinion, and haven’t expressed one here on the use of cluster munitions. My opinion is that you’re a spamming misinformation spreader whose @ pops up in my feed 30 times a day.
I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with a troll, but just going to leave this here so people reading this thread understand what use of cluster munitions means and why most countries and UN advocate banning these munitions.
There are a couple variants of these shells, but given that the M483A1 has already been delivered to Ukraine from Turkey in 2022, I’m going to focus on that one for now. Failure rate of the submunitions is reported at between 2.4% to 4.1% depending on the source, so we can take 3% as a probable number.
Each shell contains 88 submunitions - 64 anti-personnel, 24 shaped charge. To be conservative, let’s count the shaped charge submunitions as I find them less concerning for the civilian aspect in this regard. This would give about two undetonated fragmentation submunitions scattered in an area of 30,000 square meters per shell.
Assuming these shells are being supplied because Ukraine is running out of conventional payloads, which Biden appeared to admit to be the case, it is logical they will not be used only for “specific targets” but used for general artillery.
Given reports of around 5,000 shells fired by Ukraine per day, that gives us up to about 10,000 undetonated fragmentation submunitions left behind per day, with each having a 10 meter kill radius if detonated.
This is the real issue with these munitions. These will present danger to people living in this area long after the conflict is over. Any country that chooses to supply these munitions to Ukraine clearly does not care about the people living there. Anybody who tries to rationalize or downplay the horror of these munitions is a piece of human garbage.
Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.
Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.
One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.
The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.
While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?
Care to explain the “another iteration of the problem”? Abolishing slavery ends slavery, abolishing serfdom ends serfdom, abolishing rent ends rent. The Venezuelan case is an example of the latter. You asked how to change the social structure, here’s a tried and true method that has worked from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cuba. You’re free to present your own with better track records.
I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.
Interesting. I think the average Mexican has close to 0 contact with to Africanmexicans, k think most of them are in coastal towns or cities. It won’t surprise me if there are some people who has never seen one. So it makes sense that most of them are segregated. But it got me curious why should there be a specific policy to combat afro-Mexican women instead of just afro-Mexican people.
“I’m just gonna pay off this maxed credit card with this other credit card that has an infinitely variable interest rate and sends people over to my house to trash my lawn. What could go wrong?”
It’s difficult to build lasting peace when the aggressor does not want it. Sure the Russians are open to peace in their terms, but imo that is just escalate things again in few years to come.
Don’t get me wrong, EU is in big part a peace project. That however shouldn’t happen at just any cost. Free, independent and territorially whole Ukraine is important for the future peace, Ukraine, Europe and even good for Russia.
NATO is a defensive alliance and Russia not repositioning troops to defend against new NATO member Finland tells you all you need to know about how threatened Russia really feels about NATO.
Russia is absolutely threatened by NATO because NATO was created to be a transnational military force directed explicitly at Russia. After the Third Reich failed to defeat the USSR, it’s stated goal, the West betrayed their Soviet ally, created NATO and then staffed it with Nazi officers.
Iraq was invaded by 3 of the at the time 20 or so member states of NATO. Still was an illegal invasion in my opinion but it wasn’t NATO.
Afghanistan
If you harbor terrorists that attack the most powerful nation in the world I don’t know what to tell you. But I’m sure the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was totally cool, right?
Yugoslavia
This is the part where you deny a genocide happened, right?
the West betrayed their Soviet ally
Was that before or after the Soviets teamed up with the Nazis to invade Poland? I can share the photos of them shaking hands if you’d like. But again, I’m sure Stalin’s reasons were GREAT!
I would also add that Stalin’s blockade of West Berlin preceded the formation of NATO. Not exactly the behavior of a trustworthy ally.
Last 20 years russia invaded Georgia and twice Ukraine. Any attempt to find peaceful resolution post 2014 invasion was made impossible by russia. They were amassing troops around Ukraine since early 2019 and likely prepared for this since Minsk II was signed in 2015. That agreement eventually ended up with russia deciding that Minsk II no longer existed in 2022 and invading 2 days later based on made up excuses. These are the “security guarantees” they have been asking for. They never had any intention stopping their invasion, they just needed pause to prepare for another offensive. And they are doing exactly the same now.
So what you’re saying is that NATO had decided that Russia’s request to negotiate for decades was not going to go anywhere and everything Russia did poves it but everything NATO did has no bearing on the topic?
Russia is an imperialistic state that thinks it should have influence on the politics of its neighbors. But this is wrong. Every country belongs to itself and is allowed to make its own decisions. What do you think gives Russia the right to negotiate about the fate of other countries that are not Russia?
There was nothing to negotiate with Russia. Russia is not part of the decision making process of other sovereign countries. Especially not those that seek for protection from Russia.
Russia’s “requests to negotiate” were also sprinkled with three hostile invasions of its neighbors. It’s asinine to pretend like the will for peaceful negotiation was sincere. When it all started they still tried to pretend like it wasn’t them (no relation to Wagner, little green men, and so on). Nowadays Russia doesn’t even pretend to be anything but a warmonger.
Every country has influence on the politics of every other state. You are projecting your own Euro-centric atrocities onto Russia. Which countries have violently destroyed the most national movements for independence? Which countries have violently dominated and imposed occupation on the most people in the world? Hint: it’s not Russia. It’s the member states of NATO. Spain, France, England, The Netherlands, Portugal, and their bastard child the USA. If you want to ensure nations can operate independently you should not be supporting the US as it continues it’s decades long hot, cold, and proxy war against Russia.
The idea that you think Russia has no stake in what other countries do means you think about national security like a feudal lord. All we need is a big castle and keep to ourselves, right? Unfortunately, that isolationist fantasy does match reality, nor does it matter the understanding of politics and national defense that has guided world politics for over a century. All security is mutual. Everyone in the security world knows this. Russia’s demands for national security, like ALL demands for national security, requires mutualism in the security structure. And since the dismantling of the USSR, that mutualism has been missing. The imperialist genocidal US along with the imperialist and genocidal European powers made it very clear for decades that Russia’s security doesn’t matter, only their security does. This is quite literally the exact same structure as a hot war and invasion of Russia, just earlier in the sequence.
Russia’s attempts to negotiate for peace since it’s emergence from the USSR have been spurned. At some point, the West must see consequences, they must see that Russia will not appease them. There must be something to negotiate with. You seem to understand this for Ukraine, demanding that Ukraine be sent all the weapons and soldiers needed to completely destroy the Russian military before you think it’s legitimate to negotiate, but you think Russia should just do nothing while the genocidal imperialists continue their 600-year project of total global domination up to and including nuking civilians and undermining MAD so that they can do it again?
Face it. You’re a hypocrite. You’re projecting your white imperialism onto other nations to deflect from the actual threat in the world being your home community. And you are applying both arguments from ignorance and double standards to maintain your dissonance and rationalize your Russophobia and support for the most violent regime the world has ever suffered under.
No, what I’m saying is that russia never negotiated in good will. Whatever cooperation there is, russia will always spoil it.
Interpol is good example, russia abuses that system so much, about 38% of the warrants in the system come from them. Per capita that’s about 2000% more compared to other countries. There’s 194 countries in Interpol to put things into perspective, including China. They use the system to harass opposition abroad to the point that Interpol had to implement special rules for russia and actually review the warrants.
Russia will never stick to any agreement unless they are forced to. Had NATO understood that in 2014, we might have avoided the second invasion completely. The best we can do is to make sure there’s not going to be 3rd invasion after russia breaks Minsk III.
Russia never negotiated in good faith? Really? You think this is aclaim you can reasonably make while the US and Europe behave the way they do? Like, where does this claim even come from except Western moralizing and Russophobia?
LOL, interpol is your example? The US has threatened to militarily invade The Hague if any US person is ever brought to trail at the International Criminal Court, but they constantly invole the court and call for the arrest of world leaders. And you think Russia is the one harassing opposition aboard? You are grasping at straws to rationalize your irrational and hypocritical position.
NATO is the problem here. The Third Reich was founded on the strategic objective to destroy the USSR and dominate Russia and the Slavs the way US dominates the indigenous nations on the land it stole from them. When the USSR destroyed 80% of the Third Reich, the most advanced military ever deployed at that point, and marched through all of the territory they had taken, liberated that territory, and then took Berlin, the allies of the USSR who were focused entirely on maintaining capitalist Imperialism and the violent dominance of 80% of the world, the capitalist built a new nuclear transmilitary force explicitly to contain and ultimately destroy the workers’ state.
And since the Nazis spent all their time fighting and losing to Russia, the US decided to staff NATO with Nazi officers, because destroying socialism was the most important thing. The Third Reich’s industrial genocide was merely an extension of the US’s eugenics programs which continued to sterilize undesirable people through the 1970s (eg, a full third of Puerto Rico was sterilized).
When the USSR was ultimately dissolved by capitalists looking to join the Euro-centric capitalist world order, the US brought Milton Friedman economists to the region and designed and implemented economic shock therapy to bring capitalism to the region. Doing so killed 10 million people.
So now we have millions dead because of the West, and the threat NATO was built and staffed with Nazis to defeat is gone, but what happens? NATO stays, changes it’s mission to countering Russia, and the cold war continues while the US on one side is saying they welcome Russia back to capitalist world and on the other side maintain Russiophobix propaganda, are working to undermine MAD, and killing millions of people in the former republics through economic devastation.
And then the US votes every single time at the UN against condemning Nazis. They say Ukraine is never going to be in NATO and then make plans to get Ukraine back in the early 90s, negotiating in bad faith, literally lying in negotiations. And then they take this defensive alliance and use it to bomb Yugoslavia with depleted uranium bombs under the lie of humanitarian intervention.
My vatnik-o meter is maxing out. Whataboutism, pointing at nazis (ignoring the obvious one with Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), outright lies, victim complex, copypasta of bullshit, rewriting history. Your comment has it all.
It was entertaining, but I have no interest talking to russian drone.
Carving up Ukraine’s territorial integrity is breeding grounds for further border conflicts. Do you think Ukrainians are going to simply sit and quietly forget about it if Russia steals their territory, or will it remain an open wound that provokes them to retaliate in any way they can for decades to come?
Well I think that ship has largely sailed, unfortunately. At this point I would think Russia is incentivized to hold as much territory as they can. I don’t see it being returned really changing the relationship or border situation too substantially.
You don’t think relations between Russia and Ukraine will not mend sooner, in historical terms, if this war ends in a white peace, rather than with Russia keeping Ukrainian territories? Being invaded will remain a traumatic memory for most Ukrainians for the rest of their lives, but forever losing a chunk of their country will contribute to keeping that wound open and will favor nationalist, anti-Russian rhetoric in their politics, which will absolutely remove the possibility of ever initiating a new chapter in their relationship with Russia.
Well, this is one possible outcome, although not necessary. For example Finland was able to patch it’s relations with Russia after 2 brutal wars with tens of thousands of casualties and a huge chunk of lost land. Of course the friendly relations were somewhat forced and a survival mechanism for a small country in Cold War era (Russia had a hold on Finland while Finland navigated in it’s position to gain as much political freedoms it could) but it genuinely got rid of open hostilities between the countries.
Even after the cold war ended and up to today, majority of the population in Finland has not had a revanchist opinion towards Russians, albeit they were not fully trusted either. Finns learned to live as neighbors and in peace while preparing just in case.
So while it is probably likely that loosing land would cause a negative nationalistic turn in Ukraine and grievances towards Russia, it’s not set in stone. Actually I am way more concerned that if Russia can claim a victory, they expand their delirious imperial/quasifascist project and escalate the conflict with the west further.
You may be right, it’s hard to say. But even then, the benefits of stolen land are substantial and indefinite. I think it’s a hard sell to say that Russia benefits from a total defeat here.
If beaten in Ukraine, there is a chance that the trajectory of the Russian Federation changes. Currently they are trying to fulfill a senseless imperial project which is doomed to eventually fail.
With defeat in Ukraine, there’s a chance that the growing destabilization within Russia leads to abandonment of the imperial dream. It might also force a change in the leadership albeit not necessarily for the better. What it would do however, is to show that the Putinist system is not the only option and that the actions it has taken, are in fact harmful for Russia and Russians. In a way, it opens up a way to politicize the apolitical Russian public.
In the semi long/long term this would benefit the population as it would not only challenge the idea of Russia as an Empire, but also allow for a less authoritarian model of governance.
I think it’s a little too hard to predict what will end up better for the Russian people. As you say, there’s no guarantee that a post-Putin Russia is necessarily a better one. But there are many paths that lead to a more democratic and free Russia, and many that may emerge from any outcome of the war.
The invasion has been such a catastrophic failure that I don't see how "escalate things again in a few years to come" is even remotely plausible, even if they do get some concession at this point.
I think you seriously underestimate Russia. They have a helluva lot of manpower, natural resources and money. They are also able to import western sanctioned materials via China and Central Asian countries.
Russian society is being organized to resemble a war economy. There are new laws that make drafting more difficult to avoid and with more severe punishments. Also they have just raised the age for conscription. They are playing the long game and preparing for future eg. mobilizing the whole society under one delirious cause. Late 20s, early 30s it is totally possible that Russia has a better military capacity than it currently has. Sure, the life of average Russian will suck way more than it does now, but there’s not really an option if you want to keep your job in a tank factory and avoid going to prison. You have no choice but to participate.
Putin has made his mind and the struggle in Ukraine only makes him more determined that He is fighting an existential battle with the west, especially since he believes that democracies and western liberal lifestyle are on a path of inevitable decline.
Sure, if he is stupid enough He might start a conflict with NATO, believing that the alliance will break when under pressure. He might think that He is prepared and the west is weak. And while there’s 95% change that he is mistaken, it doesn’t matter if he himself believes the crap the yesmen around him and He himself are feeding him. That’s the real risk and to me, a defeat in Ukraine makes this scenario less likely to happen.
So Pope, do you not class defeating a war mongering fascist dictator as protecting human rights, security, and peace? Appeasing dictators doesn’t work as we found out with Hitler AND Putin.
On an unrelated note, the Catholic Church including the Pope almost certainly knew about Preists smuggling Nazis to South America. Just some food for thought.
Now you’re not talking about peace with this nazis, you’re talking about justice. But the Vatican has its own view of justice, which you may not share. Let’s just say it’s completely unrelated to the war in Ukraine.
I think they are failing to emphasize the novel method Ukraine used to attack. Using submersible drones. Ukraine has been trying to build a drone navy.
Also, Putin publicly stated their conditions for victory about this time last year: quite literally the total obliteration of Ukrainian identity as a separate culture, and the total integration of the whole of Ukraine into Russia.
You cannot negotiate any form of lasting peace with an enemy that is fighting to deny your very existence. It just doesn’t work that way.
You have to remember that the Pope is South American and to the political leaders of South America, especially those on the left, the US is evil and therefore Ukraine has the wrong friends.
In this regard, the bias of Pope Francis against the United States has put him on the wrong side of history.
He could have unified the Orthodox (minus Russia) with the Catholic Church but he has failed a huge failure. He could have increased support for Ukraine and end the war faster. He could have condemned the Russian Orthodox clergy that promote this evil was against the people of Ukraine. He has failed.
You may be interested in the recovered journal of a Soviet infiltrator whose given mission was to establish such pedophile rings among other sabotage missions. These evils were planned and plotted from long ago. Certain places had problems already but this plot certainly made matters much, much worse.
telesurenglish.net
Oldest