Sappers risk their lives to win Ukraine back, inch by inch
economist.com
economist.com
160+ countries have banned anti-personnel landmines
Of course Russia, the US and China have not signed either of these, but still odd to read about it in a casual tone.
The issue is, what is more dangerous to Ukrainian civilians over the next decade or two - unexploded munitions, which can hopefully be mostly recovered after the war, or the Russians, who rape, burn, pillage, kidnap and murder indiscriminately? Certainly they are happy to create ambiguity over whether they would blow up a nuclear plant.
Certainly given Russia is already covering the country with cluster munitions, I don't think it's unreasonable for Ukraine to use them, over their own territory. At the very least it's up to them.
Is there any legitimate source for this other than random bad actors or anecdotal propaganda from western news source.
This isn't a 10th century Viking invasion.
The UN has documented it pretty well.
> This isn't a 10th century Viking invasion.
Nope but what Russia is doing in Ukraine certainly at least rhymes very heavily with there actions in the.
- First Chechen war
- second Chechen war
- Russo-Georgina war
The russians rape. The russians torture. The russians mutilate. The russians mass-murder.
The russians shoot small children at close range in the head.
The russians castrate prisoners of war.
The russians execute their own fighters with rifles or by crushing their skull with a sledgehammer.
The russians use chemical weapons.
The russians use cluster bombs.
The russians use white phosphorus.
The russians cause ecological disaster.
The russians threaten nuclear war.
The russians steal children.
The russians blow up schools.
The russians blow up hospitals.
The russians blow up power plants.
And so on, and so on.
And yet so many westerns will clutch their pearls when we give the Ukrainians the means to defend themselves.
I'm not saying they should not be given to Ukraine, but simply pointing out that you're arguing the wrong argument.
Edit: I have seen good arguments for giving the bombs to Ukraine, and tend to agree with them. I.e., their use is rather localized at this point of the war.
It's entirely up to Ukraine what they do with their own land.
And the options at this point are:
1. Remove russian terrorists with cluster munitions, with the potential for civilian casualties.
2. Allow russian terrorists to continue raping, torturing, and murdering civilians in Ukraine.
Well, then.
Classify them as such.
=> Any funding of them is now funding of terrorism. Including paying tax in Russia. Which means any and all companies doing business in and with Russia, and the individuals working in and for those companies now have to immediately stop, or else face jail... right?
Seems like it could be super effective way of halting Russia?
cf classification of Iranian's Revoutionary Guard as a terrorist org: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/01/23/eu-faces-growi...
The European parliament have declared them as such, which is a start.
But what I would like to see is a situation where companies paying tax to Russia are seen as sponsoring terrorism. It would have insane reprecussions?
Most multinationals seem to be operating on a "business as usual" principle in Russia.
If they all risk jail time, things will be different.
Also consider that any purchases of anything from Russia would now also be classified as sponsoring terrorism. So no more Gasprom gas :P