The use of depleted uranium munitions has been fiercely debated, with opponents like the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons saying there are dangerous health risks from ingesting or inhaling depleted uranium dust, including cancers and birth defects.
Sorry comrade, you made a mistake, but I’ll fix it for you! We and Azov will drown the russian bastards in the Dnipr after fighting them for eight years. Can’t wait 🥰
What world issue isnt a convenient excuse for you people to shame the western Left?? (who has no direct connection to the conflict, nor should they, no matter how it’s spun)
OP is known tankie just fyi. Doesn’t justify US or Ukrainian actions but make sure you understand that the reason for posting this isn’t out of any actual concern for human beings. They’re also peddling covid conspiracies
Yeah that’s a silly article. Strange that a supposed “tankie” would post something that pushes the Chinese lab leak conspiracy though, especially from an outlet run by an NYT liberal like Bari Weiss.
The people that don’t support either side of the war and want to end it as fast as possible through peace talks are evil tankies.
And the bloodthirsty monsters that want to prolong a pointless war, arm Azov Nazis and kill as many people as possible with illegal inhumane weapons that scar generations are freedom-loving liberals.
Seems like the tankies are the more reasonable ones in this situation.
want to end it as fast as possible through peace talks are evil tankies.
Surrender == the end of Ukraine. There’s 0% chance of Russia honouring it for any meaningful length of time. They’ll see it as a weakness of Ukraine and they’ll just build up their forces again and attack. Any legitimate peace deal HAS to have the condition of Russia pulling out of all Ukrainian territory otherwise it’ll completely legitimise nations to start wars to take land for themselves. Russia loses nothing by withdrawing. And you 100% know this, which is why tankies keep peddling it - they can claim to be on the moral high ground by saying “we want peace! everyone else are bloodthirsty monsters!” but in reality they know it’ll just lead to more violence and genocide. Imagine calling the Allies blood thirsty monsters in WWII because they didn’t accept a peace deal with Nazi Germany because they wanted it to end as fast as possible.
Nobody wants bloodshed. Ukraine didn’t ask for this war. But they’re not going to give up and let Russia get away with a land grab.
Seems like the tankies are the more reasonable ones in this situation.
If by reasonable that you want Russia to win this war then yeah, sure.
This isn’t a children’s movie, there is no good guy in this war.
No one fucking wins, if Azov ‘wins’ then Ukraine will become even more of a Nazi shithole and a husk of an economy as the US calls in all its debts. If Russia ‘wins’ then it won’t be much better off either.
Nobody wants bloodshed. Ukraine didn’t ask for this war.
Than advocate for peace talks instead of grinding more Ukrainians and Russians into paste, you bloodthirsty ghoul.
But they’re not going to give up and let Russia get away with a land grab.
See? You do want bloodshed. You care more about dirt than human life.
There are only two outcomes of this war: A bloody long battle where innocent people get thrown in the meatgrinder regardless of which side comes out on top, or we get both sides to stop fighting and do peace talks so they can compromise and stop the killing as soon as possible. Nothing good will ever come out of this war. It needs to end as soon as possible to stop the bloodshed. The concern here should be stopping the loss of life as soon as possible, not caring about lines on a fucking map. For supposedly being pro-Ukraine, NATO sure loves killing Ukrainians.
otherwise it’ll completely legitimise nations to start wars to take land for themselves
Have you been sleeping for the last decades? There were plenty of wars. The US didn’t stop them, in fact, the US started a bunch of them, and more were started by US allies, or waged with US help. The US supports illegal occupation (“taking land”) all over, too.
So is there actually any norm anyone adheres to? Seems to me the actual norm is “don’t do anything the US doesn’t like”. It’s got nothing to do with starting wars or taking land.
If we’re supporting capitalist Russia the same way NATO tools are supporting Nazi Ukraine then where are our comments saying we should send money and weapons to Russia to defeat the Ukrainian ‘orcs’, then? Show me where these pro-Russia comments are, I’ll wait.
Get real, none of us have said anything in support of modern capitalist Russia. We’re communists ffs, would we really support the thing that killed the Soviet Union? Use your head.
Next, you’ll tell me that people against the war on terror in the Middle East were on the side of the Taliban.
Just another piece of evidence that the west never actually cared about Ukraine or people living there. Ukrainians are just a pawn the west is using to try and weaken Russia with zero consideration for the lives of the people living there.
Well, the alternatives are heavy metal, which also aren’t the greatest to breathe in. It’s almost like war is aweful and this one shouldn’t have been started in the first place, but here we are…
And what, let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything? Let them destroy a fledgling democracy? Right on the EU’s and NATO’s doorstep? Come on.
and shit while we’re at it, what the fuck do you think NATO has been doing its entire existence? it’s been destroying -actual- fledgling democracies, you monstrously hypocritical ass
let the Russians steamroll Ukraine and take everything?
I’ve noticed that every pro-NATO voice screaming “war good” has to pretend like the binary outcome of this war is a) Ukraine becomes Russia and every living inhabitant is genocided (see above comment from bibibi for case in point), or b) Ukraine heroically drives back Russia with magic in a completely asymmetrical and unwinnable war
Come on.
And then finishes their comment with something like this
There’s no material analysis to support any of this
The only way to get to that viewpoint is to believe Putin is an irrational, genocidal maniac hellbent on killing checks notes neighbors who are ethnically russian, who also desperately wants to push even more of Russia’s border right up against a hostile NATO. It’s no surprise that the people saying this shit are pro NATO and don’t understand the material reality underlying geopolitical conflicts like this one
Not gonna touch the “fledgeling democracy” thing, other comrades can dunk on that chefs-kiss
russian imperialism is a thing. People there are brainwashed with russia’s greatness ideas and expansion. putin’s actions just represent the will of russians.
The fact we were attacked and lost that many people is already a defeat. We lost this war when gave up nukes under the push of the west and russia. this together with naivness of our post-soviet people defined the path of our degradation. But it neither a win for russia, and won’t be. Russia was always corrupted just like Ukraine, it just got more resources and nukes, but that’s it. without the above fact and support of the west, maybe we would not be able to suppress them
Oh man I still remember the post that was leaked from russian government webpage on the 25th, a day after russian invaded. It was an absolute hard on about russian imperialism and how they will restore the good old russian empire or something, which included most slavic countries btw. It was taken down in hours but I checked that the addess was correct and legit. No proof of it since it’s been a year already and I saved nothing, so if you don’t believe it ignore me and please don’t spread this since I have no source anymore, but damn if it doesn’t paint a clear picture of russia’s intent on all of this since way before.
this damning evidence of Russia’s intentions would surely have motivated more countries to send aid to Ukraine. Why didn’t you take a screenshot?? you realize that you’re directly responsible for the deaths of thousand of Ukrainians, right???
not clear at all. no mention about ww2 in his comment. moreover we did not talk about ww2 before, so this is most likely a watabolistic attempt justifying killing ukrainians because some of our ancestors were participating in pogroms of jews.
if we were talking about xx and previous centuries, then I would also mention crimes done by russians, poles and germans toward ukrainians
Regarding antisemitism, I would also mention that pogroms in the russian empire especially in places jews were allowed to live in (see the Pale of Settlement) and in europe were common.
Collaborants were everywhere in europe, america and russia. Regarding latter, see nazi-soviet parade in Brest-Litovsk as an example. But for some reason you only mentrion ukrainians and Bandera.
Yes we are talking about Ukraine right now which is why Ukraine is coming up a lot
as I understand their point they were saying that as Ukrainian nationalists tried to kill their family they are not especially sympathetic to the cause of Ukrainian nationalism. I may be wrong of course but that is what I interpreted their statement as meaning
The real alternative is for Russians to go home. Who the fuck cares who’s using them? They’re being invaded. Russia didn’t need to invade them, but they thought they could get away with it (again). This isnt the first invasion of a sovereign country Russia has done. It isn’t even the first invasion of Ukraine. The US didn’t get involved in the others. Are we just going to excuse those?
Have you ever played 4x games? Do you know what encirclement is? When an opponent is ringing your territory with bases while they keep telling you it’s totally cool bro, they’re just working on their defenses while making alliances with players adjacent to you, what do you consider is their end game?
Yeah, everyone Russia has invaded has been for defence. Sure buddy. The real world is more complex than a 4X game, but even then you can use that to understand why someone would invade another country. They wanted to steal the resources and population. You may use your statement as a justification, but it is never the actual reason. The excuse of it being defensive is rediculous. Yeah, invading a sovereign country (multiple times) is sure to make the alliance “encircling” you stop. Seriously? Do you believe that rhetoric or are you just saying it because you’re supposed to?
I don’t know why people keep repeating this. Do you honestly think this is a coherent point? Russia is obviously not going to go home no matter how many times you’re going to repeat it. It’s a meaningless and useless statement that literally solves nothing. Either NATO can defeat Russia or not, so far it looks like NATO is not able to do so. What NATO is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict without changing the outcome. That means more people dying and having their lives ruined so that US military industry can make a profit and so that US can try and weaken Russia geopolitically. Anybody who thinks the west is in this conflict to help Ukraine is an utter imbecile.
Should the US have sent supplies to the allies in WWI and WWII before joining? It was just prolonging the war and causing people to die, right?
The reason the US is doing it is not morality. Everyone knows that. International politics is never about morality, it’s about power. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t also the moral option.
Also, NATO and the US are not in the war. We’re sending supplies. The US isn’t even sending the good stuff. We’re sending parts of our stockpile that’s old and has just been sitting around waiting for a use. They haven’t sent the newer technology so it it isn’t studied in case a real enemy requires them to be used.
It takes an incredible amount of historical illiteracy to try and draw parallels between WW2 and the proxy war US is waging against Russia in Ukraine. However, if you weren’t historically illiterate, then you’d also know that US companies continued working with the nazis well into the war, and IBM is famously responsible for facilitating the holocaust.
Also, NATO and the US are very obviously in this war, and one has to be utterly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
When the US government was providing resources to the allies, was it good or bad? I’m not talking companies or anything else. You’re dodging the question. There are enough parallels to draw a comparison. You just know what the answer would be and it conflicts with your beliefs, so you can’t admit it, to yourself or others.
And this is why your comparison is historically illiterate. The actual comparison would be US funding the nazis in WW2. You’re either ignorant of whom US is propping up in Ukraine or you’re just dishonest. Either way not a good look.
I did answer your question in detail, and it’s safe to dismiss anybody who uses whataboutism as a form of argument. That’s just a logical fallacy that imbeciles use to try and create a double standard.
I did, and you crying about whataboutism is what I’m referring to. Anybody who calls out whataboutism as a form of argument is engaging in intellectual dishonesty. The question you set up is fundamentally wrong, and you’re fishing for an answer for that setup. This is like me asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
I love that, in your opinion, calling out What-aboutism is “intellectual dishonesty” but using it is totally OK.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.
This is like me asking you if you’ve stopped beating your wife.
That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.
Calling whataboutism simply serves to set up a double standard for yourself and others. That’s what makes it intellectually dishonest. Meanwhile, there is nothing intellectually dishonest about pointing out hypocrisy and double standards.
I also love that you say you both answered the question, and also that you didn’t because it was wrong to ask.
I answered your question by explaining to you in detail why the question is nonsensical. US is currently supporting fascists in Ukraine, trying to compare that to US supporting allies fighting against fascists in WW2 is backwards. The fact that you can’t comprehend that says volumes.
That’s be easy to answer for anyone being honest. It’s either “I never did”, “yes”, or “no”. Someone who want to hide something may not answer the question though, and likely they’ll do something to throw people off, like attacking them for something they did instead (aka, “what about…”). It’s avoiding the question.
Once again you missed the whole point there which is setting up a false premise and then trying to get the other person to work within that premise. This is precisely what you did with your question. Pointing that out isn’t avoiding the question it’s calling out your bullshit.
You brought up the example of the US in relation to WWII. If you make a comparison, you can’t get stroppy when people point out that it contradicts your main argument and in fact supports the argument that you’re trying to challenge.
However, for as long as you think the US is the Good Guy^TM^, you’re going to struggle to find examples that support your viewpoint, so you may want to be careful with any comparison. Otherwise, you’ll start to notice a pattern of them pointing out that the US was as monstrous as always in the cited example and then you’ll say they’re doing whataboutism ad infinitum.
It doesn’t contradict my example. Companies are not the government.
I don’t think the US are “the good guys.” There aren’t good guys in international politics. They don’t do things for moral reasons. I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about. The US happens to be giving supplies to the people fighting off an invasion now and in WWI and WWII.
You still didn’t answer the god damn question. Again, expected. You guys never answer the fucking question. You just go on offense because then you get to act smart and in control, but it makes you look weak and stupid. If you can’t answer a simple question then what good is your opinion?
The reason it seems like I’m dodging the question is because if I can challenge the assumptions in the question and show that it’s a faulty question, the answer becomes irrelevant. Still, if you keep reading, you’ll see that I have provided an answer below.
As for my opinion, it’s like anyone else’s. It isn’t worth much. My statements of fact, however… in a world where people try to paint the US in a positive light, endlessly making distinctions to deny any blame to the US state for all the horror that it unleashes on the world… probably also not worth much.
I either make a logical argument that stands up to scrutiny or I don’t. If my argument stands up, it doesn’t matter whether I look like a weak idiot. If my argument fails, it doesn’t matter if I pretend control or to appear smart or to act it.
For a bourgeois state, it is ahistorical to separate the government from it’s businesses. Companies and the government go hand in hand. It was, for example, the East India Company, rather than the British ‘state’, that colonised so much of Asia.
In relation to WWII and the US-Nazi connection, Michael Parenti wrote in Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism (City Lights Books, CA, 1997, p17):
Corporations like DuPont, Ford, General Motors, and ITT owned factories in enemy countries that produced fuel, tanks, and planes that wreaked havoc on Allied forces. After the war, instead of being prosecuted for treason, ITT collected $27 million from the U.S. government for war damages inflicted on its German plants by allied bombings. General Motors collected over $33 million. Pilots were given instructions not to hit factories in Germany that were owned by U.S. firms. Thus Cologne was almost levelled by Allied bombing but it’s Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched; indeed German civilians began using the plant as an air raid shelter. [Citing Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy (Dell, NY, 1983).]
Fn14: After the war, Herman Abs, head of the Deutsche Bank and in effect “Hitler’s paymaster,” was hailed by David Rockefeller as “the most important banker of our time.” … Rockefeller [failed to say] a word about Abs’ Nazi connections, his bank’s predatory incursions across Nazi occupied Europe, and his participation, as a board member of I.G. Farben, in the use of slave labor at Auschwitz: Robert Karl Miller, Portland Free Press, Sept/Oct 1994
All this, and we haven’t really touched on:
the way that US state officials intervened to—
protect Nazi war criminals from prosecution at Nuremberg,
rehabilitate and promote Nazi officials to lead NATO,
doing the all this with Mussolini and others,
how the US ruling class platformed Nazis in the US press and silenced critical domestic voices,
the relationship between the US government and its ruling bourgeois, the familial relations.
The US is to be applauded for is role in defeating the Nazi war machine, including supplying the allies. The US soldiers who fought the Nazis were heroes. But it is problematic to claim the US (i.e. it’s ruling class) was on the right side of history through that period.
Likewise, in Ukraine, the US worsened the whole mess, possibly caused it all, by meddling in the region since before the 90’s. Since the recent invasion US media and spokespersons have been nonchalantly saying the US has reaped many benefits from the war with very little cost (except for Ukrainians—added in parentheses, as if the Ukrainians are of secondary concern).
I do think the invaders are bad, whichever war were talking about.
I think we agree in principle and I think I know what you mean but I must raise a challenge. There’s an example that shows an invasion is not necessarily bad, the one that you pointed out: the Allies invading Nazi Germany.
If invasion is not bad in one example situation, then logically it doesn’t hold as a blanket statement. It cannot of itself lead us to conclude that Russia is bad for invading Ukraine. To be clear, I am not saying Russia is good for invading Ukraine; I’m saying it is not self evidently bad by virtue of being the invader.
To further the clear statement, I wish Russia had not invaded. I wish the war would end today. Short of that I wish a ceasefire could be negotiated for today, so that peace and an end to the war can be negotiated for the near future.
No flippant comments about how dangerous war is for the workers who must fight in it. Only firm conviction that the only right choice is to stop the killing and maiming as soon as possible, not to send increasingly dangerous weapons with increasingly higher chances of causing collateral damage.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, the US wanted the opposite at all stages and it’s representatives (officials and corporate agents) have machinated to ensure that war broke out and now that it cannot stop.
The west literally overthrew the legitimate and democratically elected government to install literal fascists in power who have been busy doing this the people in eastern Ukraine for the past either years. If this is news to you then take a sit because you have no clue regarding the subject you’re bloviating on here.
Fascinating. Can you show me more links about the west NOT invading, murdering, raping and kidnapping Ukrainians? Amazing that you think this somehow proves your point.
OMG, I didn’t know that. So the Russian fascist regime is actually maiming it’s own people in Ukraine in order to help Ukrainians? Fascinating. Please tell me more.
The truth is that it’s all quite hard to measure as Russia is lying about its economical figures (they make no sense whatsoever) and going via secondary indicators is possible, but also frought with uncertainty. But two things really stand out: a) investing in a war you’re losing is GDP flushed down the drain, b) they’re cut off from any advanced technology at even half-way reasonable prices, c) massive brain drain, there’s also d) report of very excessive inflation when it comes to food.
If they manage to raise GDP by exporting more oil or whatnot – that’s raising GDP. It’s not actually doing the country any good. More petrorubles for the kleptocrats.
But all that is rather besides the point. Russia, alongside with Ukraine, did a lot of stuff wrong in the 90s. Look at Estonia or e.g. Czechs (if you want to keep it among Slavs) on how to do it… nah, not right, but definitely better.
Ukraine then managed to turn around, develop an actual civil society and clip the wings of the oligarchy, Russia didn’t. That is what I mean with “perfectly capable of messing up on their own”. It’s also the reason for the war it’s a matter of regime stability: There’s plenty of family ties between Russia and Ukraine, if Russians see that Ukraine can escape the yoke of the kleptocrats then they could start to believe that they, too, can do that.
I expect you to have minimal technical literacy to put the link URL in archive.
The truth is that there is no actual evidence to indicate that Russian economy is struggling in any way.
a) investing in a war you’re losing is GDP flushed down the drain
That certainly explains why Europe is in a deep recession now and why US economy is looking shaky.
b) they’re cut off from any advanced technology at even half-way reasonable prices
Once you look at a map you’ll realize that Russia shares a huge border with China where all the advanced technology is produced nowadays. Trade between Russia and China has shot up to over 200 billion this year.
c) massive brain drain
Very little evidence for that actually happening, the article you linked is written by the same people who claimed Russia was a gas station with nukes, and that Russian economy was going to collapse months after western sanctions were imposed. If you haven’t figured out that you’ve been lied to yet, that really says a lot about you.
d) report of very excessive inflation when it comes to food.
Russia has very low food inflation and happens to be one of the major food producers globally. Once again, the fact that you think Russia has food inflation says volumes.
But all that is rather besides the point. Russia, alongside with Ukraine, did a lot of stuff wrong in the 90s. Look at Estonia or e.g. Czechs (if you want to keep it among Slavs) on how to do it… nah, not right, but definitely better.
We’re now seeing Russia having made it through two years of being cut off from the western economy, and doing well for itself. Meanwhile, countries like Estonia and Czech republic aren’t doing so hot. And frankly, it’s completely absurd to compare a country the size of Russia to a country like Estonia.
Ukraine then managed to turn around, develop an actual civil society and clip the wings of the oligarchy, Russia didn’t.
That’s complete and utter horseshit. Ukraine turned into the most corrupt country in Europe, and things have only kept getting worse. Ukraine started as a big industrial power after USSR collapsed, and now it’s been robbed entirely of anything of value.
There’s plenty of family ties between Russia and Ukraine, if Russians see that Ukraine can escape the yoke of the kleptocrats then they could start to believe that they, too, can do that.
What people in Russia see is that under west’s leadership Ukraine managed to become worse than Russia. All that did was convince people in Russia that the west was going to fuck them over exactly the same way they fucked Ukraine over.
Ukraine turned into the most corrupt country in Europe, and things have only kept getting worse.
Ukraine and Russia both did. One of them is making efforts to get out of that swamp.
I find it rather telling that of all the things you found weak retorts for, you completely left out the “More petrorubles for the kleptocrats” part, and how GDP is not a proper measure of the wealth of a people, at least in any even remotely leftist sense.
Ask Tuvans without access to electricity, running water, heck even a fucking gas station, how wealthy they are. Yet they’re not even counted as poor in the official statistics as the way poverty is counted in Russia is highly regional: If you’re poor in Moscow you count, if you’re infinitely worse off in the periphery you don’t.
That is why you see Russian soldiers – primarily from the periphery as joining the army is the only way to make any money as there’s no actual jobs – looting toilets. Fucking toilets. Back in WWII it was water faucets. Nothing the fuck has changed in that regard.
If you think that Putin is “draining the swamp” then you’re no less naive than your run off the mill Trumpet.
(Side note, speaking of WWII: Remember that Soviet flag on the Reichstag picture? That’s of a Ukrainian. Taken by a Ukrainian).
I find it rather telling that of all the things you found weak retorts for, you completely left out the “More petrorubles for the kleptocrats” part, and how GDP is not a proper measure of the wealth of a people, at least in any even remotely leftist sense.
There is zero indication to suggest that regular people in Russia are significantly effected in any way right now. Cost of food, housing, and other essentials has stayed stable.
That is why you see Russian soldiers – primarily from the periphery as joining the army is the only way to make any money as there’s no actual jobs – looting toilets. Fucking toilets. Back in WWII it was water faucets. Nothing the fuck has changed in that regard.
I mean if that’s what you’ve convinced yourself of then what else is there to say to you.
If you think that Putin is “draining the swamp” then you’re no less naive than your run off the mill Trumpet.
No, I don’t think Putin is draining any swamp, but I do think he runs a far more competent administration than western oligarchs.
(Side note, speaking of WWII: Remember that Soviet flag on the Reichstag picture? That’s of a Ukrainian. Taken by a Ukrainian).
And now thanks to the help from the west Ukraine is run by literal fascists. Maybe something you should reflect on.
In any case, this conversation is clearly pointless since you evidently live in an alternate reality. I’ll just let you figure things out on your own and reconcile the fantasies you’ve built up with the real world as it becomes increasingly more difficult to ignore going forward.
“Looting toilets” is the funniest part. Do you really believe that Ukraine is such pauper country that invading soldiers couldn’t loot anything more valuable than used toilets from occupied cities? It’s required to have literally zero critical thinking in order not to understand that this is propagandistic bullshit.
Like seriously, you’re arguing that Ukraine’s liberal democracy is somehow better than Russia, when the point of liberal democracies under late capitalism is to strip all the copper out of the walls (privatize, austeritize, union-bust), everywhere, all the time.
…and? The man is a successful comedian, has a production company, and everyone knew he’s a millionaire. Shuffling money offshore is how you keep it safe in a corrupt country.
No tax fraud, no shady business, no nothing has been found regarding those offshore companies. Forbes estimates him at around 20 million Euro, that’s nowhere even close to oligarch scale.
when the point of liberal democracies under late capitalism
…is to be not as bad as straight-up Kleptocracies. Russia is a mafia state. In Ukraine the state arrests you for corruption, in Russia you get arrested for reporting about corruption. The difference is that simple.
Every person involved in making this decision deserves to be buried in an unmarked grave with the weapons they love so much. How many innocent people completely uninvolved with the war are going to grow up suffering the effects of depleted uranium rounds? Another absolutely monstrous decision in a long line of monstrous decisions by the US government.
Are you aware of what depleted uranium does to the human body? Innocent people are going to be dealing with the consequences of a decision made by a handful of people across the planet for decades after the war ends. Does poisoning generations of people sound like “defending” Ukrainians to you?
It’s use will have consequences far outside of the conflict and ruin the lives of who knows how many people who had absolutely no say in this war and I’m supposed to cheer it on?
The op is specifically about depleted uranium but hey, if you want to make the case that we shouldn’t be sending weapons to Ukraine in the first place I’m not going to argue against it shrug-outta-hecks
Yes, I’m aware of the effects of depleted uranium on the human body; are you? 2) What would you propose to help Ukraine evict the genocidal invaders from its territory?
Just stepped in someones front yard without permission, which is technically an invasion, and ive been told this is tantamount to genocide. Am I an imperialist war criminal, Hexbear?
The only fascists in this conflicts are the ones you support, they’re pretty open about being fascists too. These are the actual people defending themselves from scum like you hrw.org/…/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munition…
No, the only fascists are the ones that crossed the border into Ukraine and are currently being pushed out. According to the article you linked, it states it's not possible to conclusively prove who launched those cluster munitions in October.
You know, the simple solution for the war crimes to end would be for the Russian invaders to admit they fucked up, retreat to the borders that were recognized in 2013 and start preparing for the trials at The Hague.
But, Putin is too weak and much like Tankies need to tank... Russian fascists need to fash.
They aren’t that dangerous as a weapon of war. The uranium is depleted, as the name suggest. The alternative is heavy metal, which is also dangerous to breathe in. It’s war and it sucks for health. Maybe there shouldn’t have been an invasion…
Depleted Uranium is definitely radioactive. It’s depleted but there are still radioactive isotopes in it. It’s relatively same to handle until it’s fired and some of it turns to dust. The dust is both poisonous and radioactive. The toxicity of it is probably worse than the radiation but they’re both still bad.
Unironically yes. A peace deal was in the works last year until, according to the Ukranian Pravda, Boris Johnson pressured Zelensky not to go through with it. This would have stopped the fighting and resulted in some withdrawal of Russian troops, but since the West is more interested in weakening their geopolitical rivals and helping the weapons industry rake in profit than ending the war, they squashed any possibility of that happening.
No, Ukraine didn’t want to give up but they were becoming desperate. Boris Johnson came in to let them know the West was finally willing to offer some support. Ukraine giving up would not have resulted in the withdrawal of russian troops from their newly conquered territory
And so do other heavy metals. What do you suggest they use that won’t have negative health impacts (which is ironic for something designed to kill, but whatever)?
Because of the uranium bullets are denser and heavier than the lead bullets and you can use the uranium bullets on certain types of aircraft and other weapons systems to shred through medium to heavy armor that could not be penetrated with a lead bullet. TLDR this will be used as a force multiplier.
Imagine defending a regime that targets hospitals and schools for missile attacks and rains white phosphorous down on cities.
If the Russians cared about anything beyond their own expansionist agenda, they'd retreat and end the war they started. If you actually cared about the suffering of Ukrainians, you would stop being a mouthpiece for that regime.
Fuck, I almost thought you were on about the US and Israel but guess not ¯\(ツ)/¯
Too bad you still are pushing for the war to even continue. You don’t want the Russians to genocide every single Ukrainian so you still propose they should just do it themselves and continue running straight into landmines. 🙄
So what, you’re suggesting that right now they are “winning”? By what metric are they “winning”? Western brownie points? Because all of the teenagers and young adults that are 6ft under would beg to differ.
I know it hard for the recently scratched liberals to understand this, but It’s perfectly okay to decommission a weapon, you don’t have to use it on people to get rid of it.
Russian forced are mechanized and entrenched, depleted uranium self sharpens on impact, yielding far better armor penetration than previous technologies.
The UK MoD insists that the depleted uranium shells it is sending to Ukraine are not prohibited by any international agreement.
It says that under Article 36 of the First Protocol of 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the UK's depleted uranium shells are "capable of being used lawfully in international armed conflict".
President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the UK does send depleted uranium shells to Ukraine, "Russia will have to respond accordingly, given that the West collectively is already beginning to use weapons with a nuclear component".
The MoD replied in a statement: "The British Army has used depleted uranium in its armour-piercing shells for decades. Russia knows this, but is deliberately trying to disinform."
Stating the use of DU is a war crime is just Russian mouthpieces repeating Kremlin lies.
Yes, nothing wrong with hiding behind some self percieved “correctness” (actshually…) to justify pollution that causes helth issues for generations. But I am so glad you are “technically correct” - how would you sleep otherwise?
Depleted Uranium is dangerous for anyone exposed to it. It will be a persistant environmental pollutant that could render large areas unsuitable for agriculture. Downplaying the effects is stupid and dangerous.
We need to talk about the effects and weigh the military benefit vs. the long term problems. Also for the military benefit you cannot take the shortcut of assuming no AP munitions to be used otherwise. Also the question is whether stronger AP abilities are needed, as Abrams should make quick work of T64s and probably T72s with normal AP rounds too.
So we have to weigh a potentially marginal benefit with a significant long term health effect. I trust the Ukranian army and government to make that decision, but again the issues shouldn’t be downplayed. Because of downplaying and ignoring the issues with it there is thousands of American and British vets that suffer from diseases and birth defects in their children, struggling to get it recognised and properly compensated.
Depleted uranium is not much different from lead. Heavy metals are unhealthy. It is barely radioactive as it is made from the rather stable uranium isotopes. (Hence depleted)
Uranium is pretty toxic compared to lead. LD50 is roughly 114 mg/kg vs. 4665 mg/kg depending on source. If you happen to get that dust inside your body, the radiation isn’t going to help you stay healthy either.
What is the point of peace talks with Russia? Promises and assurances by Russia have had no weight or effect. Which is why the war even happened. Also, Russia can end the war any day they want.
Russia started the war in the first place because — whether you think the fear is reasonable or not — Russia has loudly proclaimed for decades that they view NATO encirclement as an existential threat, and Ukraine joining NATO would massively expand NATO presence on the Russian border, leaving basically only Belarus as a buffer. And if Ukraine took Crimea with them while joining NATO, Russia would lose access to their only deep warm-water port on the black sea, Sevastapol, a port that is economically significant to them.
I imagine there’s a lot more reasons for birth defect spikes post US mil ops in addition to this. The military isn’t exactly an environmentally conscious operation. ☠️
But this kind of ammo, kids will find and hang on to. They bring it home, add it to their collection of other cool shit they've scavenged...and then their brothers and sisters are born with malformed limbs, mishaped heads, etc.
There have been a lot of stories written about it over the years. The one I read was specifically about Iraq I believe, but it was a while ago.
Ok but the alternatives are not environmentally conscious either, finally the people who’s land it is should be the ones making choices about the conditions of that land
The alternative bring tungsten? It’s very stable so anything besides eating a spent rod isn’t going to have effects. If it’s in the air it’ll just be inert. Even if it gets in your lungs it’ll be like any other dust. DU on the other hand would keep emitting radiation internally.
That’s a really convenient narrative based on the fallacy of homogenizing Ukraine. Let’s take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here’s the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Ah look at you resorting to personal attacks like the clown you are. Also, given that you’ve been here for 3 months we both know who the redditor here is.
What I see is a very deliberate attempt of russia to try to breed out an ethnicity in an attempt to create a reason to take more land. Which is exactly what happened- maybe learn about the subject first.
Russia is obviously not going to withdraw, and you or me asking Russia to withdraw isn’t going to make it happen. However, people living in western countries do have at least some influence on their own regimes. Of course, the reason western regimes can keep the proxy war going is precisely because a lot of scumbags are cheering it on right now.
People of Donbas whom the Ukrainian regime was abusing for the past eight years asked Russia for help to defend their lives and home. The atrocities the Ukrainian regime was committing were even covered by CNN in 2014 twitter.com/paulius60/status/1611148483859255296
Meanwhile, the west is not helping Ukraine, it’s prolonging the war which results in more people dying without changing the outcome. This war could’ve been over last March when Russia and Ukraine almost signed a deal, but UK and US decided to torpedo it. If that’s your idea of helping Ukraine then you need to get your head checked.
The amount of Ukrainians dying right now will pale in comparison to those effected by the munitions.
The controversy around depleted uranium rounds is way overblown.
Even in Iraq the evidence is super inconclusive. And yes birth defects rose however the entire country basically collapsed for years and nothing clearly indicates it was the DU used.
Don't get me wrong, it's nasty stuff. But this is war, more people are getting killed by bombs then any DU related cancer can cause.
In Basra the rate of leukemia in children rose dramatically and that is too specific of a disease to not be linked to DU exposure due to the heavy use of it in surrounding tank battles.
Because the issue is specific to the region and started specifically after the tank battle where DU ammunition was used. If it would be a general issue with some dangerous chemical being used, we’d expect to see similiar issues in other regions. Of course it is hypotheticakky possible that at the same time some dangerous and persistant chemical exposure happened in the region, but that is not plausible and also the US would have a strong interest in finding such an alternative explanation. But there isn’t any research published, that provided an alternative.
Also look into the wording of the US when sending the ammunition to Ukraine. They state that no radiation hazard is to be expected for the Ukrainians. They do not talk about a toxicological hazard.
i never said it had to be because of radiation. Even just in its effect as a heavy metal it seems to be much worse. Also it could be that it becomes airborn more easily than other metals such as lead, so the wreckage of tanks shot with DU are more dangerous to the people cleaning them up.
Why are you so worried about speculated harms when Ukrainians are actually being raped, tortured, and murdered by russians? Your lack of humanity is showing
Are you really this delusional? Sure Ukraine has their own uranium munitions that they can decide to use anytime they want… When does the public get to decide on what happens with the tax money - fund schools, build infrastructure, etc. or send radioactive ammunition to fuel a proxy war in some corrupt country?
Weighing costs and benefits happens with a comprehensive set of actual facts, not a hodgepodge of speculations and fearmongering that play into the fascists’ hands
Is ammo made from lead that much better? I honestly don’t know. Sure the radiation sucks but Uranium, at least the isotope they’re sending is “barely” radioactive. It’s the same Uranium people had in their plates etc. The toxicity is probably the far more relevant factor but I don’t know how Uranium compares to lead.
Depleted uranium is not really that radioactive. Everything is technically radioactive eventually though. Depleted uranium is what’s left behind when you seperate the radioactive stuff out. It’s a heavy metal still, so isn’t good for you, but heavy metals will always be involved. Trying to have a war using only healthy, organic, ethically sourced munitions isn’t going to happen.
We have to remember that Russia caused this war, however. So they also caused the depleted uranium being a possible health risk for future ukrainian children.
Everyone should worry. Depleted uranium will contaminate large crop production areas and later these grains will be sold all around the world. Everybody will eat some.
Depleted means that the radioactive isotope is lower in concentration. It still is somehow radioactive (it’s almost fine if not ingested) and still remains a heavy and toxic metal.
Banana is somehow radioactive too you know. Or granit. Anciant Greece monument often are above the radiation levels allowed in a nuclear power plant.
Also, while you talk about it, lead is farfar more toxic than depleted uranium. Many metals are toxic actually, that’s why your government monitor water meant for consumption.
When they explode, they spread radioactive dust into the surrounding area. If that area is ever farmed it can contaminate the crops and cause cancer to anyone breathing in the dust
Yes, Ukrainian soldiers on front line are worried about cancer and birth defects. They are rational human beings who hope to return to their homes and live long lives and grow healthy children, not some subhumans with only intent to kill, kill, kill, as you wish to think.
I don’t know how rational this is. Given how many soldiers have died so far, if I were a Ukrainian sent to fight on the front line, I wouldn’t expect to be coming back. Rather I’d hope that I contribute to the defeat of the enemy, so that my children or my comrades children don’t grow up under Russian rule. I’m not in their shoes of course. There’s no universal motivation so maybe what you say is more prevalent. That said, this war might not end without soldiers doing a lot more killing so “kill, kill, kill” might be an appropriate viewpoint.
Add comment