US Politics XXXVIII: "Patriots" vs Reality

[DaveC]

carry on

[LuckyNumber7]

Is that like… the Las Vegas Reality?

[Bluer White]

The US will provide cluster bombs to Ukraine and defends the delivery of the controversial weapon
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...tary-100836526

...Colin Kahl, the under secretary of defense for policy, said the U.S. will give Ukraine the most modern cluster munitions that have far lower dud rates. He said the bombs have been tested five times between 1998 and 2020, and the U.S. is confident the rate of unexploded duds is below 2.35 percent. While he declined to say how many the U.S. will send now, he said the U.S. has “hundreds of thousands” of cluster munitions available for Ukraine at the low dud rate.

He said the key reason to provide the bombs is to keep Ukraine in the fight.

...Still, U.S. reaction was mixed. Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., called the decision “unnecessary and a terrible mistake.” And Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the civilian risk lingers “often long after a conflict is over.” Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, backed the move, saying Ukraine needs access to weapons Russia already is using.

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, some cluster munitions leave behind bomblets that have a high rate of failure to explode — up to 40% in some cases. With a claimed rate under 3% for the supply to Ukraine, U.S. officials said there would be fewer unexploded bombs left behind to harm civilians.

A convention banning the use of cluster bombs has been joined by more than 120 countries that agreed not to use, produce, transfer or stockpile the weapons and to clear them after they’ve been used. The United States, Russia and Ukraine are among those who have not signed on.

The cluster munitions are included in a new $800 million package of military aid the U.S. will send to Ukraine. Friday’s package, drawn from Pentagon stocks, will also include Bradley and Stryker armored vehicles and an array of ammunition, such as rounds for howitzers and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, officials said.

Providing the cluster bombs will also ease the pressure on limited U.S. ammunition stockpiles. The U.S. has been taking massive amounts of 155 mm rounds from Pentagon stocks and sending them to Ukraine, creating concerns about eating into American stores. The cluster munitions, which are fired by the same artillery as the conventional 155 mm, will give Ukraine a highly lethal capability and also allow them to strike more Russian targets using fewer rounds.

The whole article gives a lot of good info. Unfortunately it sounds like even more escalation. No apparent end in sight.

[mikal]

I wonder how long it will take the job "Donald Trump Lawyer" to drop to a 1 star rating on Indeed.

[DaveC]

i still can't believe jake delhomme was once a starting quarterback in the super bowl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK_2j0CDNFo

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

i still can't believe jake delhomme was once a starting quarterback in the super bowl

Wait until you learn about a guy named Eli Manning

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

The US will provide cluster bombs to Ukraine and defends the delivery of the controversial weapon
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...tary-100836526



The whole article gives a lot of good info. Unfortunately it sounds like even more escalation. No apparent end in sight.

What exactly would this escalation be?

[dazzledbylight]

BEAL: "The pressure needs to go towards Manchin and Seinma. Also NY for allowing someone like Santos to even make it into congress."

Just a FYI.
Something like ?95% of his district is Long Island. A small area is in NE Queens.
So no finger wagging at NYC.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

What exactly would this escalation be?

giving ukraine cluster bombs. those things are even worse than land mines. they kill and maim civilians far more than they benefit military objectives and it's very difficult and expensive to safely clean them up after the conflict ends.

i want ukraine to win a resounding victory in every way but supplying these munitions to them is a horrible decision that will almost certainly end up killing and injuring more ukrainian civilians than it could possibly really help their military.

and yes russia is obviously has been using cluster bombs during the entire war

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by DaveC

giving ukraine cluster bombs. those things are even worse than land mines. they kill and maim civilians far more than they benefit military objectives and it's very difficult and expensive to safely clean them up after the conflict ends.

i want ukraine to win a resounding victory in every way but supplying these munitions to them is a horrible decision that will almost certainly end up killing and injuring more ukrainian civilians than it could possibly really help their military.

and yes russia is obviously has been using cluster bombs during the entire war

I understand the arguments against cluster munitions in general. They are far from optimal, and it would've been preferable if other weapon systems were provided at earlier stages already and production scaled up sooner, so that Ukraine weren't put in a position to even request cluster munitions in the first place.

My issue is with this constant talk of "escalating the war" that somehow only ever is made when Western countries are about to provide Ukraine with another weapons system in order to defend itself, or as is the case now, support its counter offensive (which is technically not even correct, as Ukraine was already supplied with another kind of cluster munitions by Turkey). And their clear intent is to use these munitions on military targets in their own homeland, not on cities within Russia.

So that's why I'm wondering how this is escalating anything, and especially, how is the side that is defending itself from a full scale invasion including an innumerable amount of war crimes the one that is escalating?

Ukraine made a tough decision to get these munitions knowing that next to the mines and the many unexploded ordinance (Russia's weapons are so ancient that they have an extremely high dud rate) as well as contamination from depleted uranium ammunition they will now have yet another hazard for ages to come. It's a bitter calculation they had to make also partly due to us having fucked up to more effectively support them in the past 1.5 year, but mainly, because Russia decided to start a war on aggression against them.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

My issue is with this constant talk of "escalating the war" that somehow only ever is made when Western countries are about to provide Ukraine with another weapons system in order to defend itself, or as is the case now, support its counter offensive (which is technically not even correct, as Ukraine was already supplied with another kind of cluster munitions by Turkey). And their clear intent is to use these munitions on military targets in their own homeland, not on cities within Russia.

So that's why I'm wondering how this is escalating anything, and especially, how is the side that is defending itself from a full scale invasion including an innumerable amount of war crimes the one that is escalating?

I hear what you're saying. I agree, war is an unfair bloody mess and Russia created this mess unprovoked. And the article does mention that the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine haven't signed on to the cluster munition 'ban.' (go figure, right?)

I guess part of the reason I put the story up was to keep the war on the radar. Something important globally and a topic here other than Donald and Hunter, etc Especially after Putin's dust-up with the Wagner warlord. What the U.S. is doing and not doing to support Ukraine and how it's been evolving over the last year and a half. By that I mean sending stuff we said we would not or could not send. Or our stuff supplied via our closest allies. All with an eye toward a third party like the U.S. not overly provoking Putin.

Of course I want a complete and total victory for Ukraine, but the enemy gets a vote too. Is there any sign this war is anything but a continued stalemate? And how likely is it Russia will withdraw 100% of their troops with absolutely zero to show for it? I mean, of course let's all hope they tuck tail and go home tomorrow. But if a deal is the real end game, as painful any agreement ceding territory would be for Ukraine, when is the right time?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

I guess part of the reason I put the story up was to keep the war on the radar. Something important globally and a topic here other than Donald and Hunter, etc Especially after Putin's dust-up with the Wagner warlord. What the U.S. is doing and not doing to support Ukraine and how it's been evolving over the last year and a half. By that I mean sending stuff we said we would not or could not send. Or our stuff supplied via our closest allies. All with an eye toward a third party like the U.S. not overly provoking Putin.

I appreciate (and miss) your willingness to be this candid.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

I hear what you're saying. I agree, war is an unfair bloody mess and Russia created this mess unprovoked. And the article does mention that the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine haven't signed on to the cluster munition 'ban.' (go figure, right?)

I guess part of the reason I put the story up was to keep the war on the radar. Something important globally and a topic here other than Donald and Hunter, etc Especially after Putin's dust-up with the Wagner warlord. What the U.S. is doing and not doing to support Ukraine and how it's been evolving over the last year and a half. By that I mean sending stuff we said we would not or could not send. Or our stuff supplied via our closest allies. All with an eye toward a third party like the U.S. not overly provoking Putin.

Of course I want a complete and total victory for Ukraine, but the enemy gets a vote too. Is there any sign this war is anything but a continued stalemate? And how likely is it Russia will withdraw 100% of their troops with absolutely zero to show for it? I mean, of course let's all hope they tuck tail and go home tomorrow. But if a deal is the real end game, as painful any agreement ceding territory would be for Ukraine, when is the right time?

As much as it's laudable, for many countries it would be strategically very stupid to sign on to the ban as long as these munitions are in use by certain other countries.

It was helpful to have deliberations about what to send, also in order for the domestic population to understand why these decisions had to be made. But in the end, that has drawn out delivery and scaling up of production capabilities to the point that we now have to choose inferior weapons systems in order to supply the Ukrainians until the superior munitions are available in the required quantities again.

I don't know how you see the war being a stalemate. It couldn't be further from it. Ukraine is making progress in retaking areas under Russian occupation. It seems that our expectancy as to the speed of that process has now become incredibly unrealistic. Ukraine is performing rather well given that they don't have air support. The current counter offensive can also not be compared with last year's liberation of Kharkiv and Kherson. Russian troops are way more entrenched now, they are also expecting Ukrainian attacks and Ukraine is still preparing the ground.

Save a complete reversal of events, there's little reason to believe Ukraine shouldn't be able to continue with their progress until the fall, when both sides will have to basically go into semi-hibernation again and prepare for next year. Ukraine has neither any incentive to negotiate anything, nor would it be wise given that Putin is a bad faith negotiator.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Wait until you learn about a guy named Eli Manning

Don't hate

https://twitter.com/EliManning/statu...ZVMYDYJ9w&s=19

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

Ukraine is making progress in retaking areas under Russian occupation. It seems that our expectancy as to the speed of that process has now become incredibly unrealistic. Ukraine is performing rather well given that they don't have air support.

Ukraine's war fighters have performed amazingly well, for sure. True allied air support is probably on its way within the next year, with Ukrainian pilots. I think Russia will take that as an escalation.

The speed of the process needs to be considered, too. The war is a year and a half in and the likely future of it now being measured in years. And all that could go unexpectedly wrong in those years (leaving out the guaranteed battle casualties). Like another missile straying into a Nato country, or a nuke plant taking damage. Or, bear with me here, a desperate ailing Putin down the line deploying a small tactical weapon in the middle of an empty Ukrainian wheat field. Threatens to hit a military target next. The West's move would be?

Save a complete reversal of events, there's little reason to believe Ukraine shouldn't be able to continue with their progress until the fall, when both sides will have to basically go into semi-hibernation again and prepare for next year. Ukraine has neither any incentive to negotiate anything, nor would it be wise given that Putin is a bad faith negotiator.

At some point the casualties (should) create an incentive for both sides to sit down and talk, if complete victory isn't likely to happen. Quote here from Reuters back in April:

According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

The figures are around 10 times bigger than any public casualty figures published by either Moscow or Kyiv.

Neither side gives timely data on military losses.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ts-2023-04-12/

Definitely have to take any of these numbers with a grain of salt, but Reuters is a solid outlet. Civilian casualties aren't estimated in the article.

[mikal]

https://www.threads.net/t/CuiKOZipJ8...c4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

At some point the casualties (should) create an incentive for both sides to sit down and talk

That’s a hot take. Russia’s own PMC’s shot down a Russian aircraft, took over a Russian military HQ, and marched on their own capital over Russia allegedly being willing to bomb their own soldiers. What the hell makes you think Russia, whose military strategy for centuries has been to put a weapon in the hands of anyone with a pulse to effectively go be cannon fodder, gives one flying fuck about the civilian casualties they are creating in Ukraine?

[BEAL]

One side is bombing civilians. They don’t care, unless you think that’s the strategy for peace

[BEAL]

https://twitter.com/macfarlanenews/s...Kjw76N1iFrMMAw

Guess we see what side Judge is on

[mikal]

Originally Posted by BEAL

https://twitter.com/macfarlanenews/s...Kjw76N1iFrMMAw

Guess we see what side Judge is on

Well we know whose side the judge is on, but if she makes the dumb decision to delay it, it won't work, and she's already on thin ice, so all in all, this is another false panic story.