The war is often compared to WW1. WW1 was static for years until it wasn’t. Russia is fighting a grinding war of attrition, like WW1. Maybe Putin thinks he can get a similar outcome. I don’t know.
Given the core premise of geopolitical realism that great powers will seek to expand their spheres of influence when they can, and also that Russia has repeatedly broken treaties in the past, why do you think Russia would abide by such an agreement?
1 Like
A realist perspective might say that this question is irrelevant, that the US and Russia will be concerned with national security, that these states will act pragmatically with no concern for universal moral principles such as self-determination.
Might want to check what happened to Russia in WW1
Also unless I’m crazy WW1 was not static at all until it was. Germanys whole play was to neutralize the west early. They surrendered on foreign soil
Sure, but Keeed thinks it’s some sort of abomination for Ukraine to seek security with the West instead of with Russia. The rest of us think they can look at the competing offers and decide what is best for them
2 Likes
before Kingdoms change, our people live in mourning and lamentation. we’ll grade on a curve
Can we cut through the noise here.
Why is it controversial to say that building, using or providing cluster bombs is bad?
These are gonna be killing kids for years.
This is true no matter who said it and what else they’ve said in the past.
1 Like
ok so stipulated
next
3 Likes
It’s bad, but it’s the lesser of many bad options when facing genocide and decreasing numbers of munitions that allies may supply, especially when the country is using them on its own soil. It’s not like cluster bombs have a monopoly on being unexploded munitions.
As someone who lives in a neighboring country to Russia, I have yet to see anyone at either end of the political spectrum throughout the affected parts of Europe believing that Russia would be content with controlling the eastern parts of Ukraine and Crimea.
Given Putin’s view of a grand Russia and his history of annexing ever larger parts of their sphere of influence, this seems like an incredibly naive view of the world.
So basically agreeing with your post and expanding on it from a European view.
“But”… it’s okay to knowingly kill kids.
The idea that the US, with the largest military the universe has ever seen, is running out of suitable weapons to send, is simply not credible
Kids are going to die, whether as civilians from conventional munitions or shipped off to Siberia.
One point I saw made is that the areas of the country where the cluster bombs will be used are already saturated with mines, Russian cluster bombs and other unexploded ordnance. This isn’t a new problem for the Ukrainians and they should be trusted.to handle it.
The US isn’t willing to send.the majority of its ammo because it considers it vital for its own military.
3 Likes
Can you define “the Ukranians”
What wookie and others said, but also:
If your concern is “kids will die” then it’s quite odd to start getting mad now about cluster bombs from Ukraine when cluster bombs have been used in Ukraine for over a year.
The Kyiv government and whatever postwar demining help the West will offer.
1 Like
You’re not going to be given that. The denial will come from the most sophisticated experts there are.
1 Like
Not that this affects a moral objection to cluster bombs, but the primary reason they are being sent now is because this war is heavily reliant on artillery, and Ukraine has gone through a huge amount of its own and NATO supplied artillery ammunition, so it is actually true that the US/NATO et al are running short on artillery ammunition. The cluster munitions stockpiles are significant and will allow Ukraine to continue using artillery without being as constrained by supply.
2 Likes
haha victims of abuse are funny
You’re the changing variable.
Them: Russian cluster bombs bad, Ukrainian cluster bombs bad
You: Russian cluster bombs bad, Ukrainian cluster bombs omg I just came in my pants
Fucking simpleton.