Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Elpenor]

Biden agrees to give Ukraine anti-personnel mines

A US official tells the BBC the mines will be given soon, as Russia advances steadily in the east.

www.bbc.co.uk

Supplies of mines being provided by the US.

Patiently waiting for editor to condemn this move, anti-personnel mines are indiscriminate, predominantly impact on civilians, and huge numbers of children are maimed from them. But perhaps it’s ok if it’s the west doing it?

Will there be a trial for Biden and his cohorts for this move? I thought the UK was opposed to the use of these mines so I’ll await Starmer’s response.

 

[Silas Loom]

Patiently waiting for editor to condemn this move, anti-personnel mines are indiscriminate, predominantly impact on civilians, and huge numbers of children are maimed from them. But perhaps it’s ok if it’s the west doing it?

Will there be a trial for Biden and his cohorts for this move? I thought the UK was opposed to the use of these mines so I’ll await Starmer’s response.

The US "non-persistent" mines differ from Russia's as they become inert after a pre-set period of time - anywhere from four hours to two weeks. They are electrically fused and require battery power to detonate. Once the battery runs out, they will not detonate.

Maybe read the words before weighing in?

 

[The39thStep]

The height of maximalist aspirations of Russia out of the occupied areas and the return of Crimea, the 'defanging' of Russia ( even regime change in Russia was mooted at one point ) were when the US and EU weapon shipments to Ukraine were at their least incursive. As weaponry deliveries have incrementally become more devastating and at the higher tech end the aspirations are now let's try and get the best deal possible next year.

 

[Pickman's model]

The US "non-persistent" mines differ from Russia's as they become inert after a pre-set period of time - anywhere from four hours to two weeks. They are electrically fused and require battery power to detonate. Once the battery runs out, they will not detonate.

Maybe read the words before weighing in?

You'd have thought they'd want mines which wouldn't require the russians to simply wait two weeks before attacking. So I'm not as confident as you clearly are in the line being peddled.

 

[Spymaster]

Patiently waiting for editor to condemn this move, anti-personnel mines are indiscriminate, predominantly impact on civilians, and huge numbers of children are maimed from them. But perhaps it’s ok if it’s the west doing it?

Completely different mines.

 

[Elpenor]

Completely different mines.

Oh are these cuddly ones which like to be stroked like a lamb in a petting zoo?

 

[klang]

If only they'd dispose of themselves everything would be well fluffy!

 

[Spymaster]

If only they'd dispose of themselves everything would be well fluffy!

They do.

 

[ID47]

They do.

From your link:

Critics claim that new technology is unreliable, and that the perception of a "safe mine" will lead to increased deployment of land mines in future conflicts[citation needed]. Current guidelines allow for a 10% failure rate, leaving a significant number of mines to pose a threat. Additionally, in the case of self-destructing mines, civilians still are at risk of injury when the mine self-destructs and are denied access to land which has been mined.[3]

 

[klang]

By disposal I didn't mean blowing themselves up but taking themselves to a disposal / dumping side but nevermind.
They are shit.

 

[andysays]

Biden agrees to give Ukraine anti-personnel mines

A US official tells the BBC the mines will be given soon, as Russia advances steadily in the east.

www.bbc.co.uk

Supplies of mines being provided by the US.

This is not good news for anyone

US President Joe Biden has agreed to give Ukraine anti-personnel land mines, a US defence official told the BBC, a move seen as an attempt to slow Russian troops who have been steadily advancing in Ukraine's east in recent months.

The provision of anti-personnel land mines is the latest move by the outgoing US administration to bolster Ukraine's war effort before Donald Trump returns to the White House on 20 January. Russia has deployed landmines liberally since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 but international objections to the use of such weapons on the grounds that they pose a risk to civilians had prevented the Biden administration from signing off on them.

Washington has already been providing anti-tank mines to Ukraine, but the anti-personnel land mines - which can be rapidly deployed - are designed to blunt the advances of ground forces. Russia and the US are not signatories to the Ottawa Convention banning the use or transfer of anti-personnel landmines, although Ukraine is. However, since Russia's full-scale invasion, more than 20% of Ukrainian territory is estimated to have become contaminated by mines.

 

[CNT36]

Both sides are already using cluster munitions as well which leave unexploded bomblets that are just as dangerous as mines.

 

[Spymaster]

From your link:

Critics claim that new technology is unreliable, and that the perception of a "safe mine" will lead to increased deployment of land mines in future conflicts[citation needed]. Current guidelines allow for a 10% failure rate, leaving a significant number of mines to pose a threat. Additionally, in the case of self-destructing mines, civilians still are at risk of injury when the mine self-destructs and are denied access to land which has been mined.[3]

I rather doubt they're going to be sewing them in populated areas but I don't think that's top of minds in Ukraine at the moment.

When you've got a bunch of rapists and murderers attempting to maraud through your country, mining the approaches seems thoroughly sensible.

 

[emanymton]

Weird how all the people suddenly throwing their arms up in despair have never said a word about Russia use of mines and Booby traps.

Russia Has Turned Eastern Ukraine Into a Giant Minefield

Vast swathes of the country have been vindictively laced with explosives, threatening the civilian population both physically and mentally.

www.wired.com

 

[Pickman's model]

They do.

as you'll note from the first line of that article that refers to mines under development. perhaps you could offer a source explicitly covering the anti-personnel mines the americans will be supplying the ukrainians.

 

[LDC]

Weird how all the people suddenly throwing their arms up in despair have never said a word about Russia use of mines and Booby traps.

Russia Has Turned Eastern Ukraine Into a Giant Minefield

Vast swathes of the country have been vindictively laced with explosives, threatening the civilian population both physically and mentally.

www.wired.com

Bit similar to some who cannot bring themselves to have any support (even critical) of Ukrainian resistance, yet seem to have no issues cheering on the Houthis attacking shipping (some civilian) under the flag of, 'A curse upon the Jews'.

 

[Pickman's model]

Weird how all the people suddenly throwing their arms up in despair have never said a word about Russia use of mines and Booby traps.

Russia Has Turned Eastern Ukraine Into a Giant Minefield

Vast swathes of the country have been vindictively laced with explosives, threatening the civilian population both physically and mentally.

www.wired.com

strangely you have never said such a word before this post

 

[Spymaster]

Bit similar to some who cannot bring themselves to have any support (even critical) of Ukrainian resistance, yet seem to have no issues cheering on the Houthis attacking shipping (some civilian) under the flag of, 'A curse upon the Jews'.

It's pretty much ALL civilian shipping that they're attacking.

 

[emanymton]

I rather doubt they're going to be sewing them in populated areas but I don't think that's top of minds in Ukraine at the moment.

When you've got a bunch of rapists and murderers attempting to maraud through your country, mining the approaches seems thoroughly sensible.

People can't adapt their old position to changing circumstances. Land mines are terrible and I wish they didn't exist. But some people can't get past an old blanket opposition to land mines to adapt their position to account for a country using them within it's own borders in a defensive war*. Unless it's Russia using them in an invasion, in which case they have nothing to say.

This is a hard choice for Ukrainians to make do you mine you own land with all the danger that posses for the future or do you you risk weakening your defense now? I don't know what I would think if I lived in Ukraine, I'm glad I don't have to face that choice. But I'm certainly not going to sit here and moralise and finger wag about it. Frankly given how many mines Russia has laid I'm not it sure it would make much difference what Ukraine itself does.

The reaction to this is like people think the US is minning Ukraine itself or forcing them to use them. It's Ukraine's choice where and when they use them.

*I actually like this article by Geroge Monboit on the difficulty of changing old positions, it reflects some of my own discomfort at times as I've had to confront some old positions and ideas with changing circumstances.

I never thought I’d argue for rearmament. But a looming Trump presidency changes everything | George Monbiot

A Putin-friendly president would pose a grave danger to Europe. Like it or not, this calls for greater defence, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

 

[Spymaster]

The reaction to this is like people think the US is mining Ukraine itself or forcing them to use them.

Only bellends think that, but there are a few on this thread!

 

[Pickman's model]

People can't adopt their old position to changing circumstances. Land mines are terrible and I wish they didn't exist. But some people can't get past an old blanket opposition to land mines to adapt their position to account for a country using them within it's own borders in a defensive war*. Unless it's Russia using them in an invasion, in which case they have nothing to say.

This is a hard choice for Ukrainians to make do you mine you own land with all the danger that posses for the future or do you you risk weakening your defense now? I don't know what I would think if I lived in Ukraine, I'm glad I don't have to face that choice. But I'm certainly not going to sit here and moralise and finger wag about it. Frankly given how many mines Russia has laid I'm not it sure it would make much difference what Ukraine itself does.

The reaction to this is like people think the US is minning Ukraine itself or forcing them to use them. It's Ukraine's choice where and when they use them.

*I actually like this article by Geroge Monboit on the difficulty of changing old positions, it reflects some of my own discomfort at times as I've had to confront some old positions and ideas with changing circumstances.

I never thought I’d argue for rearmament. But a looming Trump presidency changes everything | George Monbiot

A Putin-friendly president would pose a grave danger to Europe. Like it or not, this calls for greater defence, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

but you are sitting there and moralising and wagging a finger about it. you're all over the shop here with your first sentence being at odds with your third sentence. it's really weird.

 

[emanymton]

strangely you have never said such a word before this post

1 - my opposition to the war and everything the Russia state is doing in Ukraine is clear.

2 - I'm not one of the the ones throwing their arms up in the air of this decision.

3 - go fuck yourself

 

[Pickman's model]

1 - my opposition to the war and everything the Russia state is doing in Ukraine is clear.

2 - I'm not one of the the ones throwing their arms up in the air of this decision.

3 - go fuck yourself

Your position isn't anti-war, it's pro-war, you just don't want the russians to win. I'm not throwing my hands up in the air at this either. And go fuck myself? The burbling of a scoundrel

 

[TopCat]

1 - my opposition to the war and everything the Russia state is doing in Ukraine is clear.

2 - I'm not one of the the ones throwing their arms up in the air of this decision.

3 - go fuck yourself

You were advocating the use of nuclear arms against Russia at one point.

 

[emanymton]

Your position isn't anti-war, it's pro-war, you just don't want the russians to win. I'm not throwing my hands up in the air at this either. And go fuck myself? The burbling of a scoundrel

Scoundrel? So you think I'm Han Solo? Cool.

If I thought you had a shred of intellectual honesty or integrity left i'd take your posts more seriously but you don't so I don't really care.

But thank you for making the hole on your argument so clear here. If your took your argument seriously it would mean anyone who wanted the US to lose in Vietnam was pro-war, anyone who wanted the US and allies driven out of Iraq was pro-war.

My position is and always has been one of anti-imperialism and I have been 100pct consistent in that. Your on the other hand have a pro-war position as long as someone vaguely on the side of the US looses.

 

[emanymton]

You were advocating the use of nuclear arms against Russia at one point.

Citation please

 

[ID47]

Scoundrel? So you think I'm Han Solo? Cool.

If I thought you had a shred of intellectual honesty or integrity left i'd take your posts more seriously but you don't so I don't really care.

But thank you for making the hole on your argument so clear here. If your took your argument seriously it would mean anyone who wanted the US to loose in Vietnam was pro-war, anyone who wanted the US and allies driven out of Iraq was pro-war.

My position is and always has been one of anti-imperialism and I have been 100pct consistent in that. Your on the other hand have a pro-war position as long as someone vaguely on the side of the US looses.

Sorry, but I can't take the opinion of anyone who writes lose as 'loose' seriously. FFS.

 

[emanymton]

Sorry, but I can't take the opinion of anyone who writes lose as 'loose' seriously. FFS.

I can't take the position of people who make fun of people with dyslexia seriously.

You have no I idea how hard it is to catch and correct mistakes but some always get through.

 

[emanymton]

You were advocating the use of nuclear arms against Russia at one point.

Come on Tulsicat back it up or admit you are making shit up.

 

[Pickman's model]

Scoundrel? So you think I'm Han Solo? Cool.

If I thought you had a shred of intellectual honesty or integrity left i'd take your posts more seriously but you don't so I don't really care.

But thank you for making the hole on your argument so clear here. If your took your argument seriously it would mean anyone who wanted the US to lose in Vietnam was pro-war, anyone who wanted the US and allies driven out of Iraq was pro-war.

My position is and always has been one of anti-imperialism and I have been 100pct consistent in that. Your on the other hand have a pro-war position as long as someone vaguely on the side of the US looses.

perhaps you'll produce some evidence for your claim. but i won't hold my breath, being as there isn't any. you told me recently i used to be a good poster. i don't think you've ever been a good poster though you used not to be so shit.