26 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It has been accepted since the end of World War II that if one side uses an illegal tactic or weapon during war that the other side can respond in kind.  Germany's bombing of civilian targets in England legitimized the allied bombing of civilian targets in Germany.  It's ugly but that's how war is.

 

Russia gave the green light for Ukraine to use cluster bombs when Russia used cluster bombs on Ukraine, frequently against civilian targets.  The US held off on providing them as long as possible but it now appears that a shortage of artillery shells is holding up the Ukrainian offensive.  At least Ukraine will use these bombs on legitimate military targets.

 

Unexploded ordnance does present a threat to civilians, but the threat from the US supplied cluster bombs will be minuscule compared to the threat from the Russian cluster bombs and the mines Russia has scattered over vast areas of Ukraine.

 

It's ugly, but to beat Russia you have to fight almost as nasty as Russia.

Ukraine had a small cluster bomb munitions stock and have already used them up.

14 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Ukraine had a small cluster bomb munitions stock and have already used them up.

Source?

 

Did Ukraine use this stock before or after Russia started using theirs?

 

Did Ukraine use its stock against civilian targets?

19 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Not keen on Putin apologists who miss out all the relevant facts.

 

Vladimir Putin’s apologists spread dangerous message

The standard-bearer of the pro-Putin realists is John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, who has made a career out of reducing the complexity of global politics to the aggression of self-interested powers. In the process, he studiously ignores their internal politics. One obvious advantage of this approach is that it considerably reduces the amount of research and knowledge that is required to dispense authoritative judgments about the conduct of any particular country.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/vladimir-putins-apologists-spread-dangerous-message-20150129-130snb.html

Here's another one.

 

 

20 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Source?

 

Did Ukraine use this stock before or after Russia started using theirs?

 

Did Ukraine use its stock against civilian targets?

Google it and media sources can be read about the use of cluster munitions by both sides since 2013 and 2022 but more use on civilian areas by Russia recently as you would expect.

According to Human Rights Watch, Ukraine used them in civilian areas in 2014;

 

Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city in early October 2014, Human Rights Watch said today. The use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions

20 hours ago, Slip said:

I didn't post the reaction, so I can't claim to know but I imagine it was at you managing to shoe-horn in this gem:

 

Of general note Ukraine has put in place guidelines for the use of these weapons that include 'not in civilian areas', 'all usage documented', and 'priority clearing of usage areas' when the invaders are driven out.

That would be a first. No such principles applied in 2014-15 when they were being used in Donetsk.

42 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

That would be a first. No such principles applied in 2014-15 when they were being used in Donetsk.

Countries that are invaded tend to use whatever is available to defend themselves.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Here's another one.

 

 

Not keen on Putin apologists who miss out all the relevant facts, yes quite right but "nowt funnier than folk" most things start because of history.

 

In March 1954, the Soviets then sent the Western allies a proposal for the USSR to join NATO. In a letter to Georgy Malenkov, then the USSR's head of state, and Communist Party General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev, Molotov laid out the benefits of joining the North Atlantic Pact.

He wrote the action "would make things difficult for the organizers of the North Atlantic bloc and would emphasize its supposedly defensive character, so that it would not be directed against the USSR."