Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
For the first time using cluster incendiary artillery strikes. Presumably against trenches.

That looks more like White Phosphorus or illumination flares. Also I have never heard of cluster incendiary munitions.
I thought WP rounds are prohibited?
It depends on the usage:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

White phosphorus munitions can be used on battlefields to make smoke screens, generate illumination, mark targets or burn bunkers and buildings.

Because it has legal uses, white phosphorus is not banned as a chemical weapon under international conventions. But some U.S. military training manuals say its use against people is banned.

Under international law, white phosphorus is considered an incendiary weapon, defined by Protocol III of the Convention on the Prohibition of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons as “any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target.”

The protocol prohibits using incendiary weapons against military targets located among civilians, although the United States has not signed it and is not bound by it. According to Human Rights Watch, “customary laws of war also prohibit the anti-personnel use of incendiary weapons so long as weapons less likely to cause unnecessary suffering are available.”
 

Jj888

New Member
Registered Member
it's a dilemma for the West: keep supplying means confrontation; stop supplying means abandon Ukraine.
Keep supplying & talking big means they are in the game, at small cost of arms & Ukrainian blood.

Stop supplying means they give up. which they don’t know how to.
 

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
NATO think if they concede in Ukraine that Putin would invade the Baltics next. They still refuse to even contemplate that Putin is not interested in territorial expansion but expanding his security buffer. Like Russia has been saying for over two decades already.
All they have to do in the Baltics is to stop placing foreign forces there and stop trying to destabilize Belarus and Russia from there.

Historically whether their homes were merely in Russia’s security buffer or was incorporated into Russian’s territorial expansion made little difference to the local intelligentsia’s chances of being sent to Siberia.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
Yea, Westies are primary school failed self made insta & twitter strategists.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I missed my chance of being a expert logician by not opening a twitter account. Big miss :(:(
That guy is a professor and a military historian though. So his view of the conflict is extremely welcome regardless of his political views. We got to remember that this thread is here to construct the most accurate view of the conflict no matter how inconvenient the posts are.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
NATO think if they concede in Ukraine that Putin would invade the Baltics next. They still refuse to even contemplate that Putin is not interested in territorial expansion but expanding his security buffer. Like Russia has been saying for over two decades already.
All they have to do in the Baltics is to stop placing foreign forces there and stop trying to destabilize Belarus and Russia from there.
They don't have enough to go farther right now, not even sure they will go seize the west part of Ukraine. Clearly not enough troops to make it swift. Too many involved to stop. If nothing evolve this week, that invasion is bloody stuck and I don't give a lot on Putin chances stay there for long.
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
I aint talking about his political views. I am talking about his "expertise" which couldn't drag his own boys out of Afgstan in 2 decades.
We are going off topic, but after a quick search on his views of Afghanistan, I would say he was realistic about that conflict. To be honest, everyone who paid attention to that conflict knew it would be end up as a disaster. Only the higher ups didn't and they were the ones doing the decision making. I would say his expertise is welcome until proven otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top