What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

MeFishToo

FULL MEMBER
May 14, 2022
269
0
132
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
It does make you wonder if the journalist had left on the geolocation meta-data from their smart phone - which gave the co-ordinates required to attack it ?
Maybe they’re using counter battery radars, or they were just located by the drone that captured the footage.
I’ll bet this footage isnt part of the russian news.

Ofcourse this is true.

The US is trillions of dollars in debt and on top they are running a budget deficit. Meaning they don't have the money to balance their books. Let alone pay Ukraine's war expenditure.
75-80% of american debt is owned by americans. Why do you think they would have to borrow from the chineese?
 
Last edited:

A.P. Richelieu

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 20, 2013
6,148
6
4,003
Country
Sweden
Location
Sweden
It is explicit about the fact that white phosphorous can be used as an incendiary weapon and will then squarely fall under the restrictions regulating the latter.



White phosphorous containing munitions qualify as incendiary weapons if deliberately fired against military or civilian targets.

As unequivocally explained by the ICRC:

icrc-jpg.845699


"using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon"
"the use of such white phosphorus weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited"
"particular care must be taken when attacking a military target with incendiary weapons containing white phosphorous"
"the fact that international humanitarian law does not specifically prohibit white phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal"
"It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors"


There's no ambiguity in there, nor room for wordplay.
It is explicit about the fact that white phosphorous can be used as an incendiary weapon and will then squarely fall under the restrictions regulating the latter.



White phosphorous containing munitions qualify as incendiary weapons if deliberately fired against military or civilian targets.

As unequivocally explained by the ICRC:

icrc-jpg.845699


"using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon"
"the use of such white phosphorus weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited"
"particular care must be taken when attacking a military target with incendiary weapons containing white phosphorous"
"the fact that international humanitarian law does not specifically prohibit white phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal"
"It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors"


There's no ambiguity in there, nor room for wordplay.
It is explicit about the fact that white phosphorous can be used as an incendiary weapon and will then squarely fall under the restrictions regulating the latter.



White phosphorous containing munitions qualify as incendiary weapons if deliberately fired against military or civilian targets.

As unequivocally explained by the ICRC:

icrc-jpg.845699


"using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon"
"the use of such white phosphorus weapons against any military objective within concentrations of civilians is prohibited"
"particular care must be taken when attacking a military target with incendiary weapons containing white phosphorous"
"the fact that international humanitarian law does not specifically prohibit white phosphorous weapons does not imply that any specific use of weapons containing this substance is legal"
"It may be legal or not, depending on a variety of factors"


There's no ambiguity in there, nor room for wordplay.
This is not ambigious.
1653225186718.png

Smoke shells with white phosporus always spread smoke, so they are not incendiary weapons according to your link.
If you claim that the text says that that smoke shells that generate smoke can be used as incendiary weapons, then it is as ambigious as is possible.

Here is a later comment from the Red Cross.
This an official statement after an inquiry.

1653226159917.png


The conclusion of the inquiry was that although Israel used a lot of White Phosphorus, the use was never a war crime.
 
Last edited:

MeFishToo

FULL MEMBER
May 14, 2022
269
0
132
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
You can substitute Chinese for Japanese, the Brits or American oligarchs. The bottom line is that money needs to be borrowed.
Yes, and they dont seem to have a hard time finding purchasers of treasury bills. I guess the world is confident the US has the economic power to pay them back .
Eventually they’ll probably have to raise taxes, but not in the near future.

The chineese national debt in relation to GDP is actually closing in on the USA, thats partly why I think its a little odd telling us the USA needs to borrow from China - but mostly because the US debt is primarily owned by the americans themself. Its just a way to avoid raising taxes.
 
Last edited:

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,364
2
4,578
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
This is not ambigious.
View attachment 846597
Smoke shells with white phosporus always spread smoke, so they are not incendiary weapons according to your link.

According to the link I shared, white phosphorous can be used as an incendiary weapon, and in that case it will be considered as such from the legal point of view.

The ICRC official's statement leave no room for semantic interpretation.

If you claim that the text says that that smoke shells that generate smoke can be used as incendiary weapons, then it is as ambigious as is possible.

I don't claim anything in this regard since the text is self-explanatory. There's nothing ambiguous about the fact that white phosphorous can and has abundantly been used a weapon in the past (e.g. WW1 etc).

Here is a later comment from the Red Cross.
This an official statement after an inquiry.

View attachment 846607

The conclusion of the inquiry was that although Israel used a lot of White Phosphorus, the use was never a war crime.

This would be a selective citation. In fact there's no contradiction between this and the earlier statements of the ICRC arms experts which I quoted.

Here is what the document is stating prior to that excerpt:

1.jpg


They are clearly distinguishing between two possible uses of white phosphorous: as part of smoke grenades or as part of exploding munitions. As far as exploding munitions are concerned, it is claimed that they were never employed on built-up areas, nor for anti-personnel purposes. Thence the authors are actually reiterating that white phosphorous may very well be used in an anti-personnel role, in which case it will have to be considered an incendiary weapon.

It's precisely because the munitions allegedly weren't used in densely populated areas that the inquires concludes to the absence of a war crime. This perfectly reflects the rule relative to the prohibition of incendiary weapons as per Protocol III, Article 2.2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

To summarize:

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of generating smoke, while observing general rules relative to the protection of civilians in war =
- white phosphorous does not qualify as an incendiary weapon
- no war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing combatants or damaging materiel in areas where no civilians are concentrated =
- white phosphorous does qualify as an incendiary weapon
- but no war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing combatants or damaging materiel in areas where civilians are concentrated =
- white phosphorous does qualify as an incendiary weapon
- war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing civilians or damaging civilian infrastructure not relevant to the war effort =
- it doesn't matter whether white phosphorous is an incendiary weapon or not
- war crime

All of which was perfectly expanded upon by the ICRC in 2009:

icrc-jpg.845699
 
Last edited:

A.P. Richelieu

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 20, 2013
6,148
6
4,003
Country
Sweden
Location
Sweden
According to the link I posted, white phosphorous can be used as an incendiary weapon, and in that case it will be considered as such from the legal point of view.

The ICRC official's statement leave no room for semantic interpretation.



I don't claim anything in this regard since the text is self-explanatory. There's nothing ambiguous about the fact that white phosphorous can and has abundantly been used a weapon in the past (e.g. WW1 etc).



That would be a selective citation. In fact there's no contradiction between this and the earlier statements of the ICRC arms experts which I quoted.

Here is what the document is stating prior to that excerpt:

View attachment 846628

They are clearly distinguishing between two possible uses of white phosphorous: as part of smoke grenades or as part of exploding munitions. As far as exploding munitions are concerned, it is claimed that they were never employed on built-up areas, nor for anti-personnel purposes. Thence the authors are actually reiterating that white phosphorous may very well be used in an anti-personnel role, in which case it will have to be considered an incendiary weapon.

It's precisely because the munitions allegedly weren't used in densely populated areas that the inquires concludes to the absence of a war crime. This perfectly reflects the rule relative to the prohibition of incendiary weapons as per Protocol III, Article 2.2 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

To summarize:

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of generating smoke, while observing general rules relative to the protection of civilians in war =
- white phosphorous does not qualify as an incendiary weapon
- no war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing combatants or damaging materiel in areas where no civilians are concentrated =
- white phosphorous does qualify as an incendiary weapon
- but no war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing combatants or damaging material in areas where civilians are concentrated =
- white phosphorous does qualify as an incendiary weapon
- war crime

* White phosphorous shells are fired with the purpose of killing civilians or damaging civilian infrastructure not relevant to the war effort =
- it doesn't matter whether white phosphorous is an incendiary weapon or not
- war crime

All of which was perfectly expanded upon by the ICRC in 2009:

icrc-jpg.845699
You ”rules” suddenly drop the ”exploding” prefix, so your ”rules” do not reflect the link.
Smoke Grenades are never Indendiary Weapons.
As you have comprehension problems, you are on ignore.
 

SalarHaqq

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
2,364
2
4,578
Country
Belgium
Location
Netherlands
You ”rules” suddenly drop the ”exploding” prefix, so your ”rules” do not reflect the link.
Smoke Grenades are never Indendiary Weapons.
As you have comprehension problems, you are on ignore.

Correction: those are regulations of international law, stipulated for in Protocol III of the CCW.

International law does not systematically regard white phosphorous shells as smoke grenades. It all depends on the purpose with which they are made use of.

As explained by the ICRC in 2009. The last paragraph below is explicit as to the fact that the legality of white phosphorous varies on a case to case basis i.e. there's no general rule, the second and third paragraphs make it clear that if fired with the intent of killing enemy combatants, then rules applicable to incendiary weapons will also apply to white phosphorous (prohibition of use against military objectives within concentrations of civilians is a phrase lifted straight out of the CCW treaty's provision restricting the employment of incendiary weapons):

icrc-jpg.845699


I'm not the one with comprehension issues.
 

Paul2

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 24, 2018
2,708
5
2,012
Country
United Kingdom
Location
Kazakhstan
96 billions in 3 months (4 depends on how they count from Jan-April) is really bad, actually considering this war is costing Russia upward to 25 billions a month, there aren't much Russian can spend on anything else (4/5 of that surplus goes into this war, and not counting the replacement equipment cost.) That surplus have to go into the country as well, not just everything is going to this war.

I find a problem with this calculation.

The cost of war is not all cost of guns, and bullets. These cost little, and actually nothing to Russia now since they are mostly spending old USSRian weapons, which they got for free.

Similarly, soldier's salaries are only due go when they come back from war, and you don't pay salaries to dead soldiers.

Ukrainian telegrams tell that Russian payment to injured soldiers is $50, or is being denied all together instead of $75,000 advertised by Putin. And reports of this seem be quite solid.

So, only material cost Russia absolutely needs to pay is fuel, and food. The remaining monetary cost are admin costs of the government clerks, army, and incentives for new troop recruitment.

The economy going to hell in general is not a tangible material cost.

As I said before many times, Russian army can be fed for much longer than when first Russian civilians will have to switch to grass for the diet.

I understand your line that when Russia will turn to eating grass, it's economy, and political bodies will already be damaged irrecoverably, as high earners, and specialists will leave, but it seem very likely they counted that in.

If they control food, and fuel, they can last for really long even with 3 digit inflation.
 
Last edited:

Hassan Al-Somal

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 18, 2015
3,797
0
6,082
Country
Somalia
Location
Somalia
You probably dont even believe this russian propaganda yourself.
I am curious. Honestly, why are you cheering this russian assault on Ukraine?

Why are you cheering the Ukrainian Nazis? Are you a Nazi yourself?

Do you have any connections to this group of people who have been orchestrating this mayhem since 2014? This is their war, designed to bring the Russian state to its knees. They're the same people who engineered the genocidal wars against Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other places.

1653234337054.png


Unlike you and others, I refuse to be a zombie who trusts the shitstream media who hide the truth while they are mouthpieces for wars waged on other countries for profit and extending the lifespan of an empire whose expiry time is getting closer.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 12, Members: 3, Guests: 9)


Top Bottom