I wouldn't bet my life that, "short of poison gas and nuclear weapons," there are no weapons that the US neocon sociopaths would not use in Ukraine in the name of "democracy." The proxy war, as John Mearsheimer has made clear, is now an existential battle for both Russia and the US/NATO. Neither can afford to lose. And because Ukraine seems to be on the losing end at the moment, the danger that NATO will somehow become directly involved (Polish troops perhaps) grows by the day. And should that happen, all bets are off. Let's face it, this war has been escalating non-stop since its inception. This war could have been avoided entirely had the Minsk II agreements been implemented. But as we know now, the US/NATO had absolutely no intention of ever abiding by it. It was a total ruse, proving once again that you can never trust the duplicitous neocon cabal. Later, after the war started, the US and the UK scuppered a chance to end the war back in March 2022, when they ordered Zelensky to abandon negotiations and instead send his citizens to be slaughtered in the name of "spreading freedom and democracy." Isn't that always the story? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we dropped napalm in Vietnam? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we bombed Cambodia and Laos relentlessly? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we invaded Panama in 1989 and killed hundreds of civilians? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we imposed sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that led to the death of 500,000 children? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, when we bombed Serbia and Libya? Aren't we spreading freedom and democracy as we occupy about 1/3 of Syria illegally and keep prisoners locked away in Guantanamo who have never been convicted? So, you can sure, when all those little bomblets are released from the US cluster bombs so generously given to Ukraine, they will not be killing and maiming, they will be spreading freedom and democracy.
HRW has also, suspiciously, been often a lead promoter of the claim that China is engaging in ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of the Uyghurs; a frequent claim promoted by the U.S. neocons who are trying to stir up hatred for China and justify aggression against it. However, these claims are not only disputed by China but also by some independent journalists.
I used to respect HRW (and any group claiming to work for the protection of human rights), and imagine they sometimes do good work, but the above failures, and their close alignment with the Washington neocons' messaging makes me skeptical about HRW and who they are now working for.
This is not to say with any degree of certainty that Russia hasn't used cluster munitions- rather, that I wouldn't trust any such claim at face value.
30 March 2022. UN Humanitarian Aid. March 30, 2022: "Credible reports indicate that Russian armed forces have used cluster munitions in populated areas of Ukraine, at least two dozen times since they invaded on 24 February, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet said on Wednesday"
BBC. March 3 2022: "We showed these clips to four weapons experts, including Sam Cranny-Evans, a research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a defence think tank. He says the car footage is consistent with a cluster bomb attack as it shows "lots of small explosions in a relatively small area"."
As a number of people have observed, 'the first casualty of war is the truth'. Unfortunately, as with practically all things these days, most of our information sources are no longer interested in, much less telling the truth, but in selling narratives that match their particular interests and biases. It is a sad reality, but one I think we've all come to observe increasingly over time. At any rate, if I'd treat what Russian State TV says with a grain of salt, I'd be at least as equally skeptical about anything echoed in Western media- particularly when it comes to wartime stories. So BBC, NPR, CNN, FOX NEWS, MSDNC, what have you....as you said, it's critical (and sometimes a challenge) to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Doing well here, Dennis... I hove it's true of you as well. I see the Duran fairly often. It's actually getting to be a challenge keeping up with all the good reporting / analysis on such independent 'channels'.
I read that the US is finally getting rid of its chemical weapons. I have to wonder why and my guess is that because they are so tricky to use and can quite easily blow back in the face of the one who uses them that it was determined they are essentially useless. Of course getting killed or injured by chemicals is no worse than getting killed or injured by any other weaponry, but we can self-righteously say we are getting rid of these terrible weapons even as we stockpile so many others.
The elephant in the room is nuclear weapons, capable of ending the lives of hundreds of millions of people and more over time. But we keep them and refuse to say we won't use them first. The logic of war-fighting.
Do they have a light at the end of the tunnel like the one we've been looking for since Viet Nam? Do they have tunnels in Ukraine? And when you think about it, what's more democratic, more egalitarian than cluster bombs? Nukes, I guess. But no one's advocating their use. Not yet, anyway. But all lame joking aside, it seems like a case of "if they use 'em, that means we can, too." P*ssing contest mindset.
I wouldn't bet my life that, "short of poison gas and nuclear weapons," there are no weapons that the US neocon sociopaths would not use in Ukraine in the name of "democracy." The proxy war, as John Mearsheimer has made clear, is now an existential battle for both Russia and the US/NATO. Neither can afford to lose. And because Ukraine seems to be on the losing end at the moment, the danger that NATO will somehow become directly involved (Polish troops perhaps) grows by the day. And should that happen, all bets are off. Let's face it, this war has been escalating non-stop since its inception. This war could have been avoided entirely had the Minsk II agreements been implemented. But as we know now, the US/NATO had absolutely no intention of ever abiding by it. It was a total ruse, proving once again that you can never trust the duplicitous neocon cabal. Later, after the war started, the US and the UK scuppered a chance to end the war back in March 2022, when they ordered Zelensky to abandon negotiations and instead send his citizens to be slaughtered in the name of "spreading freedom and democracy." Isn't that always the story? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we dropped napalm in Vietnam? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we bombed Cambodia and Laos relentlessly? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we invaded Panama in 1989 and killed hundreds of civilians? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we imposed sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s that led to the death of 500,000 children? Didn't we spread freedom and democracy when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, when we bombed Serbia and Libya? Aren't we spreading freedom and democracy as we occupy about 1/3 of Syria illegally and keep prisoners locked away in Guantanamo who have never been convicted? So, you can sure, when all those little bomblets are released from the US cluster bombs so generously given to Ukraine, they will not be killing and maiming, they will be spreading freedom and democracy.
Are you sure that the Russians have used cluster bombs? Can you cite a reliable source?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/ukraine-civilian-deaths-cluster-munitions
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/29/cluster-munition-use-russia-ukraine-war
Thanks. Perhaps, but HRW is an iffy source. It can be very difficult separating the wheat from the chaff.
Yes, exactly. Money buys a lot of PR and negative messaging these days, and in surprising places.
HRW appears to have routinely accepted and promulgated western government-sourced 'info' that has often been challenged by independent forensic evidence. For example, it routinely reported on alleged chemical attacks by Syria against its people, with Douma being a prominent example. Aaron Maté,, as scrupulous a journalist as we've had, has written a number of pieces documenting that the original OPCW inspectors found no evidence of Syrian Gov't involvement in an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, (and in fact, no evidence of a chemical weapon attack). According to Maté, quoting from the original inspection team, “The OPCW team that went to Syria found no evidence of a chemical weapons attack and raised major inconsistencies in the claims that chlorine gas was used, but that their report and their findings were censored. As that team (and Maté) have stated, the OPCW's political leadership later tried to bury their findings and issued contradictory ones affirming the U.S. / NATO position alleging Syrian chemical weapons use; to justify US military strikes. And to my knowledge, HRW has never walked back these claims nor acknowledged the significant doubts raised by those actual OPCW inspectors.
HRW has also, suspiciously, been often a lead promoter of the claim that China is engaging in ethnic cleansing and/or genocide of the Uyghurs; a frequent claim promoted by the U.S. neocons who are trying to stir up hatred for China and justify aggression against it. However, these claims are not only disputed by China but also by some independent journalists.
I used to respect HRW (and any group claiming to work for the protection of human rights), and imagine they sometimes do good work, but the above failures, and their close alignment with the Washington neocons' messaging makes me skeptical about HRW and who they are now working for.
This is not to say with any degree of certainty that Russia hasn't used cluster munitions- rather, that I wouldn't trust any such claim at face value.
Thanks Roger, I knew nothing about HRW.
I now see why the other Roger says they are iffy!
30 March 2022. UN Humanitarian Aid. March 30, 2022: "Credible reports indicate that Russian armed forces have used cluster munitions in populated areas of Ukraine, at least two dozen times since they invaded on 24 February, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet said on Wednesday"
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1115092
BBC. March 3 2022: "We showed these clips to four weapons experts, including Sam Cranny-Evans, a research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a defence think tank. He says the car footage is consistent with a cluster bomb attack as it shows "lots of small explosions in a relatively small area"."
https://www.bbc.com/news/60591017
Credible sources you think Roger?
Hope you are doing well my man.
BTW do you watch the two Alex's on the Duran regularly?
As a number of people have observed, 'the first casualty of war is the truth'. Unfortunately, as with practically all things these days, most of our information sources are no longer interested in, much less telling the truth, but in selling narratives that match their particular interests and biases. It is a sad reality, but one I think we've all come to observe increasingly over time. At any rate, if I'd treat what Russian State TV says with a grain of salt, I'd be at least as equally skeptical about anything echoed in Western media- particularly when it comes to wartime stories. So BBC, NPR, CNN, FOX NEWS, MSDNC, what have you....as you said, it's critical (and sometimes a challenge) to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Doing well here, Dennis... I hove it's true of you as well. I see the Duran fairly often. It's actually getting to be a challenge keeping up with all the good reporting / analysis on such independent 'channels'.
I read that the US is finally getting rid of its chemical weapons. I have to wonder why and my guess is that because they are so tricky to use and can quite easily blow back in the face of the one who uses them that it was determined they are essentially useless. Of course getting killed or injured by chemicals is no worse than getting killed or injured by any other weaponry, but we can self-righteously say we are getting rid of these terrible weapons even as we stockpile so many others.
The elephant in the room is nuclear weapons, capable of ending the lives of hundreds of millions of people and more over time. But we keep them and refuse to say we won't use them first. The logic of war-fighting.
It proves how pathetic the great human right advocates in Congress truly are.
Do they have a light at the end of the tunnel like the one we've been looking for since Viet Nam? Do they have tunnels in Ukraine? And when you think about it, what's more democratic, more egalitarian than cluster bombs? Nukes, I guess. But no one's advocating their use. Not yet, anyway. But all lame joking aside, it seems like a case of "if they use 'em, that means we can, too." P*ssing contest mindset.
Nothing to say.
You're preaching to the choir