acrashb

Whole text of Reznikovs clarification:
1. Ukraine will use these munitions only for the de-occupation of our internationally recognised territories. These munitions will not be used on the officially recognized territory of russia.
2. We will not be using cluster munitions in urban areas (cities) to avoid the risks for the civilian populations - these are our people, they are Ukrainians we have a duty to protect. Cluster munitions will be used only in the fields where there is a concentration of russian military. They will be used to break through the enemy defence lines with minimum risk for the lives of our soldiers. Saving the lives of our troops, even during extremely difficult offensive operations, remains our top priority.
3. Ukraine will keep a strict record of the use of these weapons and the local zones where they will be used.
4. Based on these records, after the de-occupation of our territories and our victory these territories will be prioritised for the purposes of de-mining. This will enable us to eradicate the risk from the unexploded elements of cluster munitions. The Minister of Defence of Ukraine is by law acting as the Head of the national de-mining agency. In this capacity I will ensure the implementation of the relevant legal framework for the de-mining process after our victory.
5. We will report to our partners about the use of these munitions, and about their efficiency to ensure the appropriate standard of transparent reporting and control.
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1677410470108471298?s=20

We are really seeing the changed accounting in effect. 
That is ridiculously large amount of hardware for 800million...

They do stop a lot of weapons despite Ukraine literally begging for them. This restrain was not always wise or based on purely objective factors.
Frankly this entire moral side of Cluster Munitions debate seems a little artificially puffed in current context. If this would be new thing on battlefields of this war- you would be entirely right. But these weapons, of much worse Soviet sort, were already being used by both sides in copious quantities, especially Russians. So we just replenish their stock they run out, with something of much better quality (and probably way less duds and danger for future). Just like we do with AA defence and artillery. Pragmatic military logic.

Some good points but also only half the story.  I would buy into this line of thought if we had the same framework of inaction. “(Or refuse to)”.  We in the West have a very bad habit of pointing fingers and passing judgement on “bad actions” but we also tend to quickly grab the remote and change the channel when our own inaction causes immense suffering - Rwanda anyone?  Syria?  
The only real thing we can rely on that is not solely “opinion” is the law - which in reality is a floating point of agreement at best; however, it is what we have to base some level of objectivity upon.  In this case the use of cluster munitions is not against the law of armed conflict (obviously with all the “proper military use” provisions).  Further neither party involved in this current situation, US and UA, are parties to the cluster munitions treaty.  
So unless other Western nations want to try and extort a forced acceptance of that treaty by withholding other military aid to Ukraine - which frankly in the middle of an existential war is one helluva dick move - while at the same time conveniently ignoring the consequences of pulling that support (ie inaction), then beyond making poopy faces and trying not to think about how fast we would likely abandon that same treaty were we in Ukraine’s position then we are where we are.
If Ukraine did start using chemical weapons or dropping napalm on civilians then we do not need an opinion, we have the LOAC to point to and say “hey that is illegal”.  Which then raises the spectre of support to an unlawful war…something Iran and China appear to have no problems with.

If this was anything but a war of national,  cultural and societal survival, I'd understand the concerns. But it is.
Anything that can kill Russians quicker and in more numbers shortens the war.
The longer Russians are in Ukraine  the longer more Ukrainians will die.
The future daily cost of UXO is nothing compared to the current daily cost of soldiers and civilians killed. 
Ukraine needs to Kill & Maim as many Russians as possible right now. We've got a munition that can do that? Send it. 

Do you know what the biggest threat to Ukrainian civilians is? . . . Russians.

So if Putin gets the cat, who gets the CD collection?  Gotta be the best 80s synth stuff around.  And we all know they are keeping keys.

Predicting the life span and end of certain institutions reminds me of the Liddy Effect (known by other names). 
The Lindy effect describes a heuristic or rule of thumb that suggests the future life expectancy of certain non-perishable things, such as ideas, technologies, or cultural artifacts, is proportional to their current age.
In other words, the longer something has already existed, the longer it is likely to continue existing. The Lindy effect is based on the observation that many ideas, technologies, or cultural phenomena that have survived for a long time tend to have built-in mechanisms that make them more robust, adaptable, and reliable.
The Lindy effect is not a hard and fast rule but rather a probabilistic observation. It suggests that the longer something has endured, the more likely it is to continue enduring. This is because over time, the flaws or vulnerabilities of an idea or technology are more likely to be discovered and eliminated, making it more robust.
The Lindy effect has implications for decision-making and forecasting. It suggests that when assessing the potential longevity or viability of something, it is often beneficial to consider its historical track record and the duration it has already been in existence. This concept has found applications in fields such as technology adoption, investment strategies, and cultural analysis.
There are many examples that do not fit and nothing lasts forever for sure. The use of horses for mobility is over. But the wheel they used and agriculture they depend on are still with us. Longevity is the result of adaptation and resilience. So, even when we observe what amounts being a train wreak, there are underlying reasons why it stays on the tracks. And studying those reasons provides actionable insights. That's why I don't sell a stock that has increased dividends each year for over 50+ years. While the stock holder has no influence, they know something is being done right. In the case of evil empires they are doing something "correctly" to hold on to power over time. The Lindy principle does predict good and evil will struggle against each other forever. 

As said, I won't continue this topic from my side here. Just wanted to say I read and acknowledge your post and add one single thing so I don't look like a loon:
I also have a few people over there / some experience with the country from past projects. The chained and registered knives are real -but it is recent and most prominently employed in the regions of ethnic minorities. Not the ones privileged by the system in the big cities like Shanghai and Beijing. The experiences of individuals of a country as wide and big as China can be very different.

I agree in general terms with this analysis although a couple points to make are:
1) In regards to spent fuel pools, yes, they have additional means of cooling, but so did Fukushima until the you know what hit the fan. So postulating what might or might not be operational or usable after some sabotage or battle damage is really being hopeful.
2) Yes, the Fukushima containments were somewhat less robust, but there was also an inner containment which was quite robust. Those failed in varying degrees.
3) The explosions seen at Fukushima were from hydrogen buildup in the containments. All plants have "sparklers" for lack of a better term, that will safely burn off excess H2 (>4% in air is explosive if I remember right, >~95% is not oddly, because not enough O2 for combustion!). Unfortunately the sparklers at Fukushima were of an older design, due to be replaced, and instead of safely burning the H2, they caused the explosions. (Rolls-Royce evaluation at the time). I believe worldwide, new systems have been put in to safely burn. Why is this important? That's where the spent fuel pools were at Fukushima, and the explosion and subsequent fire is what caused aerosol/particulate plumes of fission products, so the result of a mechanical explosion COULD have wider consequences (which the article doesn't mention or explore). Again however, though, the containment here is more robust.
4) Side note - USSR stated that the RBMK reactors did not NEED a containment because their strict operating procedures and extensive training would preclude an accident. The root cause of the accident, regardless of the design, were multiple failures to follow operating procedures, performing an unapproved test, and the complete failure of the operators to understand what was happening in order to take the proper steps. Everything they did made it worse.   We were taught "Believe your indications, because they are all you have. If you have an indication of a problem, acting on that will only put the plant in a more safe condition"  They can complain later about wasting time or money, but my response was always. "I was there. I had the watch. My responsibility. My decision."  They cannot argue with this. Naval Reactors will back that 100%, even if you get grief from your management. THIS is the difference between our power plants and the Russians, more so than the design. As a senior Naval Reactors officer said to us once - "and uncompromising attitude toward safety"   which in our terms meant. "When in doubt, shut it down"
Bit of a ramble on that 4) but bottom line, that article is a reasonable summary, with some added explanation from me, for those who like that sort of thing.

Dave

Meow!  Someone didn’t get his pistachio pudding today.

A bit off topic but thanks FancyCat for quoting the whole tweet in your recent post. It solves two annoyances of people posting tweets: 1) the broken embedding in the forum software that require constant reloads to see what people are actually responding to, and 2) the need to click through to read the full message, only recently to get blocked by a login wall anyway. 

Australia, Canada and South America might dispute the monopoly part.

Sometimes?  😁

The two of you have two narratives -
The Russians are savages who will stop at nothing to destroy Ukraine.
And
The West is sitting around and do nothing while the first one happens, and will continue to do so no matter what.
So if these are true…why hasn’t Russia simply used nuclear/chemical/whatever since day 1?  Why is this war even still happening?  Is Ukrainian resolve and resistance an effective deterrence to strategic nuclear strikes?  
If the West is so useless and, clearly ready to let Russia do whatever it wants (and you can come read justifications of this right here on this thread)…why do we even still have this thread?  Russias are genocidal savages who are being deterred from escalation…by what exactly?  Because we certainly know it is not the bumbling western powers.
Of course if this is the case then why are we spending billions to assist Ukraine?  Symbolism? Boredom?
Look, if you guys want to go bask in narratives that call for bloodbaths and holy crusades/WW3 there is a big ol Internet out there that will tell you exactly what you want to hear.  
If you want something that resembles a grown up conversation, stick around. But if you are advocating that we all jump on whatever crazy train that seems to float your boat right now: nope.
What is it gonna take for the West to directly intervene in this war?  You do not want to know.  And frankly this thread won’t matter if that happens because a lot of us will already be dead.

In theory, it shouldn't take much more than a well-placed artillery round or two to take down a helicopter.
In practice, imagine a shooter trying to hit a skeet target in midair with a shotgun from very long range, but the shooter can't see the target themselves and is receiving aiming instructions from someone else with, say, a 30 second delay.

Assuming that these are legit and not recycled strikes with a Ka-52 gun camera aesthetic overlayed - this would average out to about 3-4 strikes per day along an +800 km frontage.  

Comments regarding armored vehicles from battalion commander "Spartanets" with the 37th Marine Brigade.
On the AMX-10:
"There was artillery shelling and a shell exploded near the vehicle, the fragments pierced the armour and the ammunition set detonated."
The crew of four inside were all killed, he said.
"The guns are good, the observation devices are very good. But unfortunately there is thin armour and it is impractical to use them in the front line (attack)," Spartanets said.
"There were such cases when a 152-mm shell exploded nearby and the shrapnel penetrated the vehicle," he said
He added that the French AMX-10 also had issues with gear boxes breaking down, possibly due to their use on dirt roads.
On the MRAP and British Husky:
One had some minor shrapnel damage to the hood, which he described as a "weak" point.
"Otherwise, in terms of protection, the vehicle is very cool," he said.
If one runs over a landmine, "a wheel flies off" but the vehicle remains intact, he said.
By contrast, when a Soviet infantry fighting vehicle (BMP or BMD) drives over a tank mine, "it is very sad for the crew and the vehicle", he added.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/thin-armoured-french-tanks-impractical-110407784.html

Downfall : the end of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
https://archive.org/details/downfallendofimp00fran/page/n15/mode/2up
In a riveting narrative that includes information from newly declassified documents, acclaimed historian Richard B. Frank gives a scrupulously detailed explanation of the critical months leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Frank explains how American leaders learned in the summer of 1945 that their alternate strategy to end the war by invasion had been shattered by the massive Japanese buildup on Kyushu, and that intercepted diplomatic documents also revealed the dismal prospects of negotiation. Here also, for the first time, is a comprehensive account of how Japan's leaders were willing to risk complete annihilation to preserve the nation's existing order. Frank's comprehensive account demolishes long-standing myths with the stark realities of this great historical controversy.
So the allies had three scenarios: nuke, invade, blockade and starve (carpet bomb too). Of the three, the atomic bomb was the most compassionate for a war torn world including Japan. Can you image the insurgency the Japanese would have waged for years.  Radiation does suck, but the war needed to end. Fire bombing of Tokyo killed more but was less persistent given the radiation. Sure it was a signal to Stalin. But Russia quickly evened the playing field with their spies. 
    

I don't understand about what AP mines told HRW. Ukraine utilized most of own AP mines arsenal except mines, which have controled activation (MON, OZM and some other)
In recent days we could see several starnge statements of UN, for example about "human rights violation" of Russian collaborators and informators detaining by SBU.  
We could see assesment of Venice Commision about UKR law about language, where they recommended to restore "prveleged status of Russian language" after "current emergency sitaution" (1000 and 1st method don't call this "war" and "aggression"), because "this temporary situation shouldn't affect Russian language usage". Also they recommended to postpone tranfer of education on Ukrianian language. 
Looks like UKR employees of UN, which barely began unrest after "day of Russian language" after deadly missile strike, were right, when told UN turned to completely ineffective organisation, where leftism is strong and personnel is hired not due to their professionalism and competence, but mostly by quotes of "diversity"

While I generally agree, the nature of this fight is existential. A lot of things have to be put to the side unfortunately.  Reality trumps what may have been desired. I am sure the UA would prefer not to mine their own country, but considering how many Russia is dumping, that earlier figure of them clearing 10x as many as they laid is likely going to be a low ball for the reality facing Ukraine. 

Er, I don't think you get sent to the Hague for breaking a voluntary treaty.

As of this morning (apparently) Twitter links will no longer open for those of us that will not be signing up for it, so please add a synopsis if the only information linked is their truncated format.

That's not a very fitting comparison, though. To make it semi-valid you would have to tell it like so: The house is burning with people still inside. There are no firefighters, the people inside fight the fire themselves. They are using extinguishers which contain a substance that is cheap and somewhat effective but harms people even years after (not only those in the house right now but also the people who are going to buy the house in 20 years). Years ago, they had protested against the use of such extinguishers and vowed never to use them even if their house was burning. Now the neighbors come over and point out that they had vowed not to use them and that there are other extinguishers that don't cause such problems.
Still not a perfect comparison but way more fitting.

I would invite them to go with the Ukrainian army to clear the trenches and they can switch on their bodycam. Somehow, I can see them not accepting the invitation.