Tux

To be honest, while I would always try to avoid letting that spill over into a post on this thread of all places, you might not be entirely wrong. I appreciate the consideration. Noted and I now understand where you're coming from. I think the fact that people on this thread have previously opined that Ukraine should be yanked into NATO and the EU as soon as the war is over probably primed me to interpret what you wrote the wrong way. Again I better understand your thought process now but I still struggle with it a bit: We actually have no real idea whether the West have a coherent strategic plan or not because, if they did, it would be idiotic of them to publicise it. Even the impression of 'reacting instead of acting' may be a part of such a plan. 'Remain calm and mature, forestall any attempts by Russia to portray us as the aggressors and seal the deal as regards Russia's utter political isolation on the matter by letting the world see how they act'. Maybe. Maybe Ukrainian F-16 pilots in fact are trained and ready to go and there are other good reasons why they will not yet be deployed. All of the above relates to the fact that we are dealing not only with a dearth of the information we'd like but we are only receiving the information which people let on. And when they tell us they tell the world so there may be good strategic reasons to downplay how much they have actually already invested. Or not. Now despite what it might sound like above, I'm not advocating for us all to become philisophical solipsists. We do have information and we do have brains and we can and do use those things to point out, for example, that the 'boiling the frog' strategy seems pretty clearly to have been deliberate: There has been a steady, almost regular pattern of particular equipment first being openly denied to Ukraine, then being repeatedly asked for by Ukraine, then being hinted at for a month or two before finally being announced as part of the next aid package (sometimes clearly a significant time after it was actually sent). Each time regarding slightly more potent/emotive equipment. Either this is a deliberate pacing strategy or it is the weirdest combination of repeatedly 'trying to avoid sending stuff' and then 'quickly being persuaded to send said stuff' I've ever seen.

Well, I didn’t mean to start (and don’t wish to prolong) a ‘pissing match’ so I will also leave it at this. Know also that it’s nothing personal. Ok so, assuming the West has a weapon that can do as you say, surely the most likely Russian response would be to either ignore the threat or maybe even loudly call the West’s bluff, possibly with an extra wave of attacks on civilian infrastructure that they weren’t originally planning? The West then delivers the specific-but-unnamed wunderwaffe and Ukraine use it to try and strike every base/platform that Russia launches civilian attacks from for the rest of the war. Russia obviously do their damnedest to protect those bases and make a point of continuing the attacks and crowing about it to their citizens and the rest of the world. Meanwhile the war goes on, to be won via the strategic military, political and economic damage caused by means which are already pretty much fully engaged. And we all remain unhappy about it. This sounds like a variation of the ‘Western European nations surrendered to the Nazis because they were too nice’ opinion we had a few pages ago.

Apparently the West's 'boil the frog' strategy has been so successful even some of its own citizens haven't noticed how much they've committed... Russia crossed a red-line on February 24th, 2022. It's been discussed on this board that, despite the obvious failings in the Russian invasion plan, they probably would have eventually succeeded if they has been fighting against Ukraine alone. Historic levels of Western support have turned that into what will almost certainly be a crushing defeat for Russia. What about that makes you think Russia are getting away with anything at all, here? What exactly do you think the Russians have control of? They are still humans, they still have agency of their own and they do not seem to be in the mood to compromise. They will therefore continue to do stuff we don't like for a while, yet. That's life. No stopping it. Fixed that for you. EU membership is not a prize owed to anyone. That's not how it works. If you want to join you have to meet all the strict economic entry conditions, regardless of which war you just fought. Being a good friend isn't enough; just ask Turkiye. And I must have missed the bit where someone belonging to either NATO or the EU argued that we should let any warcrimes slide...? Seriously, I get that the war is frustrating and we'd all like it to be over tomorrow but that just isn't going to happen. Please, unless we have specific, realistic ideas to add to the discussion can we dial down the daily temper-tantrums and lashing-out at the West for not snapping its fingers and making the bad man go away? Also, as a genuine aside, has anyone else noticed that parties who are accused of being "spineless" in almost any context often seem to end up winning?

Surely in this scenario the lesson that Ukraine would have taught the world would be that, with the proper support from allies but without nuclear weapons, the non-nuclear-armed state not only repelled the nuclear-armed state but damaged it to the extent that the latter disintegrated? Combined with Womble’s response I think there should be a good case to be made after this war that nuclear weapons don’t offer the same security as proper alliances do.

Ben Wallace is resigning. He’s expected to stick around until the next cabinet reshuffle, circa September. Personally I don’t think this will change much at all but I know he’s become a character of discussion on this thread so thought it might be relevant.

Yes, true. The wider coordination effort that they had to ditch sounds like a perfect example of the kind of thing we all wish countries would do but which even the EU can’t make them…

The V1 vibes are ridiculously strong with this one.

EU member states have been welcome to increase their own ammunition production rates at any time. If any of them have failed to do so because they were waiting for a subsidy from EU coffers to pay for it then that’s on them.

Ok, well if you think I see this as a hard "pro" or "against" situation then the whole point of several of my recent posts has been totally lost. The inverted commas I used in the post you quoted were the only defence I put in that sentence to defend against such an impression. I guess that's on me. I totally agree. As I have tried to say, my particular shade of grey is nudged into the 'pro-DPICM' half of the spectrum (there I go 'making it a binary' again...) in this instance by the lack of alternative solutions to Ukraine's ammunition shortage. To my eyes the only arguments based on principle, such as you describe, have been written to counter similarly binary points raised on 'the other side'. In other words they are there to redress the balance and ensure the discussion doesn't just discard principle altogether. For what it's worth I can see how that could come across as somewhat patronising or 'preachy' to someone with your background. However I don't think I have seen a single person argue that their principles should actually over-ride all other considerations. In fact, have we seen a single opinion yet from someone firmly against DPICM use in the current situation? If we have I think I missed it... Understood, and I don't just mean the self-deprecating part. I always look forward to reading your informed opinions and explanations on this thread. They are among the ones that do 'move the dial'. I'm going to step back and get some work done now, anyway. I think my posts are starting to rock the boat more than stabilise it and I want to let some of more up-to-date posts get some air.

Please remember that the positions taken by those 'old NATO countries' were taken because they are aware of what happens in their absence. I don't buy this whole 'goldfish' theory of Western European social and military policy, any more than I do the implication that only those who were most recently traumatised can 'think straight enough' to opine on the morality of war. For right or wrong, experienced countries made informed decisions about the shade of grey they wanted to implement. By all means choose your own shade but then stop calling everything else black.

Yes, I understand. I'm not sure if our wires got crossed somewhere but surely anything which makes it even more probable that Ukraine will join NATO post-war (than it already was, I mean) ratchets up the imperative in Russian thinking to hold on to something at the end of this war? Having said that maybe it's beyond the point of making any difference. Even if Russia evacuated southern Ukraine now and triply-reinforced Crimea before suing for peace I'm not sure it would succeed.

Of course our house is built on sand as you describe. That's why we have to fight to preserve it. The morals that our 'preachy' house is made of aren't supposed to make life easy; they are the best ideas we can come up with to allow us to play at judging 'right' from 'wrong'. They are there to keep the old red gods out for as long as possible because history and experience tells us that things do not go well when you give up, let your guard down and let those gods run riot. I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that our collective morality (insofar as one exists) is highly variable between individuals, populations and over time and in different circumstances. That doesn't change the rationale for an anti- or reluctantly-pro DPICM stance vis-a-vis this war. I feel like we are better than this. We credit our 'pro-DPICM' contingent with not being mindless, bloodthirsty animals who couldn't care less about collateral damage as long as more Russians are killed. I hope we can credit our 'anti-DPICM' crowd with not being weak, self-righteous pearl-clutchers who don't know they were born.

I agree this will be interesting. Will the US produce replacement DPICM or pivot towards 'pure' dumb rounds and PGM?

I am sorely tempted to buy CMCW just to find out! (Only reason I haven't got it yet is for lack of time to play)

Is your argument that Western European nations in World War 2 were simply too nice to fight against the Germans and that their more-or-less united stance against the use of DPICM today is a further display of the same 'lack or moral fibre'? Really? Is it just for convenience that you omit the fact that the only nation to fight Nazi Germany for the entirety of the war was Western European, as well as the fact that the same Germany that most of Western Europe simply 'couldn't bring themselves to fight against' now also opposes the use of DPICM? Not to mention anything of the myriad nuanced reasons behind individual nations' reasons for surrender in 1939/40 (hint: none of them surrendered because fighting the invaders 'wouldn't be nice'). Sorry mate, some of your points are useful but this is the closest to trash you've posted for a while. Imo.

If correct do we think it's a good idea to publicise this? It seems to raise the stakes on all sides without too much obvious benefit. It certainly sounds gratifying but it also adds some surprisingly hard lines to the circumstances around the war's end, doesn't it? This announcement would effectively set in stone wherever Ukraine's borders lie at the 'end' of the war, so on the one hand it is a further guarantee that whatever Russia lose from here, they will never regain; on the other hand it puts extra pressure on Ukraine to unambiguously regain everything they want/can before hostilities cease, or lose it forever. Have NATO decided that Ukraine must give up Crimea or is this a surprisingly strong vote of confidence in Ukraine's ability to regain it before the war is brought to an end?

No-one is claiming to know better than Ukrainian Generals any more than anyone else is claiming to know better than the 123 states who have signed up to the CCM. Ukraine, Ukraine's decision-makers and indeed Ukraine's Generals are in a unique position and that position does bring additional weight to the decisions they make. Personally I think there's a good argument to be had that that weight is almost entirely emotional, but that's not to suggest it should be dismissed as such. 123 other states came to the opposite decision to Ukraine. I imagine very few of them were fighting pitched defensive wars at the time but neither were the signatories the kind of simpering, pearl-clutching snowflakes that some on this board seem to want to portray them as. Among the signatories of the CCM you will find some of the most brutalised and war-torn states of the last century. A great many experienced warfighters considered this issue and decided that the utility of cluster munitions was not worth the post-war consequences and that they would stand by that decision in perpetuity. So, now that our respective 'argument from authority' rounds are spent, perhaps we can recognise (as I think most do) that this is a deeply grey area. There is no unambiguously correct answer that we can discover, given how thoroughly ambiguous our information is regarding true dud rates, likely usage rates/locations, how diligently records of such will be kept, etc.. That, to answer Twisk's earlier question, is why we're still discussing this issue. For my part it seems that the utility of DPICM simply doesn't justify its use in 'normal' circumstances. If it did then I would expect such a case to be quickly and easily made and agreed upon by the kinds of knowledgeable people we have contributing to this thread and the discussion would be over. However if Ukraine (and their allies) are running out of better ammunition types then clearly that cannot be allowed to be 'normal' and it is preferable to use what is available. I don't expect the above to move the needle on the opinions stated on this thread but I'm happy to understand that my preferred shade of grey isn't the only one available. For what it's worth it makes me feel very uncomfortable (world's smallest violin time, I know) to cast doubt on Ukraine's decision under these cirumstances. I only hope that those energetically supporting the decision now will feel half as uncomfortable when the piper gets paid.

I think the point is that cluster munitions are not much good at clearing trenches. However their supply may allow Ukraine to avoid firing what may be scarce standard artillery rounds at targets caught in the open (which cluster munitions are better suited for). As regards potential damage to the western alliance, I think the fact that many friendly nations have signed the treaty means they have committed not to encourage, aid or be any part of cluster munition use. That’s why we see allies of Ukraine currently struggling to properly condemn this move and avoid being part of the supply chain while maintaining support for Ukraine generally. For what it’s worth I think this is also why the Ukrainian Defence Ministry are releasing statements acknowledging the concerns of most/many of their allies and articulating what they’re going to do about it.

Now this is a comment from someone who understands the risks of using DPICM but, rather than take offence when people point them out, coolly articulates how the weapons’ use shall be controlled in order to mitigate those risks. Never expected anything different but still, this is satisfying to read.

Re: DPICM, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Ukraine shouldn’t have the last say on which weapons they do or don’t ask for while fighting their own existential war. However neither do I think that the fact they are under such colossal stress at the moment necessarily makes their judgement they only thing that should be considered. JonS and others are correct here in that use of DPICM by Ukraine will almost certainly come at the cost of more civilian injuries/fatalities post-war. The Ukrainians will know that just as well as anyone else and they may have all the practical reasons they need to justify using them anyway. That’s fine. However it means that the discussion around that risk kind of isn’t between Ukraine and ‘the West’. It’s between Ukraine today and Ukraine post-war. Given what we know about the merits of humans making short-term decisions under extreme stress and at the expense of longer-term considerations; given that the war probably isn’t actually existential any more; and given that a better, freer post-war Ukraine is actually what Ukraine are therefore now fighting for, I think there’s a good argument that sober, well-meaning advice from allies who have the luxury of looking more clearly (or at least from a different perspective) at the long term is extremely valuable. That’s not to prejudice what Ukraine should decide. It’s not to say that it shouldn’t be their call. It’s just to say that, like points raised by Human Rights Watch, at some point post-war Ukrainians will probably appreciate that such advice was at least taken into account.

Yeah, that is a defence that does not expect to be attacked, if ever I’ve seen one.

I think that’s irrelevant. They may not ask the same of Russia because Russia aren’t signatories to the Ottawa Treaty, or because they don’t think Russia will listen (basically a compliment to Ukraine), or because they’re corrupt and incompetent, etc. and so on. None of those reasons affect the validity of the request.

You may be right but I guess our main concern is whether the words they post are right or wrong?

Actually I might even go further than my last post: I think HRW’s plea is an example of the kind of thing which must be heard during the war. Hearing and considering these things is how Ukraine will guard the humanity which it is ultimately, ostensibly fighting for. It is naturally up to Ukraine how they respond and what they prioritise but there is zero benefit whatsoever to not hearing such things and every benefit (particularly post-war) to not losing sight of them. Listen to Human Rights Watch. Take a breath, remember who you are and consider what they say. What you then decide is up to you. In my humble opinion.

They have a job to do I suppose, and in the long-term they have a point. I think I understand both their request and the likely ‘response’ from Ukraine. Both equally valid in their own ways and contexts.