Tux
-
Posts
735 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Tux
-
-
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Carolus said:
You are, of course, right.
I believe the original idea was that with this shared fund, the production efforts can be better coordinated so that appropriste announts of facilties for the various needed types of shells for mortars and artillery will be produced and no accidental redundancy occurs, along with a big assessment of the ammo stocks of each EU member. But this coordination clause was scrapped from the bill which was eventually approved, because it was considered an overreach of the EU commission (the executive branch of the EU if you will).
These subsidies will also go directly to arms companies, not to member states.
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…
-
27 minutes ago, Carolus said:
I have no idea if Ukrainians will produce them in numbers soon or at all, but if they do, since this is a homemade product, it would alleviate my worries about the safe Russian hinterland.
So I can only wish for a production target of 100 per month.
The V1 vibes are ridiculously strong with this one.
-
1 hour ago, Carolus said:
Well, it's slowly coming together.
MEPs approved law which will support increase of ammo production capacity with 500 million €. Each company can apply to have up to 35% of their costs covered by this fund.
Not bad after an existential threat to western global order has been running amok for 15 months. /s
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.
-
24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Well it kinda does change the rationale. The fact that you are seeing this as a hard "pro" or "against" DPICM situation is evidence that this entire thing has been hijacked by slippery principle as opposed to reality.
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.
QuoteI for one am highly against the use of DPICM in urban areas on a low-level conflict/counter insurgency, such as Southern Lebanon. I am, however, for their legal use in Southern Ukraine when the UA is running out of ammunition and needs to sustain an offensive to keep momentum or risk stalling out into a frozen conflict.
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.
QuoteIf, however, one stands on principle regardless of context, then they are "pearl clutching" and being self-righteous in my opinion. Tossing around "but the children!" arguments that lead to hypocritical cul de sacs is just as bad as blood thirsty genocidal sentiments we have also clamped down on.
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...
QuoteOf course being someone who has had spent their adult life going out into the world and dealing with the worst while 99.9% of my home population is more worried about whether Taylor Swift is going to do a concert in Toronto has likely jaded me somewhat.
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.
-
21 minutes ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:
That is one reason why the Baltics and Central Europeans opinions often are different than the old NATO countries. We have barely rented a bedsit in that house 30 years ago.
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.
-
2 hours ago, DesertFox said:
Dunno if you read the same post as I did. It means that NATO countries agreed to accept Ukraine into the alliance under a simplified procedure - without fulfilling the membership action plan. The terms are still not named, but, most likely, Ukraine will join NATO after the end of the war.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
And here is the rub and why this whole thing is likely really upsetting so many in the liberal humanism/human security camp - if we were in Ukraine's position how long would our moral high ground be sustained?
Maybe, just maybe, our righteous (and preachy) house is built on sand in the face of the old red gods. We have just been rich enough and safe enough, for long enough to forget this.
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.
-
18 minutes ago, kevinkin said:
I think the question of morality should come up later when the west attempts to fund their replacement.
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)
-
38 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Western European Countries surrendered to the Germans inside weeks. France was the longest. If they had put up a fight like Ukraine does now World War 2 would have ended in 1942. You win wars by not being nice to your enemies.
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.
-
1 minute ago, DesertFox said:
Seems like something is on the horizon. We will learn in 48 hours or even earlier I guess. Looks good for me.
Kulebas post:
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?
-
7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
I hope nobody is here of the opinion that they understand the issue better than the Ukrainian Generals running the campaign in the Eastern Donbas.
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.
-
2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Cluster munitions are not nice, they are not meant to be nice. What is also not nice is clearing trenches in which you see your mates killed. I understand a cluster load can clear a football area of trenches. It is what the Ukraine needs to get rid of the Russians. Tell me if I am wrong. Russia, the Ukraine and the US never signed or were part of an agreement to outlaw cluster munitions. Just the way I see it.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
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
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Carolus said:
Also looks like the Germans could learn something from Ukrainians about vehicle dispersion.
Yeah, that is a defence that does not expect to be attacked, if ever I’ve seen one.
-
2 minutes ago, kraze said:
Except they aren't requesting the same from Russia.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, kraze said:
because "human rights" organizations don't give an F about human rights. They are getting millions of USD of funding for pretending they care and it's obvious they don't want to upset one of the primary cash providers. Which isn't Ukraine in this war.
Can't buy another cool SUV if nobody is paying for it, am I right?
HRW, Red Cross, Amnesty, OSCE, whatever other trash. It's all the same. Old people who simply post words on the internet.You may be right but I guess our main concern is whether the words they post are right or wrong?
-
40 minutes ago, Tux said:
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.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.
-
13 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said:
"Human Rights Watch urges Ukraine to stop using AP mines (as promised).
I don't like war, I don't like this killing and slaughtering and suffering, and I don't like the use of mines. Period.
But are these Human Rights Watch-people insane???
Asking this NOW? In a full-blown existantial war???
How ignorant and naive can you be?
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. -
20 minutes ago, keas66 said:
So you want Ukraine to tip toe to Victory making such small incremental steps thats the Russians naturally adapt themselves to the new micro state - until they are safely behind their borders ....and then ?
If that’s what makes a nuclear-armed cluster**** in post-war Russia unlikely to happen then, I mean… yeah? Surely you wholeheartedly agree that said cluster-situation is worth avoiding? So all that might be disagreed upon is how best to do that.
What’s your solution? You don’t get to just say ‘Win the war ASAP!!’ and then put your fingers in you ears and pretend time stops at that point. What does the real-life post-war Russia look like in your scenario and, critically, does it have sober control of its nukes? If the answer is anything other than a solid ‘yes’, then we need to try harder, don’t we?Russia invaded Ukraine. They are to blame for Ukraine’s suffering. There is nothing we can do that will eliminate that suffering, now. All we can do is honestly and determinedly try to navigate the best path we can find from this point on.
-
Short piece from the BBC today:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65921377
Nothing too groundbreaking but I think it’s the first time I’ve heard explicit mention on drones being used to drop smoke grenades at precise spots. It’s an obvious use for them I suppose and hopefully something we see in future CM titles…
-
6 hours ago, sburke said:
you know, that is almost believable... i mean look at Charles....
It would explain why Andrew doesn’t sweat, as well!
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.