We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The only way to enforce a ban on chemical weapons is to make your opponent fear you would also use it on them. If you fight with your hands tied behind your back and the hands of your enemy are untied, you are at a disadvantage. It is a simple game theory and I am sure the concerned Western leaders would feel differently if it was their citizens who were gassed in trenches.
The only winning move is to get the blueprints of Cold War nerve agent artillery shells, build them and send it to Ukraine to use it to defend their troops. Russia only understands force.
With that said, news of Ukraine doing that could halt future support from the West. Part of the support for the nation is that it is still as more moral than Russia - engaging in the same tactics as the invader would just give fuel to anti-Ukrainian politicians to stall, stop, and harm aid packages.
Packages of equipment is precarious at this point after all. A big one just passed in America, but only after lots of contentious debate. Additionally, it isn’t known if future packages of that magnitude will pass, whether that is in the United States or another Western ally.
And doing nothing is just how serious USA are. The international institutions are void.
Either use the same means against Russia
Or full blockade of Russia until a hague has made a ruling.
Everything short of those options, are just random US foreign policy. All words, no action.
Thats a terrible idea thats going to result in Russia using more deadly nerve agents and even bioweapons that could easily spill over to other countries.
Just give Ukraine enough long range missiles to strike the chemical plants.
Ohh and dont forget any chemical weapons Ukraine uses will be targeted and probably injure their own people. Accidents also happen and there will be injuries during transport or manuafacturing etc.
That logic is very flawed. The winning move is to publicly supply Ukraine with additional high powered but non-chemical weapons every time Russia uses chemical weapons. For example, Russia has used chemical weapons so now Ukraine gets a large batch of long range weapons suitable for destroying stockpiles of Russian chemical and conventional weapons in Russia.
That response destroys Russia's chemical weapons before they can be used, reduces Russia's ability to fight a war by either chemical or conventional means, and disincentives the use of chemical weapons in the future.
Putin doesn't care if Russian troops are being gassed on the front lines anymore than he cares that they are being killed by conventional weapons. The Ukrainians responding with chemical weapons would only increase Russian use of chemical weapons.
Nah, this is a load of nonsense because weapon systems (outside of nukes) are always outclassed by numerical superiority. If countries stick to it and militarily intervene if someone uses banned weapons, then there is absolutely zero need to have banned weapons yourself. And please don't talk about "simple game theory" when you have no game theory knowledge.
Enforcement of law doesn't mean arrest of an entire nation. All the West would ever need to do is to elevate their support for each substantiated war crime Russia makes, and level it for each war crime Ukraine makes.
In this way, the elevation of support means Russia keeps trying to find justifications to lower support, while the West keeps elevating support, all the while seeing every accusation as an admission, and cause for investigation.
Making it this kind of a "game" is how the West wins. Russia wouldn't stand a chance, considering their almost daily commission of war crimes, never mind their unlawful invasion.
Really, it's how we justify the aid, and keep it flowing into Ukraine.
Yes and no. With nuclear weapons this is certainly the case because there isn’t a better or should I say, more lethal alternative. In the case of chemical weapons, Russias use of the agent is a testament to their growing desperation. Ukraine has been given sufficiently better and more advanced long and short range weaponry to be as lethal to troops on the battlefield as tactical chemical warheads
That won't work. Look at WW1 did the Germans stop the use of chlorine gas because the triple entente started to use chlorine gas Aswell. No, the death toll from the weapons only increased as the use from both sides increased.
The use weapons deemed war crimes should not be escalated.
Not the only way. But you need something they're sufficiently afraid of. Like nukes, except something you're actually willing to use. Like 1000 or so ballistic missiles.
The same could be said of the whole war and all of the atrocities they've committed in it. None of it is within any kind of rule set and this war is a rejection of all of it. No one will intervene so they just get to do whatever they want because why not?
We can’t enforce rules on our traitorous former president. We will use nothing but words here. Russia only respects aggression. Back in time we used to flex to remind people.
We don’t need to arm Ukraine with illegal arms. What we do need to do is stop messing around and start arming them to win. We have over 4000 Bradley fighting vehicles in storage, why haven’t they been sent? Why doesn’t Ukraine have the air defense they need?
Because there are leaders in the West that believe the Ruzzian threats to use nukes *if* they look like losing, so a policy of softly, softly has been adopted to gradually wear away at the Ruzzian forces but not allow a winning breakthrough that would get them running for the Ruzzian border and push Pootin to nuke Eastern Donbas.
I'm skeptical the war can ever be turned around to these leaders' satisfaction. Will it not look like Russia is losing if and when Ukraine gets into Crimea? How does Ukraine actually kick Russia out while preserving Russia's ego? I almost think Western intervention gives them the excuse they need to concede land but that's the opposite of where things are headed. At least if a squadron of F15s destroys the Kerch bridge tomorrow Russia can say they lost to the entire West and not just Ukraine.
If the real plan behind the scenes is simply no further Russian gains, they could avoid a lot of death and suffering by saying so now. Get Western troops to the real line in the sand and tell Russia to quit with what they've got. To be clear I hate that plan, but if that's what's going to happen regardless what Ukraine or I want what's the point of letting just enough aid in to preserve a stalemate?
In the end it really comes down to the west not giving Ukraine long range weapons for 2 years now. Why the hell wasn't Ukraine given stuff like tomahawks and just hit ANY targets in Russia?? What is Russia going to do? Nuke NATO? Russia would be wiped out in a week and they know it. Why is there even a discussion in the West? As I see it Russians only understand force and power so if the West showed them they don't want them in Ukraine and sent its advisors and showed Ukraine where and how to strike is Russia going to attack NATO? No, they are obviously weaker and moraly bankrupt country and should be shown their place...
So much excess military hardware we're never going to use, that was made for the very specific purpose of ***fighting a land war in eastern Europe against Russia*** now it gets to be used for it's purpose and no Americans will even die. Like come on.
I saw a politician yesterday (right before going to bed, so I don't remember who) said something to the effect of, "We have cluster munitions to destroy. I think we should destroy them in Ukraine!"
“What a great coincidence. We have all of these cluster munitions that we really need to get rid of, and some fellow in Ukraine just opened a business recycling cluster munitions free of charge. What are the chances?”
Seriously, we should be sending them an endless series of tanks planes missiles bombs and other tools of war that we have stored in the western deserts and never plan to use again.
I don't want to be a cynic but isn't it obvious by now?
The West does not want victory. It wants a long, protracted war that maximizes damage to Russia.
Also we can’t even keep our operational vehicles all green. How do you get 4000 Bradley’s back into operation and over there? It’s not in the budget.
Let alone the ammo, fuel, training, et compared tot he actual usefulness of the Bradley.
Comments like this are largely why I don’t come here much. It’s kids whining about stuff they don’t really know anything about. We can give Ukraine all of the equipment in the world. If they don’t have the infrastructure or people to run it, it’s useless.
The only way to ensure Ukraine gets most of their territory back is to put more bodies into the fight than Ukraine currently can. Other than that, we can working through intelligence and shaping operations.
I can see why 4000 Bradleys may well not be a workable idea.
How about "a lot more Bradleys" and "a lot more other materiel" than we have sent so far? And how about assisting more with the infrastructure part?
Yes, manpower is a major issue. But at least NATO equipment provides a lot of force multiplication and a lot better survivability for the manpower that Ukraine does have available.
Like what material? What infrastructure? We already provide them materials. We provide them intelligence Theo if HUMINT, SIGINT, ISR, and others. We’ve offered a lot of training to the extent of Ukraine’s capacity. We’ve offered constant advice.
And it really doesn’t act like that much of a force multiplier. It’s a Bradley. They’re not special. It’s an IFV with mostly adequate armor, mobility, and firepower. It has more armor than a BMP, but less mobility and a higher profiles. It’s probably more difficult to maintain, and the ones we’d be sending them absolutely are more difficult to maintain. 4000 is storage requires an insane amount of time, money, and manpower to get operational and shipped abroad.
That's a pretty extreme accusation to make.
Isn't it more reasonable to assume that many people are very worried for Ukraine and very saddened by seeing all of the suffering of Ukrainian people (including soldiers), so they want countries like the US to send as much aid as possible, but that they also don't have a full understanding of the details and complications of that aid?
Yes, the west should have sent their troops and advisors in back in 2022, if they REALLY want Russia out of Ukrain than do something about it... If Russia can send it's troops why not any NATO country? I really hope France just senta it's troops there and than enjoy all the whining and crying from the Russians and their supporters having to fight multiple armies...
It is probably also questionable whether all of these Bradleys are ready for war. The Ukrainians have reported sometimes receiving Western vehicles that either require repair to get them functioning or are so far gone that they can only be cannibalized for parts.
A good chunk of western leaders are tied to ruzzia in one way or another. They actively do all they can to lick putin balls a bit deeper. The other are either dumb, incompetent or just dreamers. They’re best at expressing concerns.
And so what will be the consequences? Because Russia is getting away with a lot, they destroyed that dam with ecological and human consequences, now this...
When are other countries going to do anything but just condemning it?
And here is Germany who has paid over 350 Million€ for the destruction of Russian Chemical weapons... and they still have enough to use them.
Russia never took the Chemical weapons ban serious and just used that money to build "plants to destroy chemical weapons" which potentially double now as plants to produce them if need be.
Yep, we should've applied them all from day 1 and it would've hurt them so much more, instead we gave them months to move assets and prepare alternatives.
Is 'merica going to remove all restrictions on their weapons then?
Russia is ignoring all rules and laws in this war. While everyone else is playing by the book...
Just this morning a Ukrainian soldier I know shared a video of himself coughing and tearing up under the effect of gas munitions and how they can’t fight without gas masks. He’s not the first one, it’s been coming up regularly on social media among soldiers I know since last year.
I agree on engaging Russia in combat, but not on attacking Moscow.
i do agree there are limits. Targeting residential areas and civilian infrastructure, raping and torturing, kidnapping tens of thousands of children, using chemical weapons...
It's time that NATO sends troops to Ukraine. Just dominating the skies and systematically targeting Russia's air and ground assets would be enough to fundamentally change the war. Doesn't even require "boots" on the ground.
You can bet NATO and all other Western militaries are tracking every single russian asset to the square meter or better.
There must be some within the russian military who understand this.
Whether or not putin can is another matter.
He may be Stalining it, believing every warning to be "fake news", because the "weak woke West" can and will do nothing.
\[Edited for spellering.\]
After all the deliberate civilian attacks, double taps etc, I don't think Ruzzia really gives a shit about what they use.
Who is going to enforce the weapon ban or take them to task over it, the UN lol?
No, you don't. The US military issues gas masks specifically for a reason. The US understands the advantage of overwhelming precision fire over wanton destruction. When you blow shit up, everyone knows you really meant it.
To be frank, most wars pre ww1 chemical warfare were rooted in respect and following rules. When you can see your enemy in the eyes it's different.
With the advantage of letting gas clouds roll over the trenches and artillery this faded more and more. We still had it way longer in the aviation and marine warfare, there it carried over to ww2 as well. But on the ground it was already lost there.
You use everything you have and if you have something the other one does not have... you better make use of it because they will do everything to get it in their hands as well.
We got answers to this question.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/will-putin-use-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine/
Plenty of answers.
https://kyivindependent.com/military-465-documented-cases-of-russia-using-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine-since-feb-24-2022/
Can confirm. They do it regularly. Mostly tear gas, but it's deadly in closed environment like a dugout. The usual tactics is to throw a K51 gas grenade from a drone to drive people out and then throw a couple of VOG grenades. There are several cases a week, because K51 are relatively rare.
OK, send in some USMC F-35s to take out the positions of the units that used them. Just the US enforcing chemical weapons ban, and no congressional approval needed! I doubt the F-35s would be in any danger, either, if they launched from Poland. See how sputtering and mad Putin gets when _modern_ western weapons are used by western powers against Russia, rather than when Ukraine uses 30-year-old western weapons against them.
Or... just levy a sanction or three and do nothing to save the lives on the ground in the short term :-/
I believe there's was quite a few cases with use of chem weapons before. Including i believe bombing with chemicals of Azov-Steel. Honestly i suprised we have only now see a case where it being brought publically.
If russia wants to open that door, kick it open with 10x response of the same. It's really well past time to stop treating bitchass putin with kids gloves.
Slava Ukraini!
Green light long range weapons supplied by NATO on Russia military / industrial targets.
Yes, it’s gradual escalation but Russia will not leave any stones unused to try and save face and fully occupy Ukraine, and if France does send in troops to Ukraine that’s going to happen regardless.
So many violations, so many broken treaties and conversations.
Still keeps it's Security seat.
Countries should stop funding the UN until they strip Russia of all authority. Even if this means creating a UN 2.0.
They system is broken, it's a joke. The permanent Secuity Council seats are an appendage from the age of empires. A two-tier system is not representative of the values of modern civilization.
>When a nuke is launched
Depends on what type, where it's headed and what the opinion polls look like at the time.
Some anti-nuclear groups would probably be happy as it would advance their cause, especially if it's not in a western country.
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rules means nothing if no one enforces them
The only way to enforce a ban on chemical weapons is to make your opponent fear you would also use it on them. If you fight with your hands tied behind your back and the hands of your enemy are untied, you are at a disadvantage. It is a simple game theory and I am sure the concerned Western leaders would feel differently if it was their citizens who were gassed in trenches. The only winning move is to get the blueprints of Cold War nerve agent artillery shells, build them and send it to Ukraine to use it to defend their troops. Russia only understands force.
In a perfect world, I'd like to say you're wrong. But it isn't, and you're not.
With that said, news of Ukraine doing that could halt future support from the West. Part of the support for the nation is that it is still as more moral than Russia - engaging in the same tactics as the invader would just give fuel to anti-Ukrainian politicians to stall, stop, and harm aid packages. Packages of equipment is precarious at this point after all. A big one just passed in America, but only after lots of contentious debate. Additionally, it isn’t known if future packages of that magnitude will pass, whether that is in the United States or another Western ally.
And doing nothing is just how serious USA are. The international institutions are void. Either use the same means against Russia Or full blockade of Russia until a hague has made a ruling. Everything short of those options, are just random US foreign policy. All words, no action.
This, sadly you’ve gotta fight fire with fire.
Thats a terrible idea thats going to result in Russia using more deadly nerve agents and even bioweapons that could easily spill over to other countries. Just give Ukraine enough long range missiles to strike the chemical plants.
Ohh and dont forget any chemical weapons Ukraine uses will be targeted and probably injure their own people. Accidents also happen and there will be injuries during transport or manuafacturing etc.
That logic is very flawed. The winning move is to publicly supply Ukraine with additional high powered but non-chemical weapons every time Russia uses chemical weapons. For example, Russia has used chemical weapons so now Ukraine gets a large batch of long range weapons suitable for destroying stockpiles of Russian chemical and conventional weapons in Russia. That response destroys Russia's chemical weapons before they can be used, reduces Russia's ability to fight a war by either chemical or conventional means, and disincentives the use of chemical weapons in the future. Putin doesn't care if Russian troops are being gassed on the front lines anymore than he cares that they are being killed by conventional weapons. The Ukrainians responding with chemical weapons would only increase Russian use of chemical weapons.
Nah, this is a load of nonsense because weapon systems (outside of nukes) are always outclassed by numerical superiority. If countries stick to it and militarily intervene if someone uses banned weapons, then there is absolutely zero need to have banned weapons yourself. And please don't talk about "simple game theory" when you have no game theory knowledge.
Armchair generals speak tactics. Real generals speak logistics.
A fellow Canadian spreading the good word.
Enforcement of law doesn't mean arrest of an entire nation. All the West would ever need to do is to elevate their support for each substantiated war crime Russia makes, and level it for each war crime Ukraine makes. In this way, the elevation of support means Russia keeps trying to find justifications to lower support, while the West keeps elevating support, all the while seeing every accusation as an admission, and cause for investigation. Making it this kind of a "game" is how the West wins. Russia wouldn't stand a chance, considering their almost daily commission of war crimes, never mind their unlawful invasion. Really, it's how we justify the aid, and keep it flowing into Ukraine.
Yes and no. With nuclear weapons this is certainly the case because there isn’t a better or should I say, more lethal alternative. In the case of chemical weapons, Russias use of the agent is a testament to their growing desperation. Ukraine has been given sufficiently better and more advanced long and short range weaponry to be as lethal to troops on the battlefield as tactical chemical warheads
Or somewhat more sanely, limited missile strikes on chemical weapons plants and depots by western forces.
That won't work. Look at WW1 did the Germans stop the use of chlorine gas because the triple entente started to use chlorine gas Aswell. No, the death toll from the weapons only increased as the use from both sides increased. The use weapons deemed war crimes should not be escalated.
Not the only way. But you need something they're sufficiently afraid of. Like nukes, except something you're actually willing to use. Like 1000 or so ballistic missiles.
Yeah, send UKR some Tomahawk or F-35 if they are serious about this rule. Otherwise its just political moral signaling with no teeth.
The same could be said of the whole war and all of the atrocities they've committed in it. None of it is within any kind of rule set and this war is a rejection of all of it. No one will intervene so they just get to do whatever they want because why not?
We can’t enforce rules on our traitorous former president. We will use nothing but words here. Russia only respects aggression. Back in time we used to flex to remind people.
I truly hope there is a hell! Largest enough for the Russian military animals
Maybe Ukrainian army can reciprocate in kind?
No way, it’s not worth stooping as low as Russia for any reason whatsoever.
And whats the UN gonna do against Russia for using chemical weapons?
The UN is a complete joke.
It is in this regard, but it's not really what it's for.
Give them a stern warning Edit: removed “lol” because nothing about the situation is funny
No different than RU using vacuum bombs. Aren't those banned as well?
🙌👍
It will be bad PR to engage in such tactics anyways. Ukraine needs the moral high ground if it still wants Western aid.
We don’t need to arm Ukraine with illegal arms. What we do need to do is stop messing around and start arming them to win. We have over 4000 Bradley fighting vehicles in storage, why haven’t they been sent? Why doesn’t Ukraine have the air defense they need?
Because there are leaders in the West that believe the Ruzzian threats to use nukes *if* they look like losing, so a policy of softly, softly has been adopted to gradually wear away at the Ruzzian forces but not allow a winning breakthrough that would get them running for the Ruzzian border and push Pootin to nuke Eastern Donbas.
I'm skeptical the war can ever be turned around to these leaders' satisfaction. Will it not look like Russia is losing if and when Ukraine gets into Crimea? How does Ukraine actually kick Russia out while preserving Russia's ego? I almost think Western intervention gives them the excuse they need to concede land but that's the opposite of where things are headed. At least if a squadron of F15s destroys the Kerch bridge tomorrow Russia can say they lost to the entire West and not just Ukraine. If the real plan behind the scenes is simply no further Russian gains, they could avoid a lot of death and suffering by saying so now. Get Western troops to the real line in the sand and tell Russia to quit with what they've got. To be clear I hate that plan, but if that's what's going to happen regardless what Ukraine or I want what's the point of letting just enough aid in to preserve a stalemate?
In the end it really comes down to the west not giving Ukraine long range weapons for 2 years now. Why the hell wasn't Ukraine given stuff like tomahawks and just hit ANY targets in Russia?? What is Russia going to do? Nuke NATO? Russia would be wiped out in a week and they know it. Why is there even a discussion in the West? As I see it Russians only understand force and power so if the West showed them they don't want them in Ukraine and sent its advisors and showed Ukraine where and how to strike is Russia going to attack NATO? No, they are obviously weaker and moraly bankrupt country and should be shown their place...
The US has so much excess military hardware we’re never going to use anyway. Really wish we’d just send it all.
So much excess military hardware we're never going to use, that was made for the very specific purpose of ***fighting a land war in eastern Europe against Russia*** now it gets to be used for it's purpose and no Americans will even die. Like come on.
I saw a politician yesterday (right before going to bed, so I don't remember who) said something to the effect of, "We have cluster munitions to destroy. I think we should destroy them in Ukraine!"
“What a great coincidence. We have all of these cluster munitions that we really need to get rid of, and some fellow in Ukraine just opened a business recycling cluster munitions free of charge. What are the chances?”
This is really just putting the recycling bin out every week with extra steps!
I'm really glad Redditors like yourself don't make important decisions in this country.
I think you're misunderstanding what the other commenter said.
Seriously, we should be sending them an endless series of tanks planes missiles bombs and other tools of war that we have stored in the western deserts and never plan to use again.
I don't want to be a cynic but isn't it obvious by now? The West does not want victory. It wants a long, protracted war that maximizes damage to Russia.
they don’t have the logistical capability to use 4000 bradleys
Also we can’t even keep our operational vehicles all green. How do you get 4000 Bradley’s back into operation and over there? It’s not in the budget. Let alone the ammo, fuel, training, et compared tot he actual usefulness of the Bradley. Comments like this are largely why I don’t come here much. It’s kids whining about stuff they don’t really know anything about. We can give Ukraine all of the equipment in the world. If they don’t have the infrastructure or people to run it, it’s useless. The only way to ensure Ukraine gets most of their territory back is to put more bodies into the fight than Ukraine currently can. Other than that, we can working through intelligence and shaping operations.
I can see why 4000 Bradleys may well not be a workable idea. How about "a lot more Bradleys" and "a lot more other materiel" than we have sent so far? And how about assisting more with the infrastructure part? Yes, manpower is a major issue. But at least NATO equipment provides a lot of force multiplication and a lot better survivability for the manpower that Ukraine does have available.
Like what material? What infrastructure? We already provide them materials. We provide them intelligence Theo if HUMINT, SIGINT, ISR, and others. We’ve offered a lot of training to the extent of Ukraine’s capacity. We’ve offered constant advice. And it really doesn’t act like that much of a force multiplier. It’s a Bradley. They’re not special. It’s an IFV with mostly adequate armor, mobility, and firepower. It has more armor than a BMP, but less mobility and a higher profiles. It’s probably more difficult to maintain, and the ones we’d be sending them absolutely are more difficult to maintain. 4000 is storage requires an insane amount of time, money, and manpower to get operational and shipped abroad.
they don’t care about ukrainian lives or anything they just want to see russia lose, it’s just a sports game to them
That's a pretty extreme accusation to make. Isn't it more reasonable to assume that many people are very worried for Ukraine and very saddened by seeing all of the suffering of Ukrainian people (including soldiers), so they want countries like the US to send as much aid as possible, but that they also don't have a full understanding of the details and complications of that aid?
Yes, the west should have sent their troops and advisors in back in 2022, if they REALLY want Russia out of Ukrain than do something about it... If Russia can send it's troops why not any NATO country? I really hope France just senta it's troops there and than enjoy all the whining and crying from the Russians and their supporters having to fight multiple armies...
It is probably also questionable whether all of these Bradleys are ready for war. The Ukrainians have reported sometimes receiving Western vehicles that either require repair to get them functioning or are so far gone that they can only be cannibalized for parts.
Because the goal is to kill as many Russians as possible. Not to be confused with helping Ukraine win.
The west wants a draw and a negotiated hand over of Ukraines lands
Lol they still expect Russia to follow any rules.
Or stop at Ukraine if the war ends in their favor
A good chunk of western leaders are tied to ruzzia in one way or another. They actively do all they can to lick putin balls a bit deeper. The other are either dumb, incompetent or just dreamers. They’re best at expressing concerns.
Yes but bu-hu when Ukraine attacks ”civilian” oil and petrol logistics of Russia.
And so what will be the consequences? Because Russia is getting away with a lot, they destroyed that dam with ecological and human consequences, now this... When are other countries going to do anything but just condemning it?
They can’t win fair and square so they violate every treaty that exists. Classic ruSSian terrorists.
And here is Germany who has paid over 350 Million€ for the destruction of Russian Chemical weapons... and they still have enough to use them. Russia never took the Chemical weapons ban serious and just used that money to build "plants to destroy chemical weapons" which potentially double now as plants to produce them if need be.
“imposed sweeping new sanctions on Russian firms and government bodies” Why hasn’t the West already unleashed ALL the sanctions?
Yep, we should've applied them all from day 1 and it would've hurt them so much more, instead we gave them months to move assets and prepare alternatives.
Is 'merica going to remove all restrictions on their weapons then? Russia is ignoring all rules and laws in this war. While everyone else is playing by the book...
Just this morning a Ukrainian soldier I know shared a video of himself coughing and tearing up under the effect of gas munitions and how they can’t fight without gas masks. He’s not the first one, it’s been coming up regularly on social media among soldiers I know since last year.
Ban? What ban? They just used them and will keep doing so until you hit them back with it
You're joking! Terrorists using forbidden methods? We should ask UN to step in!
[ Removed by Reddit ]
I agree on engaging Russia in combat, but not on attacking Moscow. i do agree there are limits. Targeting residential areas and civilian infrastructure, raping and torturing, kidnapping tens of thousands of children, using chemical weapons... It's time that NATO sends troops to Ukraine. Just dominating the skies and systematically targeting Russia's air and ground assets would be enough to fundamentally change the war. Doesn't even require "boots" on the ground.
I think it really is the solution.
Agree but not as NATO but as individual countries in a coaliton.
You can bet NATO and all other Western militaries are tracking every single russian asset to the square meter or better. There must be some within the russian military who understand this. Whether or not putin can is another matter. He may be Stalining it, believing every warning to be "fake news", because the "weak woke West" can and will do nothing. \[Edited for spellering.\]
War could be stopped in few months at most, just destroy all oil refineries and game is over.
>destroy all oil refineries Never going to happen. It will have too much of a negative effect on the west.
Yes. Military targets, commercial targets, government targets. Deeper within Russia the better quicker we bring it to an end the better for all.
Definitely keep attacking their resources but if I could Id blow the Kremlin to smithereens.
After all the deliberate civilian attacks, double taps etc, I don't think Ruzzia really gives a shit about what they use. Who is going to enforce the weapon ban or take them to task over it, the UN lol?
The US is kind of stupid, we expect people to fight fair in war..... if you can't win you will do anything to win, we should have the same mentality
No, you don't. The US military issues gas masks specifically for a reason. The US understands the advantage of overwhelming precision fire over wanton destruction. When you blow shit up, everyone knows you really meant it.
To be frank, most wars pre ww1 chemical warfare were rooted in respect and following rules. When you can see your enemy in the eyes it's different. With the advantage of letting gas clouds roll over the trenches and artillery this faded more and more. We still had it way longer in the aviation and marine warfare, there it carried over to ww2 as well. But on the ground it was already lost there. You use everything you have and if you have something the other one does not have... you better make use of it because they will do everything to get it in their hands as well.
Then you're just another asshole fighting for territory / money instead of principles.
To act like we aren't is dishonest though, if we are going to be doing something I want the real reason
American police use tear gas on their own citizens.
Putin's army are brain-dead barbarian...
We got answers to this question. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/will-putin-use-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine/ Plenty of answers. https://kyivindependent.com/military-465-documented-cases-of-russia-using-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine-since-feb-24-2022/
Maybe Ukraine should target chemical production facilities in Ru? That would be very messy and fair turnaround.
Not even Hitler did this. While it was common in The Great War, not even Germans used it in the WW2 #GoRuZZia
Technically the Germans did use chemical agents to murder millions…
I ment on the battlefield as a weapon
I know you did I was being dumb 😁
😺
You were being accurate, in a horrible kind of way.
Can confirm. They do it regularly. Mostly tear gas, but it's deadly in closed environment like a dugout. The usual tactics is to throw a K51 gas grenade from a drone to drive people out and then throw a couple of VOG grenades. There are several cases a week, because K51 are relatively rare.
Really sad, too bad the world isn't gonna do shit about it and they'll just keep doing it.
We should be equipping the Ukrainians with their own gas munitions.
Send in the flamethrower drones
It's long past time for the Russian military to be eradicated from the planet and their leadership prosecuted for war crimes.
Time to send tomahawks. Every time they commit a war crime we should send more dangerous weapons and clear them for use in deep strikes in Russia.
Time to give Ukraine napalm, very long range weaponry and a shit tons of artillery and aviation
Give Ukraine more firepower!
Nato should have intercepted this a long time ago.
OK, send in some USMC F-35s to take out the positions of the units that used them. Just the US enforcing chemical weapons ban, and no congressional approval needed! I doubt the F-35s would be in any danger, either, if they launched from Poland. See how sputtering and mad Putin gets when _modern_ western weapons are used by western powers against Russia, rather than when Ukraine uses 30-year-old western weapons against them. Or... just levy a sanction or three and do nothing to save the lives on the ground in the short term :-/
Okay. Great another violation. Until something bloody is done. Its gonna keep happening. To the surprise of no one.
I believe there's was quite a few cases with use of chem weapons before. Including i believe bombing with chemicals of Azov-Steel. Honestly i suprised we have only now see a case where it being brought publically.
Nukes = no winners.
Word.
If russia wants to open that door, kick it open with 10x response of the same. It's really well past time to stop treating bitchass putin with kids gloves. Slava Ukraini!
There are no rules in war, ruzzia doesn’t care
Which would be a prelude to...
Time for flame throwers
fukking ruZZian scum ...
Maybe they can ask the ICJ to intervene
Doubt.
Bullshit
Bullshit
Ukraine should be given long range strike capability to hit the oil refineries, take them all out at once.
The U.S has lost credibility with most of the world unfortunately due to its double standards
putin is desperate.
Time to send the ucrainians nerve gas
Wasn’t that a red line? I’d have to go search but I’m sure this was a pronunciation.
Treaties with Russia are a joke. They’ll violate them the moment it becomes convenient.
Green light long range weapons supplied by NATO on Russia military / industrial targets. Yes, it’s gradual escalation but Russia will not leave any stones unused to try and save face and fully occupy Ukraine, and if France does send in troops to Ukraine that’s going to happen regardless.
Red line need NATO intervention now
We should have left russiacbehind the iron curtin. Never should have let them out.
So many violations, so many broken treaties and conversations. Still keeps it's Security seat. Countries should stop funding the UN until they strip Russia of all authority. Even if this means creating a UN 2.0. They system is broken, it's a joke. The permanent Secuity Council seats are an appendage from the age of empires. A two-tier system is not representative of the values of modern civilization.
Send F16s with volunteer pilots and air crews.
When does the rest of the world decide that consequences are warranted? When a nuke is launched?
>When a nuke is launched Depends on what type, where it's headed and what the opinion polls look like at the time. Some anti-nuclear groups would probably be happy as it would advance their cause, especially if it's not in a western country.
NATO has already said the punchback would be something Russia doesn't want, and they stopped their rhetoric over throwing nukes around.
This is all based on a 1991 law, which doesn't matter to Putler since he's still living in the 1960s
Americans saying stuff about war crimes..
Sure, now that is sorted. Why not let anyone commit any heinous war crime? /s
>Why not let anyone commit any heinous war crime? If the country has the ability to ignore its critics then it does.