Ukraine

[Silvanus]

(although I will point out, both sides are doing it)

Should say that while this is likely, it isn't certain. Depleted uranium is certainly in the Russian inventory, and they're using tanks that have been modified to carry it. But we don't have unequivocal proof that they are indeed using it in this conflict yet.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Should say that while this is likely, it isn't certain. Depleted uranium is certainly in the Russian inventory, and they're using tanks that have been modified to carry it. But we don't have unequivocal proof that they are indeed using it in this conflict yet.

We don't really have unequivocal proof of anything involved in this conflict, but here's a Ukrainian army observer reporting on captured 3BM60 rounds. He claims they are the "lead 2" variant, which uses depleted uranium. Note that the propaganda focus here is less on the use of depleted uranium and more on the scarcity and relatively high-tech nature of the round itself and the fact that Russian forces allowed it to be captured.

In short, it's difficult to see any hand-wringing by any side about the effects of depleted uranium as anything other than information warfare. I sincerely doubt in a war where military casualties are well into the six digits, either side is choosing to use older or less effective ammunition because of some hypothetical risk of environmental contamination.

 

[Silvanus]

We don't really have unequivocal proof of anything involved in this conflict, but here's a Ukrainian army observer reporting on captured 3BM60 rounds. He claims they are the "lead 2" variant, which uses depleted uranium. Note that the propaganda focus here is less on the use of depleted uranium and more on the scarcity and relatively high-tech nature of the round itself and the fact that Russian forces allowed it to be captured.

In short, it's difficult to see any hand-wringing by any side about the effects of depleted uranium as anything other than information warfare. I sincerely doubt in a war where military casualties are well into the six digits, either side is choosing to use older or less effective ammunition because of some hypothetical risk of environmental contamination.

It's not hypothetical; the contamination through water and inhalation has been demonstrated. The extent is up for debate, but when we're talking about stuff like this, the moral thing to do is err on the side of caution.

We have an additional duty to avoid contaminants that can cause harm long past the end of the conflict, quite apart from the rules of engagement in war. Because we're now talking about the possibility of harming people in future peacetime. The UK already legally conceded it had an obligation to clear up the debris of its DP munitions in Iraq post-war.

 

[Satinavian]

As i said, that stuff is bad.

But i am not sure the UK even has alternative armor piercing rounds for the Challenger or in a meaningful number.

But if they don't, that isstill quite the oversight. They really should have moved away from uranium after Iraq.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Tanks only tend to carry about 40-50 rounds. Obviously, they're tank rounds so they're a lot heavier, making the total ammo weight potentially comparable with the A10. Realistically, a tank wouldn't carry 50 APDS rounds though. 10 is probably a much more reasonable number. The depleted uranium penetrator also weighs proportionally less at about 5kg. So we can probably assume any given tank only carries a maximum of about 50kg of depleted uranium.

There are possible situations in which a tank-- or a squadron of tanks-- could have little need to move very far from their resupply point(s) in order to engage. For whatever reason I was not able to find at a glance any information on how long it should take to resupply a Challenger once it has arrived at a station for it (perhaps because in practice it would depend on a variety of considerations), though whatever the case may be, it seems likely to be less than the amount of time (and other resources) it takes to get an A-10 or any other attack aircraft fully loaded and back in the air. More importantly, it seems likely that the amount of DU that may be used is not limited by platform so much as by just how much is sent to Ukraine to be used.

On the other hand, training Ukrainians on these tanks may take long enough that the war could be over by then. Who knows? Perhaps Xi Jinping will have (in dastardly fashion) negotiated a settlement acceptable to both Zelensky and Putin by then.

This isn't to justify the use of depleted uranium at all (although I will point out, both sides are doing it) just that there's a relatively big difference in the level of contamination associated with different systems.

We have allegations of use (with a corresponding denial) versus open intent to use. I don't think Russia should use toxic ammunition either, but neither am I expected to uncritically accept the idea that they are in Ukraine for Ukraine's benefit. That is supposedly what the UK is involving itself for-- indeed, that is what Ukraine is supposed to be fighting for. Using/sending depleted uranium makes that premise seem rather thin unless we are discounting from consideration the parts of Ukraine in which the ammunition would be used. Perhaps that is what is going on.

 

[Silvanus]

Russia kills 25 in biggest Ukraine air strikes for nearly two months

Russia hurled missiles at cities across Ukraine as people slept on Friday, killing at least 25 civilians in the first large-scale air strikes in nearly two months, as Kyiv said it was nearly ready to launch a huge assault to retake occupied land.

www.reuters.com

Russia has launched the largest cruise missile attack on Ukraine in ~2 months, targeting (of course) residential areas and civilian infrastructure.

23 cruise missiles fired. 21 shot down. The surviving 2 hit the cities of Uman and Dnipro, both striking civilian residential areas. This was launched before dawn, presumably to maximise the chance of people still being sleeping to increase the civilian kill count.

 

[Satinavian]

There are now (unconfirmed) reports of Wagner and Gazprom(Potok) mercenaries having fought each other in Bakhmut. Confimed is only that both are present in/around the town.

 

[Dalisclock]

There are now (unconfirmed) reports of Wagner and Gazprom(Potok) mercenaries having fought each other in Bakhmut. Confimed is only that both are present in/around the town.

3 Day Special Anti-Mercenary Operation is going well, I see.

 

[meiam]

It might just be friendly fire rather than internal conflict. When you have untrained, drugged and sleep deprived people on both side it must happen quite often.

Battle of Karánsebes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Avnger]

There are now (unconfirmed) reports of Wagner and Gazprom(Potok) mercenaries having fought each other in Bakhmut. Confimed is only that both are present in/around the town.

That whole "denazification" claim was dropped real quick, wasn't it?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

That whole "denazification" claim was dropped real quick, wasn't it?

I dunno; Russian mercenaries killing each other may be the closest this war has ever gotten to "denazification".

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's not hypothetical; the contamination through water and inhalation has been demonstrated.

That was a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to imply that depleted uranium isn't an environmental toxin, rather than the extent of any contamination caused by what are ultimately very situational anti-tank rounds is currently unknown, therefore the dangers are currently hypothetical. There are situations where the use of depleted uranium has resulted in areas that are essentially uninhabitable, but those tend to be associated with the far more liberal use of depleted uranium in places like Iraq.

My point overall is that it's really difficult to take either side seriously in this "debate" because neither is engaging in good faith. This is a performative debate for the "benefit" of western media audiences who hear uranium and think of the glowing green rods from the Simpsons. Heck, other heavy metals like tungsten are also toxic if inhaled (I don't want to overstate this, tungsten alloys are a lot less harmful to people than depleted uranium which literally turns into corrosive acid when exposed to water, but just pointing it out).

More importantly though, Russia is not a signatory of the 1997 treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mines, and has made extensive use of them in this conflict. There is extensive video evidence of these mines being used. Ukraine is a signatory and Human Rights Watch has found no evidence that its troops have used anti-personnel mines, but that doesn't mean they haven't. Both sides have used anti-vehicle mines which are not covered by the 1997 ban, but can still be detonated by, for example, agricultural machinery. Russian forces, and in a few cases Ukrainian forces, have used cluster munitions, which beyond the initial impact of firing them into populated areas also leave behind huge numbers of unexploded munitions.

There's even evidence pointing to the use of our old friend white phosphorous.. you know.. that stuff that burns entire chunks out of people and gets lodged inside their bodies to keep burning them from the inside.. then causes their organs to fail from toxicity while doctors are trying to treat the burns. The stuff that narrowly avoided being classed as a chemical weapon because everyone crossed their fingers as hard as they could and swore they were only using it to make smoke. White phosphorous smoke is, as you might expect, really, really bad to inhale by the way, and it can also poison water.

The reality of this conflict is that, however it ends, it's going to leave behind a devastated region in which millions of people live in constant danger. Whatever the hazards posed by depleted uranium introduced to the environment via a tank shell or the costs of cleaning it up, it's not even remotely on the level of a cluster munition, and both sides have used them.

Again, none of this is to justify anything. Just because the situation is bad doesn't mean it can't be made worse. I just think this whole controversy seems a bit divorced from the reality of what's actually going on.

But i am not sure the UK even has alternative armor piercing rounds for the Challenger or in a meaningful number.

It doesn't. In fact, it seems like the smarter elements of Russian propaganda have figured this out and are running that story instead of the obvious crocodile tears about Ukrainian civilians being exposed to depleted uranium while walking extremely carefully around wondering when an anti-personnel mine will pop out of the ground and rip them to pieces in a cloud of shrapnel.

Again, just because the UK has a relatively large military budget doesn't mean it has terribly sophisticated or high-tech equipment, and it certainly doesn't mean it has deep stockpiles.

 

[Dalisclock]

I dunno; Russian mercenaries killing each other may be the closest this war has ever gotten to "denazification".

You're not supposed to bring up that Prighozin has fucking nazi tatoos.

It hurts Vatniks feelings or some shit.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Russia kills 25 in biggest Ukraine air strikes for nearly two months

Russia hurled missiles at cities across Ukraine as people slept on Friday, killing at least 25 civilians in the first large-scale air strikes in nearly two months, as Kyiv said it was nearly ready to launch a huge assault to retake occupied land.

www.reuters.com

Russia has launched the largest cruise missile attack on Ukraine in ~2 months, targeting (of course) residential areas and civilian infrastructure.

23 cruise missiles fired. 21 shot down. The surviving 2 hit the cities of Uman and Dnipro, both striking civilian residential areas. This was launched before dawn, presumably to maximise the chance of people still being sleeping to increase the civilian kill count.

Russia says Ukrainian rocket attack kills seven civilians in Donetsk

The top Russian-installed official in Ukraine's occupied Donetsk region, Denis Pushilin, accused Ukraine in a social media post of killing seven people on Friday, including a child, with a rocket that set a minibus alight in the city of Donetsk.

www.reuters.com

Ukrainian targeting of what it claims as its own civilian population continues since 2014, but you don't care about that part. It's fine because there might be Russian nationals somewhere in the vicinity.

Reuters, of course, has a cautionary note: "This content was produced in a Russian-controlled part of Ukraine, where the law restricts coverage of Russian military operations". No similar note seems to accompany reports from Ukrainian-controlled regions, even though the Ukrainian government has a history of censorship and the harassment of journalists.

For its part, Reuters is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation, created in 2008 when the Thomson corporation bought Reuters. The Thomson Reuters corporation is owned by the Woodbridge Company, a holding company for the wealthy Thomson family. The Thomson Family contains some of the wealthiest individuals in Canada and has held the title Baron of Fleet in the Peerage of the United Kingdom for three generations, a title created for the family as follows:

" In the 1960s, Roy Thomson had some justifiable claim to a peerage as a Canadian and later British publisher. As even his company history observes, "Roy had noted that all proprietors of newspapers seemed to become members of the House of Lords. He had also noted this was emphatically 'a good thing'" and he showed himself ready to do whatever was required to achieve this goal, believing at first that it could be a simple open purchase but moving on to explicit lobbying of prime ministers. He contributed money to charitable bodies which were deemed to improve his chances. Eventually, having bought The Scotsman, The Sunday Times and later The Times, he became sufficiently important to Harold Wilson that he was given a hereditary peerage as Baron Thomson of Fleet."

So Reuters is apparently both corporate media and aristocratic media. Arguably it is also British state-affiliated media via the ownership of one among the House of Lords, an affiliation which is considerably less formal than that of the British State and the BBC but yet exists.

 

[Silvanus]

Ukrainian targeting of what it claims as its own civilian population continues since 2014, but you don't care about that part. It's fine because there might be Russian nationals somewhere in the vicinity.

I've condemned indiscriminate attacks committed by both sides since the start. I also have a sense of perspective, and know that the Russian targeting of residential areas and civilian infrastructure-- as well as the massacres, extrajudicial killings etc in areas they control-- absolutely dwarf those of the Ukrainians; and that the Donbas conflict sparked in 2014 (during which both sides have committed war crimes predating the latest invasion) exists as a direct result of a Russian insurgency.

Its pretty telling that your sole emotional response when presented with a Russian cruise missile strike on a residential apartment complex is "WHAT ABOUT UKRAINE GOV". Just immediate deflection, zero concern, automatic.

On that Russian claim: Denis Pushilin has already been caught pushing false flags in the past. Is there any independent corroboration of the source of that attack/the deaths? I'm reminded of that time you posted a video of corpses thrown into a pit, and uncritically repeated the Twitter claim that the Ukrainians did it.... and then we found the longer, unedited shot of the same incident, showing the perpetrators walking away were wearing Russian military uniforms.

Reuters, of course, has a cautionary note: "This content was produced in a Russian-controlled part of Ukraine, where the law restricts coverage of Russian military operations". No similar note seems to accompany reports from Ukrainian-controlled regions, even though the Ukrainian government has a history of censorship and the harassment of journalists.

Yes, because that censorship and harassment isnt remotely comparable in scope or scale to the complete state control of reporting in Russia and its proxies, which sees all independent media brutalised into acquiescence, reporters murdered or arrested en masse, and zero public access to opposing narratives.

The whining about Reuters is irrelevant waffle. They remain a hundred times more reliable than the state/military mouthpieces or no-name Twitter armchair generals that you rely on.

 

[Satinavian]

So Reuters is apparently both corporate media and aristocratic media.

And it still reports this story. Even if goes completely against the narrative Western media supposedly pushes.

And that is exactly why Reuters is widely seen as trustworthy.

And putting a disclaimer on unconfirmed news or news only from one side is good journalism as well.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Thaluikhain]

That terrible joke

 

[Dalisclock]

See, this is why the smart Russians remove the engines so they can't drive into Ditches.

The Latest Example of Russian Corruption That Has Hamstrung Moscow’s Invasion

A Russian army officer was arrested for allegedly stealing battle tank engines and trading them on the black market. Such embezzlement helps contribute to the defense of Ukraine, Kyiv has said.

www.kyivpost.com

Russian Colonel Alexander Denisov - in charge of providing technical support for the armored vehicles of the Russian Southern Military District - was arrested in March and charged with stealing seven V-92S2 engines from T-90 battle tanks entrusted to his care, according to Moscow’s ‘Kommersant’ newspaper.

*Rollsafe*

A 2005 report by the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment quoted reports from the Russian Audit Chamber Chairman that in the pre-Putin days as much as 21 percent of the military budget was lost, mainly by the theft of equipment. After Putin took over it was estimated that as much as 50 percent of the funds allocated to Russia’s Defense budget was simply stolen.

The officers have to steal so the mobliks can't, it just makes sense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Without meaning to sound like I'm making a false equivalency, apparently in the Italian campaign in WW2, because silk was valuable, someone in the US military was stealing parachutes, and I thinking putting other stuff in the packs to make up the weight and size.

I've not been able to find out more about this, though there was loads of corruption there (which makes it hard to find), but...the bastard.