reuters.com
www.reuters.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22236015

Nov 19 (Reuters) - President Joe Biden has approved provision of anti-personnel land mines to Ukraine, a U.S. official told Reuters, a step that could help slow Russian advances in its east, especially when used along with other munitions from the United States.

The United States expects Ukraine to use the mines in its own territory, though it has committed not to use them in areas populated with its own civilians, the official said. The Washington Post first reported the development.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    301·
    1 month ago

    “Ukraine must meekly submit to genocide, while Russia is allowed to use all tools at their disposal in pursuit of genociding Ukrainians.”

    10/10, average ‘pacifist’

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      19·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, the reason these where banned is because they cause civilian casualties long after the war is over.

      The fact Russia actively targets civilians, and Ukraine is already full of mines and UXO makes this a mute point.

      So then a country is free to use them on their own lands to defend themselves and accept the risks this means… because the alternative (Russia winning) is objectively worse.

      These treaties work if both sides adhere to them, the moment one side does not, the other side is automatically excused from these rules… and get to choose if they feel the bad outweigh the good.

      Same with targeting civilian infra… I feel Ukraine would be in their right to also do it to the Russians… and I’m happy they feel it is their moral obligation not to… it confirms Ukraine is the good guy in this war.

      I’ll also bet that if left to fend for themselves, we will rapidly see standards of decorum lowered and less and less things be “off the table”. A cornered animal and all…

      Meaning if we want Ukraine to be able to keep up their decorum, we need to help them more.

    • Cris@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      1 month ago

      This exact scenario is why warcrimes have to have meaningful punishment. As soon as one side ignores them and there aren’t consequences, this is where you find youself :/

      Edit: I guess there are sanctions, but clearly that’s not enough.

      • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
        9·
        1 month ago

        The laws on warcrimes have always been a sort of mutual agreement, and they often end up being broken in reciprocity. One side commits perfidy, the other side is less inclined to take prisoners alive in return, as happened in the WWII Pacific theater.

        I think its naive to think that there can ever be such a thing as a “good clean war” with the international community acting as objective and powerful referees throwing around red cards.

        Russia hasn’t given a fuck about UXO in civilian areas for the entirety of the war, so I don’t see this as being an escalation. It’s their land, they’ll have incentive to take caution in their use.