Some of what I will say me be a bit speculative, since I don't live in Greenwald's head, but I've read enough of his work to feel comfortable making some assertions.

Firstly, Greenwald is not a war correspondent. He never was, and his work has been more or less firmly focused on domestic US policy generally, and the Russia-Ukraine war is only the latest of issues that affects this sphere. His job isn't to cry outrage every time Russia makes a slimy move, his job is to challenge establishment authorities in Washington DC and point out hypocrisy and doublespeak, which is exactly what he is doing, at least in my opinion. He is not pro-Putin, but of course he appears that way because there is a severe lack of any type of critical journalism about the Russia-Ukraine war that doesn't tow the establishment line, so forgive me if I'm going out on a limb here, and this is not in any way personal to you... but you're probably not exposed to secondary, contradictory viewpoint on this particular matter.

It isn't even about whether or not cluster munitions themselves will make some type of tangible battlefield advantage for Ukraine or not (for the record, the actual war correspondents that I read regularly, who are actually pro-Ukrainian, but limit their assessments purely based on facts and data, is the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), and they themselves have assessed that these munitions will not change the trajectory of the battlefield in any meaningful way - they publish daily assessments about the war here, and they are highly suggested reading material: https://www.understandingwar.org/). It's the fact that sending them these particular munitions is a hypocritical move considering that just a year ago Russia was being accused of war crimes by using exactly these. It's not that Russia hasn't committed war crimes in general... I don't think that anybody with a brain is trying to say that. But that alone should not shield the US and NATO allies from any and all criticism, and especially in a conflict that is being painted in the media here as having a very moralistic good side and bad side, it just reeks, and Greenwald is right to attack the US establishment on it.

This all could very well be true, but in the end, this is just rationalization / justification for making a controversial move and to shield themselves from criticism. Most western journalists won't bother, because they don't want shake corners that would cost them their bottom line. I'm glad that at least the NYT (which has a habit of being quite hawkish when it comes to US wars) had the sense to offer a differing viewpoint

You're exactly correct in that the Ukrainian army is lacking artillery shells, but I think the bigger part of the story here is that... so is the US. It is my belief, based on what I have been reading, that NATO allies themselves are starting to run low on artillery stockpiles, let alone to donate to Ukraine, so hence this move.

As per the stuff you've mentioned above, that to me, doesn't mean anything. Every piece of equipment that Ukraine has received has come with similar caveats, in an effort to try and not escalate the war too much farther (but it escalates nonetheless)

I took some time to do an analysis of a number of western munitions and vehicles provided to Ukraine in an effort to understand why these appear to actually put Ukrainians at a disadvantage (20% gone in the early days of the newly-minted counteroffensive). Why, for example, have the Leopard tanks fared even worse than the famous Tiger tanks from WW2 (most of which broke down or got stuck in the mud rather than being outright destroyed by the Soviets).

My bizarre and disturbing conclusion is that most of these munitions, weapons and weapon platforms were never designed to be used at war against modern, advanced military (like that of Russia - despite its serial ineptitude and corruption), because European, and in many cases American, manufacturers, designed these to be marketed to and sold to the developing world nations, or, were intended to be used against the militaries of such nations and against lightly armed factions like the Taliban or Jabbat Al-Nusra in Syria. Certainly not against an army possessing an advanced air force, reconnaissance satellites, loitering munitions like the Lancet drones or surface-to-air missile platforms like the S-400 or S-500 (Prometheus).

Leopard tank is the most typical example of that. Its only two real points of superiority to a Russian T-72 is thicker front armor and a more exact shell firing system. Almost everything else about this tank, however is vastly inferior. Much larger turret and a much larger silhouette making it an ideal target for heat-seeking and laser-guided missiles. Much thinner turret and side armor plates, in fact ones that protect its engine are somewhere between 20-30 mm. 20 mm is the thickness of the top armor of the turret. What does this mean? It means that a Russian 80 mm mortar could penetrate its turret and kill half of its crew EVEN IF IT DID NOT DETONATE for some reason. Even if it was a dud (!). And this is a very large, difficult to miss turret.

The Leopard tank in particular is great to be used against ISIS fighters armed with shoulder mounted RPGs. Its front armor could shrug off most of these with ease. But not against Russian"Kornet" and "Fagot" RPGs, and it certainly stands zero chances against a Lancet drone hitting it from above or the side, or against a Ka-52 helicopter. That is if it doesn’t get stuck in mud first thanks to its weight, or get blown up by anti-infantry vehicle mines (which it also seems to lack adequate protection from, and I’m basing this on photos of some of these tanks destroyed by such mines).

Basically one way to look at it is that it's proof that none of the NATO nations ever believed that a Russian invasion was a credible or imminent threat that they needed to prepare for. On the other hand it also shows that Russia's fear of NATO invasion was, even if justified (and that is speculative too) - totally premature.

It seems to me the rationalization is happening on your end-- the evidence that this isn't a horrific harbinger of war crimes doesn't comport with your preexisting notions, so instead of engaging with that evidence, you dismiss it out of hand because "western journalists bad".

Sorry, I'm not following... What did I dismiss? I never said that Russia hasn't committed war crimes, in fact, the opposite.

I'm allowed to simultaneously abhor Russian war crimes while crying foul at western hypocrisy... or am I not? I think this situation is complex and I don't feel comfortable firmly cheering for team A over team B, which everyone else seems to be quite content to.

I mentioned several factual points that demonstrate that the use of US-made cluster bombs by Ukraine is not morally equivalent to Russia's use of the same equipment in terms of the ramifications for civilians. Rather than engage with those points, you deflected.


There is such a thing as an absolute wrong and an absolute right. When one country launches a massive invasion of another for the express purpose of conquering it and subjugating its people, massacring civilians in the process, that is an absolute wrong. Helping the victim of that country's imperialism fight back is an absolute right. So yes, I am 100% comfortable cheering for 'Team A' (that is, the country whose people are being slaughtered) over 'Team B' (that is, the imperial power seeking to recolonize its former territories). Trying to both-sides this is not noble or thoughtful, it's ignorant and implicitly supports a colonialist aggressor's interests.

It seems I should have provided verbatim quotes, because it looks like it was read in a different way.

this decision (i.e. the decision of the USA to provide cluster munitions) was made because the Ukrainian army lacks artillery shells (while Russia has a significant advantage in shells).


(https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/07/poli ... index.html)

Everyone (including Ukrainians) understands that there is a shortage of such shells because neither the USA nor Europe prepared for a war that, in its intensity and areas of use of artillery, will be close to WW II (while Russia has been accumulating + producing artillery ammunition for years).

Indeed he's not a war correspondent, yet he still went out of his way to pull the Bucha massacre evidence into question https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1510605612895330305. And not a word from him when investigations verified the initial reports. Questionable ethics, to say the least.

The ISW is a regular source for the articles I read about the war in Ukraine, they certainly seem to know a thing or two.

By the way, you can keep your assumptions about what other people read or don't read to yourself.

when "proxy war" is included as argument, it tells me everything I need to know. don't waste your energy on the amoral and/or brain dead.

So the latest NATO convention took place in Vilnius, Lithuania. It was quite a disappointment for Zelensky, for many countries said that Ukraine is not yet ready to become a NATO member. However Germany forwarded a 700 million euro financial help.

It baffles me what NATO's plans are. They did not discuss any specific topics in this convention. Only some plans for the next 10 to 20 years. If their goal is to establish a stable situation in Eastern Europe then playing "cat and mouse" with Putin is not the answer...

In the end I just feel for Zelensky. It does not matter if the Russians are failing or not. Ukraine has been destroyed and it will take many years to rebuild it.

It matters very much if Russia fails or not. Ukraine is not destroyed but some cities are. If anything, the war has ensured that the Ukrainian identity is stronger than ever. Which makes me certain that the country will survive and rebuild. What happens with Russia, that old, sick and cruel place, is anybody's guess.

I don't think this is true at all. The summit led to the development of very specific regional defense plans taking into account new geopolitical and technological advancements and to the enhancement of NATO's air defense capabilities, to the creation of much-needed cybersecurity strategies, a new defense spending commitment, agreements on exploring emerging technologies and ensuring NATO remains at the forefront of those technologies-- and, of course, to the removal of the last serious barriers to Sweden's entry into the alliance. Hardly just vague plans for the future.

As for Ukraine, Zelenskyy certainly did not go into it expecting NATO to induct Ukraine then and there. His goal is to see Ukraine join NATO as soon as possible after the war, not during it. But NATO did specially waive certain membership process requirements for Ukraine and develop a long-term military assistance package designed to bring Ukraine's armed forces up to NATO standards in terms of equipment and training. These are major steps forward.

And like Miikja said, Ukraine has absolutely not been destroyed. The country has undergone tremendous trauma and devastation, but by no means has it been destroyed. With the international community's support, it will rebuild and emerge stronger than before.

Greenwald is a fucking hack who appeared on Tucker Carlson's show to promote conspiracy theories against Ukraine. He's at best a useful idiot for Putin, and at worst, a Putin stooge... and using him as a source and both-sidings the invasion is, at best, a brain-dead take, and at worst, a malicious one.

Μy mistake about being misinformed. I got this impression from a Ukrainian friend while I was serving in the army. He said "man what is the point? My country has been destroyed. Infrastructure, cities... we have become like Afghanistan."

The rebuilding of Ukraine, may be slow but it will happen.


As for Russia... well I guess that nobody knows what any country will face in the following years. Feel sad for Russians and Ukrainians who got caught up in this mess.

In my opinion, NATO collectively doesn't actually want to extend the membership to Ukraine in any circumstance (some members do, others do not, others are in the middle) but they also want to keep Putin guessing. While from a geopolitical standpoint this may be a wise move (or not, depending how you look at it), I kinda feel bad for Zelensky in that they keep dangling a carrot in front of him and then not truly following up to meet his expectation. That's the way I kind of see this cat and mouse game anyway

It is not a malicious one. I believe that I am arguing in good faith and at the very least trying to explain why my opinions are what they are, instead of just throwing out statements. You can call me brain-dead if you want, and that's fine.... but I will refrain from doing the same to anyone else here that I may disagree with, out of respect.

I personally trust Greenwald, and have ever since he broke the Ed Snowden files on the warrant-less eavesdropping, when he still wrote for the Guardian.

I'm not saying that people don't change or don't become corrupted... and perhaps there is something to be said about his conduct on the Bucha massacre stuff (which tbh, I wasn't aware of his position on this until another user in this thread pointed it out to me... I don't read every single thing that he publishes, and to be clear, this was disappointing, as it is obvious that the Russians committed war crimes there). But over the years I feel like he has been more right than wrong, but this particular issue is a massive sacred cow.

As for Tucker Carlson, yes he has appeared there.... Are you saying that he never appeared anywhere else? Sure there is overlap with the US right-wing because they agree with Greenwald on this particular issue, and Greenwald is the type of guy who will use whatever medium he can to spread his opinion, and they will obviously use the opportunity for a high profile correspondent to air views that they also like. I personally don't necessarily find this such a morally corruptible position. It's not like he is appearing on Alex Jones' show and talking about Lizard People or something else similar.

And there it is, again...

Listen to Sjal.

My thoughts exactly. Zelensky has so much on his plate right now and NATO playing coy with him is putting a hit to his moral as well as the people of Ukraine; at least this is what I get. If my country's entering NATO would be a matter of actually winning the war I would bite my nails everyday.

I'm not sure if you will agree with me, but I think that this was the problem to the start of the war to begin with... the dangling of the NATO carrot that nobody really seriously thought would happen, but was enough to make the paranoid ruskies salty.

I find it hard to imagine that nobody within the US security establishment didn't predict this type of outcome. These people are paid a crazy amount of money to "war-game" exactly these types of scenarios on a regular basis

Chernihiv attack and mines in Ukraine


Photo by AP

Another missile attack today, on the city center of Chernihiv during an Orthodox holiday. News reports say seven dead, one of which a six-year-old, and over a hundred wounded. I ask you all to let that sink in if only for a minute, just think about that. That's just one attack, one 'normal' day, in this war that's been going on for 542 days. Russia deliberately targets civilian areas. Day in, day out, it bombs ordinary men, women, children and elderly. It doesn't care, it doesn't value human life. Do not allow yourself to get used to it, do not forget Ukraine. Our support for the country and its people must not waiver, they are counting on us. Slava Ukraini!

Today's newspaper had an article on the (de)mining of Ukraine and that it would take centuries before all the mines are gone. The Washington Post has a more detailed and illustrated story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/22/ukraine-is-now-most-mined-country-it-will-take-decades-make-safe/

Mines are such a stupid, horrible, coward's weapon. Not that sending missiles from miles away to hit civilian areas is less horrible or less cowardly, but at elast, when peace returns, missiles stop. Mines remain. So even if the war ended today, Ukrainians will have decades to live with the possibility of stepping on a stupid bomb.

In Laos, there are still American mines from 50 years ago. And it may take up to a hundred years before all are gone:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... -from-laos

I'm glad you were on hand to bring this conversation about Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the things Ukrainians are enduring back to what it should actually be about: America bad.

Eh. I didn't see it so much as "America Bad"', more that it drives the point home: Ukraine will deal with this shit for decades to come, and mines are indeed horrible weapons.

Yes, the post I replied to mentioned that it will take decades to solve such a problem, which the article I linked to not only confirms but also extends the time perspective to up to a century.

A nation being mined and dealing with the consequences for possibly a hundred years is perfectly relevant to this situation. This isn't comparing America to Russia; this is comparing Russia to America. I think we can all agree here that mines are horrible and cowardly weapons, and that the idea that any people should be subject to generations of death and injury as a result is horrifying.

I have a kneejerk reaction to people in the west wrestling conversations about Ukraine away and steering them towards America and its assorted sins lol. Sometimes in this very thread! Sorry Dembo, that was a hasty assumption on my part.

That scene from the (Marky Mark) version of 'the Italian Job' always comes to mind when I hear mention of Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCwF9mFisU

I am 1/2 Ukrainian for the record \m/

How the fak do you post pics and vids 'n shit here?!

These Elon Musk revelations (Regarding Ukraine's use of Starlink) aren't that surprising, but they're still infuriating beyond words. The man is just a monster.

I'm incredibly stoked to see someone else that thinks the guy is a complete kook.

These days it's not hard, really. Anyone who's paying attention and isn't part of Elon's cult can see the guy's a complete bozo who lucked out with a few choice investment. The more is known about him, the more it's apparent that meritocracy is a myth.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/te ... 023-08-23/

Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin, founders of the Wagner Group, are presumed dead after an airplane spontaneously lost a wing and crashed.

LOL

Was the plane double vaxxed?

Miikja, thank you a lot again for posting here.

And it is also very relevant here to mention a situation with land mines and cluster munition in another country that also suffered from a war.
I've read about similar situations in a few other countries, plus this is not the first war with land mines and some other munitions on the territory of Ukraine - there is still some news about accidental findings of mines/ammunition that have been here since the Second World War (for example, this is a video (from 2020) on finding in the soil and disposing old mines that were found in one of the cities in the region where I live - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mrq-lG5fc ... =emb_title ).

Since the work of finding and clearing the remaining mines/ammunition in the liberated territories after battles is considered as a non-military activity and it is aimed at protecting the lives of civilians, animals, and making the land habitable/visitable in general, there is a broader framework for aid/help from other (including neutral) countries.
I saw this report on the participation of many countries in these programs in 2020 - http://www.the-monitor.org/en-gb/report ... .aspx#ftn4
I also read that many countries are providing funds for demining Ukraine and are training Ukrainian people these days.

There is also this current fundraising project in Ukraine by a cooperation of one of the biggest Ukrainian volunteer (military-oriented) foundation Повернись Живим and a mobile operator - https://kyivstar.ua/safehome

The situation with mines in those territories where the Russian occupiers were located is horrible and it is impossible to predict when (if?) these lands will become relatively safe.
In addition, there are also northwestern territories of Ukraine that border Belarus - there were no Russian military in the Volyn, Rivne (and partly Zhytomyr) regions, but the Ukrainian military had to mine those territories that border Belarus because there is still a risk that Russia will open a "second front" - an offensive from the territory of Belarus. The Ukrainian military has been notified of these mining maps and therefore they will be able to clear these areas relatively easier, but it is also possible that these mines will remain there for a long time/permanently because there may always be a threat of attack from the territory of Belarus.
I have relatives in those regions and visited them several times when I was a child, saw those amazing forests, it's painful to even think that the regions can be affected by war.

Dembo, I hope you are not offended by Ezadara and hope you understand a reason there was such a preliminary reaction.

I don't believe Prizhogin was on that plane at all. I mean, he owned the plane. So if he feared for his safety, as he should, he would have paid the pilot to leave his name off the passenger manifest, don't ya think?
So my theory is Prizhogin allowed an empty plane (once the pilot bailed) to be shot down, or maybe even shot it down himself. Thereby faking his death so he could live more easily in exile. That passenger manifest was fraudulent.

That's certainly possible, but currently the evidence points to him being dead as fuck.

Evidence that's been released by Russia, so... who tf knows?
Also idk of these videos are still around, but the one showing the crash that I saw, seems
to have an image of a missile contrail hitting the downed plane. Have also read that another plane was flying the same route at the same time, and it was also owned by Prizhogin. One higher plane shot down the other and quietly returned to base? Shit's weird, man. I am convinced the guy staged his own death.

Especially since he has done it before, in a very similar fashion. I agree, things don't quite add up here.