244

US intelligence report says China likely supplying tech for Russian military (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/794993

Archived version: https://archive.ph/YHzBc
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230728005938/https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-report-says-china-likely-supplying-tech-russian-military-2023-07-27/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago

American cluster bombs are still killing children in Laos. They're a stupid weapon.

[-] kimpilled@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago

Russia is already using them
I’ll defer to the defenders WRT what weapons they need.

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Russia is not using them. Only Ukraine has been.
So you're okay with them using chemical weapons, petal mines (which they have), bioweapons... just anything goes, right? The people of Crimea and Donbas are "defenders", can they do anything too?

[-] kimpilled@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/25/growing-civilian-toll-russian-cluster-munition-attacks
Chemical weapons: no, due to their effects easily leaving the AOR. Petal mines: yes. Crimea and the Donbas are occupied Ukrainian territory.

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is well documented, by Human Rights Watch and others, that **the Ukrainian military **has used cluster munitions. There is nothing to support a claim that Russia has done so. The Pentagon has rejected the earlier claimed evidence of Russian cluster munition attacks:

Commenting on videos depicting alleged Russian cluster munition use, DOD officials stated during a March 1, 2022 press conference that “we’ve seen the same video that you have but we have not assessed that it is definitive with respect to the use of cluster munitions. So we are not in a position to confirm the use of cluster munitions at this time.” In a similar manner, a DOD official stated during March 3, 2022, press conference that DOD was still unable to confirm Russia’s use of cluster munitions.

So you've an issue with the effects of a weapon leaving the AOR but no issue with a weapon that still kills people over 70 years later.

Get some consistency man, you're all over the place.

[-] steltek@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Your Pentagon cite is from when the conflict was less than a month old. That is worthless.

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Fair enough, I've yet to see any credible evidence though.

[-] kimpilled@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

It may surprise you to know that in a thread where I advocate for the US giving Ukraine cluster munitions, that I don’t care that Ukraine has been using cluster munitions.

As stated by another, your Pentagon source is out of date. It’s pretty funny though that you reject HRW saying Russia is using them, but use HRW as your source that Ukraine is.

WRT chemical weapons: different things are different. When you can contain things in an AOR, I’m less concerned about the lingering effects. Areas can be closed off and cleared, especially when you’re the one that dropped them. That’s way less possible with chemical weapons, that will literally drift with the wind.

[-] Blursty@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

No, nothing surprises me with hopelessly brainwashed supporters of fascist Ukraine. You don't care because you have no consistent moral principles. On the one hand you pretend to care about chemical weapons affecting the wrong people and on the other you don't care because your "side" is using them. You can't even offer a plausible excuse.

It’s pretty funny though that you reject HRW saying Russia is using them, but use HRW as your source that Ukraine is.

Not funny when you know that HRW is an arm of US propaganda., so when it says something negative about a US ally, you can take them seriously, because they couldn't deny it and had to admit it to try to appear to be impartial.