Hassan Al-Somal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I was wondering what was the motive behind the US Secretary of Defense proposing a ceasefire to the Russian Defense Minister. It seems they noticed that a propaganda can't win a war, and the supposed "unity" in the EU is unrevealing. To simply put it, Russia is not a country that you can easily isolate or defeat militarily.
This is not about Chinese buying anything. Set aside the question whether China will buy anything is a question (The economic prospect in Russia is bad, most credit rating company would not give junk rating to a country, but 3 out of 4 did, literally meaning leaning money to Russia is like burning Money in a burn pit)Don't worry Chinese will buy anything available
Training and familisation is a problem.Wonder if the U.S. or some other countries can provide Ukraine a more permanent western SAM system? To protect strategic value sites like Lviv, Kiev, Odessa, etc. from cruise missiles. Patriot systems maybe in secure areas, beyond Russian control territory that it won't fall into enemy hands. Also the U.S. and Europeans should get ahold of thousands of supply trucks or vans whether military or civilian versions with off road capability since logistics is very important obviously the Russians learned it the hard way. Ukrainians will also need to be masters of logistics and learn it.
Some would says the US tried to destroyed the world largest telecommunication company Huawei but ironically this war has helped Huawei instead. Its profit has surged to a new record.
New Recruit
Or may be he is planning something? Or he knew that it is not gonna happen? Not easy know what is in one's mind, especially when those who are equipped with an absolute power in his hand.Judging Putin’s calm reaction to Sweden, Finland bid to join the NATO, he appears to accept the fate. He probably is frustrated Russia can’t afford three front wars.
No, almost all smoke grenades generate smoke using White Phosporus and they have incendiary effects. Israel however developed smoke grenades without WP after 2014.As explained, the rationale upon which the Protocol establishes a distinction between incendiary weapons on the one hand, and weapons which have incendiary effects but aren't considered actual incendiary weapons on the other, is the question whether said effect is of an incidental nature or not. Examples cited by the treaty (illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems) aren't employed to damage objects nor to kill or injure people. Also, the treaty defines incendiary weapons as arms whose primary purpose is to destroy material or kill personnel.
View attachment 845001
If white phosphorous is used with the exclusive and precise purpose to destroy objects or to wound and kill humans, rather than to produce smoke, it then fits the criteria constitutive of the treaty's definition of an incendiary weapon, and its incendiary effect is no longer incidental but central. If employed in such a manner, white phosphorous therefore turns into an incendiary weapon.
This is also the common reading of the treaty by legal experts.
Legal Experts do not consider smoke grenades with White Phosphorus to be Incendiary Weapons.
It is not a question of reading, it is EXPLICITLY stated that they are not Incendiary Weapons, regardless of how they are used.
Noone is poisoned by Smoke Grenades and the Wikipedia link states that it is not an Incendiary Weapon.If used to destroy / kill rather than to generate smoke, they do.
White phosphorous is the archetypal dual use munition. It was not specifically designed for one single type of use. Historically, it has been deployed extensively in the anti-personnel role, e.g. WW1. As such, it falls potentially falls under the category of an incendiary weapon as per the Protocol.
There is no mention no white phosphorous in the Protocol. How they are used is not irrelevant, the treaty does not state otherwise.
Here's an example of an expert legal opinion, it is very clear as to the fact that if white phosphorous is used as a weapon i.e. with the intent of destroying or injuring / killing, then the legal implication will be different:
View attachment 845039
White phosphorus munition - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is a change of tones. They way Putin speaks. Lavrov speaks similar calm way. In contrast Erdogan is very aggressive in tone.Or may be he is planning something? Or he knew that it is not gonna happen? Not easy know what is in one's mind, especially when those who are equipped with an absolute power in his hand.