Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution On Nuclear Weapons In Space (cnn.com) 162
This week Russia vetoed a UN resolution that proposed banning nuclear weapons in space, CNN reports.
But it all happened "amid U.S. intelligence-backed concerns that Moscow is trying to develop a nuclear device capable of destroying satellites." In February, President Joe Biden confirmed the US has intelligence that Russia is developing a nuclear anti-satellite capability. Three sources familiar with the intelligence subsequently told CNN the weapon could destroy satellites by creating a massive energy wave when detonated...
US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Wednesday's vote "marks a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations." A US and Japan-drafted resolution had received cross-regional support from more than 60 member states. It intended to strengthen and uphold the global non-proliferation regime, including in outer space, and reaffirm the shared goal of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. It also called on UN member states not to develop nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction designed to be placed in Earth's orbit....
Experts say this kind of weapon could have the potential to wipe out mega constellations of small satellites, like SpaceX's Starlink, which has been successfully used by Ukraine to counter Russian troops. This would almost certainly be "a last-ditch weapon" for Russia, the US official and other sources said — because it would do the same damage to whatever Russian satellites were also in the area.
The article notes that in March Russian President Vladimir Putin "told officials that space projects, including the setup of a nuclear power unit in space, should be a priority and receive proper financing."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
But it all happened "amid U.S. intelligence-backed concerns that Moscow is trying to develop a nuclear device capable of destroying satellites." In February, President Joe Biden confirmed the US has intelligence that Russia is developing a nuclear anti-satellite capability. Three sources familiar with the intelligence subsequently told CNN the weapon could destroy satellites by creating a massive energy wave when detonated...
US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said Wednesday's vote "marks a real missed opportunity to rebuild much-needed trust in existing arms control obligations." A US and Japan-drafted resolution had received cross-regional support from more than 60 member states. It intended to strengthen and uphold the global non-proliferation regime, including in outer space, and reaffirm the shared goal of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. It also called on UN member states not to develop nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction designed to be placed in Earth's orbit....
Experts say this kind of weapon could have the potential to wipe out mega constellations of small satellites, like SpaceX's Starlink, which has been successfully used by Ukraine to counter Russian troops. This would almost certainly be "a last-ditch weapon" for Russia, the US official and other sources said — because it would do the same damage to whatever Russian satellites were also in the area.
The article notes that in March Russian President Vladimir Putin "told officials that space projects, including the setup of a nuclear power unit in space, should be a priority and receive proper financing."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
Already prohibited (Score:5, Interesting)
The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1966 already prohibits "nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner".
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en... [unoosa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already prohibited (Score:4, Informative)
The Soviet Union was.
Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.
Re:Already prohibited (Score:5, Informative)
Correct:
"The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general. This treaty aims to maintain outer space as a peaceful environment for the benefit of all humanity. Therefore, both Russia and other signatory states are bound by this prohibition and are not allowed to deploy such weapons in space. The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general. This treaty aims to maintain outer space as a peaceful environment for the benefit of all humanity. Therefore, both Russia and other signatory states are bound by this prohibition and are not allowed to deploy such weapons in space."
Re: (Score:2)
"The UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around the Earth, on celestial bodies, or in outer space in general.
I imagine the argument is that treaty was specifically targeting space-based "weapons of mass destruction" designed to fall to earth, detonate, and kill people on the planet; while these new weapons typically would not kill anyone at all (unless a space station had the misfortune of being in the weapon's vicinity).
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right about intentions. That was back in the Cold War.
However, like all laws, whatever the original intent, the law applies until the judicial system says otherwise. The idea that a nuclear weapon would be useful for low-orbit destruction of satellites is ridiculous. The high tide raises all boats.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Already prohibited (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the thing about sovereignty... not being bound by any rules you don't choose to follow.
Any sovereign nation can ignore any treaty it wants to. But your fellow sovereigns may not trust you next time you pinky-swear.
Re: (Score:2)
This was so a missile shootdown capability could be built into US systems. It's not foolproof and probably not useful against a large strike, but sufficient for a single North Korean missile, for instance. The ABM treaty ruled this out, with only two systems grandfathered in - the Soviet ones around Moscow and the decommissioned US one in North Dakota protecting the Minuteman fields.
Re: (Score:3)
1) The Soviets had an anti-satellite weapon that essentially consisted of a nuclear reactor that would burn up the target after matching orbit with the target. They'd probably contend that that was not a 'nuclear weapon'. That was effective enough in the days when individual KH satellites (the likely targets) were not very numerous. Not so much today.
2) Article IV of the treaty, the one that discusses nuclear weapons in space, talks a lot about 'stationing' nuclear weapons in space. The issue at the tim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Soviet Union was.
Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.
If Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine's existence, why would you think they would recognize a treaty from the the former Soviet Union? Also, in 2009, Russia, not the former Soviet Union, released a joint statement with the U.S. saying the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu]'s security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. And look what happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Russia could sign on to a non-proliferation treaty today and violate it tomorrow. They just don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's interesting that you say that because that's just what they think of us. Not completely unjustified either, with what happened with ABM and Minsk. I believe Putin's translated phrase was "not agreement capable".
Re: (Score:1)
Minsk? You mean a statement which came two decades after the Budapest Memorandum? A memorandum which Putin doesn't recognize even after he reaffirmed they would stick to it five years before he invaded Ukraine?
Go shill somewhere else, Vasily.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re: (Score:1)
So when someone tells you something inconvenient, you just assert it's some Russian using a vpn to post? Well that's convincing. You sound like a MAGA dude with their conspiracy theories, same mindset.
Re: (Score:2)
Look I'm sure this has been said before but the spelling is C H A R L E S.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's interesting that you say that because that's just what they think of us. Not completely unjustified either, with what happened with ABM and Minsk.
Could you shed some light on what it is that *we*, the Americans, did to violate the Minsk agreement, while everybody else was respecting it?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Putin had a point, your statement is still an obvious distraction from the criticism leveled against him.
Re: (Score:1)
The Soviet Union was.
Russia, as the official successor nation inherited the Soviet Union's treaties and position in the UN.
If Russia doesn't recognize Ukraine's existence, why would you think they would recognize a treaty from the the former Soviet Union? Also, in 2009, Russia, not the former Soviet Union, released a joint statement with the U.S. saying the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu]'s security assurances would still be respected after the expiration of the START Treaty. And look what happened.
International Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. If one side decides to ignore/violate the treaty there is essentially nothing you can do about it. Your only choices are:
-- War
-- Trade sanctions, which are rarely effective, especially against a large country
Re: (Score:2)
> But is Russia a signatory?
Soviet Union is a party to the UNOOSA agreement. But, it no longer exists.
Russia claims ownership of all assets that once belonged to Soviet Union around the globe. So does Ukraine, since separation in 1991. But Russia also disowns Soviet obligations when convenient.
Re: (Score:1)
Russia took on USSR's treaties and have been bound by them. Putin, like Xi, simply choose to ignore these treaties at will.
US had an ABM treaty with Soviet Unions that had clauses for them to withdraw and they did upon seeing China and others building new warheads and missiles as well as disseminating the information to nations like North Korea and Iran.
However, the actions of US with a treaty solely between Soviets and US has nothing in common with a global treaty that e
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, who cares what they signed? Is it enforceable against Russia? These kind of treaties are stupid, the mightier side will just do what they want and justify it or not even bother with the mental gymnastics of justifying it. Now let's say a small country didn't sign the treaty and starts putting nukes up there .. are we going to let them? Of course not. That's why treaties are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this treaty apply to AI that wasn't even sentient in 1966? Asking for a robot friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The new treaty is not about weapons in orbit or on celestial bodies.
Which is clear from that summary, which you failed to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think some crap scribbled on toilet paper is going to stop Putin taking a dump? Treaties only matter if you think Jesus is going to hold you accountable. A treaty only matters if there's a meaningful way to enforce it. In the case of Russia, there's no way to enforce the treaty. No momma to go crying to. "OK I lied, so what?"
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is already at maximum sanctions .. none of their friends (aka most non-western countries) would care that they violated the treaty. They'll go along with any cooked up justification, just like they don't care about them getting rid of rivals or invading Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, whatever Russia (or the USSR) signed in the past doesn't constrain Putin to anything. After all, Russia did sign a non agression pact with Ukraine after they got back the ICBMs that were on Ukrainian soil: The Budapest Memorandum [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The US broke the Budapest Memorandum when they sponsored a violent coup overthrowing the government of Ukraine.
So what.
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand ?
Space debris (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
What most of the press corpse (spelling deliberate) has carefully avoided is the reason that Russia vetoed the resolution and China abstained. They see no reason why **ALL** weapons should not be prohibited from deployment in space.
https://apnews.com/article/nuc... [apnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
>> the reason that Russia vetoed the resolution
Because everyone knows it is a bogus reason.
“Today’s veto begs the question: Why? Why, if you are following the rules, would you not support a resolution that reaffirms them? What could you possibly be hiding,” she asked. “It’s baffling. And it’s a shame.”
Re: (Score:2)
So the US vetoed the earlier resolution from Russia and China to prohibit **ALL** weapons in outer space because we are hiding that we already illegally have weapons there? Is that what you're saying?
Re: (Score:2)
>> US vetoed the earlier resolution
No cite? What was the text of that resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I linked to this earlier in the thread. Russia and China have been proposing since 2008 to prohibit **ALL** weapons in space, and tried to add an amendment to this proposal to change it from exclusively prohibiting nukes to outlawing all weapons. Both efforts have been blocked by the US.
https://apnews.com/article/nuc... [apnews.com]
I'd be very surprised if the US doesn't already have a variation on their "smart bullet" technology deployed in space. By targeting just the comms or power of a satellite they can disable
Re: (Score:2)
>> I linked to this earlier in the thread
That simply mentions a purported amendment to the current resolution, and it doesn't cite the text. It also doesn't explain why the 7 countries voted against it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have since the 1970s, and I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese are aware of it. They may have hoped the US would allow it to pass and then get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing satellites using nuclear EMP would make less space debris that using a conventional missile, as it would only destroy electronics
It would make less space debris only because you weren't adding the mass of a missile. Spacecraft with their electronics destroyed ARE space debris, as you almost pointed out yourself...
Last Ditch weapon? (Score:2)
At least the USA has maintained their big explody things. They don't work very will if they aren't regularly maintained. Plutonium isn't a real stable element.
As well, presumably the oligarchy understand that our first war in LEO or even geosynchronous will be our last for a long time Might put a kink in Elon's million people on Mars by 2050 plans.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. is undergoing a nuclear modernization program that will bring the nukes up to scratch. And China has been building out its nuclear weapons, especially now that they can see how Putin uses the threat of using them to his advantage.
Re: Last Ditch weapon? (Score:2)
Re: Last Ditch weapon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.
I bet he has a bunker with life support for the rest of his life and luxuries anyone can only dream off, additionally any high altitude nuke would wipe out satellites, thus US advantage over much bigger Russia with their practically unlimited old fashion artillery.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.
I bet he has a bunker with life support for the rest of his life and luxuries anyone can only dream off, additionally any high altitude nuke would wipe out satellites, thus US advantage over much bigger Russia with their practically unlimited old fashion artillery.
He better get every one of our missiles, destroyed on that first hit. You think he can do that? If we determine he tried something stupid, we'll launch a heartwarming response. And we don't need satellites - we're pretty good with inertial guidance and mapping.
We might be stupid and fat, but we are really really good at killing others, and if Vlad decides to start WW3, We'll almost certainly finish it.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy where we can launch for any reason or no reason at all. Russia considers nukes as defensive weapons. This is, incidentally, the policy of every other nuclear power but the US and Israel. We are the mad dogs running rampant, and it's why other countries are **SO** worried when we elect a doddering ancient like Reagan or Biden, or an out-and-out lunatic like Shrub or Rump.
Re:Last Ditch weapon? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Soviets did not have a first strike policy. What policies russia has or hasn't is up to a senile dictator, because unlike the USSR with its one party dictatorship with dozens of decision-makers, russia has a straight top-down chain of command where loyalty to one single person is the only thing that counts.
Re: (Score:2)
He even applies the rule of law to (gasp!) Americans! And professional athletes! Can you believe it? It's inconceivable! /s
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the law in question is whatever comes to his mind, then yes, he has strengthened the rule of law. Otherwise he uses the constitution and the laws of the country as a dick wipe.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy where we can launch for any reason or no reason at all. Russia considers nukes as defensive weapons.
Policy, amirite?
Here's the problem with defensive nucs. They are not defensive by their very existence.
The closest that nucs get to being a defensive weapon is the policy of mutually assured destruction, or MAD.
And as long as no nuts are in charge, that kinda works.
And there is a bit of difference between what happens in the USA and Russia. If you oppose Putin, you might accidentally get dioxin or Polonium soup with your salt and bread. That sort of thing tends to breed unquestioning compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike the US and Israel, Russia (and the Soviets before them) do not have a First Strike policy
Yes, like any treaty signed by this country is worth any more than the paper it's written on:
- the agent, which killed UK citizens in the UK was developed after Russia signed a treaty of not developing chemical weapons
- Russia was a signatory of "untouchable" Ukraine borders
Re: (Score:2)
They still hold to international treaties and norms a **FRACK** of a lot more than the US does, we're now considered "agreement incapable" by the international community because of the last quarter century of our behavior. Only Israel is trusted less on the international stage now. I really can't think of a single major international treaty that the US hasn't violated in this century. UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, bio-weapons and chemical weapons treaties, OAS charter, money laundering agreements, you
Re: (Score:2)
I provided evidence, in your post there's none.
Now be a good tavaristch and ask for your vodka payment.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the reality opposition field must be working overtime for you. You really don't remember any of the last 25 years of US international rampage? Invading Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan, drone-murdering an Iranian diplomat while he was in a convoy on the way to meet the Iraqi president, using white phosphorus in Iraq and gassing tunnels in Afghanistan, torture of thousands, starving thousands in Venezuela, etc. etc. ad nausium.
Re: (Score:2)
All hearsay and just events - yes, US was at war, you're saying US has no right for self-defense?
Please provide a clear evidence of US breaking an international treaty (I provided 2 on my side), otherwise please go back to praising your leader and clean up his portrait, the friendly visitors might knock the door any moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, so you aren't aware that an unprovoked invasion is a violation of the UN Charter? That torturing prisoners, retaliation against civilians, and destruction of civilian infrastructure are violations of the Geneva Conventions? That unilateral sanctions are violations of **multiple** international accords? That's a truly amazing level of ignorance, come back and we'll talk after you graduate high school.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan were entirely unprovoked invasions. Afghanistan repeatedly offered to hand over Binladdin (three times IIRC) if the US would offer some bare minimum of evidence. We didn't bother with any evidence, apparently returning the opium warlords to power was a higher priority than actually bringing Binladdin to "justice".
Re: (Score:2)
You started an interesting and deep topic, however before we go into details of 9/11 terrorist attack and its consequences, let's finish the merit of this discussion, i.e. Russia adhering to the signed treaties, specifically:
- the treaty of not violating Ukraine's borders in exchange for Ukraine's nukes and later unprovoked invasion of Ukraine
- genocides in Ukraine on civilians
- developing chemical weapons despite signing a treaty of not developing such, and later using it to assacinate foreign citizens on
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully KGB agent Putin understands that his "last ditch weapon will be followed by the end of the Russian Federation.
At least the USA has maintained their big explody things. They don't work very will if they aren't regularly maintained. Plutonium isn't a real stable element.
As well, presumably the oligarchy understand that our first war in LEO or even geosynchronous will be our last for a long time Might put a kink in Elon's million people on Mars by 2050 plans.
Putin's Nuclear policy is very clear. Allow lower level politicians to make big nuclear threats [alarabiya.net]. And even make slightly vague and indirect threats yourself [bbc.com].
But don't say anything that would clearly commit you to using Nukes as part of your conquest of Ukraine (and holding of currently occupied territories) so you don't have to backtrack if things go south.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand what "last ditch" means? That is the Russian nuclear policy, which was identical to the Soviet position. that nuclear weapons are defensive weapons only. If you read Putin's statements over the years, and they're all helpfully provided (in English) on the Russian government web site, that he's been consistent. Nuclear weapons are only to be used in response to attack by nuclear or other WMD, or the imminent destruction of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not understand what "last ditch" means? That is the Russian nuclear policy, which was identical to the Soviet position. that nuclear weapons are defensive weapons only. If you read Putin's statements over the years, and they're all helpfully provided (in English) on the Russian government web site, that he's been consistent. Nuclear weapons are only to be used in response to attack by nuclear or other WMD, or the imminent destruction of Russia.
What do you think about Burevestnik, Russia's version of SLAM? That's about as non-defensive as you can get.
If you are into such things, Project Pluto and SLAM are fascinating Here's a Youtube link to get you started https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] A pretty fair number of vids there on that.
Back when the US investigated SLAM and Project Pluto, in the late 50's, they did prove that you could create a Ramjet engine with the heat source being an "air cooled" open reactor. The air cooling would be the
do not forget Dr. Strangelove (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We also had the Nike-Herkules weapons, ground to air missiles, with quite some range, that could carry a small anti aircraft nuke. No idea if they all were equipped with nukes by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Then there were the 'suicide nukes', nuclear howitzer "dial-a-yield" shells which at maximum output would leave the crew firing the weapon well within the fallout zone. (Remove the cover and the shock absorbers and you have the legendary "backpack nuke" flogged in the press every few years.) The US produced so many that they lost count, and their production numbers are listed today just as "in the thousands".
Stupid propaganda for stupid Americans (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things are different, and expecting no weapons is not only unrealistic it's also impossible. It is for example a science fiction trope that a fusion drive is a weapon, but there's all kinds of other more immediately relevant technologies which are also potentially weapons like mass drivers (which can be used to transport ores) or communications lasers, power rectennas, repair drones... (think canadarm as saboteur). For that matter, a large number of small spacecraft which are considered disposable
US unilaterally withdrew from INF nuclear treaty (Score:2)
It was the US that unilaterally withdrew from the INF nuclear treaty on 2019.
Re:US unilaterally withdrew from INF nuclear treat (Score:5, Informative)
It was the US that unilaterally withdrew from the INF nuclear treaty on 2019.
Hope this clears up the situation:
"Unfortunately, that was then and this is now. Russia is cheating on the INF Treaty. Russia started its covert program to violate the INF Treaty probably by the mid-2000s and now has fielded multiple battalions of an illegal missile that flies to ranges prohibited by the INF Treaty. Substantial evidence leading to this conclusion was accumulated over time.
Rather than rush to judgment, the United States pursued diplomacy for more than five years starting in 2013 to return Russia to full and verifiable compliance. The goal of the United States was, and remains, to preserve the INF Treaty; however, Russia never chose to engage in a sincere or substantive manner. Russia instead chose to lie about the existence of the illegal missile, while continuing to produce, test, and eventually field the missile.
Russia stuck with its original lie until late 2017, when the United States revealed the Russian name "9M729" - for the banned weapon. Russia then pivoted to a new lie, admitting the missile it tried to keep secret for years does exist, but falsely claiming it is compliant with the INF Treaty."
https://sk.usembassy.gov/the-t... [usembassy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean like Cruise Missiles that the US has tested over Canada:
“Operation Dismantle [wikipedia.org] v R [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada where the court rejected a section 7 Charter challenge against the government for allowing the US government to test cruise missiles over Canadian territory. Docket No. Appeal dismissed.”
Re: (Score:2)
US ground-based conventionally armed missile programmes stretch their wings [iiss.org]
If not Russia,... (Score:2)
Propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Like everything else on the internet, this is propaganda.
Not everything on the Internet is propaganda. Such assertions are classic propagandist tactics to make people come to the conclusion there is no truth and nothing can be trusted.
Somehow it fails to mention any amendments proposed to the resolution. Like the one that sought to ban all military uses of space. It also fails to discuss existing treaties on nuclear weapons in space.
That's the press for you.
Instead it repeats claims made by anonymous US intelligence sources about Russian intentions.
This is inaccurate, sources talk about capabilities of Russian ASAT satellites not Russian intentions.
Just take a look at the March 2024 CNN story linked that states "Russiaâ(TM)s ramp-up is still not enough to meet its needs, US and Western officials say, and Western intelligence officials do not expect Russia to make major gains on the battlefield in the short term."
The title of the article is "Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine"
"Russia is running artillery factories "24/7" on rotating 12-hour shifts, the NATO official sai
Two states at proxy war... (Score:2)
TIFTFY.
False accusation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is actually more interesting, because given what we know of the current state of Russia since the invasion of Ukraine... a move by Russia for a more expansive ban is almost certainly because they can't compete any longer and want to have their opponents hobble themselves.
I'm all for fewer weapons out there, the Russian proposal is obviously not an honest one.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? No weapons in space is an unvarnished good. Who cares if Russia has ulterior motives for wanting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the ulterior motive might just be to have the capacity to knock out everyone else's space-based infrastructure without any fear of the same happening to them.
Sure, they lose a hunk of GLONASS, but they could seriously degrade Starlink, for instance.
Re: False accusation... (Score:2)
Not friends (Score:2)
Try to make a few US politicians understand that Russia is the enemy and not friends.
They're fast to cash in their money and support them. Those are traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.
Putin needs to be killed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
A garbage country filled with garbage people.
I don't think that your basic Russian citizens are garbage. If they have a failing, its that they can be fatalistic. Which leads to some gawdawful leaders.
I've liked the regular Russians I have met. And I've felt badly for them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If the polls in Russia are correct, the Russian people are just fine with screwing Ukraine. Putin and his Kleptocrats do not exist in a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
a). propaganda can work
b). who conducts the polls?
Sure, at this point, Russians deserve whatever it is they get (I guess). It's not like anyone should be crying for them. It would be better if they'd stop their self-destructive behavior. Also there's got to be a significant number of people staying quiet over there now that both Navalny and Prigozhin are dead.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you come to that stupid idea?
Most are against the. Many families lost a member in the war already. Most young soldiers just got drafted. Volunteers are rare. Many families have relatives in the Ukraine.
Russia is a totalian dictatorship. It is both difficult, to get rid of the dictator and/or voice your disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you come to that stupid idea?
Most are against the.
The fact war is still being prosecuted with the active participation of tens of millions of Russians leads me to believe the war is still very popular.
Many families lost a member in the war already. Most young soldiers just got drafted. Volunteers are rare.
Russia has recruited hundreds of thousands of contract soldiers. Huge numbers of people willingly signing contracts to wage war against their neighbor for cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the polls showing support for the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11. Is America full of garbage people? Hell invading Vietnam was popular for a while and look at how that turned out.
Re: (Score:2)
Also yes, but to a slightly lesser extent.
Re: (Score:2)
Decent and likeable Russians are well above the average Russian citizen.
Re: Ah Russia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh huh. Sure, buddy. The US also sucks a bunch of dicks, but nowhere near as much as Russia. Not even same ballpark. Not even in the same sport. Russia shouldn't even get to vote or veto on jack shit. They barely qualify as a legitimate country.
Re: Ah Russia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we both know why. But, agreed, vetos shouldn't exist in the UN.
Re: (Score:2)
*sad trombone noises*
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Has Russia given back the Ukrainian children they stole?
Re:Nukes (Score:5, Informative)
Children deportations are not contested by Russians, they are proud of taking Ukrainian children into Russia and having them adopted by Russian families. The matter was lengthily discussed at the United Nations and elsewhere https://press.un.org/en/2023/s... [un.org] The mere existence of the decree lead UN's ICC to issue a War Crime arrest warrant for facts of genocide, against Putin and Russia's High commissioner for Children's rights as they are the authorities who signed the decree. You can consult pictures of Ukrainian children in the process of deportation on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Nukes (Score:4)
While some would believe it is useless to answer to obvious provocations and lies like the ones you're trying to propagate, I think it is still important such as not to let them unanswered for other readers.
The UN is pissed because 1) obviously child abduction is a crime in peace time and war time, 2) Russia who is at war with Ukraine chooses to not apply the 1949 Geneva convention on he protection of civilians, and the 1989 convention on the rights of the child, both of which Russia signed. Even if Russia had not signed, the war crimes would still be worth the arrest warrants for Putin, but the fact that Russia signed AND does not apply them is what makes the UN pissed.
Your argument on "cross-dressing faggots" makes little sense, the UN has no say on contents of the curriculum, and Ukraine is not known to include these aspects into the teachings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Merkwürdigliebe congradulates your wide anti-Nazi stance.
Re: (Score:2)
>> “cherry-picking” weapons of mass destruction out of all other weapons
Seems like a very sensible cherry pick. Russia and China want to deploy MWD in space? Sure looks that way.