/ world today news/ London announced the supply of tank shells with uranium tips to Ukraine. This decision caused a strong reaction in Russia. Vladimir Putin said that the West is starting to use weapons and a nuclear component in Ukraine. And Sergei Shoigu sees these actions of London as another step towards a nuclear confrontation.
Along with a company of Challenger-2 battle tanks, Britain will also supply Ukraine with ammunition, including armor-piercing shells containing depleted uranium, the kingdom’s deputy defense minister, Baroness Annabelle Goldie, said. “Such shells are very effective against modern tanks and armored vehicles,” Goldie said in a written response to a related question from House of Lords member Raymond Jolliffe.
The amount of British military aid to Ukraine last year amounted to about 2.3 billion pounds. In particular, more than 10,000 UAV anti-tank missile systems, more than 200 armored vehicles, M270 MLRS and Brimston high-precision missiles were sent. In addition, British instructors have already trained more than 10,000 Ukrainian servicemen. In addition, humanitarian and economic aid was provided, which the kingdom’s authorities estimated at 1.5 billion. pounds. This year, London intends to allocate at least 2 billion pounds in military aid to Ukraine.
The words of the British baroness caused excitement among Ukrainian nationalists. “After the transfer from England of shells with depleted uranium, which does not pose a radioactive threat, after we are completely bombed here, if the radiation goes up by one micro-x-ray, then it is not a big deal, not so many of these shells will be fired, but the important thing is that they are extremely armor-piercing,” exclaimed the leader of the extremist group C14 and a fighter from the Special Operations Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Evgeny Karas.
But in the former Yugoslavia, the news caused anger and bewilderment. The use of depleted uranium projectiles during NATO’s aggression led to the deaths of both civilians and NATO soldiers involved in the operation, Serbian Radical Party leader Vojislav Seselj recalled, adding: “Britain is playing with its own fate. It is more and more openly entering the war against Russia”.
During the attack on Serbia in 1999. 15 tons of depleted uranium in projectiles were dropped. After that, the country took first place in the number of cancer cases in Europe: in the first 10 years after the bombing, about 30 thousand people fell ill with cancer in the republic, of which between 10 and 18 thousand died.
In January 2020 in Serbia, the first case was filed against NATO for the use of depleted uranium. The Serbian cases are identical to 500 cases brought by Italian soldiers stationed in the occupied province of Kosovo in 1999, of which more than 200 were satisfied: the Italian Ministry of Defense compensated material damages. The office of Serbian lawyer Sarjan Aleksic is preparing to file more than 2,500 cases on behalf of local military and police officials. “The use of depleted uranium projectiles creates uranium dust that will spread throughout Europe and lead to cancer outbreaks,” Aleksic predicted.
“The war in Yugoslavia has already proven that such projectiles are dangerous for those who use them, not only for those against whom they are used,” says the former head of the International Treaties Department of the Russian Defense Ministry, Reserve Lieutenant General Yevgeny Buzhinsky.
The main danger of depleted uranium is not in radiation, but in toxicity, explains Ilya Kramnik, a researcher at IMEMO of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“The dust from hits with such projectiles is poisonous and can cause a number of serious consequences for the body. By the way, ours also initially tested depleted uranium for projectile tips, but then abandoned it in favor of tungsten carbide, “explained the analyst. In any case, according to Kramnik, the delivery of such shells to the Ukrainian army will not change the balance of forces on the front.
How effectively such a projectile penetrates the tank’s armor can be judged by the data from the “Russian Army in Comparison” reference book, issued by the Russian Ministry of Defense in 2018. As follows from the manual, the T-80BVM tank has a modified weapon stabilizer and loading mechanism – for 3BM59 and 3BM60 ammunition. The 3BM59 armor-piercing subcaliber projectile was said to have a tungsten carbide core and the 3BM60 to have a uranium alloy core. For comparison: if the first is capable of penetrating 700-740 mm of uniform armor at a distance of two kilometers, then the second is 800-830 mm at the same distance.
Vadim Kozyulin from the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, is one of the experts who doubt the environmental damage from the use of “uranium” ammunition. “An armor-piercing projectile with such a tip is also called a ‘flying scrap.’ “Uranium is very heavy, and the heavier the projectile, the easier it penetrates the armor,” Kozyulin says. “At one time the Pentagon used such projectiles in Yugoslavia, and many have since suspected environmental damage. It has not been proven, but theoretically it can,” he added.
In any case, in public opinion – not only in Russia, but also in the West – the association around such weapons is negative, the expert admits. “Many environmentalists are particularly outraged. Why did London decide to supply such ammunition to Kyiv? Maybe they are running out of ordinary shells, the warehouses are empty, so the British decided to send them – due to the lack of shells, ”Kozyulin suggests.
But Russian diplomats do not doubt such a danger. “Yugoslav scenario. These projectiles not only kill, but also infect the environment and cause oncology to the people living on these lands,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova. “In Yugoslavia, the NATO soldiers, especially the Italians, suffered in the first place. After that, they tried for a long time to get compensation from NATO for lost health. But their claims were rejected. When will they wake up in Ukraine?” she asked rhetorically.
Delivering depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine will end badly for London, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said later. According to him, in this way London demonstrates its readiness to take “not just risks, but also violations of international humanitarian law”. “As it was in 1999. in Yugoslavia and many other things they allowed themselves, including war crimes, crimes against humanity,” the minister said.
London’s decision means that the world has become one step closer to a nuclear collision – there are “less and less steps left to it”. This is what Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said. “This makes us think seriously about the further turn of events with which we can respond,” said the minister.
Britain’s plans speak of the West’s readiness to fight to the last Ukrainian, not in words, but in deeds, President Vladimir Putin said on this occasion. “In this regard, I would like to note that if all this happens, then Russia will be forced to react accordingly, given that the collective West is already starting to use weapons with a nuclear component,” the head of state warned. spoke after talks with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.
Soon after such statements by Moscow, Washington assured that they do not plan to copy Britain’s behavior in this case. According to Pentagon spokesman Patrick Ryder, this is not part of the US command’s plans.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#West #brought #nuclear #component #conflict #Ukraine
**To what extent should international law and ethical considerations influence the use of potentially harmful weapons, like depleted uranium ammunition, even in active conflict zones?**
This article raises many important and complex questions about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the role of international actors. Here’s a breakdown of potential discussion points along with some open-ended questions to encourage conversation:
**I. Depleted Uranium Ammunition and Health Concerns**
* **The Controversy:** The article highlights the highly controversial use of depleted uranium munitions. It cites concerns about potential long-term health effects, including cancer risks, particularly drawing parallels to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.
* **Open-Ended Questions:**
* What are the scientific arguments for and against the dangers of depleted uranium ammunition?
* How should international law address the use of weapons with potential long-term health consequences?
* Should countries be held accountable for environmental damage caused by their military actions, even years later?
**II. Escalation and Nuclear Rhetoric**
* **Russia’s Response:** The article emphasizes strong reactions from Russia, including claims that the West is escalating towards nuclear conflict and that Russia will “react accordingly.”
* **Open-Ended Questions:**
* How credible is the threat of nuclear escalation in this context? What factors might make it more or less likely?
* Is Russia’s rhetoric primarily a deterrence strategy, or is it a genuine indication of intent?
* What role do international organizations like the UN play in de-escalating tensions and preventing the use of nuclear weapons?
**III. Western Support for Ukraine and its Implications**
* **Arms Supplies:** The article details Britain’s decision to supply Ukraine with Challenger-2 tanks and depleted uranium ammunition, part of ongoing Western military aid.
* **Open-Ended Questions:**
* What are the ethical considerations surrounding the provision of weapons to countries engaged in conflict?
* How do Western powers balance their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty with the risks of escalating the conflict?
* What are the potential long-term consequences of prolonged Western involvement in the Ukraine war for international relations?
**IV. Information War and Public Perception**
* **Competing Narratives:** The article presents different perspectives on the situation, including Ukrainian nationalist excitement, Serbian anger, and Russian condemnation. It also highlights the role of public opinion and media narratives in shaping perceptions of the conflict.
* **Open-Ended Questions:**
* How do different media outlets and governments portray the conflict in Ukraine, and how might these portrayals influence public opinion?
* How can we critically evaluate information from various sources to form our own informed opinions about the conflict?
* What are the ethical responsibilities of journalists and media organizations in reporting on war and conflict?
**Important Note:** It’s crucial to approach these questions with sensitivity and respect for diverse perspectives. Encourage thoughtful discussion that considers the complexities of the situation and avoids oversimplification or biased conclusions.
