 Welcome to CN Live, Season 5, Episode 7, Depleted Ukrainian, I'm Elisabeth Voss. And I'm Joe Laurier, Editor-in-Chief of Consortium News. Depleted uranium shells have been sent to Ukraine, as confirmed by UK Armed Forces Minister James Heapy last week. Britain announced last month that it would send the munitions for use with Challenger II tanks in Ukraine, a move that immediately escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening to place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus just days later. The UK move comes amid indications that Kiev is increasingly desperate to the point of being willing to risk scorching the earth it is fighting for. Over the last few months, documents emerging as part of the Pentagon leak have shown Ukrainian forces are far and far worse than previously reported by corporate media. As Consortium News reported, the leak documents show the plan Ukrainian offensive will fail miserably. Britain's decision to send depleted uranium rounds to Ukraine represents more than a dangerous escalation in the West's proxy war with a nuclear armed power. It's an example of Ukraine's willingness to target the ethnic Russian population in eastern Ukraine and poison the land that is attempting to retain, but according to the Pentagon leaks, knows it won't be able to. Depleted uranium will have effects not only on Russian fighters and possibly Ukrainian soldiers too, but also on the civilian population for years to come. Russia intervened in Ukraine after eight years of war by Kiev against the ethnic Russians in the East who declared independence from Ukraine after the US backed 2014 coup. The US and British corporate media appear to dismiss concerns of Russian nuclear escalation in response to the use of depleted uranium rounds and the official line in the West is that such weapons represent a low environmental risk. However, there are compelling reasons to question the official stance. Depleted uranium rounds were used by US forces in both Iraq wars as well as the Balkans in the 1990s. Depleted uranium munitions are heavier than lead and are typically used to pierce the armor of tanks. On impact the metal shears burns and vaporizes producing radioactive dust. A 1999 report by The Guardian related the sentiments of scientists speaking in regards to Kosovo with depleted uranium saying quote one single particle of depleted uranium launched an olympnode can devastate the entire immune system. And John Pilger's film documenting Iraq after the first war paying the price killing the children of Iraq. He spoke with doctors in Basra where they reported a tenfold increase in cancer deaths. Pilger also spoke with an Iraqi pediatrician who described an influx of congenital deformities never seen before the war. In the case of the second Iraq war, the most striking reported effects of depleted uranium and other toxic substances was seen in Fallujah, where US forces bombed mercilessly in 2004. The rise in birth defects in Iraq has been called catastrophic. And The Guardian went so far as to publish a piece in 2014 that accused the World Health Organization of covering up the quote nuclear nightmare left behind in Fallujah by the US and UK. Others have compared the city's health crisis with that following the US nuclear attack in Hiroshima. Is this the future faced by generations of ethnic Russians in Ukraine? With Ukraine set to lose if slowly on the battlefield, what is to be gained by taking out a few more Russian tanks if it permanently renders the land a danger to its inhabitants, permeated with toxic dust particles of radioactive heavy metal? How can this decision be viewed as anything but a spiteful admission that the land is being lost and that salting it is a final act of malice against ethnic Russians in Donbass? To discuss this with us tonight, we're joined by John Pilger in Australia. John is an eminent journalist and documentary filmmaker who has twice won Britain's highest award for journalism and has been international reporter of the year, news reporter of the year and descriptive writer of the year. He's made 61 documentary films and has won an Emmy, a BAFTA and the Royal Television Society Prize. His Cambodia year zero is named as one of the 10 most important films of the 20th century. We are also joined by Phil Miller in London. Phil is a declassified UK's chief reporter and the author of Keeney Meanie, the British mercenaries who got away with war crimes. He has been covering the UK decision to send depleted uranium to Ukraine and recently published an article covering court cases that linked depleted uranium exposure to service members in Europe who later developed cancer. Thank you both so much for joining us. Very welcome. Thank you. So, John, I'd like to start with you. Can you just tell us what you experienced in Iraq firsthand in documenting the effects of the Gulf War on civilians in Iraq? In southern Iraq, where I was at right at the end of the first Gulf War, you may remember the terrible road of death, the Iraqi army tried to escape the Roth of the US in Kuwait. And miles and miles of vehicles of fleeing Iraqi military personnel were blown to bits, but most of the ammunition, most of the ordnance used was depleted uranium. And some of the, you could tell that from I inspected the one end of this convoy of death and the holes in the side of armored personnel carriers were those that have been caused by the shells of depleted uranium, I'd seen it elsewhere. Now, right across southern Iraq, depleted uranium was used and it was used in a way that it could only be, it had to be there for years and years in the future. Southern Iraq, particularly at that time of the year is a place of the most terrible sandstorms. The sand blows up, it blows into your eyes, your nose, your throat. It's, it's everyone is, is covered with it. People talk about it. It's part of, it's part of life there, but it's a terrible part of life. And of course it carries all the toxics of warfare and particularly of depleted uranium. One of the doctors referred to as the seeds of death. And you can understand, you can understand why in the teaching hospital, Saad for a teaching hospital in Basra, the scene was, well, it was apocalyptic. Mostly children had been affected because children not only play in these toxic sandstorms, they play on the wreckage of war, and they can pick pick this up. When you consider, give you an idea, one of the doctors described it, and I think accurately as a form of nuclear warfare. The 2010 war hog fires 4500 grams of depleted uranium in, in, in one shot. The United States used 300 tons of depleted uranium in the southern Iraq. The war hog was the main instrument of delivering this, this, this, this depleted uranium. Children all had something they had never seen before, had hardly seen before, and that is neuroblastoma, a particular cancer that is so rare that in most societies it's, it's always a surprise, as one of the doctors said to see it. But the, the pediatrician in charge of wards of children, all with neuroblastoma, had a book, a color album of all the children that she treated. I mean, it was quite clear. This, this of course is, is what the researchers call anecdotal evidence, I would call a journalistic evidence, eyewitness evidence. This is the kind of apocalyptic result of that war that was never really reported widely and has been largely forgotten since then. And the reason it's been forgotten, if I may just add a little more to my answer Elizabeth. The, the role of the World Health Organization, the World Health Organization. In fact, when I was there in 1999, 2000, 2001, the World Health Organization completed a report on depleted uranium. By 2001 refused to release it, censored a lot of it. I interviewed Carl Secura, who is then the British oncologist who was in charge of the WHO's cancer program. And he had printed quite a bit of the damning bits of this report in Lancet, the medical magazine and was ordered by the World Health Organization to take it out. This has gone on right through to the end of the, what I would call the main war, that is 2003, or the initial parts of the main war, when the WHO issued preliminary report, and then following, another report, but all these reports had been doctored. There's so much evidence to suggest this. So depleted uranium, really, the effects of it in southern Iraq, where the leading doctor in the Sandra Hospital said, estimated it would affect 48% of the population of southern Iraq is really like a Chernobyl. Wow. Yeah, you've preempted a couple of my questions just about specifically, I was going to ask you about the WHO and the alleged cover up there. I mean, there are Guardian articles, even the Guardian was willing to publish articles, accusing the WHO of covering up this issue. And that debate continues. I mean, to this day, you know, upon this news that the UK was sending depleted uranium over to Ukraine, you still have people in the west saying, No, it's basically harmless. Can you speak to that a little bit? Well, the then you must remember when I first saw it. The so called sanctions were in place. These were the most as you will remember the most stringent. It's not sanctions, a blockade really of almost everything against Iraq, but weakened Iraq and prepared it to be invaded in 2003. And Carl Secura, the oncologist, I'd mentioned. He wrote in the, the British Medical Journal, quote, requested radio therapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisors to the Iraq sanctions committee. I was specifically told by the WHO not to talk about the whole Iraq business. The WHO is not an organization that likes to be involved in politics and rather ironic statement at the end. Those, that blockade was stopping was really stopping was crippling a country, it couldn't. That's why the two UN humanitarian coordinators Dennis Halliday and Hans von Spannich resigned Halliday we called it a genocide. But the UN in effect, the United States and Britain operated this medieval siege against Iraq so by the time time 2003 came around and the Bush and Blair invasion force turned up Iraq was on its knees. Do you have any comment on the current lack of real outrage, even from independent journalism I mean there's not, I mean we have Phil here but there's not a lot of voices speaking out about this very, you know, stridently like I would imagine given the impact of this substance. Do you think that's because people are there to talk about it in the face of the controversy scientifically. I don't talk about a lot of things. And that's on the. I'm talking about the independent media even I'm not even talking about. I mean I sometimes think that those of us doing the work. I hope we're doing. Well, one day give up asking why the media do certain things they are part of the problem. And they are the main instrument of propaganda now I say that not rhetorically having come from a lifetime in the mainstream media. They are the, the, the instrument of propaganda, all spaces of dissent of sustained factual reporting on an issue such as this are closed. And that's really the answer to your question Elizabeth but also it comes down to why, why the university is so so so so quiet about this. You know, so many of the big universities and I'm, I think I know the ones but I won't name them because I'm not sure, particularly in the United States were involved in the in refining completed uranium it's a very effective ordinance. It works in tank battles. It works. It, it can subdue a major force very effectively. And here we have been Wallace the defense minister in Britain. Licensing to pleaded uranium to go to Ukraine. I think, as you will judge the beginning that's that that that means that we're going to have another Iraq in Ukraine. Well, I want to turn to you and your article that you wrote you published recently with the classified UK, where you described Italian courts finding and basically validating this link between exposure to do you, you know and cancer suffered by service members who were exposed in Kosovo. Can you walk us through that recent piece and what it means for this discussion. Yes, thanks Elizabeth. So I've been looking at both the, the legal reaction to to this issue and also the kind of scientific debates which which john touched on. And it's, it's interesting that, you know, even though among some of the scientific papers there's this degree of ambiguity because of the difficulties of doing long term studies in war zones. And in the legal sphere, there are hundreds of court judgments in Europe, mainly in Italy but also we found one in France and one in England, where judges have awarded compensation to soldiers or soldiers families after it passed away, because these rare cancers that that have developed after their exposure to depleted uranium ammunition. And this is, this is soldiers who were either handling the ammunition themselves or they were being deployed to areas that had just been strafed by by NATO by the US in Kosovo, in particular. So I think this is, is really interesting and also it kind of, you know, one of the reactions I've had to these stories as well who cares if some Russian soldiers get exposed to depleted uranium in their tanks. I mean this shows that it's you know Ukrainian service personnel as well, who, who are liable to to some of the risks involved in this. There's obviously of course friendly fire as well which which has happened in these tank battles. And then of course the civilian population living in those areas, either when the shells miss their targets and get buried in the ground, potentially by water sources, or just the rex of tanks not being cleared away and, you know, children playing on them. And the UK has said that they don't feel any moral obligation to help clear up the depleted uranium shells that it sent to Ukraine after conflict. Or to even publish their firing locations. And that's different to with the second Iraq war. The MOD did publish the firing locations and they did say they had a moral obligation to help clean up. Ultimately, they didn't give much age towards that cleanup. But, you know, I think that the position is hardened even more. And, and they seem to think that they can get away with it. And, you know, going back to 2003, it did feel like there was a bit more pushback from scientific community. The Royal Society had done some research into the risks of depleted uranium that the MOD and the Pentagon tried to cite as, you know, saying it was low risk. And the Royal Society scientist behind that research actually came out and said to the Guardian, you know, they're misquoting the research. I've said there should be a lot of caution involved. And we need a long term study to find out what's going on. What's interesting is, is fast forward to this year when the UK announced it was going to send the depleted uranium to Ukraine. They referred to this same scientific research. I said, you know, the Royal Society said it's fine. And I, I contacted the Royal Society and said, when did you last do research on this? And they said, well, we haven't updated our research since 2002 or 2003 is, you know, our position is the same now as it was then. But, you know, the rest of the media didn't pick up on that. So I think, I think there are lots of questions that should be being being asked about this. And, and, you know, we have perhaps the scientific research, the long term studies, you know, the difficulties around doing those particularly in places like Iraq that are still very unstable. But if you just look at the court judgments, and I'm just talking about courts in NATO states, you know, in Italy and France in England. I mean, there are other, there's other litigation going on, I think in Serbia as well. Regarding that the bombardment of Belgrade as well, where lawyers are trying to build on the Italian cases and I think even in Kosovo, there are some KLA veterans who, who, you know, fought on the side of NATO. And in particular towns that were heavily bombarded that have expressed concerns about this. So, you know, that's without even getting into that side of it. You know, obviously anything in the Serbian courts is liable to being dismissed as some kind of Russian propaganda sorts of things. I just looked at the, you know, Italian courts, French courts, English courts, these are all NATO member states to see what what those judges were saying. So that's, yeah, that's where we've got to with the research. That's fascinating. And I know that you've also reported on the fact that there's no confirmation that Russia has used depleted uranium itself in the war in Ukraine, although it does possess a stockpile of those types of munition. You've written that JMTP told Parliament that the Ministry of Defense is unaware of any credible open source reports of Russia using depleted uranium in Ukraine. Can you just tell us a little bit about the reporting as well? Because one of the things that I saw a lot in response to the article we published about this subject was people basically saying, well, Russia's using it, Russia's using it. And, you know, your, your reporting indicates that may not be the case. Yeah, so this was another thing, you know, the reaction to the first story was there was a Russian news agency article from I think 2018 saying that they've upgraded some of their tanks to fire depleted uranium. So lots of people were sharing this on social media in response to our story. So an MP asked a question in Parliament saying, you know, does the MOD have any, you know, has Russia used depleted uranium? And I expected them to say yes. And surprisingly, the answer was, you know, we don't have any open source information to say they have done. So something we've seen throughout this conflict is the MOD has been very quick to declassify any intelligence it receives about Russia, you know, using white phosphorus or anything that's perceived as kind of, you know, something that it can call out Russia on. And the fact that they weren't able to produce any any instances of Russia you actually firing the depleted uranium that it has in its arsenal, again was was was very significant. And, and didn't really get much reaction beyond, beyond our article unfortunately. Yeah, and you bring up white phosphorus I think that's important as well can you talk to us a little bit about that is there evidence that Russia has used white phosphorus because I think that's controversial as well as far as I'm aware. But there does seem to be. I mean this recent case in the background of what looks like white phosphorus being fired. And Ben Wallace gave a statement to Parliament today where he did say, you know, using white phosphorus in civilian areas is is illegal. And one of our other research declassified has been looking at how Britain fires white phosphorus in Kenya, where it has a military base and it has access to large parts of the Kenyan countryside. And it says that's legal because it's, it's not being fired in a populated area, but I mean I've been to those areas I've spoken to the Samburu tribe and the herders who frequent that area and it's, you know, it's, it's a nomadic area. There's no fence around this firing range so people are just wandering through. And their real concerns are about, you know, the health consequences of that. They've also fired faulty ammunition that hasn't exploded and then herders have subsequently picked it up or stepped on it and there's huge numbers of limbs being lost and people even being killed from that. Going up as recently as I think 2015. So, again, I mean there's so many double standards here. But I mean, yeah, the UK doesn't really seem to be interested in the real risk of using these these munitions. Any other questions or John did you want to jump in. I'm sorry I missed that. I just it looked like you wanted to say something a moment ago I didn't know if you had a comment. Well, I mean that's the research and the work that Phil has done on this is very important. I mean it's typical of the other disregard for people's lives their reaction to the MOD's reaction to whether depleted uranium affects people that Kenya isn't a populated area or whatever the term is like Phil I know that area. And it I was just thinking as he was as he was describing the nomadic area where people come and go. I was thinking of Maralinga here in Australia, where in the 1950s, so William Penny and his UK atomic energy people exploded 30 nuclear bombs in the desert Maralinga. And that was the city almost word for word the same excuse that there weren't people there that they came and went of course that's the nature of the people they do came to do wander throughout the country in that particular area and many of them were very seriously affected. But the. It is, it is a truly shocking business that the last research. Much of which was blocked as I say was done around 2003 2004 unless there's research, we don't know anything about. It's interesting that I think I don't know whether this relates to what Phil is describing. But the only time I think the US and therefore the UK has said that they have actually used depleted uranium was when the Dutch government. extraordinarily got from the United States the Defense Department, the coordinates of the of the use of depleted uranium in in Iraq and it did so under pressure from the Dutch anti war group packs which had brought in a lot of freedom of information thing and the British I understood went along with that I'm not absolutely sure about that, but what that showed what those coordinates was that the certainly the US had used it widely all over southern and central Iraq. Oh yeah. Yeah, I mean I don't know the exact kind of sequence of events as to how how the firing locations came to be published. I think the US were much more reluctant than the UK to release where they had fired those meet their munitions and of course the US had fired far far more. I think yeah we do we do have a data set of where the UK fired them in Basra in 2003, but I don't think we have the whole picture and certainly not the US side of it. But with Ukraine it's these these 14 tanks challenger two tanks that Britain sending that will be able to fire depleted uranium rounds, and we don't know exactly how many of the rounds they've they've given with the tanks. They've said they've sent several thousand tank rounds, some of which are the depleted uranium variants, and you know Germany is sending tanks, which fire tungsten rounds instead of depleted uranium. The UK is really kind of an outlier here in its in its use of the weapon I mean together with the US. And actually I think the UK has found it hard to export its challenger two tanks, because it's not a standard NATO type of ammunition. And they're upgrading the challenger two tank to challenger three, which will have a different tank turret that won't fire depleted uranium. So I think even in the MOD there is a realization although they don't like to admit it in public that this ammunition is, you know, very outdated. I don't think it's been produced for many, many years now. So this stockpile that's being fired is probably 20 years old or so. So it does look like they're just sort of, you know, giving it to Ukraine to try and use it up in a way. And they're also, you know, conflicting statements because Ben Wallace likes to kind of ridicule Russia's tank capabilities and point out that they're using, you know, tanks from the from the 1950s and the 1960s, because they're getting so desperate. So, you know, that obviously, you know, if they're using such old tanks and why do we need such, why does Ukraine need such effective rounds to punch through the armor if they're, you know, getting out museum pieces. So, you know, there are lots of inconsistencies in the MOD's line it doesn't it doesn't add up. But yeah, there hasn't been I mean that I think on this issue it's probably in the UK it's had the most kind of backlash. There's been almost uniform support towards the UK government's policy on Ukraine and this is probably one of the first issues that's made people start to think you know, who's interested will be really serving here and if this is going to spread toxic metals across across Ukraine. You know, are we really do we really have Ukraine's best interests at heart here. So I think it started to get people to think a little bit. And then we've had the Pentagon papers as well which which highlighted more about British troops being on the ground and you know the Black Sea and how how close some of those near misses have been. So maybe you know the war's been going on for over a year now people might be willing to start thinking a bit more about, you know, whether whether really they're being given the full picture. And whether this really has to can only end in one way or whether a peaceful solution is possible. It's a typical fill isn't it for this double story that rushes this massive threat that has to be opposed to save the free world. And on the other hand they have this outmorted equipment that they're they're a joke. They have one aircraft carrier, but they're this big threat. And you also quoted Ben Walls before saying that white frost this was illegal. So why is the use of depleted uranium, not illegal the way land mines or chemical biological weapons have been banned and UN treaties. Is there no UN treaty or why is this weapon not included in some of the previous trees less than maybe the chemical weapons treaty is anybody either John or Phil have any ideas about why this is not outlawed and has there ever been any effort to come up with such a treaty. Well, I know they've tried inside of the United Nations Joe to get through resolutions that call for updated research. I imagine the kind of research that is needed before a treaty of that kind can be agreed. And it's been blocked over and over again had 155 every two years the General Assembly votes on on depleted on on more depleted uranium research and every every couple of years, the same suspects. Mount a campaign against it. That's mainly France, Israel, the US and the, and the UK. I don't quite understand as I understand that quite recently 155 countries voted yes and why that isn't a majority and the research doesn't go ahead. I don't know. But clearly that research is needed. Everything is as Phil has said is is is out of date the last, the last papers that we know of the last WHO papers are 20 years ago. Do you want to add to that. Yeah, I think, I mean, John knows more about the backstory to this than I do that that's my reading of it as well as it. When it's come up at the UN, the UK and countries that use depleted uranium have blocked efforts to ban this or even do research into it. And I mean, we see that in lots of these international treaties that I know from my research into UK archives that they will lobby and try and manipulate different UN committees to ensure. You know, a ban on mercenaries is something that I looked at the UN was trying to pass a ban on mercenaries in the 1980s. The UK was was lobbying against that and tried to water it down and kill it and ultimately didn't didn't vote for it. So, you know, fast forward now to where we've got all this concern about the Wagner group. Well what's interesting is actually, you know, historically the UK is opposed international efforts to outlaw mercenaries. And obviously Liz trust has has been she supported Brits going out to fight for you for Ukraine. Last February which you know could fall under some definitions of mercenaries. Yeah, I think we you know these international laws are obviously shaped by the powerful states at the UN to try and protect their interests as much as I can. You managed to make a few damaging statements in the few days that she was prime minister. I think at least amongst us that this is a very dangerous substance and it causes these illnesses and I'm going to read in a little bit later from the Department of Veteran Affairs of the United States where they basically saying talking out of both sides of their mouths and they are saying it doesn't have this effect but if you feel like you've been poisoned come and be treated by us. I don't know whether Russia is, despite that that it's certainly a very toxic substance and causes the deformities and the cancers that John was describing is Russia going a little too far in describing it as like a dirty bomb, and that it more and then deploying these nuclear missiles that they will control on the territory of Belarus. That's up for either of you. Well, I mean, I mean, I've not I've not been to southern Iraq and spoken to victims firsthand. I mean, I guess it's not the same as a, you know, a nuclear reaction, a nuclear explosion. It's more of a chemical toxicity issue, but I mean we we know that Russia has been looking for any justification to move these weapons into Belarus I think they even said in in around January this year, but if if depleted uranium was sent with the tanks to Ukraine they would see that as a red line and they would retaliate. And then lo and behold, when it came to light I think in March that Britain sending these weapons, the Kremlin very quickly reacted in this way you could say it's an overreaction but they had said they would react like that. So, you know, why why didn't the UK more on the side of caution, particularly when you know it's only 14 tanks out of several hundreds you wonder what real advantage on the battlefield this is going to give Ukraine. And I would just say it's a bit of a PR own goal by the MOD is is one way of looking at it, but. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's all that's all the what you're saying that there isn't, whether it's a whether it's a dirty bomb or not well, it's dirty in it. After effects. And when you consider this that that it uses, in fact, solid uranium. When a war hog fires, it's 4500 grams. It's solid uranium. Now. Yes, it's a depleted form, but that's very close to a form of nuclear warfare, it has to be. All of all the effects, why the revelations of the effects of this on the population. So, so dammy is that the very similar and the word was used over and over again in Iraq in fact, as I understand it appears in the, the WHO report that wasn't published and that's Hiroshima. It's certainly a form of it. It's a refined form of nuclear warfare. That's again, that's why it's so effective. I mean, if Britain really is serious about sending and sending depleted uranium to Ukraine. It shows first of all how desperate. They are rather than this as Phil has mentioned this nonsense about broken down Russian tanks. In fact, the tanks being range against Ukraine or anything, but and they're worried because the use of depleted uranium sounds certainly sounds to be like a pretty desperate. A desperate measure, but it's effect on the population. No, it wouldn't be instant, but it would soon be evident. The devastation that it would cause in a populated areas. It says the uranium remaining is depleted of about 40% of its radioactivity that retains the same chemical toxicity as natural uranium in other words 60%. This is the US government admitting that it's a Phil when they ignored this red line again that Russia put down. It's very similar to how this war this phase of the war and the Russian intervention began when they put forward those treaties in December 2021 Russia to NATO and United States to try to create a new security architecture. In Europe, Russia said that if this was ignored they would take technical military response. What did that mean and they ignored that did not negotiate the treaties and wanted to my view wanted this invasion so they could launch their information and economic and proxy war to try to bleed Russia before hand it back to Elizabeth the john you bring up the point of desperation and I think this is the key part that this article that Elizabeth wrote for us which is what this show is discussing is that they know from these Pentagon leaks that they're not going to win this offensive. And there's a lot of trepidation amongst Ukrainian officials to do it but they seem to be being pushed by the West to do it anyway to try to get a better negotiating position or for whatever. Crazy reason so knowing that they are not going to succeed with this offensive why would they use these weapons other than as Elizabeth has suggested to try to just take some kind of revenge or punishment against the people. Do you believe you agree with that. To draw the Russians into doing the same thing and then they can go I mean I'm guessing here, but then, then to condemn them publicly to draw the Russians into making their own radical moves and I don't know. I mean the whole, the whole terrible business in in Ukraine has been about provocation. And the propaganda is all about provocation almost everything that comes out of Ben Wallace's mouth is provocation. And it's so perhaps this is part of the, the very very dangerous game. They're playing. I don't know. Do you feel this is the ethnic Russians specifically as well the civilians in that area and on bass. Sorry, I missed the beginning given given the fact that this you know as we were discussing may not make that much of a military difference in Ukraine's favor despite their desperation. Does this look like a targeted attack on the ethnic Russian civilians in Ukraine. Well, yeah, I mean what are they going to fire them at they haven't actually been from what I understand that I may be wrong here that there hasn't actually been being set these armor battles. There've been a few, but there hasn't been that that's when depleted uranium comes into its own. Otherwise, yes you fire them into people live in these huge tenements. And the human effect will be devastating. Oh, I had another question kind of aimed at you and that is, do you do you know if there are any other types of uranium. You've frozen there. Yeah, let's see if she comes back to us. I'll ask a question. All right, I think I think I can, I can. Yes sir. Yes sir question. All right. I think I think I can see where Elizabeth was going with this so she might have been trying to ask but other countries supplying depleted uranium to Ukraine, because it's interesting that the US the the White House have denied that they're sending any of their depleted uranium ammunition to to Ukraine and whether that's true or not I don't know but I thought it was interesting that publicly they have contradicted the UK's position. And so the kind of, you know, the Warthog ammunition that John was talking about that that hasn't hasn't been sent supposedly. So, you know, if it is so safe to be fired then why aren't both the US and the UK sending sending these weapons. So again that just seems to be another kind of contradiction in the official narrative. There's also been research that shows there are amounts of plutonium in the UK's depleted uranium stockpile, because of impurities in how the, I think it was, it came from reactors in the US. And there were some some amounts of plutonium in there as well. So, again, you know it's not just uranium in there but there are small amounts of plutonium as well. So it's pretty messy cocktail. Yeah. So much of it. So much of Ukraine is propaganda. It's very, very difficult to find out. I think, from certainly from our distance of, of, of what is happening. It's, it's been a propaganda war like none other, my opinion. I might have to take off now I'm afraid. Okay, thank you very much for being with us. Appreciate Elizabeth back with us. Thank you, John. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. And unless, unless you or Joe have any other comment, I guess I'll close it down. It's been a great discussion. I really appreciate all of your time tonight. Thank you. Alright, with John Pilger with Phil Miller with Joe Laurier. I'm Elizabeth Boss. This has been CN Live. If you are a consumer of independent news in the first place you should be going to is consortium news and please do try to support them when you can. It doesn't have its articles behind a paywall. It's free for everyone. It's one of the best news sites out there and it's been in the business of independent journalism and adversarial independent journalism for over two decades. I hope that with the public's continuing support of consortium news it will continue for a very long time to come. Thank you so much.