The White House has confirmed that Ukraine is using US cluster bombs against Russian forces in the country.
National Security Spokesman John Kirby said initial feedback suggested they were being used “effectively” on Russian defensive positions and operations.
Cluster bombs scatter multiple bomblets and are banned by more than 100 states due to their threat to civilians.
The US agreed to supply them to boost Ukrainian ammunition supplies.
Ukraine has promised the bombs will only be used to dislodge concentrations of Russian enemy soldiers.
“They are using them appropriately,” Mr Kirby said. “They’re using them effectively and they are actually having an impact on Russia’s defensive formations and Russia’s defensive manoeuvring. I think I can leave it at that.”
The US decided to send cluster bombs after Ukraine warned that it was running out of ammunition during its summer counter-offensive, which has been slower and more costly than many had hoped.
President Joe Biden called the decision “very difficult”, while its allies the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Spain opposed their use.
The vast majority sent are artillery shells with a lower than 2.35% “dud rate”, a reference to the percentage of bomblets which do not explode immediately and can remain a threat for years.
The weapons are effective when used against troops in trenches and fortified positions, as they render large areas too dangerous to move around in until cleared.
Russia has used similar cluster bombs in Ukraine since it launched its full-scale invasion last year, including in civilian areas.
Reacting to the US decision to send the bombs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country had similar weapons and they would be used “if they are used against us”.
Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Ukrainian general in charge of operations in the country’s east, told the BBC last week that his forces needed the weapons to “inflict maximum damage on enemy infantry”.
“We’d like to get very fast results, but in reality it’s practically impossible. The more infantry who die here, the more their relatives back in Russia will ask their government ‘why?’”
He added however that cluster bombs would not “solve all our problems”.
He also acknowledged that their use was controversial, but added: “If the Russians didn’t use them, perhaps conscience would not allow us to do it too.”
No because that’s obvious harm, whereas cluster munitions are a potential future harm that needs to be fixed by clearing the battlefield of UXO with or without there being Ukrainian cluster munitions on the battlefield. Not to mention they’re already being used by Russia
So that’s where you draw the line in war crimes. It’s OK if a kid loses its legs in 10 years but not OK if it happens now…
Also, if the other guy is doing it, you can do it as well…
You do know cluster munitions are not considere a war crime, right? It’s a different agreement than the Geneva convention. Now, of course using it against civilians is covered (RU has done this, UA has not yet). What is mentioned in the Geneva convention is the responsibility to remove unexploded ordenances.
Neither side is a signatory of the now 13 year old ban, it’s not a war crime. I’m looking at the reality of the battlefield, which is already littered with more artillery rounds than likely any battlefield since the Second World War and realizing that this battlefield will be a disaster to clean up with or without the Ukrainians using rounds that will hopefully help them win. I am obviously against kids getting blown up
OK. We are not gonna convince each other. I’m leaving you with this:
- In Laos as of 2009 ~100 civilians died each year from cluster bombs from 1973
- In Cambodia, boys aged 6-15 make up 37.8% of cluster submunition victims. And in Laos more than 50% of victims were children.
- Increasing the number of cluster bombs increases civilian deaths, even if there would be deaths by the Russian cluster bombs.
- Saying “What about Russia” is not a defense for using a weapon that has been proven to be so deadly for civilians.
