Biden Weighs Giving Ukraine Weapons Banned by Many U.S. Allies
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
They are banned because many have a dud rate which means civilians can be hurt by unexploded ordnance.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you implying it's justified because Russia is using them?
What I think they are saying is there no reason to get worked up over cluster munitions in Ukraine because they already are.
The main difference between the cluster bombs given to Ukraine and the ones fired by Russia, is the Russian ones are much more likely to have landed in populated civilian areas.
Using cluster munitions is not a war crime.
Intentionally targeting civilians with cluster munitions on the other hand is.
I don't think Ukraine is going to intentionally target their own civilians with cluster munitions.
Technically true, but just barely, and only because neither US nor Russia is not a signatory to the CCM.
But (as mentioned just now in a sibling post), in moral terms the issue is a bit more complicated, because the rest of NATO is a signatory to the CCM. So if we were to refactor the statement as "The US is supplying Kyiv with munitions that would be a war crime for its NATO partners to use" -- then it does have validity.
However the infinitely large issue remains: this war is utterly insane, and entirely lopsided, with no shred of excuse or justification, and needs to stop, now. Allegations of "hypocrisy" as such, while fine for the debate club, are tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.
This is not entirely true a large amount of NATO is a signatory to the CCM but there are a few members that aren't outside of the US, they are.
- Poland - Finland - Lativa - Estonia - Romania - Turkey - Greece
> So if we were to refactor the statement as "The US is supplying Kyiv with munitions that would be a war crime for its NATO partners to use" -- then it does have validity.
Outside of the 7 countries in NATO outside of the US that aren't a signatory to the CCM.
And outside the fact that war crimes are strongly defined and using a weapon that is banned by the CCM even if you have signed it doesn't make it a war crime.
This is entirely a moot anyway, Ukraine is already littered with UXO from both Russia and from it defending itself.
I cant imagine that the DCIPM that the US provided will make a real difference in the UXO compared to whats already been going on.
So the closer countries are to Russia - the less likely they are to indulge in the moral luxury of signing the CCM. And Greece and Türkiye have each opted out because, well, the other has, so they must also. Makes sense in a way.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
"Q Thanks, Jen. There are reports of illegal cluster bombs and vacuum bombs being used by the Russians. If that’s true, what is the next step of this administration? And is there a red line for how much violence will be tolerated against civilians in this manner that’s illegal and potentially a war crime?
MS. PSAKI: It is — it would be. I don’t have any confirmation of that. We have seen the reports. If that were true, it would potentially be a war crime. "
Slightly over a month ago:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/29/cluster-munition-use-rus...
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Russian armed forces have used cluster munitions in attacks that have caused hundreds of civilian casualties and damaged civilian objects, including homes, hospitals, and schools. The Ukrainian military has not denied credible evidence of its own use of cluster munitions in the conflict and has publicly asked to be supplied with the weapon.The Ukrainians will be using them in their own country. Not on civilians
For one thing - the spokesperson was speaking off the cuff, and obviously not informed about the ins and outs of existing treaties regarding cluster munitions. Or the existing US stance in this regard.
What it all comes down to is: like it or not, the US is not a signatory to the CCM (the one treaty everyone refers to in regard to these things). Nor is Russia. Also, all throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US has defended its use of cluster munitions left, right and center.
So, while you can make of these munitions what you will - strictly speaking it's not "illegal" for Russia to US them. Not "hypocritical" for the US to condemn other countries for using them (aside from random, unorchestrated statements as from this one spokesperson). Because the US never does that.
Granted, the matter is more nuanced than this: in fact, all of the rest of NATO is a signatory to the CCM, so that brings up valid issues of hypocrisy, via the transitive property.
But on a broader, and much more important level: is hypocrisy really your main concern? What about condemning and ending the war itself?
The thing is - when people complain about "hypocrisy", but not the infinitely larger evil of the invasion and the intentional targeting of civilians itself - one has to wonder.
But the US and UK used cluster bombs in Iraq too, so why even pretend that there needs to be an "excuse"?
> “I’m as concerned about the humanitarian circumstance as anybody, but the worst thing for civilians in Ukraine is for Russia to win the war. And so it’s important that they don’t.”
‘Russian victory’ worse than civilian cluster bomb deaths.
I think we let the Ukrainians make that call.
They're the ones already getting killed and maimed in far greater numbers (and far away from the front lines) than are to be feared from the cluster munitions.
To some people, victory is all that matters.