President Joe Biden’s decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine has generated heated opposition from close U.S. allies, human-rights groups, and current and former politicians, who question the morality of deploying weapons banned by more than 100 countries. Greater use of cluster bombs may well increase the death toll for both combatants and civilians. Failing to supply Ukraine with the arms it needs to prevail would be worse.
In a meeting Wednesday at the NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked Biden for sending the bombs, as Ukraine’s counteroffensive against Russia encounters tough resistance. The country’s military officials argue that cluster munitions, which can scatter dozens of explosive bomblets over a wide area, are key to clearing troops from their trenches and overcoming Russia’s advantages in manpower and armor. The bombs will also allow Ukraine to conserve its dwindling artillery shells and limit further drawdowns of America’s own stockpiles.
It’s worth noting that the U.S. isn’t introducing these munitions to the conflict for the first time. Ukraine’s military effectively used its supply of Soviet-era cluster bombs to repel Russian advances during the early days of the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, has wielded cluster bombs indiscriminately — including in civilian areas — killing hundreds so far.
Critics of Biden’s decision say that it defies an international consensus against the use of cluster bombs, whose unexploded ordnance can continue to kill and maim for decades. All but eight of NATO’s 31 members have banned the production, use or transfer of such weapons under a 2008 United Nations convention. The U.S., which did not join the treaty, maintains an inventory of the bombs but has rarely used them since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In recent days, some lawmakers have accused Biden of “crossing the line” by sending the munitions to Ukraine and urged him to reverse course. Others have endorsed an amendment to the annual defense-policy bill to try to block him from acting.
Biden should stand firm. Concerns about the long-term dangers are justified — but it should be left to the Ukrainian government to decide whether the risks posed to its own civilians are worth the potential battlefield gains such weapons may allow. It’s also doubtful that Zelenskyy would stop using cluster munitions if the US were to withhold them. Instead, he’d likely turn to another supplier, such as Turkey, whose bomblets have a far higher “dud rate” than the Pentagon’s and are thus even deadlier to civilians.
Although Ukraine has pledged not to deliberately target Russian territory with the bombs, the prospect of Russian casualties is virtually unavoidable. Yet the risk to civilians on both sides pales in comparison to the atrocities committed by Putin’s forces since the start of the war — to say nothing of the damage Russia is likely to inflict as the conflict drags on. Withholding the weapons might salve the conscience of some Western politicians and activists. But by slowing Ukrainian advances and emboldening Russia, it would result in more slaughter, not less.
The West should reaffirm its commitment to helping Ukraine repel Putin’s invasion — and make clear that the blood of innocent victims is on his hands alone.
____
The Editors are members of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
