US Cluster Munitions — A Blow to Biden Himself*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

The decision to send American cluster munitions to Ukraine caused a massive scandal despite the best efforts of the White House and the U.S. State Department. It was a blow to America's international standing and Joe Biden’s position, threatening his reelection bid. And the Russian army deserves all the credit for that.

The Biden administration is going out of its way to show that the decision to supply Ukraine with grossly inhumane cluster munitions was a difficult one, even painfully so. And this is most likely the truth — Joe Biden's team probably experienced real anguish as it weighed this decision. Nevertheless, Kyiv persuaded the U.S. to make a very risky bet.

Of course, America’s distress was not caused by concern for civilian casualties. After all, the U.S. actively used cluster munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Biden has been a cynical and brutal hawk on defense and foreign policy for most of his very long political career, aligning himself with Republicans in this sense. For most of them, a market for cluster munitions isn't a problem: America produces all the weapons and supplies them to anyone it wants.

The difficulty of the situation lies in the inconsistency of Biden's position. Forty years ago, he spoke out against the transfer of such weapons to Israel precisely because of how inhumane they are. However, this is a manageable situation for Biden's public relations specialists; they regularly resolve those issues. They will argue that, in the end, the president has always followed his party's line. Not in the sense that he consciously changed his opinion; rather, that he would for as long as he could, eventually falling into line once his opponents formed a clear majority.

For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, Old Joe hardly tolerated Black and gay people, let alone transgender people, but now circumstances have changed.

In the case of cluster munitions, people also argue that the circumstances have changed. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan readily offered the following excuse for providing them: "[I]n the absence of providing the cluster munitions […], Ukraine would not have enough artillery not just to conduct this counteroffensive, but potentially not enough artillery to be able to defend the positions it holds."

In other words, the president had to make this decision because the investment in Ukraine's military victory has become the most critical decision in his political career, the conclusion of which directly depends on Ukraine's success. Everyone understands that. However, the U.S. ruling elite also understands that these cluster munitions will come back to haunt them soon in the presidential election.

Donald Trump, Biden's most likely opponent, believes that these supplies have brought World War III closer. Most likely he has a point, but in this situation, it doesn't matter what Trump says because regardless of what Biden does, Trump will always say that Biden has failed and that his policies are ruining the country.

Instead, it is much more important what the left-leaning members of the Democratic Party think. For those politicians, supplying cluster munitions are not a question of what Biden needs. It's also not about Ukraine being desperate for those weapons after its failed "counteroffensive." Rather, it's a matter of principle with no room for compromise on potential civilian casualties.

Two dozen members of the left in Congress, even at the early stage of discussions on cluster munitions, were in favor of the U.S. joining the convention banning their use, production and transfer. As such, White House approval to send those munitions to Ukraine caused a wave of outrage at various political, social and humanitarian organizations.

The Pentagon tried to calm the storm by assuring it would supply Kyiv with much "safer" cluster munitions, the dud rate of which does not exceed 3%. Journalists quickly discovered that the Pentagon does not have the required amount of those "safer" munitions since their production was historically considered morally dubious under Democratic administrations.

Biden tried to put out the fire by changing the subject. Still, a day after the decision, he further asserted that the measure was "necessary" but "temporary." That is, when the American military-industrial complex is able to satisfy Ukraine's acute hunger for conventional weapons (and it's in a hurry and trying very hard to achieve this), the supply of cluster munitions will stop immediately.

But the scandal has done its job, deepening the tension between the Biden administration and the left-leaning Democrats, who were joined by a few pacificist anti-Biden moderates. Now, "Old Joe" will get several spoiler Democratic opponents in next year’s election, which will split the vote and result in a Republican victory — most likely, Trump's.

Actually, this is what the intraparty discussion is now about. Some Democrats argue that this situation is intolerable. After all, Biden is a typical fascist, capitalist, imperialist old wreck (select all that apply), and we need a progressive candidate, or at least one who is sane.

Others desperately seek a united front. After all, this infighting is only helping Trump, and there can be nothing worse than Trump.

These others are right in the sense that Trump benefits from this situation. And their arguments still work for now. However, they're gradually becoming increasingly less convincing to many people. And according to opinion polls, the vast majority of voters, don't want to choose between Biden and Trump anyway. Hence, spoiler candidates are disastrous for the incumbent president, rendering his chances of reelection purely theoretical.

In this sense, it is not so important who the spoiler candidate will be — some leftist like Cornel West, a moderate from the anti-Biden political group "No Labels," or both. On the other hand, Republican voters tend to be more conservative, stable and disciplined, preferring to vote for party-approved candidates. That is why Biden's ship is sinking increasingly faster. The consequences of the U.S. president's announcement on cluster munitions are much more significant than it might seem from the outside.

Beyond the intraparty quarrel, there's also a split over cluster munitions between Biden and his key allies worldwide, right down to Canada, which many see as an outpost of the U.S.

Canada, the U.K., all Western European countries, Australia and Japan signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions and have now categorically emphasized that they will abide by it, no matter what the Americans say.

This is unprecedented. Even the German hawk Annalena Baerbock, who never contradicts the White House regarding aid to Ukraine (Olaf Scholz still tries, but Baerbock never does), condemned Biden's decision. And even British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has stressed that he had nothing to do with this decision and will stay out of it.

So, yes, in this case, we can trust the White House: Biden's decision on cluster munitions was not easy. We should think that the U.S. is also not lying about the fact that Ukraine is experiencing severe artillery shortages instead of a "triumphant counteroffensive."

We know the reason for this state of affairs lies in the work of the Russian military. By the way, Russia does not need to beg anyone for cluster munitions because it already has them.

Thus, you can consider Biden's "difficult decision" an exemplary measure of the escalation of an armed conflict toward more bloodshed, worthy of being displayed in the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Perhaps, it should be displayed there for another reason, too — as an example of measures that cost U.S. presidents their reelection.