The Debate over Cluster Munitions for Ukraine Is Legitimate

Just because the loudest criticism comes from Moscow doesn’t mean that those elsewhere should stay quiet.

The outcry takes multiple tones, is loud — and legitimate. It is not at all surprising that many countries and human rights organizations have a problem with accepting the U.S.’ planned delivery of cluster munitions to Ukraine as a necessary evil of the Russian invasion. After all, 123 countries have signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and 111 of them have already ratified it, according to the U.N.

The reason for rejecting these weapons is obvious. Cluster munitions result in basically the opposite of the targeted precision that warring parties tend to be proud of. Targeted precision is not only supposed to evoke efficacy but above all an intention to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible and focus on taking military targets offline, a legitimate goal in the case of self-defense. Cluster munitions, in contrast, distribute their deadly load across as wide an area as possible, and unexploded “submunitions” threaten civilian populations for years afterward.

Protest from Russia

However, whoever criticizes all that today may find themselves in undesirable company. Of course, the loudest protest over Washington’s announcement comes from Russia. The U.S. wants to cover up its own failures in the Ukrainian offensive and is thus committing this “latest madness,” according to Anatoly Antonov, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

Maria Zakharova, the steely spokeswoman for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, accused the Americans of maximally drawing out the conflict “until the last Ukrainian.”

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who has already repeatedly warned about nuclear war, also made everyone sit up and take notice in his typical style, saying that President Joe Biden “may be the dying grandfather, obsessed with unhealthy fantasies, [who] simply decided to leave gracefully, provoking nuclear Armageddon and taking half of humanity with him to the next world.” The man who said this is, after all, the deputy chair of the Security Council of Russia.

Threat of Nuclear Weapons

These are the usual arguments from the nation that attacks Ukraine with rockets daily but always talks about Ukrainian terror as soon as their drones are spotted in Russian airspace. The threat of using nuclear weapons, packaged in accusations against the West, is part of Moscow’s well-oiled but increasingly sputtering public relations machine.

Should the critics, who may support Ukraine but oppose delivery of cluster munitions to deploy against the Russian invaders, thus tread more softly? Do they run the risk of otherwise playing into the hands of the aggressor?

Weighty Arguments

The answer is no. The arguments against a weapon that far too generously allows for collateral damage are weighty. They address the very nature of war. They reveal its absurdities without fundamentally calling into question Ukraine’s right to self-defense. They raise the subject, however awkwardly, of our own moral exigencies under difficult circumstances. That has to be allowed. Even, and especially, during war.