- The decision of the US to provide cluster bombs to Ukraine will have a devastating impact on innocent civilians, a fact that cannot be disregarded by any side.
- The supply of cluster bombs to Ukraine is not primarily intended to bolster its military power but to serve as a deterrent against Russian offensives, as the unexploded bomblets can act as antipersonnel mines, urging caution in the adversary’s military actions.
- The use of cluster bombs raises significant moral and ethical concerns apart from violation of humanitarian principles and both the US and Ukraine could be accused of war crimes.
The recent announcement from the White House regarding the shipment of cluster bombs to Ukraine has sparked significant discussions and controversies. In an interview with CNN television, President Biden revealed that he had taken considerable time to be fully convinced of this decision, emphasizing that Ukraine was facing a critical shortage of ammunition. Cluster bombs, known for their indiscriminate nature and potential to cause extensive casualties over a wide area, have been the subject of global debate and condemnation. The ammunition has long been recognized for its controversial aspects, as some of the bomblets released from the cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a grave threat to civilians, especially in populated areas.
According to data from Human Rights Watch, unexploded cluster ammunition has resulted in a staggering estimate of civilian deaths, ranging from 56,500 to 86,500 since its introduction in 1943. Despite efforts to address this humanitarian concern, a convention banning cluster ammunition introduced in 2008 has been signed by 123 nations, but key players like the US, Russia, and Ukraine have not signed the agreement and continue to maintain significant stockpiles.
A concerning aspect of the ongoing conflict is that both Russia and Ukraine are currently utilizing cluster bombs, further exacerbating the potential risks to innocent lives. The UN has reported that a substantial percentage of the bomblets used in the conflict, possibly between 10% to 40%, have failed to detonate initially, creating a latent danger akin to landmines that can explode upon human contact. The US defended its decision to supply cluster bombs to Ukraine by asserting that they will be used solely on Ukrainian soil and not to escalate the conflict. However, this move has faced severe criticism and denunciation from various human rights groups and the Red Cross, who are deeply concerned about the inevitable civilian casualties and the use of such indiscriminate weapons.
The US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, attempted to justify the decision by highlighting that the cluster bombs being provided to Ukraine have a significantly lower failure rate compared to those used by Russia. Nevertheless, several staunch US allies, including the UK, New Zealand, Spain, and Canada, have voiced their protest against this decision, expressing profound apprehensions about the potential harm to civilians and the deployment of weapons with indiscriminate effects.
As we delve deeper into the rationale behind the US’s decision to send cluster bombs to Ukraine, multiple complex factors come into play. Foremost among these is the precarious situation on the ground, with Ukraine facing the troubling reality of losing the war, and the Russian Private Military Company, Wagner, seemingly less influential at the moment. Amid this backdrop, Kyiv’s once-promising counteroffensive has nearly stalled, leaving vulnerabilities that Russia might exploit in its next offensive.
Furthermore, the Ukrainian forces’ alarming rate of ammunition expenditure, coupled with the uncertainty of donor-provided supplies, adds to the urgency of the situation. The US acknowledges the challenges in ramping up artillery shell production to meet the demands on the ground. Regrettably, the current production rate falls short of expectations, leading to the consideration of alternative options like providing cluster ammunition.
Another key aspect influencing this decision is the impending US elections at the end of the year, which opens up the possibility of a Republican candidate, possibly even former President Trump, returning to the White House. The implications of such a shift in power could lead to reduced support for the war, which would ultimately result in a substantial setback for Ukraine and potentially NATO as well. As the US plays a crucial role in providing the necessary military aid, a change in administration could impact the support provided by other NATO members, as they alone may not be capable of sustaining Ukraine’s military requirements without significant US funding.
One crucial yet often overlooked factor that contributed to this decision is the state of ammunition availability in the US. Military stockpiles are maintained based on perceived threats and potential scenarios. As older ammunition reaches its shelf life and fresh supplies are received, rotation and training consumption are implemented to ensure readiness. However, in the current situation, a significant portion of the ammunition being rotated ends up being sent to Ukraine. Consequently, the ammunition reaching Ukraine comes from US reserve stocks, including those nearing the end of their shelf life. While fresh production may not match the quantities being exported, the necessity to replenish depleted stocks might have led to the consideration of cluster ammunition for supply.
Moreover, the US has previously provided Ukraine with 155mm Howitzers from its existing stocks, which utilize cluster bombs. Given the future prospect of needing to destroy surplus cluster ammunition to align with global pressures, sending them to Ukraine could be seen as a more viable and cost-effective option, possibly even included as part of the overall aid package. The unfortunate casualties faced by Ukrainian civilians due to the utilization of this ammunition would not have a direct long-term impact on the US, but rather, it could serve as a deterrent against future Russian offensives, as the unexploded bomblets can act as antipersonnel mines, urging caution in the adversary’s military actions.
It is essential to note that no nation would willingly provide recently produced stocks of ammunition to another country, nor would they willingly accept depleted stocks from their war reserves. In times of peace, ammunition production levels remain relatively low, aimed at fulfilling normal contingencies. It is only when imminent threats arise that production is ramped up. Thus, the supply of cluster bombs to Ukraine is not primarily intended to bolster its military power but a consequence of the US being compelled by complex and challenging circumstances.
Nonetheless, irrespective of the justifications and reasons behind the US’s decision, it cannot be denied that the potential civilian casualties resulting from the use of cluster bombs raise significant moral and ethical concerns. Such actions may be perceived as violations of humanitarian principles and may prompt accusations of war crimes.
In conclusion, the decision of the US to provide cluster bombs to Ukraine is a multifaceted and contentious move driven by a combination of factors. It reflects the complexities and dilemmas faced by nations during times of conflict. However, the potential impact on innocent civilians cannot be disregarded, emphasizing the importance of exercising caution and responsibility in dealing with such weaponry and the devastating consequences they can entail.
(The author is a Post Graduate student in International Relations at Amity University, Raipur. She writes articles and research papers regularly on international affairs and geopolitics.)
Aayush Pal 
Balaji Subramanian 
Palak Dogra