The White House has confirmed that Ukraine is using US cluster bombs against Russian forces in the country.

National Security Spokesman John Kirby said initial feedback suggested they were being used "effectively" on Russian defensive positions and operations.

Cluster bombs scatter multiple bomblets and are banned by more than 100 states due to their threat to civilians.

The US agreed to supply them to boost Ukrainian ammunition supplies.

Ukraine has promised the bombs will only be used to dislodge concentrations of Russian enemy soldiers.

"They are using them appropriately," Mr Kirby said. "They're using them effectively and they are actually having an impact on Russia's defensive formations and Russia's defensive manoeuvring. I think I can leave it at that."

The US decided to send cluster bombs after Ukraine warned that it was running out of ammunition during its summer counter-offensive, which has been slower and more costly than many had hoped.

President Joe Biden called the decision "very difficult", while its allies the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Spain opposed their use.

The vast majority sent are artillery shells with a lower than 2.35% "dud rate", a reference to the percentage of bomblets which do not explode immediately and can remain a threat for years.

The weapons are effective when used against troops in trenches and fortified positions, as they render large areas too dangerous to move around in until cleared.

Russia has used similar cluster bombs in Ukraine since it launched its full-scale invasion last year, including in civilian areas.

Reacting to the US decision to send the bombs, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country had similar weapons and they would be used "if they are used against us".

Oleksandr Syrskyi, the Ukrainian general in charge of operations in the country's east, told the BBC last week that his forces needed the weapons to "inflict maximum damage on enemy infantry".

"We'd like to get very fast results, but in reality it's practically impossible. The more infantry who die here, the more their relatives back in Russia will ask their government 'why?'"

He added however that cluster bombs would not "solve all our problems".

He also acknowledged that their use was controversial, but added: "If the Russians didn't use them, perhaps conscience would not allow us to do it too."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

Regarding peace talks people here seems to want In February 2022 peace could have been made but NATO /US called up Boris Johnson who went to Ukraine the stop it and successfully did so. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

What's happens in Ukraine have been a topic for papers since the 1990s . It's a proxy war where two competing oligarch fractions are fighting for dominance.

As Afghanistans president said Ukraine should have learned from them. When elephants dance...

The propaganda is so total that people rather see cluster bombs than peace. Fuck that.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The war propaganda is working as intended

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Who's got a rampant history of war crimes and genocide again?....

    . . . .

    Oh yeah, fucking russia!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Oh yeah fucking NATO *fixed it for you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Good thing NATO isn’t in this war then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    If NATO was actually in this conflict it would be over already

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Proxy war. Amazing that I am the bad guy for being against war crimes and ww3...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    So like Vietnam, where the US wasn’t at war with China and the Soviets? Or like Afghanistan where the USSR wasn’t at war with the US?

    lol and I’m obviously pro war crime and pro World War III because I don’t agree with you

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 1 point 3 years ago*

    Ukraine MOD has a program in place that databases every cluster munition fire mission. Demining eastern Ukraine is going to be a years long effort. Any unexpended ordinance will go into that effort. Countries that gave up cluster munitions have had their rose tinted glasses on too long and assumed war would be limited to foreign battlefields and not their back yards.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Many countries (not the US, Russia, or Ukraine) consider cluster bombs illegal. I worry seeing people applauding the use of such weapons...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I’d prefer they don’t get used, but my preference for Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine is much greater. They’re mapping their usage and south and eastern Ukraine will need extensive UXO clearing with or without the use of cluster munitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That's basically the excuse for every war crime...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Would you mind torture being used for "Russia to get the fuck out of Ukraine"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    No because that’s obvious harm, whereas cluster munitions are a potential future harm that needs to be fixed by clearing the battlefield of UXO with or without there being Ukrainian cluster munitions on the battlefield. Not to mention they’re already being used by Russia

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So that's where you draw the line in war crimes. It's OK if a kid loses its legs in 10 years but not OK if it happens now...

    Also, if the other guy is doing it, you can do it as well...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    You do know cluster munitions are not considere a war crime, right? It's a different agreement than the Geneva convention. Now, of course using it against civilians is covered (RU has done this, UA has not yet). What is mentioned in the Geneva convention is the responsibility to remove unexploded ordenances.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Neither side is a signatory of the now 13 year old ban, it’s not a war crime. I’m looking at the reality of the battlefield, which is already littered with more artillery rounds than likely any battlefield since the Second World War and realizing that this battlefield will be a disaster to clean up with or without the Ukrainians using rounds that will hopefully help them win. I am obviously against kids getting blown up

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (17 children)

    War is hell. That statement is both true and has lost all meaning, because no one really feels it.

    We should be negotiating a peace by now. The suffering of these cluster bombs cause is immeasurable, as is the general suffering of this war.

    Imagine

    spoilerbeating a puppy to death with a golf club
    . Imagine the whole thing vividly, and then imagine
    spoilerpushing the pulpy body aside
    and doing it again, and just repeating this exercise ad nausium for hours and hours. This is the kind of feeling we should experience when we read stories about this conflict, if we had any concept of what a war is. And when we debate whether to use cluster bombs, that's like debating whether to use
    spoilera nine iron or crush the puppy's skull slowly with a boot
    . One is definitely, definitely DEFINITELY WORSE, and should NEVER BE DONE, but both are awful and should make us so physically ill to think about that we would do anything at all -- such as negotiate a ceasefire! -- to avoid doing it.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Peace will happen when Russia removes itself from it's sovereign neighbor. Until that happens, turn Russians into dog food.

    You cannot give an inch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Every war ends in a meeting. Negotiate a conplete Russian withdrawal, or Putin's surrender. You can negotiate for anything, but fighting without talking while while communities are permanently displaced and traumatized is just sad evidence that defending Ukrainians lives or territory is no longer the US's goal.

    Are we doing this because we're value Ukrainians? Or because we hate Russia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    We’re arming Ukraine to preserve the rule based order established after War II that dictates sovereign nations cannot have their territory unilaterally annexed by another nation. Allowing this to happen without support to Ukraine would only tell other despots looking to start wars of conquest that they are allowed to do so without repercussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm on board with that basic premise, but when we start arming them with cluster bombs? It seems like we need to at least pump the breaks and check what our goals are and where we're willing to go. What about nerve gas? Land minds? Aerial war in the Russian mainland? I think even the people who disagree with me surely have some boundaries that they're not comfortable with. This seems like a point for use each to inquire how much devastation is productive for the people who actually bear the brunt of these choices.

    I mean, these cluster bombs WILL kill innocent civilians after the war. Are they on board with that? I highly doubt they've signed off on this particularly strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    The West has already armed Ukraine with landmines. Western mines typically deactivate after a set amount of time. Nerve gas isn’t a useful weapon because you can’t control the wind. You’re positing a slippery slope, which is a fallacy as at every step of the way we are able to say “no, that’s not a good idea”. As for who is dealing with the brunt of the suffering from this war, the Ukrainians, polls indicate a supermajority of support for Zelenskyy. His government has indicated that they cannot negotiate with Russia at this time as they do not negotiate in good faith. They want Russia in a position where they’re incapable of violating any agreements they make rather than another situation like the Minsk Accords where Russia just bided their time and invaded even more extensively.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    There have been talks and negotiations. But if it's clear again and again that there is no trust, where should these lead? If you know that any negotiation and agreement is unreliable, what's the point? What's the point of stopping fighting if this is just used as positioning by an enemy that doesn't share your wish for peace or other values and doesn't even respect your autonomy or self-determined identity? Think about the negotiations around Mariupol, where civilian evacuation routes were agreed upon by both parties to then be attacked. Or civilian infrastructure like Odessa just a few days ago and countless other examples.

    I think your wish for peace is commendable, but it's incredibly removed from reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    War is hell. That statement is both true and has lost all meaning, because no one really feels it.

    We should be negotiating a peace by now. The suffering of these cluster bombs cause is immeasurable, as is the general suffering of this war.

    Imagine

    spoilerbeating a puppy to death with a golf club
    . Imagine the whole thing vividly, and then imagine
    spoilerpushing the pulpy body aside
    and doing it again, and just repeating this exercise ad nausium for hours and hours. This is the kind of feeling we should experience when we read stories about this conflict, if we had any concept of what a war is. And when we debate whether to use cluster bombs, that's like debating whether to use
    spoilera nine iron or crush the puppy's skull slowly with a boot
    . One is definitely, definitely DEFINITELY WORSE, and should NEVER BE DONE, but both are awful and should make us so physically ill to think about that we would do anything at all -- such as negotiate an end to the war! -- to avoid doing it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    What is there to negotiate? Russia can end the war whenever they want just by going home. Do you think Ukraine should just abandon its citizens in the occupied territories to the whims of a genocidal maniac?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't have the energy for fights. Just look at some of the other comments I posted. The TLDR is that we need to always be guided by actually acting in the interests of vulnerable Ukrainians, and that requires ending the war, and negotiation is how wars end. It's not surrender, it's not appeasement, it's how wars end even when you win. What's happening now is mostly driven by US interests to weaken a geopolitical foe and is totally divorced from concern for the people on the ground. Cluster bombs prove it.

    I don't think you or me or anyone in this thread would ever, ever support the use of cluster bombs in a place where we intended to raise our children or children's children. Does that make sense? Their use is just evidence that hurting Russia is the point. Negotiation is how you do the actual thing people seem to believe fighting does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Russians are more dangerous than land mines. Even if you had to make that area impossible to live in, it is still better than having russians there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›