Internationally banned weapon: US cluster munitions split the anti-Putin front

class=”sc-29f61514-0 fQbOYE”>

“It’s brutal, it’s inhumane and it’s a violation of international law.” With these words, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (64) last year condemned the use of cluster munitions by Russian troops in Ukraine. Because cluster bombs are internationally banned, they still pose a threat to the civilian population years after use.

On Friday, US President Joe Biden (80) authorized the delivery of the – according to Stoltenberg – brutal, inhumane cluster bombs to Ukraine. This time, however, there is no criticism from the NATO chief. After all, the NATO member states must be able to decide for themselves which weapons are sent to Ukraine. And also: Ukraine is defending itself with this controversial weapon against an aggressor who has invaded their country in violation of international law.

The Biden administration has gone to great lengths to justify the decision. You just want to bridge the time until enough conventional ammo is produced again. In addition, the percentage of duds in US cluster munitions is very low. And anyway, the use of cluster munitions is still much better than a victory for Vladimir Putin (70). Colin Kahl, 52, secretary of state of the US Department of Defense, said: “The worst thing that can happen to civilians in Ukraine is a victory for the Russian army.”

Does that justify the use of cluster bombs? This question is currently dividing the formerly united anti-Russian front. Because the White House’s yes to cluster bombs means a break with most allies: an international agreement that came into force in 2010 – the so-called Oslo Convention – prohibits the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of cluster munitions. However, neither the US nor Ukraine has joined the agreement.

Western unity is crumbling

Britain maintains its opposition to cluster munitions. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (43) said this on Saturday. “The UK has signed a convention banning the production or use of cluster munitions – and we advise against their use,” Sunak told Sky News.

Resistance is also rampant in Germany. Among other things, Sahra Wagenknecht (53), left-wing politician and usually sharp critic of arms supplies to Ukraine, finds clear words: “Instead of supplying internationally banned cluster munitions to Ukraine, the West should finally work towards a negotiated peace and supply mine .” clean-up equipment”, she writes Twitter. However, the German federal government on Friday showed understanding for the plans of the US government.

US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, 46, insisted there were no “cracks” in NATO unity when asked about Germany’s position. “On the contrary, we believe there is a deep understanding within the alliance.” Responses within the alliance contradict Sullivan at least in part.

Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles (66) makes it clear that while she says “yes” to legitimate defense, she says “no” to cluster munitions. UN Secretary-General António Guterres (74) is also not happy with the decision. “The Secretary General supports the Convention against Cluster Munitions, which, as you know, was passed 15 years ago,” Guterres’ spokesman told reporters. “That is why he is against the continued use of cluster munitions on battlefields.”

A victory by dishonest means?

Biden’s shift in strategy seems to have another, more disturbing reason: it reveals fears in Washington that Putin may yet exhaust Ukraine. Even a month after the start, the Ukrainian counter-offensive is not going according to plan. Ukrainian troops have been without vital ammunition for months.

In that regard, it makes sense from a military point of view to equip Ukraine with such weapons. But even Biden’s party colleagues know that a victory won by the wrong means is not the ideal scenario. “A victory for Ukraine should not be at the expense of our American values ​​and therefore democracy as a whole,” said Democratic Congressman Chrissy Houlahan, 56.

Source: Blick