I understand the gravity of this consideration, and it’s commendable to abide by our Convention obligations — but at the same time it’s pretty rich to be lecturing Ukraine on the immorality of using against the invader the same weapons which Russia has been using against their schools, hospitals and residential areas since literally the first day of the war.
I read this more as a condemnation of the US (as opposed to Ukraine) for enabling further use of an indiscriminate weapon that will have civilian consequences for decades to come. But alas, it’s what I expect from those warmongers to our south. 😔
Russia is not bound by that treaty, and have been using them since they invaded. As such, not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.
Putin loves it when Ukraine’s allies don’t offer more support because of ‘moral’ issues. Russia has no morals, and so time and again they get the upper hand because they can do whatever the fuck they want.
not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.
I strongly disagree with you here. I’m not against providing any weapons to Ukraine, I just believe there are better options than cluster munitions — options which won’t still be killing civilians in the decades to come. I don’t believe that cluster munitions are in any way essential to Ukraine’s defence.
Ukraine and its allies can’t do anything (short of surrendering, which I certainly don’t advocate) to stop Russia’s use of them, and there will be long-term consequences. But that doesn’t make it a good — or even neutral — idea to add on additional long-term consequences. The more unexploded ordinance, the more danger to residents in the future.
I understand the gravity of this consideration, and it’s commendable to abide by our Convention obligations — but at the same time it’s pretty rich to be lecturing Ukraine on the immorality of using against the invader the same weapons which Russia has been using against their schools, hospitals and residential areas since literally the first day of the war.
I read this more as a condemnation of the US (as opposed to Ukraine) for enabling further use of an indiscriminate weapon that will have civilian consequences for decades to come. But alas, it’s what I expect from those warmongers to our south. 😔
Russia is not bound by that treaty, and have been using them since they invaded. As such, not supplying them to Ukraine gives russia an advantage, thus being against the US supplying them to Ukraine is de-facto a pro-russian stance.
Putin loves it when Ukraine’s allies don’t offer more support because of ‘moral’ issues. Russia has no morals, and so time and again they get the upper hand because they can do whatever the fuck they want.
I strongly disagree with you here. I’m not against providing any weapons to Ukraine, I just believe there are better options than cluster munitions — options which won’t still be killing civilians in the decades to come. I don’t believe that cluster munitions are in any way essential to Ukraine’s defence.
Ukraine and its allies can’t do anything (short of surrendering, which I certainly don’t advocate) to stop Russia’s use of them, and there will be long-term consequences. But that doesn’t make it a good — or even neutral — idea to add on additional long-term consequences. The more unexploded ordinance, the more danger to residents in the future.
I think we should let the Ukrainian military decide what weapons they need.