The Government of Canada is hammering down on its stance against the use of cluster munitions following the U.S. decision to send the controversial weapon to Ukraine.
According to Michael Koffman, these weapons won’t be that useful on attack because cluster rounds are an area-denial weapon. You don’t launch them into areas you intend to attack. The real issue here is that the west is running out of conventional artillery ammunition and they are not making more in enough numbers to sustain Ukraine’s efforts. Europe promised to produce a million rounds per year, but to date they are nowhere near meeting that target.
The US supply of cluster ammunition is the only large stash of stockpiled rounds left that hasn’t already been depleted. Since Ukraine has to contemplate the possibility that they will run out of ammunition they have to husband what they have left, and can’t go all-in supporting their offensives. But knowing that this stockpile is on its way and will be available to defend after the offensive, they can fully commit their remaining conventional ammunition.
This is why the European response has been so muted. They know it’s necessary to use this stuff because it’s the only stuff that’s still available in large quantities. And they know it’s partially their fault for being so slow in ramping up production.
Also I’d like to add it’s a massive shit sandwich for Biden to eat, it’s gone over about as well as you’d expect with his party. I doubt there was anything approaching a viable alternative.
Also I will note that while these are still bad in no uncertain terms, the dud rate is under 2.5% versus the old school cluster munitions which had dud rates exceeding 40% (like the kind Russia is using now) if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO, not to mention any shortening of the conflict reducing the number of mines deployed by the Russian military who are a particular fan of the extremely problematic PFM-1 butterfly mines which are basically a way of dropping highly volatile UXO all over an area.
if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO
Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.
This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.
If the objective was shortening the conflict, then we would have told them they were on their own. The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.
The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.
The US has spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia starve and decimate Yemen, so it doesn’t make sense to me to use this kind of moralistic language like we’re good guys here.
I thought it was a given that Russia also can’t win but I suppose you can look at it this way, Russia could end the war right now if they wanted. It’s a whole can of worms but I think it’s vital for global security and stability that Russia does not take over Ukraine. Long term a win for Russia will cause more pain and suffering for everyone including Russian civilians.
Because if you do not stop the violence, it will continue. Ukraine is defending itself from an invasion. Providing the tools to resist the invasion saves lives. If Ukraine were to stop resisting, Russia would murder millions of people like they have already tried to do.
Following that, Putin and his cronies have declared that they would invade Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and every former member state of the Soviet union. Many of these nations are currently NATO member states which would directly kick off of a Third World war and which lead to nuclear war in Asia and Europe.
Russia can peacefully and the war that anytime by withdrawing. Why haven’t they? They are the instigators and they can end it.
I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.
If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?
I was replying to the idea that sending more weapons was wrong, not these specific weapons, but I’m sure Ukraine would accept more of something else in their place. Ideally something with more range.
According to Michael Koffman, these weapons won’t be that useful on attack because cluster rounds are an area-denial weapon. You don’t launch them into areas you intend to attack. The real issue here is that the west is running out of conventional artillery ammunition and they are not making more in enough numbers to sustain Ukraine’s efforts. Europe promised to produce a million rounds per year, but to date they are nowhere near meeting that target.
The US supply of cluster ammunition is the only large stash of stockpiled rounds left that hasn’t already been depleted. Since Ukraine has to contemplate the possibility that they will run out of ammunition they have to husband what they have left, and can’t go all-in supporting their offensives. But knowing that this stockpile is on its way and will be available to defend after the offensive, they can fully commit their remaining conventional ammunition.
This is why the European response has been so muted. They know it’s necessary to use this stuff because it’s the only stuff that’s still available in large quantities. And they know it’s partially their fault for being so slow in ramping up production.
Also I’d like to add it’s a massive shit sandwich for Biden to eat, it’s gone over about as well as you’d expect with his party. I doubt there was anything approaching a viable alternative.
Also I will note that while these are still bad in no uncertain terms, the dud rate is under 2.5% versus the old school cluster munitions which had dud rates exceeding 40% (like the kind Russia is using now) if dropping ten of these prevents the Russians from dropping one of theirs you are coming out ahead in terms of UXO, not to mention any shortening of the conflict reducing the number of mines deployed by the Russian military who are a particular fan of the extremely problematic PFM-1 butterfly mines which are basically a way of dropping highly volatile UXO all over an area.
War is hell.
Hmm. However justified one feels Ukraine’s struggle is, it’s hard to understand how sending more weapons into a brutal war will result in less violence. NATO supplying Ukraine with weapons is not having the effect of shortening the conflict, it’s having the exact opposite effect. You can make an argument that the U.S and its allies should continue to support Ukraine so that Ukraine can hopefully win this conflict, but that’s a different argument than the humanitarian angle of shortening the conflict.
This is a very, very dangerous game that is being played. Russia has nuclear weapons. It’s a real tragedy what’s happening one way or another.
Because Ukraine is advancing too slowly. It prolongs the fights in certain areas, allows Russians to shell cities.
If Ukraine were to reach Crimea in the South, the frontline would shrink appreciably.
If the objective was shortening the conflict, then we would have told them they were on their own. The objective is for a sovereign nation to remain so.
The US has spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia starve and decimate Yemen, so it doesn’t make sense to me to use this kind of moralistic language like we’re good guys here.
Oh we suck for sure, but not doing the “right” thing because we also do the wrong thing seems like a shitty way to live.
Not having health care because your government funds other countries’ wars is a shitty way to live, without question.
I thought it was a given that Russia also can’t win but I suppose you can look at it this way, Russia could end the war right now if they wanted. It’s a whole can of worms but I think it’s vital for global security and stability that Russia does not take over Ukraine. Long term a win for Russia will cause more pain and suffering for everyone including Russian civilians.
Because if you do not stop the violence, it will continue. Ukraine is defending itself from an invasion. Providing the tools to resist the invasion saves lives. If Ukraine were to stop resisting, Russia would murder millions of people like they have already tried to do.
Following that, Putin and his cronies have declared that they would invade Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, and every former member state of the Soviet union. Many of these nations are currently NATO member states which would directly kick off of a Third World war and which lead to nuclear war in Asia and Europe.
Russia can peacefully and the war that anytime by withdrawing. Why haven’t they? They are the instigators and they can end it.
The alternative to fighting back is to do nothing against the country that’s committing genocide and want to end another country’s existence.
I don’t believe the only options are to do nothing or to use horrific weapons which primary kill civilians and which have been banned by over 100 countries, including major U.S allies who, unlike almost everyone in this thread, are quite critical of the United States for sending these munitions to the battlefield.
If the logic of supporting Ukraine and ending the conflict as quickly as possible supports the use of cluster bombs, why not chemical weapons? Why not nuclear weapons? Where do you draw the line with this logic of escalation?
I was replying to the idea that sending more weapons was wrong, not these specific weapons, but I’m sure Ukraine would accept more of something else in their place. Ideally something with more range.