An artillery shell lands amidst a unit of Ukrainian soldiers

America risks losing the moral high ground by supplying Ukraine with a weapon banned by much of the world, so why are they supplying it?

The White House is fully aware of the huge controversy surrounding this cluster munitions decision.

Some 123 countries are part of the 2008 International Convention on Cluster Munitions which bans the use or transfer of this particular weapon.

Almost all of America's allies are signatories to the convention.

Even within US government circles, there has been deep unease about supplying its own stockpile of cluster munitions to Ukraine.

As recently as last week, within the state department, there was division about the decision to supply the weapon.

Globally, civilians represent 97% of cluster munition casualties, according to a report last year by the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor - an organisation that seeks to ban them altogether.

By supplying the weapon, there is a clear risk to civilians, not now necessarily, but in the future. The legacy of unexploded cluster bomblets is evident on former battlefields globally.

America also risks losing the moral high ground against Russia by supplying a weapon banned by much of the world.

So why supply it?

Well, the facts on the ground are not in Ukraine's favour. The transfer is a clear signal that the war is not going well for Ukraine.

The so-called spring offensive did not materialise in the spring and looks set to falter through the summer too.

Ukraine is fast running out of more conventional artillery with supply stocks in America and elsewhere running low.

The munitions would be used by Ukraine on occupied Ukrainian soil. The risk to civilians would be owned by Ukraine. The onus would be on Ukraine, with a pledge of American help, to clear the unexploded munitions when the war comes to an end.
Even some western media start to question US decision

Lancet vs Leopard 2A6

Possible short term gain worth the guaranteed long term problem?

US or NATO personnel tasked with maintaining any F-16 fighter jets sent to Ukraine would become "legitimate military targets" for Russian strikes, a former U.S. Air Force commander has told Newsweek.

Countries that supply fourth-generation fighters such as F-16s to Kyiv will likely also need to send contractors or military personnel who have experience maintaining the sophisticated jets, according to retired Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore, former deputy commander of the Cyber Command.

"You're going to have to have individuals from the countries that fly these aircraft—whether the United States or NATO, countries that may be gifting them—on the ground in Ukraine performing that function, whether it's contractors or whether it's military individuals," Moore added.

"And that raises a big, big concern."

If citizens from the countries donating jets are needed on bases, they become "a very, very interesting target for Russia, and those locations would become legitimate military targets in accordance with the laws of armed conflict," Moore said.

i say just provide them for russia to retaliate and end the war at nego table.

do you ACTUALLY believe this or just sharing for the sake of it ? 🤔