• ‘Leigh 🏳️‍⚧️@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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. 😔

    • snoons@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.