Russia cannot condemn the United States for not signing a treaty banning the supply of cluster munitions to Ukraine, but this move is seen by some in Washington as a desperate gamble. This assessment came from political analyst Alexei Yaroshenko on the TV channel 360.
Yaroshenko noted that cluster bombs are widely treated as banned weapons in many parts of the world. The Convention on Cluster Munitions has been signed by more than 140 countries. Still, the United States, China, and Russia have not joined the agreement, which shapes the international debate around this issue.
According to him, Russia cannot declare the use of cluster bombs a crime because Moscow is not party to the convention. While Russia could accuse the United States of violations within the framework of the treaty, the treaty does not bind Russia. Yet the broader international community has strongly condemned the use of cluster munitions because of the potential harm to civilians.
On July 7, the White House announced the intention to send Ukrainian cluster munitions. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasized that although the United States recognizes the civilian risks posed by these weapons, they may be provided to Ukraine in certain military contexts.
Following the announcement, Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, described the Biden administration’s decision as an act of desperation in the face of what she called the ongoing challenges to Ukraine’s counteroffensive efforts.
Earlier reports suggested a potential friction within NATO regarding the possibility of supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine, a development that could influence alliance dynamics and the broader trajectory of the conflict.
Analysts point out that the debate over cluster munitions intersects legal, humanitarian, and strategic concerns. Proponents argue that battlefield effectiveness and deterrence could be weighed against the humanitarian impact and long term risks to civilian populations. Critics insist that the weapons leave unexploded ordnance and civilian harm long after a conflict ends, creating unresolved dangers for communities caught in the crossfire. The evolving position of major powers on this topic continues to shape international diplomacy and security policy across North America, Europe, and other regions. The conversation remains fluid as governments assess consequences, alliances, and the norms that govern modern warfare, while humanitarian organizations continue to pressure for restraint and adherence to international law [citation: analysis from regional security experts].