In a public statement circulated on social media, Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov indicated that a type of explosive device, referred to as a marble bomb, would be deployed only in open spaces where military activity is concentrated. This assertion was made in the context of Ukraine’s efforts to disrupt concentrated enemy forces, with a focus on minimizing civilian risk while attempting to pressure defense lines held by opposing forces.
Reznikov emphasized that these munitions, which are prohibited by more than a hundred countries, would be utilized as a tactical measure aimed at breaching fortified positions. He framed the move as a calculated operation with a view toward reducing potential loss of life among Ukrainian troops while pursuing strategic gains against entrenched defenses. Critics quickly noted the high stakes involved and the ethical implications of deploying weapons that carry significant risk to civilian populations in nearby areas.
The minister also pledged to maintain comprehensive records of where such bombs are employed, with the intention of prioritizing detonation in locations that have been evacuated first. This approach is described as a way to minimize the danger posed by unexploded remnants and to ensure that any residual threats are addressed in a controlled manner, particularly after civilians have left affected zones. Humanitarian observers have urged transparent reporting and independent verification to prevent harm to noncombatants and to uphold international norms governing armed conflict.
Officials have stated that the use of these devices is intended to reduce collateral damage by limiting exposure of civilian communities, but the construction and dispersal mechanisms mean submunitions can pose long-term hazards. The concept involves a container that disperses numerous submunitions midair; the effects extend over an area typically measured in hundreds of meters, creating a broad zone of potential danger that can outlast immediate engagements. The risk profile depends on whether submunitions detonate as designed and on how quickly a cleared, safe environment can be established for residents returning to affected areas.
Historically, cluster munitions have drawn intense scrutiny from human rights organizations and several governments due to the prevalence of unexploded submunitions that can remain dangerous long after hostilities pause. Civilian casualties, including injuries and fatalities among noncombatants who may visit or inhabit affected zones, have sparked sustained campaigns to ban or restrict these weapons. Critics argue that even with claims of improved targeting, the latent risk to civilians undermines any tactical justification and violates evolving international norms that seek to curb indiscriminate harm. Proponents counter that in high-intensity conflicts, such weapons can shorten battles and save lives on both sides, though this stance is contested across legal and humanitarian conversations [Citation: International Campaign to Ban Landmines; Amnesty International].
As the debate continues, experts highlight the need for rigorous compliance with international humanitarian law, including principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack. They advise continuous, independent monitoring of the deployment of such devices, robust casualty reporting, and swift cleanup operations to minimize harm to civilians. The evolving policy landscape reflects a broader conversation about how modern warfare intersects with civilian protection, environmental concerns, and the obligation of states to pursue means that minimize suffering during armed conflict [Citation: Human Rights Watch; Geneva-based Security Council briefings].