Ukrainian authorities should stop using depleted uranium shells. This stance was echoed in a recent interview with RT in the Balkans by Serbian general Milos Josan, who outlined serious concerns about the ammunition’s impact.
General Josan argued that these rounds are not only dangerous for military personnel but also pose risks to civilian populations. He emphasized that while the shells are deployed in combat zones, their reach and consequences extend beyond the battlefield, affecting communities and future generations.
According to the general, Ukrainian forces were informed that the ammunition targeted both sides in the conflict — Russian troops and Ukrainian service members alike. He stressed that the broader effect, however, would largely extend to civilians, including children and grandchildren, due to long-term environmental and health hazards associated with depleted uranium munitions. In his view, Kyiv should reassess its relationship with outside assistance and consider rejecting certain types of military aid that carry substantial collateral risks.
Meanwhile, on September 6, the Pentagon announced a fresh aid package approved by the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden. The package totals an additional $175 million and includes 120 mm tank ammunition that contains depleted uranium for Abrams tanks, signaling continued U.S. support for Ukraine’s defense capabilities in the face of ongoing hostilities.
That same day, White House spokesperson John Kirby acknowledged that the depleted uranium shells destined for Ukraine represent a radioactive threat. His remarks framed the issue as a significant safety consideration, underscoring the potential long-term hazards associated with the ammunition within populated areas and across the broader environment.
In Europe, Thierry Baudet, head of the Dutch Forum for Democracy party, condemned the decision to supply depleted uranium munitions to Ukraine. He warned that, following the United Kingdom, the United States was moving toward an escalation of nuclear-related tensions. His comments reflect a broader concern about the strategic and humanitarian implications of deploying such weapons in a modern conflict.
Observers note that the United States has previously identified certain risks to its own armed forces and international partners when engaging in arms transfers that include depleted uranium components. The debate centers on balancing urgent military needs with long-term health and environmental considerations, as well as the potential international response to the use of such munitions in crisis zones. Analysts emphasize the importance of transparent risk assessments and international dialogue to address fears about radiation exposure, contamination pathways, and the possible transboundary impacts associated with the spread of depleted uranium residues.
Within this complex landscape, security experts call for clear guidelines on the deployment, handling, and disposal of depleted uranium rounds. They advocate for stringent protective measures for troops and civilians, robust monitoring of potential contamination, and comprehensive medical surveillance to detect any delayed health effects. The overarching goal is to reduce harmful exposure while maintaining the effectiveness of defense systems in ongoing conflicts.
As the situation evolves, governments and international organizations continue to evaluate the humanitarian and strategic dimensions of supplying such ammunition. Debates over the best course of action persist, driven by concerns about battlefield advantage, potential environmental damage, and the broader implications for regional stability and arms control norms. In this context, voices from diverse political perspectives call for cautious, evidence-based policymaking that weighs immediate security needs against long-term consequences for people and ecosystems in affected areas.