NEW YORK, NY – July 10 (DPI) – President Biden this weekend gave the green light to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, and the NYT op-ed board reacted with expert high-mindedness, declaring that “flawed and troubling logic” tipped the US into sending the weapons.

“In the face of the widespread global condemnation of cluster munitions and the danger they pose to civilians long after the fighting is over,” the editors wrote, “this is not a weapon that a nation with the power and influence of the United States should be spreading.”

But the ship of moral righteousness, nearly all readers said, has long since sailed. Ukraine is in a fight for its survival against a barbaric invader that’s been using cluster munitions against Ukrainians – soldiers and civilians alike – since the invasion started in February 2022, many pointed out.

The most popular comments served as a powerful reply to the NYT op-ed “opinion journalists”:

Most popular, in order:

I think the Ukrainians decision to use this type of weapon within their own country against an enemy that is already using those same weapons is all the debate that is really needed.

National security lawyer here. The flaw in this analysis ignores several key facts. First, international law isn’t established by a plurality of nations demanding something. It is either established by either a binding international agreement (which the US has not agreed to) or consistent state practice creating a norm (which, given the fact that Russia and China have not abided by this requirement, it is not an international norm). Secondly, in the absence of a categorical ban on their use, there are still some guidelines on how they may be used responsibly. They’re being used against an entrenched mass of troops in an area where there are few if any civilians and where there are already vast amounts of unexplored ordnance (UXO). UKR is already going to have to clean that UXO up. The general rule for any munition is that it can only be used against legitimate military targets where the military advantage to be gained (in this case, killing as many invading troops as quickly as possible in order to force RUS to capitulate) outweighs the expected civilian suffering. Cluster munitions are no different than any other weapon in that regard. If the proportionality analysis is high – there is an advantage in expelling the Russians, who are targeting civilian persons and infrastructure as such even now that outweighs the harm to civilians in the future if they wander in the area that was the battlefield – it is unquestionably legal to use these arms.

I would like to posit that notwithstanding the heightened and widespread global condemnations about the “Cluster Munitions”, President Biden and Mr. Jake Sullivan made the right decision to use it, in order to deter the Russian aggression in Ukraine. This brutal war in Ukraine is continuing for over a year and Putin is not displaying any conciliatory signs to end it. This unlawful and brazen Russian aggression against a sovereign country has undoubtedly caused most unprecedented damage to Humanity since the WW II. Effectively, the whole world is currently being held hostage by the war criminal Putin. As the leader of the free world, we should explore every possible recourse to bring this war and the resulting genocide to an end as early as possible. Let’s not forget that Peace, at times, comes at a price.

Russia has been using cluster and incendiary munitions against Ukrainian civilian targets for over a year. There are several weapons used by both sides (eg – mine-laying munitions) since the war’s outset that are technically “cluster” based. Ukraine has promised to use these only against occupying forces (and I believe them). Remember, there would be no need for anyone on any side to use any munitions at all had Russia not invaded. Let’s keep things in perspective, please?

There is a moral difference between using cluster munitions on another country vs using them in defense of the homeland. Let the Ukrainians decide if using these weapons is worth the risk.

It’s simply the lesser of two evils. Either provide weapons for the Ukrainians to push out the Russians, or make it easier it for the Russians to remain. It’s a bad decision, but it’s still the best decision available.