Follow us on social

Screenshot-2023-07-07-at-12.16.18-pm

Reps. Jacobs & Omar unleash plans to stop WH cluster munitions to Ukraine

"If the U.S. is going to be a leader on international human rights, we must not participate in human rights abuses."

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

President Joe Biden’s looming decision to include cluster munitions in the next weapons package to Ukraine could prove to be a political challenge. Democratic Reps. Sara Jacobs (Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.) have introduced an amendment to the 2023 NDAA that would effectively block the transfer of these munitions. 

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no military assistance shall be furnished for cluster munitions, no defense export license for cluster munitions may be issued, and no cluster munitions or cluster munitions technology shall be sold or transferred,” reads the amendment. 

“Cluster munitions keep killing long after their initial use with the potential to injure and kill civilians for generations, something we have seen in many other post-war contexts like Cambodia and Vietnam,” wrote Rep. Jacobs in a Twitter thread explaining her opposition. “Cluster munitions also prevent successful rebuilding and economic recovery in the countries where they’re used.”

"If the U.S. is going to be a leader on international human rights, we must not participate in human rights abuses. We can support the people of Ukraine in their freedom struggle, while also opposing violations of international law," Rep. Omar added in a comment to Politico’s NatSec Daily.

“I applaud the NDAA amendment proposed by Reps. Jacobs and Rep. Omar,”  Sera Koulabdara, CEO of the advocacy group Legacies of War, told RS. “I urge them and other leaders to continue to stand on the side of the basic human rights to live free from the fear of cluster munitions and speak out publicly to their colleagues and the American people.” 

Other lawmakers, including Reps. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), have also voiced their opposition to the transfer of these bombs. 

Kyiv has been pushing for its Western supporters to provide them with what it views as weapons to help Ukraine in its ongoing counteroffensive. Russia has already been using them extensively in Ukraine, and Ukraine has also reportedly used cluster bombs, most recently using Turkish-provided munitions.

Washington has so far held off on providing Kyiv with these highly controversial weapons.  But in June, Laura Cooper, a Pentagon official responsible for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian affairs, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the munitions “would be useful, especially against dug-in Russian positions on the battlefield.”

Cluster munitions inflict long-lasting and devastating consequences on civilian populations. Since World War II, cluster munitions have killed an estimated 56,500 to 86,500 civilians. In 2008, more than 100 countries signed a treaty pledging not to make, use, or transfer cluster bombs, though neither the U.S. nor Ukraine are signatories.

“Cluster munitions, launched from air or ground, break apart in mid-air to scatter a large number of explosive submunitions known as ‘bomblets,’” explained Alyssa Blakemore recently in Responsible Statecraft.

“Independent estimates put the failure rate of cluster bombs as high as 10 to 40 percent, leaving unexploded remnants to kill and maim unsuspecting civilians long after a conflict’s end,” Blakemore added. “Children especially make up a large number of victims as they are drawn to the shape, size, and color of cluster submunitions often found embedded in the ground.”

Human rights groups raised serious concerns about the consequences of introducing more cluster bombs to the battlefield. 

“Both countries should stop using these inherently indiscriminate weapons, and no country should supply cluster munitions because of their foreseeable danger to civilians,” according to a recent report from Human Rights Watch. “Transferring these weapons would inevitably cause long-term suffering for civilians and undermine the international opprobrium of their use.” 

 The decision to transfer these weapons “is not only wrong and short-sighted but it shows a complete disregard to international consensus by over 100 countries, including 18 of our NATO allies,” said Koulabdara. “The government officials who made this shameful decision clearly did not learn from America's own mistakes in using cluster munitions in the American wars in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan to name just a few.”


Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.)(Reuters) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)((Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)
Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.