The New York Times editorial board comes out against the US supplying cluster munitions to Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/opinion/cluster-munitions-ukraine-biden.html

This isn't a new position fwiw. They've been consistently against these munitions for many years.

"While it is Ukraine’s decision to choose what weapons it uses in its defense, it is for America to decide which weapons to supply."

I disagree with their position, but it is an understandable and valid one. I agree with them that just because Russia uses them is insufficient justification. Ukraine should strive to be morally and ethically better than the Russian military. Likewise their strategic advantage is an improper lens as all sorts of rightfully banned weapons would be strategically advantageous.

I think where they err in their comparisons is that Ukraine doesn't have many options here. Western allies have a lot of military equipment to spare, but not necessarily artillery ammunition. A successful counteroffensive let alone defending territory against the Russian military will require artillery fire. I'd rather have Ukraine make the informed decision on their use rather than take that choice off the table for them while we keep these munitions stockpiled. We should have destroyed these munitions long before this conflict, but we didn't.

Either way I think it is right to acknowledge the cost of the decision. Ukraine will be dealing with a substantial demining effort long after this war ends. I hope we have as much commitment to that effort as we do to the war effort. And while Russia's cluster munitions have a much higher dud rate, the munitions being sent have a relatively high real-world dud rate themselves.

I will say a person who is against cluster munitions, but not for supplying HIMARS, tanks, and F-16s should reevaluate their logic. I hope everyone wants this war to end as quickly as possible. Attrition of ammunition will increase as this war gets prolonged by hesitation.