 Welcome to American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apachele, your host and today's title is USA to Give Ukraine Cluster Bombs. For those that don't know what a cluster bomb is, it's basically one munition, one bomb that splits up into many hundreds of small bombs and they tend to detonate in the air just over feet or yards above where ground troops may exist. This week, President Biden said that he will authorize the use of cluster bombs. The United States will give you these cluster bombs and that basically brings a whole host of ethical and other issues to the table. And to discuss those issues, I have with me my co-host Jay Fiedel and our special esteemed guest Chuck Crumpton. Good morning gentlemen. Good morning. Jim, Jay. Chuck, to you first. President Biden got on the airwaves and said that there's been months of deliberation about whether or not the United States will give Ukraine these deadly cluster bombs. Oh by the way, just to clarify, cluster bombs basically is also referred to as flying landmines. So they blast into radius of shards and shrapnel everywhere and there's something called a dead rate. The dead rate is for those smaller bombs that do not detonate and they lay on the ground for months or years. So getting back to what President Biden said, he said that, and I quote, either these will stop Russia now or they won't. I think they need them, referring to Ukraine. And so this is a reversal the United States said we were not going to give them and now we are. So what's your thought about President Biden's statement and the general use of cluster bombs in this Putin's war? Thanks, Tim. I think where I start from is I actually lived, taught English, did some social work in Vietnam during the war, 1968 to 71, 73 to 75. So I've told Jay, I think you'd have a hard time finding anybody more uncomfortable about and opposed to cluster bombs than I am just based on actual experience from time in the war in Vietnam. And they, as you say, they can last for years. The non-detonate rate may be as high as 10% or more in many situations. That's a lot of those to be left out there for people to stumble across. And I'm going to add one personal anecdote to this. I actually one of my former students was killed when he went to rescue a bird from a tree and actually stepped on one of those and set it off. Whether it was a mine or a cluster bomb, they're in essence the same undetonated ordinance risk. But I think underneath the bigger question is what the heck happened to the U.S. and Western weapons supply systems to put them in a position where President Biden is basically saying, well, we got to send these because they're running out of ammunition and that's all we got right now. That's a great question. Actually is one of my questions for later in the show. Yeah, that's a great question you ask. And that by saying that he implies that the United States doesn't have enough ammunition or we have enough in reserves for the defense of the United States, but none extra to give. Yeah, I'm perplexed on that as well. Who knows? Maybe Sweden has a lot of ammunition and maybe that's why they traded some F-15s to Erdogan in exchange for approval of Sweden coming into NATO. But it's not just the U.S. I mean, all the rest of NATO, which has voted pretty overwhelmingly to continue support for Ukraine's defense. Is there no source of acceptable ammunition for the current spring offensive or whatever Ukraine is doing right now? That's a great observation. And we know that Ukraine is hobbling together sources of weaponry and ammunition from a variety of sources. So, you know, in one day they have a Russian anti-tank gun and then the next something from the United States and then the next from something from Germany. So, we have all this weaponry that's a mishmash and it's a question of whether or not they have ammunition that fits all the apparatus that they've collected. So, Chuck, let me ask you something. You know a question, right? Of course. Here's all the firepower which just don't have anything to load it with. Right. We got weapons galore, but no ammo. Let me ask you something because, you know, a year when this war first started and, you know, Jen Penske, I mispronounce her name, I believe. You know, she was the spokesperson for the Biden administration early on and she said it's most likely Russia is committing a war crime by using these cluster bombs. What happens a year or, you know, 500 days later that is no longer conceived or perceived as a war crime by using them? I mean, if you convert from being a diplomat and a national leader and a statesman to just another hypocritical politician, this is probably not a good time to be doing that as we move into campaign season. All right. Good point. Jay. I question the reasons for the choice more than the choice itself. Well, let's address that. Jay, the reason for the choice is that if they don't stop Russia now and Ukraine runs out of ammunition and Russia advances, the implication was Ukraine loses the war. So what's the lesser of two evils? And that's what I got out of President Biden's message that it's vital for Ukraine to use these to stop Russia and keep them in place and actually push them back to the counteroffensive. Your thoughts? I have so many thoughts about this, but none of them would oppose cluster bombs. My first thought is, gee whiz, you know, you can go on the internet today and you can find all the media down on cluster bombs, down on Biden. Even Donald Trump is criticizing Biden for using cluster bombs. And what that tells me is that we're having a media frenzy and it's becoming politicized too. Now your point a minute ago was very valuable. The fact is this is going on a year and a half now. It's a completely immoral invasion by one state against another. A lot of Ukrainians have needlessly died and been tortured and kidnapped and that's still going on. Putin has taken his experience with Progosian to redouble his efforts. He is trying to destroy the country. So the choice of ammunition, the choice of bombs, whether it's that or phosphorus or landmine, what have you, really to me seems almost inconsequential. You never heard anybody from Ukraine oppose cluster bombs. They want to survive. They don't have any people are dying. And so I really see this as a media frenzy. You never see this kind of frenzy when the Ukrainians are being killed. When this whole thing is it turning into a World War One crunch or trench stale flag mire. We don't see that. The media not interested in that. That's old news. I'm really unhappy that the media is having a feeding frenzy on this issue and allowing people like Trump to politicize it. I think that we have to provide whatever support is necessary. This is a violation of the liberal world order. If Ukraine fails, we all fail. Ukraine is doing our work for us. Ukraine is putting its people into the meat grinder. We have to do everything possible. It's amazing to me that in a year and a half the United States has not built up an inventory of weapons and that it could comfortably provide Ukraine. What are we doing? You know, I keep thinking of that incredible image where this guy is hanging on a plane as the plane is taking off from the airfield in Afghanistan. And that was a huge failure by Biden because he didn't see it coming. And he didn't see this one coming either. He's been prevaricating and perambulating around all these weapons issues. Meanwhile, they're dying. And time goes by. They're being starved out. It doesn't look good for Ukraine. I'm sorry to say. I hope that Europe comes through. I hope this thing in Lithuania is more help than it seems to be. So I don't really care about all this discussion and controversy over cluster bombs. I want them to win. I want to give them everything they need to win. This is a, can I say, inflection point? It's a global inflection point. We cannot fool around. This is not what we ought to be having a queen, Marcus, of Queensbury discussion about. All right. Let me let me introduce one of the rationales why the Biden administration in consultation with his Department of Defense and other parties. And the one that, and I struggle with this one, I struggle with this debate. But the argument that wins it for me is that look at the impact the Russians have when they come into the Ukrainians' villages and take over and look at the war crimes that pursue. The argument that these cluster bombs are keeping the Russians deep in their trenches and away from advancement. Your thoughts on that point of argument? Russians are using cluster bombs. Yes, they are. That's another argument. But what about the one that, you know, the Russians are far worse and far more brutal to the Ukrainians if they advance? And that alone should be a rationalization for the use of cluster bombs against the Russians. Well, do they have a point in there? Yes. If you have a football field of Russians advancing on Ukraine and this kind of munition will stop them, let's stop them. This is a military versus military kind of munition. And I, you know, certainly I agree there's a risk that goes later. We have many examples, not only Vietnam, Laos, she was all over the world where cluster bombs have blown hands and legs and killed people, you know, decades later. But that's not the issue. People are dying in Ukraine. We have to do whatever we can do. So if we can stop a field of infantry from Russia, as they would do to us, as they are doing to Ukraine with landmines all over the place, then we have to stop them. I don't think the emphasis is right to question Biden's decision. We can't fight a war by consensus. Have you noticed that never works? Good point. Chuck, I want to run past those two rationalizations that are being brought up as a, as a reason why cluster bombs should be given to Ukraine. And again, I'll repeat it is what will the Russians do and what have they done when they advanced on Ukrainian citizens. And two, the Russians been using cluster bombs since day one. And then I'll add a third one is that no matter what, the amount of ordnance that needs to be cleared out, whether it be Ukrainian cluster bombs or Russian cluster bombs is in the amount of tons and tons of ordinance that after this war is over and it will be over, that all has to be cleared out and it'll take quite a while to do so. So your thoughts on those three points? You know, I think that's a really important perspective to come back to, Tim, because first of all, it is indisputable that Russia has been using drones to attack purely civilian targets, not just apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, places that have no relation to military uses. And Jay is right. This is war. It's a win-lose proposition. This is not something that's in negotiations. Both sides are not sitting down saying, okay, let's have a proxy war by drone. And whoever wins the proxy war by drone, it takes all and we're done. But we don't do it at the expense necessarily of human life. Okay. But nobody's doing that. There are no negotiations that are meaningfully taken place. And so where it takes us back to and where Jay's points take us back to is what are the U.S. and NATO going to do? They've got a situation where Russia has contrary to international law, contrary to all ethical and moral standards, has continued to engage in an infinite series of war crimes against the neighboring people. And that's going to continue without limits, unless somehow it stops. Okay. If this is what it takes to stop it, Jay makes a very good point. But the other point that it ties into is, okay, what is NATO going to do to bring an end to this conflict rather than make it an everlasting stalemate? Did we learn anything from Vietnam? Well, again, yeah, what is NATO going to do? So far, a lot of rhetoric, don't you think? A year and a half of rhetoric. And they're now in a quagmire. And you know, a quagmire does not help Ukraine. This is a war of attrition. And that's exactly what Putin is doing. That's what the Progression was doing. It doesn't look good. You know, you say win or lose. Well, one of these days, how surprised would you be if Zelensky said, all right, had enough, I can't stand to see my people killed this way. I'm going to fold a unilateral armistice. He's got to win. He's fighting for all of us. So my thought on Chuck's point is that the press ought to be talking about what more NATO can do to actually help Ukraine win the war. Instead, they're trying to tie Ukraine's hands on this one issue that I don't think that helps anyone. Let me try to grasp what many people are trying to think of what the real issue is with cluster bombs. Is it the fact that it's so effective that it just causes mass destruction? Or is it the fact that there's a dud factor, there's a dud ordinance factor that will be discovered later on by citizens? Let me add something to that. You know, it's a bomb casing. It's dropped from an airplane usually. And the casing itself is not explosive. Inside the casing are many, many bomblets. I'm not sure that's the right term. That is the right term. Spread over a football field of geography. Okay. And most of them explode. And if you're on that football field, you're going to get killed or hurt. The problem, the moral problem is that decades later, some kid is going to be playing in that field. Okay. So it's kind of like a landmine in this sense. In order to make a bomb, you know, I don't want to tell you guys anything you don't know. You have to have metal. You have to have metal. You have to feel. And if the child is playing in the football field, there are technologies now today that can identify that steel. And so, I mean, we've never really used those technologies because we really haven't had a lot of cluster bombs in our lifetimes. I mean, yes, Vietnam, yes, Laos, yes, other places where war was being fought, including wars by Russia. Russia does this as a regular matter, guys. But there hasn't been a counter technology developed. It could be. It should be. I think the priority is first you help them win. And then you worry about what's left on the ball field later. We can help them. We should help them. We will help them. We'll give them hundreds of billions, even trillions, to restore their country. But if they don't have a country, this is all for waste. And we're just spitting in the wind. And, Chuck, let me ask you about another issue that may crop up with this granting of the cluster bombs to Ukraine. Do you think there's a concern of escalation of other weaponry, specifically vacuum bombs, which are basically outlawed because they literally suck the air and oxygen out of the air for quite a geography of area? Well, what we've seen is that there really are no limits. And Putin has repeatedly said there are no limits on what he'll use. So the real question is the one that Jay has just alluded to. What will it take for the U.S. and NATO to sufficiently support and arm the Ukraine to reach a level of military success that will leave Putin no alternative but to come to the bargaining table? Well, okay, that's what I'll turn to. Let me add to that. We've been hearing about the F-16s for a long time. And he's been ambivalent about that. Yes, no, maybe problems in training and equipment and all the transitional stuff. So far, no F-16s. Although other countries have given American F-16s to Ukraine, I find it interesting that the U.S. has not. So the last word on this, which was before all this upshot about cluster bombs, was he said he was going to start training Ukrainian pilots on June 1st. We're well into July. And Zelensky must be getting so frustrated because June 1st has come and gone and there's no training and Biden has made it clear without the training, he's not going to give the F-16s if he ever give the F-16s anyway. So we're stuck on the F-16s. Now, do you in the press see a big tumble on that answer? No. Well, that's a good point. And that's one of Zelensky's criticism is that, hey, January, the Abram tanks were promised. We're in July. Where are the tanks? Germany came through immediately. Now, I know there's training that's required for Abram tanks, and I know for a fact that they're being trained. But here we are seven, eight months later. So the timeline of getting these weapons to Ukraine, I think you're well founded in your criticism, Jay. It's taking a lot longer than it ought to. Well, it's not just that, Tim. It's that the press isn't making any noise about it. The press is actually restraining the cluster bombs as one alternative munition. And I find that extraordinary. The priorities are really upside down. Yeah. Let me finish the thought of, you know, that trying to level the playing field with cluster bombs may well force Putin to the negotiation table for a peace settlement. Or is there another path that Putin could take? And that's the question I was asking about the escalation of weaponry. Does Putin say, I'm not going to the peace table. I'm going to start using vacuum bombs. I'm going to start using bio weapons. Could he not take that path? Yes. But I don't think we can worry about this. It goes back to the beginning when he was threatening nuclear weapons. I don't think he's going to do it, actually. This is rhetoric. It's rhetoric by him. And he's determined at least from, you know, from the appearance point of view, to win this war. He's not going to give up. He's not going to concede anything. He's going to keep on fighting till his last dying breath. And that's what we have here. So I don't, I don't think he's going to do anything really dramatic. But I also don't think he's going to come to the peace table under any circumstances. He wants that he wants to destroy Ukraine. He said it. He means it. He's capable of it. And he's a madman. Okay. Chuck, what's your reaction to what Jay just said here? That A, he's never going to go to the negotiation table and B, most likely he would not use alternative weaponry. Do you agree that? Yeah. I think the track record shows us there are really only two choices for the U.S. and NATO. And that is to sufficiently, effectively support Ukraine's military effort to be able to achieve a measurable, supportable, perpetuatable level of military success. You mean to win, right? Yeah. Or to show that they can, to show that they have taken the motivation, the momentum they've taken control and that they're not likely to relinquish it. To show that they are winning or at least that they can win. That kind of support has to be given because short of that, the only thing that's going to make a difference to Putin is for U.S. and NATO to reverse themselves and say, you know what? You started this war, but Ukraine has come to us for support. We believe they deserve it. And we're not going to limit that by excluding them from NATO. We're going to treat them with the same level of support that we would if they were amendment. Putin must be laughing and dancing right now because here he sees fragmentation among the West. He sees all these articles and all these media, not only in the U.S., but a number of places in Europe. And so what he sees is we do not have political will. We do not have the will to support them. We do not have the will to help them win. He must be very happy with this. It's almost, this is something he might have concocted himself. The bottom line is we show ourselves as weak. And that's one of the reasons I really can't stand to see this, this moral debate going on. All right. Let's hit that word. You just said weak. I'm going to take a detour of a little bit off of cluster bombs and get back to the announcement that was made, I think it was yesterday. And that was that many companies, although they made a firm commitment and promised to pull out of Russia, they have not done so in 500 days. I specifically mentioned the Heineken company and to some degree, Nestle. They respond that it's complicated to pull out their operations out of Russia. And so, you know, the sanctions is also something that seems to be failing. It has some impacts. Your thoughts, both of you about the weak implementation of sanctions and why is the United States putting up with these corporations that said they were going to get out of Russia and they're not? Chuck. Well, I mean, first of all, if you want to pick Nestle, if you were going to look anywhere to a transnational company that exercises and has for many years the opposite of ethical, moral, responsible international or national citizenship, then Nestle would probably be one of the top of the list. You're talking about child labor abuse. If you're talking about exploitation of indigenous rights, of water rights, you know, across the board, they're an environmental disaster, human environment as well as ecological environment. But it still comes back to the question of what are you going to do when a dictator declares war on his neighbor? All of the other little guys, Lithuania, Estonia, all the rest of them say, this is what's going to happen to all of us. Did you not see World War Two? Did you not see how that came about? If you don't stop him, he is going to pick us up one by one and right now Ukraine is it. So is that a rationalization for the use of cluster bombs then? It may be a rationalization for a lot more than that. Maybe a rationalization for some kind of carefully crafted exception to NATO membership to provide a level of continuing support and commitment that's going to enable Ukraine to gain the military advantage demonstrably. So much rhetoric. A year and a half of rhetoric. Not from us, Jay. No, not from us. No, we tell it like it is. But I am so sad to see the United States, you know, the timid giant unable to develop political will because of internal political problem. Everybody arguing with everybody about everything. And he's afraid. He wants to win the next election. And that is his biggest issue. So he's going to be chicken. And he is chicken. He could have turned the reaction on Nestle and a lot of other companies in order to really make the sanctions work. But by large, Putin has gone around the sanctions in every which way. In some ways he's even benefited by it. That didn't work. And Biden is not pursuing it right now. As for weapons, we didn't make weapons when we should have anticipated it. And we have not demonstrated an ability to make decisions and live by them. And as Chuck says, support and demonstrate a collective will with Europe to keep on supporting them. As our support becomes less visible, less determined, Europe loses confidence too. They can't do it without us. And we are not doing it. And so Biden thinks that if I just, if I go by tippy toe, I'll have a better chance in 2024. I'm here to tell you that's not true. If he loses Ukraine or Ukraine stays in a stalemate until November 2024, he will win. He will lose the election. And Trump will win the election by showing that he's a he's a wuss. Well, okay, let me ask you this. We've run out of time. But last question. If President Biden is tippy toeing around, is that a result of the media not putting his feet to the fire? In large part, yes. In large part, yes. Okay, because I haven't heard about sanctions lately in a long time, or the enforcement or the effectiveness of sanctions until yesterday. And then I thought, my God, I think most Americans assumed and Europeans assumed that those companies that committed to get out of Russia have been long gone. And lo and behold, we hear that Heineken's still producing beer. So until yesterday, the media has been absent on on the effectiveness or the lack thereof of sanctions. And isn't that a Biden responsibility? Well, he's not the media. No, isn't he responsible for ensuring the sanctions are as effective as possible? Absolutely. And he should be up there every day reminding us that we're not winning this war. That it's trench warfare stalemate. And that it's a war of attrition. And unless, you know, Ukraine does some dramatic things with dramatic weapons and support, Ukraine will lose. And we will lose. All right, we've run out of time. Chuck, I'd like to get your final thoughts on this topic. I think Jay is right. I mean, if you're President Biden and the Democrats, the last place you're going to look for allies and support and expect it is the media. It's not going to happen. It hasn't happened for years. They haven't given him control of the narrative, the way that they have to Trump, even when Trump's out of office. And the other place where he has to look for allies is the major European powers. If he's not going to get enough support there to be able to really take it over the edge of enough support to put Ukraine in military control, it's a stalemate. And that's not a winning proposition. It won't get it. Jay is right. All right. Thank you, Chuck. Jay, you get the final word. I don't really have much to add to what's been said already. But I would say that Joe Biden has to watch this show. He has to understand that in the intermediate term, they are going to attack him. They're already, they meaning the Republicans, they're already attacking him for everything he does and doesn't do in Ukraine. This could be another Afghanistan for him. And he really must stand up and take a risk, whether he wins the election in 2024 or not, whether he continues in his candidacy or not. First things first, he's got to do stuff on this. And I know that if any one of the three of us were running it, we'd be doing it a lot differently. Right, Chuck? So you say. As we know. All right, Jay, that's a good point to end the show on. I'd like to thank my esteemed guest, Chuck Crumpton. Thank you, Chuck, for taking the time to join us. And of course, always my co-host, Jay Fidel. Thank you, Jay. And won't you join us next week for American Issues Take One? I'm Tim Apacheva, your host. And until then, aloha. subscribe button on YouTube. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Check out our website, thinktecawaii.com. Mahalo.