Elena Kovalenko16:48, 08.07.232 minutes.578British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles did not support the transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine.
Spain and Britain did not support the decision of the United States to provide Ukraine with cluster munitions to help break through Russian defensive lines.
According to the RTVE TV channel, Spanish Defense Minister Margarita Robles, during a conversation with reporters, said that she did not share this decision and was “against” the US plans to send cluster shells to Ukraine, but “respects the decision of a sovereign country.””Certain weapons and bombs cannot be delivered under any circumstances… No to cluster shells and yes to assistance for the legitimate defense of Ukraine,”
In turn, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stressed that he “does not encourage” the use of cluster munitions, and recalled that Britain has signed a convention to ban them, Sky News reports .”
We will continue to do our part in support of Ukraine against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, but we have done so by providing heavy battle tanks and recently long-range weapons, and we hope that all countries can continue to support Ukraine,” he added.
(C)UNIAN 2023
When you are being repeatedly butt-raped by a bunch of piss-stained savages, there is no response that is unacceptable.
The aggression and the unimaginable horror unleashed by putinaZi degenerates must be ended by any means necessary.
As if Ukraine wants to use them unless absolutely necessary.
They will have to deal with the duds, not the Germans or anyone else.
We should stop thinking for Ukraine, just give them what they ask for.
This is disgusting.
I believe the Brits are just saying what they’re saying for public consumption. They are and continue to be one of our strongest allies.
”Certain weapons and bombs cannot be delivered under any circumstances… No to cluster shells and yes to assistance for the legitimate defense of Ukraine,”
With all due respect, but this statement is harebrained. Anything that kills an aggressor and helps a victim to fend off savagery is a legitimate defense, especially when the aggressor is using them too.
As I understand the treaty, the signatories can’t even support the use of the weapons so they are obligated to speak against them. I thought that part of the treaty was strange.
There’s always got to be some strangeness in Western thinking.
Funny how little they were worried about Russia using clusterbombs with a dud rate of 30-40% compared to the of the ones we are sending to Ukraine with a 2.4% rate?