I believe the cluster munitions they are looking for would be to work with howitzers and possibly HIMARS- and wouldn’t be used on Russian territory. These would increase the effectiveness of their artillery and help mitigate/slow the problem of dwindling US/NATO inventory of conventional artillery shells and GMLRS missiles that we have been providing.
Obviously cluster munitions are controversial due to the risk unexploded submunitions pose to civilians. White phosphorous, also released in clusters, kills by the toxic smoke it’s produces, direct burns, or subsequent fires. Both are “banned”by the UN not because of their method of killing, but because they can kill indiscriminately.
The US has not agreed to ban cluster bombs or white phosphorus but try to avoid using such weapons whenever possible. We developed a safer alternative for cluster bombs, no longer make them, haven’t used them in almost 2 decades, and have a large stockpile of them that will likely otherwise never be used.
Russia has been using cluster munitions extensively in Ukraine, including white phosphorous. Considering cluster munitions would be used on Ukrainian soil, would pose a risk to Ukrainian civilians, and would be their responsibility to clean them up and deal with any consequences. But it also means their soldiers would have to deal with them if they advance on ground where they shot them, which will likely slow them down.
Ultimately, I think it’s really up to Ukraine to weigh if the pros outweigh the cons. I think the US is more concerned about the optics than anything.
——-
As for attacking Russia proper, Ukraine needs to be careful. Even if a target is fair game, it still has to be considered will Russia treat it as an attack worthy of responding with WMD’s. That said, I don’t think they’d ever be stupid enough to do that, but if Ukraine hit downtown Moscow the chances are much higher. Hitting an airbase in the middle of nowhere, probably not. Also worth noting, if Ukraine ever missed and hit an apartment building, it could create big problems.
The sporadic tempo they use has been very wise- it keeps the pressure down, doesn’t make Russia feel overly threatened, and instills complacency allowing for future attacks. As it is, Ukraines best use of their limited military assets is striking Russian targets that directly play a role.
I mostly agree with @bwinter88. Generally speaking Ukraine does not need the US to provide long range weapons at this point. They’re winning the war as it is and such weapons may unnecessarily rule up Russia more than they are. There applications where they would be useful, but may not be necessary.
Perhaps more importantly we could scrounge up more air dense systems and associated missiles, as well as ship over some giant mobile power generators (ie 25MW), power substations, and boilers.
