We get the point. But at the end of the day, it's not much one. For one thing - the spokesperson was speaking off the cuff, and obviously not informed about t

We get the point. But at the end of the day, it's not much one. For one thing - the spokesperson was speaking off the cuff, and obviously not informed about the ins and outs of existing treaties regarding cluster munitions. Or the existing US stance in this regard. What it all comes down to is: like it or not, the US is not a signatory to the CCM (the one treaty everyone refers to in regard to these things). Nor is Russia. Also, all throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US has defended its use of cluster munitions left, right and center. So, while you can make of these munitions what you will - strictly speaking it's not "illegal" for Russia to US them. Not "hypocritical" for the US to condemn other countries for using them (aside from random, unorchestrated statements as from this one spokesperson). Because the US never does that. Granted, the matter is more nuanced than this: in fact, all of the rest of NATO is a signatory to the CCM, so that brings up valid issues of hypocrisy, via the transitive property. But on a broader, and much more important level: is hypocrisy really your main concern? What about condemning and ending the war itself? The thing is - when people complain about "hypocrisy", but not the infinitely larger evil of the invasion and the intentional targeting of civilians itself - one has to wonder.