In a controversial decision, outgoing US President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized the deployment of anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine as a means to counter advancing Russian forces. According to multiple news outlets citing unnamed American officials, these weapons are intended to “blunt” the progress of the Russian military, which has been actively engaged in the conflict since its escalation in 2022. This decision aligns with Biden’s recent approval of long-range ATACMS missiles, which can strike deep within Russian territory—a significant shift in policy that has yet to be officially confirmed by the administration. The concerning aspect of this deployment is the type of landmines chosen; they are described as “nonpersistent,” meaning they will deactivate within weeks, thus aiming to reduce potential long-term risks to civilians and returning soldiers.
The use of anti-personnel landmines has generated considerable debate, primarily due to the existence of international treaties like the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits the use of such weapons. While 164 countries have ratified this treaty, both the US and Russia have not, which complicates the legitimacy and ethical implications of their use in the current conflict. Ukraine itself is a signatory to the treaty, having ratified it in 2005. However, it has faced accusations from the United Nations of failing to uphold its obligations, raising questions about the dual standards in the application of international norms when major powers are involved.
Prior to this, the US had supplied Ukraine with Claymore mines, a different type of weapon designed to incapacitate enemy troops. Notably, Claymore mines are remotely triggered and placed above ground, contrasting with the less controllable nature of traditional landmines that remain active indefinitely unless detonated. The US has also provided cluster munitions, which have been the subject of extensive condemnation from various allied nations due to their indiscriminate potential for civilian casualties. The Biden administration’s past criticisms of the Trump-era policy, which relaxed restrictions on anti-personnel mines, highlight the complexities of US weapon policy and its moral implications in war.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan emphasized that the conduct of the conflict is ultimately in Ukraine’s hands, asserting that the Biden administration’s role is limited to providing military tools. This assertion underscores the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of indirect US involvement in what Russia considers a US-led proxy war, portraying the conflict as one to continue “to the last Ukrainian.” This rhetoric serves to amplify diplomatic tensions between the US and Russia while reflecting the challenges faced by Ukraine in mounting a successful defense against a larger adversary.
Amid this military calculus, there is growing concern about Ukraine’s manpower situation. Sullivan has urged the Ukrainian government to mobilize more troops, arguing that the failure to stem Russian advances is largely attributable to a shortage of personnel rather than a lack of weaponry. Ukraine relies heavily on conscription to replenish its military ranks, although issues related to draft evasion remain problematic. This scarcity of personnel complicates military strategies and raises deeper questions about recruitment, morale, and the sustainability of the conflict.
As the situation evolves, the implications of these military decisions could have far-reaching consequences not only for Ukraine and Russia but also for international norms concerning warfare and human rights. The use of landmines and other controversial munitions may lead to an exacerbation of civilian casualties and long-term humanitarian crises, therefore deepening global scrutiny of US tactics in the region. Moreover, the ongoing conflict serves as a stark reminder of the geopolitical stakes involved, as Western nations balance support for Ukraine with the broader implications of military engagement against Russia.