Biden approves supply of anti-personnel landmines for Ukraine: What are these weapons?

Tuesday (November 19) marked the 1,000th day of the Russia-Ukraine war. As the war drags on, there are no signs of this conflict abating. In fact, the very opposite is happening, as the United States on Sunday gave approval to use long-range missiles in Russian territory.

And on Tuesday (November 18), the Joe Biden administration, according to an official, approved sending anti-personnel mines to Ukraine for the first time, marking a major policy shift.

A CNN report says that Washington intends Kyiv to use the anti-personnel mines in the eastern part of the country, where Russian troops have made slow and steady progress against Ukrainian defensive lines.

More from Explainers

How ChatGPT is becoming everyone’s BFF and why that’s dangerous This Week in Explainers: How recovering from Gen-Z protests is a Himalayan task for Nepal

We take a closer look at what exactly are anti-personnel mines and what their deployment in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war means.

What are anti-personnel landmines?

Anti-personnel landmines are designed to detonate when a person comes in close proximity. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that anti-personnel mines leave a long-lasting legacy of death, injury and suffering.

According to an official in the Biden administration, the type of landmine that Washington will supply Ukraine is the “non-persistent” type, which means that the mine self-destructs or loses battery charge, rendering them inactive within days or weeks, reducing the danger to civilians. The official also added that the Volodymyr Zelenskyy-led country would not deploy them in Russia nor would they deploy it in densely populated areas.

Interestingly, the US has provided Ukraine with Claymores — a different type of anti-personnel mine — amidst the Russia-Ukraine war. Claymores are set above the ground and triggered by an operator.

Editor’s Picks

1

1,000 days of Russia-Ukraine war: The human and economic cost of the conflict 2

Explained: The connection between Ukraine war and butter thefts on rise in Russia

Why has US given nod for land mines to Ukraine now?

The decision to authorise the supply of anti-personnel landmines is significant. It comes just two days after Biden approved the use of US’ Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS . It also comes before Biden makes his departure from the White House, giving way to Donald Trump, who has voiced his displeasure about the military aid Washington has been providing to Kyiv until now.

Additionally, Russia is stepping up its attacks on the frontlines. There are also reports coming in that around 10,000 North Korean troops deployed to Kursk by Russia’s military have already participated in battles there. The US hopes that the anti-personnel landmines will blunt the advance of the Russian ground troops.

One US official told the Washington Post, “Russia is attacking Ukrainian lines in the east with waves of troops, regardless of the casualties that they’re suffering. So the Ukrainians are obviously taking losses, and more towns and cities are at risk of falling. These mines were made specifically to combat exactly this.”

“When they’re used in concert with the other munitions that we already are providing Ukraine, the intent is that they will contribute to a more effective defence,” the official said.

Another official said, “Anti-personnel landmines, which can be rapidly deployed, are designed to blunt the advances of ground forces, and, as such, will significantly support Ukraine’s defence against Russian advances in its sovereign territory, particularly in the east, especially when used in concert with the other munitions that the United States provides Ukraine.”

One Ukrainian official, who didn’t want to be named, said, “Russia uses them anyway.” A BBC report has even stated that since the war began, more than 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory is estimated to have become contaminated by mines.

Why is this decision significant?

Biden’s approval of sending anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine to use in the war is significant, as it marks a shift in US policy. In June 2022, US President Joe Biden revived an Obama-era policy that banned the transfer and use of US antipersonnel land mines outside the Korean Peninsula.

“President Biden is committed to continuing the United States’ role as the world’s leader in mitigating the harmful consequences of anti-personnel landmines worldwide,” White House National Security Council Adrienne Watson said in a statement at the time.

Watson cited the “devastating impact that anti-personnel landmines” have had in Russia’s war against Ukraine – noting that the weapon would only be furnished for use in the Korean Peninsula.

However, he has now reversed his own decision, which has also earned him a rebuke from human rights activists, who argue that anti-personnel landmines indiscriminately kill civilians.

Biden’s decision to supply these weapons to Ukraine is also contrary to the 1999 Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention — also known as the Ottawa Convention — which prohibits the “use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons” and requires action be taken to address their long-term effects.

However, as neither Washington nor Moscow are signatories to the convention, they can use and supply them in a war.

But Biden’s decision has earned him the anger of few, including Mary Wareham, deputy director of crisis, conflict and arms division at Human Rights Watch. She said that even non-persistent mines hold risks for civilians, require complicated clean-up efforts and are not always reliably deactivated.

Will the use of these weapons change course of the war?

While the US and Kyiv believe that the use of the anti-personnel landmines will bolster the war against Russia, defence experts are not wholly convinced. Michael Bociurkiw, a global affairs analyst at the Atlantic Council, told the BBC that these decisions, including the use of long-range missiles , show a recognition by the Biden administration of what is happening on the frontline, but that “it is, I would say, too little too late”.

With inputs from agencies