The bold decisions of the United States in recent days to aid Ukraine are partly related to the fact that power in the United States is changing. This is the opinion of the experts interviewed by , the leading researcher of the Foreign Policy Institute Charly Salonius-Pasternak and docent of military sciences at the Swedish National Defense University Ilmari Käihkö.
– Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy may be different. Now they were Biden’s administration’s last moments to act and use the funds earmarked for arms aid, says Salonius-Pasternak.
Yesterday, Wednesday, US President Joe Biden gave permission to supply anti-personnel mines to Ukraine, despite previously opposing it.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s according to the explanation, anti-personnel mines are now useful for the defense of Ukraine due to Russia’s recent shift to favoring infantry over mechanized units.
– The use of anti-personnel mines does not require a lot of expertise from the Ukrainians, and therefore it is easy to give them to Ukraine, says Ilmari Käihkö.
According to Käihkö, Ukraine needs crews the most, but the West is not ready to give Ukraine that.
However, over the weekend, the Biden administration gave Ukraine permission to use American-made long-range ATACMS missiles on Russian soil.
According to Käihkö, the war situation is gradually getting worse all the time. Russia has partly accelerated the situation by bringing North Korean soldiers into the war. The United States responded to this with arms aid decisions.
– Both Russia and Ukraine and their allies are now doing everything they can to improve their positions in possible future peace negotiations, says Käihkö.
Trump has declared that as president he will end the war in Ukraine. Trump has not said how he plans to end the war. Trump is suspected compellingly Ukraine’s peace by possibly threatening to end US aid to Ukraine.
Responsibility for the consequences of Biden’s decision remains with Trump
Although the arms aid decisions happened quickly, according to Salonius-Pasternak’s assessment, they were hardly made in an emergency. Long-range ATACMS missiles have been talked about for a long time. The methods of using anti-personnel mines have also probably been discussed in advance between the different parties, says Salonius-Pasternak.
Trump begins his presidency with the consequences of decisions made by the Biden administration. Salonius-Pasternak does not want to speculate on how the arms aid line may change under Trump.
However, he points to recent US comments that the war in Ukraine and the Middle East have taken a huge toll on the US military’s ammunition stockpiles. Arms aid is not necessarily to give very much more and the Ukrainians understand this, Salonius-Pasternak states.
Not all mines self-destruct
Doctoral researcher at the Swedish National Defense University Henrique Garbino estimates to that the US is likely to send mines of the M74 ADAM model or its variants to Ukraine.
However, he emphasizes that there is no certain information.
The mine can be spread by 155 mm artillery shells, which is used by Ukraine. Usually, such mines are equipped with self-destructing or self-deactivating mechanisms that operate, for example, on a battery.
According to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, landmines must have a self-destruct mechanism.
– The United States, like Ukraine and Russia, have all signed the agreement. That’s why I believe that the United States is sending precisely these distributed mines to Ukraine, says Garbino.
The agreement stipulates that 90 percent of anti-personnel mines launched by artillery shells should self-destruct within 30 days. After 120 days, only 0.1 percent of the remaining mines are allowed to be active.
However, several of the American anti-personnel mines can last up to 75 days.
According to Garbino, there is also another problem with self-destructing mines: there is no reliable research on how well the mines’ self-destruct mechanisms work.
– The fact that the mine’s battery runs out does not mean that the mine could not explode later, for example, as a result of some other external cause, such as static electricity, impact or shaking, says Garbino.
In Finland, we are talking about anti-personnel mines
According to Ilmari Käihkö, the decision to deliver anti-personnel mines to Ukraine could be politically expensive for the United States in the long run.
Garbino also agrees. The expert does not believe that the use of anti-personnel mines will change the course of the war.
– Remotely launched anti-personnel mines are most tactically useful when troops are retreating. They will not ensure Ukraine’s victory, he says.
However, the US decision may undermine the international arms control norm system.
Garbino mentions Lithuania and Finland, for example. Both have discussed withdrawing from international agreements.
After Russia attacked Ukraine, Finland began to consider the use of anti-personnel mines in defense.
– In Finland, anti-personnel mines are mainly considered a good defense weapon, says Käihkö.
However, the view is partly at odds with the views of the international community and, for example, the Ottawa Agreement. Finland has ratified an agreement that aims to ban anti-personnel mines.
According to Käihkö, the discussion that Finland should withdraw from the Ottawa agreement for national defense reasons has recently intensified in Finland.
In Garbino’s opinion, such decisions do the most harm to future civilians.
Käihkö reminds that Ukraine is already the most mined country in the world. The war will end in time, but mines will be a problem for Ukraine for decades to come.
Video graphics: Harri Vähäkangas