Biden Sends Landmines to Ukraine

White House moves to ‘Trump-proof’ U.S. support for Ukraine

The Biden administration today announced its decision to allow Ukraine to use American anti-personnel mines. The move contradicts not just Biden’s past opposition to the use of such weapons, but also his vow to ensure a “peaceful and orderly transition” for president-elect Donald Trump.

Coming on top of the administration’s decision to permit Ukraine to fire U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles into Russia and its declaration that it is rushing as much U.S. aid and arms to Kyiv as possible, the Biden administration is breaking the long-standing custom between administrations to not make situations worse between the election and the inaugural. There is no tactical reason for the frenzy of support for Ukraine right now other than the incoming president’s pledge to end the war and the presumption that he will cut off aid to the embattled nation.

On November 6, one day after Trump’s presidential election victory, Biden administration officials reportedly set out to rush $6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine before Trump’s inauguration — a huge logistical undertaking. But this was not the only post-election change. The White House also for the first time authorized Ukraine to use American-supplied long range missiles to strike deep within Russian territory. Then it lifted its ban on allowing American military contractors to work inside Ukraine. And over the past week, it declassified and released a flurry of top-secret intelligence assessments on the economic dimensions of the war dating back to 2022.

How’s that for “peaceful and orderly transition”?

Joe Biden’s hobby horse this past four years has been restoring norms and decency to governance. What about the norm where you don’t rip political ass in the Oval Office right before your democratically elected successor is about to walk in?

If you think I’m overstating things here, even the major media can see what’s happening. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Georgetown professor and Russia expert, Dr. Jill Dougherty, if Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles inside Ukraine was “an effort by the Biden administration to ‘Trump-proof’ aid to Ukraine” — and Dougherty agreed. “Well, yeah, in a way, that’s true,” she replied.

You don’t get to spend the last half-decade decrying the last transition and sermonizing about norms and then turn around and do exactly what you complained about Trump doing. In the previous transition, when Trump was leaving office, the administration hastened the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. This left the incoming Biden administration with the task of completing the withdrawal, which resulted in the deaths of 13 U.S. troops from a suicide bombing and the humiliatingly prompt fall of Kabul to the Taliban.

If this Ukraine push is some kind of political retribution for Afghanistan, that is exactly the kind of petty spitefulness that Biden’s high-minded rhetoric claimed he would stand against. Spite seems the likeliest motive behind this big Ukraine push because these weapons won’t be enough to make a significant difference on the battlefield, as countless military experts have pointed out. Even the cable news generals, who never met an arms sale they didn’t like, acknowledge this. Retired Gen. Wesley Clarke, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, said allowing Ukraine to launch missiles inside Russia was a “political gesture,” telling MSNBC: 

“...it’s too little, to have any decisive impact on the outcome of the fight…I see it as primarily a political gesture…it's a message that says we are going to continue to provide more resources to keep Ukraine in this fight following the policy decisions of the Biden administration…”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has also expressed doubts that the long-range missiles would make much difference. “I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive and I stand by that comment,” he said.

So why now?

Biden’s decision to authorize anti-personnel landmines also flies in the face of his avowed commitment to the “rules-based international order,” the vast majority of which opposes the use of these weapons. As of today, 164 countries are party to the Ottawa Treaty banning their use. Even some countries that are not signatories to the treaty have informally adhered to its ban — including, ironically, the U.S. in 2022. 

Remind me, who was president in 2022?

From a White House press release that year:

“After conducting a comprehensive policy review, the United States is joining the vast majority of countries around the world in committing to limit the use of anti-personnel landmines (APL). These changes reflect the President’s belief that these weapons have disproportionate impact on civilians, including children, long after fighting has stopped, and that we need to curtail the use of APL worldwide…The new commitment announced today will align U.S. APL policy outside of the Korean Peninsula with the key requirements of the Ottawa Convention – the international treaty prohibiting the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of APL – which has more than 160 parties, including all of our NATO Allies.”

Well, that’s awkward! To add to the irony, Biden’s initial opposition to the weapon ended the policy of another president who had embraced their use: Donald Trump.

“These are weapons that the United States should be leading to prevent the use of around the world, and I just don’t like the idea of that precedent being set here and creating permission for that,” Democratic Rep. (and Army veteran) Jason Crow said of Biden’s decision.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was trotted out to announce the new policy today, offering the lame excuse that, well, the Ukrainians were already making their own mines anyway.

We saw how sincere Biden’s rhetoric about Trump posing an existential threat to democracy was when they met and shook hands. Now we see how sincere all his talk about norms was. Keep this in mind when he gets one last media handjob in the coming weeks for being the beleaguered but avuncular president who fought for decency or whatever.

— Edited by William M. Arkin