CNN's Natasha Bertrand is standing by at the Pentagon with more now on the U.S. Plan to give anti-personnel mines to Ukraine for the first time. The Biden administration is basically reversing its own policy here. The Trump administration, before the Biden folks, they had loosened [00:00:16] the restrictions on anti-personnel mines. Biden when he came into office, he reimposed those restrictions, saying that these actually need to be completely eliminated from U.S. Stockpiles. And the use of them worldwide really needs to end. The Biden administration is now saying that they are accounting for that [00:00:32] by sending this version, which the battery can run out and they won't last as long as, for example, a traditional landmine would. Well, as you just heard in that clip, the Biden administration has decided to reverse its own policy in order to provide Ukraine with anti-personnel mines, [00:00:53] and this is leading to further escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia. Now the Biden administration explains that these mines are known as non-persistent. And if you want some more information on that, have no fear. [00:01:09] You're about to hear more details in this next clip. These are different from the anti-tank mines that the Biden administration has been sending to Ukraine since the earliest days of the war. These are designed to essentially blunt the advances of personnel of Russian [00:01:24] troops, and the reason they are giving these mines to the Ukrainians. Now, according to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who just confirmed this news earlier today, is because the Russians have changed their tactics in recent weeks and months to lead with those personnel, with those troops, instead of those mechanized forces tanks, for example, [00:01:43] that they had been leading with before. The U.S. Says that these anti-personnel mines, they are different from the kinds of mines that the Russians are using, for example, in that they are battery powered and they can become inert basically from a preset preset Period. [00:01:59] So basically they can only last anywhere from two hours to two weeks. According to U.S. Officials. And that in turn, of course, would blunt the impact that they might have to civilians once the war ends. So this is the type of weaponry that other countries, including [00:02:20] our allies, are very much against. More than 160 countries have signed an international treaty banning the use of anti-personnel mines, noting that the indiscriminate weapons can cause enduring harm to civilians. But Ukraine argues that these anti-personnel mines will help [00:02:39] them in their battle against Russia, hinder Russia's ability to acquire or take control of more land. Currently, Russia has been able to occupy about 20% of Ukrainian territory. In a report released in October, the United Nations said that since 2022, [00:02:57] 407 seven Ukrainian civilians have died and 944 were wounded by mines and unexploded ordnance, and an anonymous official told The Washington Post that the mines could only be used on Ukrainian land. So this isn't something that they're going to use in Russia. [00:03:15] But as we shared with you all earlier this week, the Biden administration also started sending Ukraine so-called atacms. So these are missiles that are going to be used and have been used, in fact, against Russia on Russian territory by Ukraine, [00:03:33] which has led to an escalation and threats of nuclear war coming from Vladimir Putin. Now, Mary Wareham, who's a deputy director of the crisis, conflict and Arms division at Human Rights Watch, stated that even Non-persistent mines can still be dangerous for civilians [00:03:50] and require complicated cleanup efforts. And if you have a problem with the U.S. Funding this war in order to help Ukraine defend itself. And if you have a problem with these minds, well, you're certainly going to have a problem with the fact that the Biden administration has committed to cleaning up the minds after the war is over. [00:04:10] And so, of course, there will be some costs associated with that. But, you know, now Russia has in fact escalated because now they're responding with even more intense weaponry, intense ballistic missiles. Today, Russia attacked the Ukrainian town of Dnipro with what Ukraine has described [00:04:30] as an intercontinental ballistic missile. That kind of missile is actually capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Although I want to be clear, this missile was not carrying a nuclear warhead. In this specific case, Zelensky stated that all characteristics speed, altitude [00:04:48] of an intercontinental ballistic missile examinations are now underway. It is obvious that Russian President Vladimir Putin is using Ukraine as a training ground now the United States refrained from using that term, instead referring to the weapon as an experimental [00:05:03] medium range ballistic missile. And Tom Carrasco, who is a director of the Missile Defense Project at the center for Strategic and International Studies, cut through all the terminology and plainly stated as follows I think it's important not to get hung up on whether it is a quote unquote ICBM, [00:05:22] but rather that it is a big rocket with a big payload, and that is a particular kind of rocket that comes with some nuclear saber rattling, rattling as baggage. And honestly, this is what we should have expected considering Biden's willingness [00:05:39] to send Ukraine the atacms in order to have Ukraine attack Russia on Russian territory. - So, Jake, what are your thoughts? - Yeah. So just so you guys are perfectly clear on it, the intercontinental ballistic missiles have a much longer range and so they are often used to carry nukes. [00:06:00] And so they're short range missiles. They've been firing back and forth. Can't carry nukes. And so so that's why it was a bigger deal when they got the missiles that atacms that go 190 miles. In this case, these intercontinental ballistic missiles [00:06:17] went 600 miles to hit Ukraine. But basically that the point isn't how long they went in this particular case. The point is Russia is saying, remember, we have these missiles and we can put nukes in them. Exactly. Okay. So that is significant saber rattling. Now what do I think about the mines? [00:06:35] Well, I'm a tiny bit conflicted on it. And so let me break it down for you. Why I am and then which side I come out on. So on the one hand the Russians are using land mines. So we're asking the Ukrainians don't use a weapon that the other side [00:06:51] is already using against you. And the second thing is the Russians are the aggressors. So they invade your country. They put a whole bunch of landmines in there. And that has significant. This is the third thing that is significantly thwarted. Ukraine's counter moves against Russia. [00:07:06] The landmines have. So it is pretty effective. So now we're asking the Ukrainians to not use an effective method here that the Russians have used against them. So that's a pretty tough thing to say no to under those circumstances. Now, having said that, I think the countervailing forces overwhelm it. [00:07:25] And I and I if I was the president, I would have said no. So, number one, you set a bad precedent. I mean, you look at all those civilians killed in Ukraine because of the mines that the Russians planted, right. And remember, one of the big problems with mines is that they persist after the war. [00:07:40] And so then, you know, kids blow up in the, you know, three years later. Now they say that these landmines are going to go away in time. That they become inactive. That they become inactive, except some of them won't. Right. And of course, we'll then have to pay for the mines and [00:07:57] then pay for them to be removed, like so. So then there's the the fact that the Russians are going to escalate. - Right. - Yeah. And they've been escalating. And so now they they're going to go to a different level of escalation. And when they do, then we're going to use that as an excuse for us to escalate. [00:08:15] And then they're going to escalate. So this is a terrible idea. So I don't want to see more escalation I understand what they're doing guys. And I want you to understand it. They're worried that when Trump gets into office, he's going to freeze the action where it is. Right. And if the Russians and the Russians are pushing forward now in Donetsk, [00:08:34] I you know, I'm terrible at pronouncing the names. Donetsk. Donetsk. Sorry I'm so bad at it. And so they're gaining more territory there and and so when Trump comes in, they're going to go red light, right, green light, green light, red light. [00:08:49] And so now we get to keep all of this. Right. So the Ukrainians I understand where they're coming from. They want to push back as much as they can and hold their fronts before Trump gives away some of their land and some of their country. Right. Which he most certainly is going to do. He's going to force them to do it. [00:09:04] Having said that, escalating with two months left with a very dangerous and and kind of radical adversary is not the best of ideas, and especially because the it appears that Trump's going to cut the funding for Ukraine. [00:09:21] And so this war is going to be over. I don't want some sort of madness to happen in the last two months before the war is going to end. So yes, the Ukrainian people are the victims of unbelievable injustice here. And so nobody should forget that. And nobody should forget that Russia is the one [00:09:37] that did the invasion in the first place. But having said that, escalating now is a bad idea. I would have said no. If you enjoyed this video, that's because of our members. They make us independent, they make us strong and they make us honest. Become a member today by hitting the join button below.