Sarah Rainsford
BBC Eastern Europe correspondent in Warsaw

The decision to send anti-personnel mines to Ukraine will be welcomed by its troops, but is highly controversial elsewhere. It’s also a major policy shift for Joe Biden himself, who previously called Donald Trump “reckless” for lifting long-standing US restrictions on the use of mines when he was last in the White House.

The problem is the danger these weapons pose to civilians, killing and maiming indiscriminately as they are buried underground or scattered on the surface. Critics – and there are many – call them inhumane.

The other key problem is the extraordinary amount of time it takes once a war ends to clear the land that has been exploited.

image source, Reuters

That’s why more than 160 countries have banned their use, including Ukraine – which before this full-scale invasion was busy destroying its stockpiles. Right now, however, Kiev believes it needs all the help it can get against a larger and advancing Russian army.

The US says the anti-personnel mines it will supply are what it calls “non-persistent”, meaning they lose their charge after a few days and can no longer detonate. Human rights and anti-mining groups say that is not always the case. The U.S. also says Ukraine has agreed to use them away from densely populated areas, though it’s unclear how that might be regulated.

Meanwhile, Russian forces have made extensive use of landmines in Ukraine from the start: another significant advantage on the battlefield.

But there are signs of danger all over Ukraine: from ex-servicemen with missing limbs and life-changing injuries, to liberated villages with painted gates adorned with warning signs. All mines must be cleared before civilians can return to their homes.