Europe’s View of the Alaska Summit, UXO Crisis, and Mine Ban Pause

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/30

Part 2 of 2

Alex Craiu lives and works in Ukraine as a war correspondent. He studied in the United Kingdom and California, United States, with a degree in documentary and cinematography production. He works as a freelancer and independent journalist. In 2017, he completed an internship with the BBC in London and later started creating videos for social networks, collaborating with various publications. He travelled to most regions of Ukraine, except those fully occupied, and presented online the current situation in Ukraine, including in conflict zones. Currently based in Kyiv, Ukraine, he analyzes and documents people’s lives during the war.

Western Europe showed cautious hope that the Alaska summit might yield progress, while Ukrainians dismissed it as theatre given Kyiv’s exclusion and attacks. Coverage emphasized Putin’s U.S. visit more than outcomes. UNMAS warned that unexploded ordnance cripples recovery; from Chuhuiv, mined farmland lies idle. The late-July or early-August UN Security Council session produced little. Amnesty urged Trump to prioritize accountability for war crimes, but rights concerns were not centered. Ukraine’s suspension of the Mine Ban Treaty appears deterrence-driven yet raises humanitarian risks, especially from “petal” mines. Looking ahead, a U.S.–Russia–Ukraine trilateral with Zelenskyy could meaningfully reset talks if Moscow engages.

Interview conducted August 16, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do Europeans, more broadly—east and west, excluding Russia, see the Alaska summit? Do they view it as political theatre, a false sense of diplomacy given Ukraine’s exclusion, or do they hold out hope that something positive might come from it despite skepticism?

Alex Craiu: From what I have observed, the latter view is more common in Western Europe. Skepticism is still strong, especially in Ukraine, but some in Europe hold onto the possibility that dialogue, even under flawed circumstances, might yield results.

The skepticism in Ukraine is rooted in the apparent fact that Ukrainians have a special and direct connection to the outcome—their country is at stake. For Western nations, the prospect of a future war with Russia is serious, but not as personal or immediate as the possibility of losing one’s homeland, as it is for Ukrainians.

Western media treated the Alaska summit as a significant event simply because Putin travelled to the United States, which in itself is significant. However, inside Ukraine, it was not seen as decisive. Ukrainians were not focused on the joint statements of Putin and Trump; it was mostly the Ukrainian press covering those details.

In Western Europe, there was some hope that the summit could produce progress. However, in Ukraine, most people anticipated that little would come of it—and they were proven right. For Ukrainians, the only scenario that could change this perception would be the direct involvement of President Zelenskyy in peace talks. Ukrainians see him as the only legitimate representative of their will, conveying the collective wishes of the Ukrainian people.

To sum it up: the further west you go in Europe, the higher the expectations were for the summit. In Ukraine, expectations remained low, and those expectations were, in the end, correct.

Here in Ukraine, closer to the epicentre of this conflict, skepticism is much stronger. The closer you are to the front, the less optimism people tend to have.

Jacobsen: The UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS) adviser in Ukraine, Paul Heslop, gave a briefing in New York. He described the impact of unexploded ordnance and the contamination of vast parts of Ukraine. He stated, “Contaminated land is not just dangerous. It is lost hope, recovery, and livelihood.” In this sense, the contaminants are unexploded ordnance, not chemical or biological agents. Any thoughts?

Craiu: I would completely agree with that statement. Any unassessed area requires enormous resources to clear. The process of demining draws vast amounts of workforce and funding.

Let me give a concrete example. I recently visited Chuhuiv in Kharkiv Oblast, approximately 50-60 kilometres southeast of Kharkiv. Driving south of the town, I saw large areas marked with warning signs—“Do not pass, mines.” These fields once held agricultural value, but they have been unusable since Russian troops left the area one to two years ago. What they left behind are countless mines and unexploded devices.

This is not unique to Ukraine. Across Europe, unexploded ordnance from World War II is still discovered even today, including in the United Kingdom. However, the sheer scale of contamination in Ukraine is staggering, especially in farmland and forests that remain unassessed. Agriculture has long been one of Ukraine’s key industries, and now entire fields lie fallow, overgrown with brush, because they cannot be safely cultivated.

The demining process takes an immense amount of time and resources. In some cases, the cost of removing the mines may outweigh the immediate financial benefits of restoring the land for farming. Still, the work must continue, because without it, recovery in many regions is impossible.

Jacobsen: That covers mine contamination. Was there any outcome from the late July or early August meeting of the UN Security Council on the crisis in Ukraine, as far as you are aware?

Craiu: As far as I know, nothing significant came out of that Security Council meeting. However, if you are aware of any follow-up discussions among journalists, media, or human rights activists, that would help. I am not familiar with that because there was nothing significant. If there had been, I would likely have been aware of it. So unfortunately, I do not have much to add there.

Jacobsen: Now we are off to Amnesty International. Right before the Alaska summit, Amnesty International called on President Trump to demand accountability and an end to human rights violations. At Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Marie Struthers, Amnesty’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia director, said: “We urge President Trump to put human rights at the forefront. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to end the war in Ukraine. This is his real chance to act for victims and survivors. Upholding human rights and ensuring accountability for crimes under international law committed in Ukraine since 2014 is the only way to bring a just and lasting end to the war.”

As far as I am aware, that emphasis on human rights was not reflected in the summit itself. Any thoughts?

Craiu: Most of the war crimes that happen away from the front lines are directly linked to Russian attacks. These include strikes on residential areas. Less than a month ago, I visited a building struck by a Shahed drone that hit the upper floors. Such attacks are clear evidence of potential war crimes—violations of the Geneva Conventions.

It is not just the occupied or frontline territories under Russian control. It is also the nature of long-range strikes on civilian infrastructure—far from active combat—that point to deliberate disregard for civilian safety. A logical step would have been to push for an aerial ceasefire. If such a ceasefire were fair and enforced, Ukraine likely would not object. However, we did not see results moving in that direction.

When it comes to accountability, the list of alleged Russian war crimes is long. Prosecutors face immense difficulties investigating, especially in dangerous areas close to the front. However, the evidence is overwhelming, and Amnesty is right to insist this issue remains central. Unfortunately, Trump did not make concrete steps toward addressing it as a priority at the summit.

Jacobsen: Let us check Human Rights Watch for the last piece. Their coverage tends to focus on more minor but important stories—tragic incidents, individual victims. Those matters, but we are aiming for a larger-scale analysis now.

On the other side of the unexploded ordnance question we discussed earlier, Ukraine has formally informed the United Nations that it has suspended its participation in the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. That treaty is the international convention prohibiting anti-personnel landmines. This suspension raises humanitarian concerns—it puts civilians at greater risk, undermines humanitarian legal norms, and runs contrary to international law. 

One hundred sixty-six countries have ratified the treaty, including Ukraine. What are your thoughts on this? What seems to be the motivation? This was reported on July 18, but it remains important to note, given its nationwide impact during the war.

Craiu: Well, it could be a matter of deterrence. We would need to clarify Ukraine’s intentions, but suspending the treaty could be meant as a signal to Russia rather than an immediate operational change.

There are different categories of mines—anti-personnel and anti-tank—and international conventions exist precisely to limit their humanitarian cost. Withdrawing from such agreements is always troubling, because these bans were designed to reduce civilian harm. That said, a suspension during wartime may serve more as a political message than as an immediate declaration that mines will be deployed.

The most concerning type is the so-called “petal” or “butterfly” mines. These are small, hard to spot, and often designed not necessarily to kill but to maim—causing permanent injuries to anyone who steps on them. In areas not yet assessed or cleared, they pose a long-term danger to civilians. That is why watchdogs will need to closely monitor both the legality and morality of how mines are deployed, especially in or near populated areas.

Jacobsen: Before we wrap—any final thoughts on developments since our last interview, given what we have tracked through Reuters, the Associated Press, UN sources, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch?

Craiu: What will be significant going forward is Russia’s response as its military capacity continues to diminish. We have seen indicators that the war effort indeed strains the Russian economy. That could translate into either a stiff pushback militarily or perhaps some new openness toward negotiations.

It will be interesting to see how talks might evolve with President Volodymyr Zelensky’s involvement. There is even the possibility of a trilateral meeting—Russia, Ukraine, and the United States—mediated by Donald Trump in the weeks ahead. That could shift the dynamic, depending on whether Moscow is ready for serious discussions.

Craiu: It will be exciting to see how that develops. Above anything, it would be a historic meeting of significant importance. It could be the first step toward paving the way for broader negotiations.

One positive I see is that the American administration appears more invested in mediating and facilitating talks. Ukraine has been pushing for such proposals for a long time, and Russia has repeatedly rejected them. Now, with Donald Trump potentially stepping in as mediator, there may be more flexibility on the Russian side to meet with President Zelensky—even though the Kremlin continues to label him an illegitimate president.

If such a trilateral meeting happens, it could be hugely significant. The coming months are critical. They could determine either the direction of the war or, in a more optimistic scenario, its conclusion.

Jacobsen: Excellent. You have made my job much easier. Thanks, good luck.

Craiu: Bye.

Jacobsen: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.