Several NATO-aligned countries have withdrawn from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines, citing security concerns tied to the war in Ukraine and growing Russian aggression.
AT A GLANCE
- Poland, Finland, and Baltic nations have exited the land mine ban treaty.
- Ukraine’s war use of mines has influenced defense strategies across Europe.
- Critics warn the move could erode global norms and increase civilian harm.
- Nations argue modern mine technology allows for safer, responsible use.
- The shift may signal broader fractures in international arms control agreements.
Eastern European States Exit Landmark Mine Ban
A coalition of European nations—Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—has formally withdrawn from the Ottawa Convention, a 1999 treaty banning anti-personnel landmines (APL). The coordinated move reflects heightened security anxieties among NATO’s eastern flank, with all five countries bordering Russia or Belarus.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb confirmed the decision, citing “comprehensive assessments” from military and governmental agencies. Although the countries reaffirm their intent to use such weapons responsibly, the shift underscores a growing belief that Europe must retain every defensive option in the face of an increasingly assertive Russia.
The Ottawa Treaty was once embraced by former Soviet bloc states as a sign of democratic alignment. Today, that post-Cold War idealism is clashing with the stark realities of modern warfare.
Ukraine War Reframes Military Value of Landmines
The war in Ukraine has become a live demonstration of landmine effectiveness. Ukrainian forces have used mines extensively to slow Russian advances, while Russia has saturated Ukrainian territory with what is now the densest concentration of mines on Earth.
As a Heritage Foundation analysis notes, “Landmines enable a commander to shape the battlefield to his advantage.” For smaller nations facing numerically superior adversaries, mines provide cost-effective, terrain-shaping capabilities.
Watch analysis on the mine policy shift.
Rebalancing Security and Humanitarian Ethics
While the military rationale is clear, human rights organizations and humanitarian officials remain alarmed. Critics, including Norway’s foreign minister, argue that this reversal may weaken global norms against landmine use and increase long-term risks to civilians.
Proponents of the policy shift counter that modern APLs are designed with self-deactivation and other safeguards. They cite U.S. practices, which despite not joining the treaty, have emphasized low civilian casualty rates through technology and strict deployment protocols.
President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique once described the Convention as “a driving force … in order to ensure peace, security and prosperity of mankind.” Now, those ideals face serious geopolitical tests.
Rearmament Hurdles and Strategic Outlook
Exiting the treaty frees countries to resume mine production or acquisition—but practical challenges remain. Nations must now either redevelop domestic manufacturing capabilities or source weapons from non-signatories such as the U.S. or China.
Still, the move fits within a wider military transformation. NATO’s eastern members have dramatically increased their defense budgets, bolstered digital warfare assets, and enhanced troop readiness. Mines, officials argue, are simply another tool in the expanding toolbox of deterrence.
Ripple Effects in Global Arms Control
This breach in the Ottawa Convention could mark the beginning of a broader dismantling of international arms norms. Some military experts warn of a potential “domino effect” undermining treaties on chemical weapons, autonomous drones, or space-based arms.
With major powers like Russia, China, and the U.S. never having joined the Ottawa Convention, treaty advocates now face the grim reality that universal norms may only hold when enforced by stable geopolitics—something Europe no longer enjoys.
Watch in-depth reporting on treaty fractures.
