European Nations Rethink Landmine Treaty In Light Of Security Challenges With Russia

Several European nations bordering Russia are abandoning an international landmine ban as they brace for potential aggression from their eastern neighbor, revealing a dramatic shift in defense policy amid growing security concerns.

Quick Takes

Finland, Poland, and the three Baltic states have announced withdrawals from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines
Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has demonstrated the tactical value of minefields in slowing advancing forces
Major powers including the United States, China, and Russia never joined the 1997 treaty
Critics warn abandoning the treaty endangers civilians and undermines international humanitarian standards
Defense experts argue landmines provide smaller nations with cost-effective deterrence against invasion

European Security Consensus Fractures

A growing coalition of nations on Russia’s borders are abandoning the Ottawa Convention, a landmark treaty established in 1997 banning anti-personnel landmines. Finland’s recent announcement follows earlier declarations by Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to withdraw from the pact. These decisions mark a substantial change in European defense policy, as countries that once embraced post-Cold War disarmament now reassess military needs in light of Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine. The announcements reflect a pragmatic shift in how these nations view their security requirements.

The Ottawa Convention, established in 1999, was hailed as a significant humanitarian achievement but notably failed to attract participation from major military powers. Russia, China, and the United States never joined the treaty, maintaining their landmine stockpiles while signatory nations destroyed theirs. This imbalance has created a strategic disadvantage for countries facing threats from non-signatory nations, particularly those sharing borders with Russia. The Ukraine conflict has starkly demonstrated how landmines can effectively deny territory and slow enemy advances.

Ukraine Conflict Transforms Military Thinking

The war in Ukraine has become a brutal proving ground for military tactics, with both sides deploying extensive minefields to impede enemy movements. These real-world demonstrations have convinced military planners in neighboring countries that anti-personnel mines remain valuable defensive assets. For smaller nations with limited personnel and resources, minefields offer a cost-effective way to delay invading forces and compensate for numerical disadvantages. This tactical reality has trumped the humanitarian concerns that originally drove support for the treaty.

The collective defense ministers of Baltic nations and Poland emphasized their need for maximum flexibility in the current security environment. Finland’s president explained their decision was based on thorough assessments by relevant ministries and defense forces, while maintaining a commitment to responsible use. Countries with long borders facing Russia—Finland has an 830-mile frontier—find themselves particularly vulnerable to invasion scenarios and are seeking every available defensive advantage, including increasing overall defense spending.

Humanitarian Concerns Versus Security Imperatives

Critics argue that abandoning the Ottawa Treaty poses severe risks to civilians and undermines international humanitarian law that has been built over decades. Norway’s foreign minister publicly criticized Finland’s decision, warning it could reduce the global stigma against landmine use. Ukraine has become the most heavily mined country in the world during the current conflict, with estimates suggesting clearance operations may take decades. The human cost of these weapons continues long after conflicts end.

However, defense analysts counter that responsible use of landmines with proper documentation and modern designs can minimize civilian casualties. The United States, while remaining outside the Convention, has made significant progress in reducing civilian harm through technological improvements and strict protocols. Countries withdrawing from the treaty emphasize they intend to deploy mines responsibly as defensive measures, not indiscriminately. The treaty withdrawal periods take nine to twelve months, giving these nations time to establish appropriate safeguards.

Finland to Withdraw From Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty | The Defense Post

Finland’s prime minister said Tuesday the country plans to withdraw from the international treaty banning anti-personnel mines, the latest signatory moving to ditch the ban over threats from Russia.… pic.twitter.com/dycnjpQghA

— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) April 2, 2025

A New Security Reality

The decisions by these frontline NATO nations reflect a broader reassessment of European security assumptions. The Ottawa Convention was created during a period of optimism about global peace following the Cold War’s end. Today’s environment is markedly different, with Russia demonstrating both the willingness and capability to invade neighboring countries. Analysts suggest more European nations may follow suit in reconsidering their commitment to the landmine ban, particularly if concerns about American commitment to European defense continue to grow under changing political dynamics.

The treaty withdrawals signal that these nations have made a clear-eyed assessment of defense priorities and determined that conventional deterrence requires all available tools. While humanitarian organizations continue to advocate for universal adherence to the ban, countries facing direct threats from larger powers are increasingly prioritizing effective territorial defense. This represents a significant shift in how European nations balance humanitarian ideals against pragmatic security requirements in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.