Alarming Turn Back To Landmines, five European countries – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania- have initiated steps to withdraw from the landmark Ottawa Treaty, an international agreement that prohibits the use, production, and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines – a shift that has alarmed disarmament campaigners and human rights groups,
Citing escalating security concerns posed by Russia, the five nations- all of which share borders with the Kremlin-controlled state – argue that the 1997 treaty no longer reflects the current geopolitical reality. Their decisions mark a significant departure from decades of global progress toward eliminating one of the world’s most indiscriminate and enduring weapons.
Anti-personnel landmines, designed to maim or kill upon contact, have long been condemned by humanitarian organizations for their devastating impact on civilians. These weapons can remain active for decades after hostilities end, continuing to claim lives and limbs long after peace is restored. Since the Ottawa Treaty’s adoption more than 25 years ago, the use of landmines has declined significantly, and the treaty has been credited with saving tens of thousands of lives and reducing civilian harm.
However, the renewed sense of vulnerability along NATO’s eastern flank, particularly in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has prompted a reassessment among some of its frontline members.
In March, Poland and the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania issued a joint statement declaring their intention to withdraw from the treaty. They emphasized the need to give their militaries greater “flexibility and freedom of choice” in response to the growing threat from Moscow, calling for a fresh evaluation of what constitutes acceptable defense weaponry in the current context.
In April, Latvia became the first to formalize its withdrawal, after its parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of the move. Under the treaty’s provisions, Latvia will officially exit six months after submitting its notice after which it will be legally permitted to stockpile and deploy anti-personnel landmines again.
Finland followed suit shortly thereafter. Speaking to journalists, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo said that Russia represents a long-term threat to European security and that the decision to leave the treaty will allow Finland to adapt its defense strategy accordingly. “Withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention will give us the possibility to prepare for the changes in the security environment in a more versatile way,” Orpo stated.
The announcements have drawn swift condemnation from international watchdogs. Amnesty International described Finland’s move as a “disturbing step backwards,” warning that it “goes against decades of progress on eliminating the production, transfer and use of inherently indiscriminate weapons.” The organization said the shift could endanger civilian lives not only in Finland but also in other potential conflict zones across the region.
As of early 2025, the Ottawa Treaty had 165 signatories. However, several major military powers – including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and the United States – have never signed the accord, a long-standing point of criticism among disarmament advocates.
The decisions by these five European states come amid growing anxiety over what comes next after the war in Ukraine. While Western support for Kyiv continues, some NATO members fear that once Russia reaches a resolution in Ukraine whether through victory, stalemate, or negotiated settlement it may turn its attention elsewhere.
Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House and author of Who Will Defend Europe?, cautioned that Moscow’s ambitions are unlikely to end with Ukraine. “If and when Russia’s grinding conflict in Ukraine does come to an end by whatever means,” Giles said, “Moscow will be readying itself for its next target.”
For now, the return of landmines to Europe’s strategic calculations illustrate the broader unraveling of post-Cold War arms control agreements and a sobering reminder that peace and progress, once taken for granted, may now be giving way to hardline deterrence.
Military Logic Meets Humanitarian Concern
As five European countries exit the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, defense analysts argue the decision is driven by urgent national security concerns in the face of a resurgent Russia. The move, while drawing criticism from human rights groups, is also backed by military logic that sees landmines not as relics of a brutal past, but as strategic tools in modern warfare.
“Nobody is in any doubt that Russia is looking for further means of achieving its objective in Europe,” said Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, in an interview. His stark assessment of the security environment captures the mindset driving these nations – Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania – to abandon a long-standing commitment to disarmament.
Giles emphasized that the military rationale for landmines is well-established. These buried explosives can slow an advancing army, either by forcing them to divert into more defensible terrain or by delaying their momentum while attempting to cross mined areas.
“They are a highly effective tool for augmenting the defensive forces of a country that’s going to be outnumbered,” he said, indicating their potential utility for smaller NATO countries facing the prospect of Russian aggression.
The experiences of the war in Ukraine, he argued, have likely reinforced the perception of landmines as a necessary evil. Russian forces have employed vast minefields along Ukraine’s southern front, significantly impeding the Ukrainian counteroffensive in 2023. The mines didn’t just slow military progress, they redefined the pace and strategy of the war.
According to United Nations assessments, Ukraine has become the most heavily mined country on the planet. Ukrainian government figures estimate that Russian forces have contaminated more than 174,000 square kilometers (around 65,637 square miles) of land with mines and unexploded ordnance. This poses an ongoing hazard to civilians, particularly in areas previously under Russian occupation and now back under Ukrainian control.
“The large-scale contamination of land by explosive ordnance has created an ‘invisible threat’ in people’s minds,” noted a February 2024 report by Humanity & Inclusion, an international charity focused on aid for communities affected by war and disaster.
“As a result, people’s movements are extremely reduced or restricted, they can no longer cultivate their land, and their social, economic, or professional activities are hindered.”
While international outrage has focused largely on Russia’s indiscriminate use of landmines, the issue is not entirely one-sided. A 2023 report by Human Rights Watch revealed that Ukrainian forces, despite being a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, have also used anti-personnel mines and received them from allies such as the United States.
Still, Giles was quick to note the critical difference in intent and design between nations. “There are very different design philosophies,” he said, pointing to a fundamental divergence in the way landmines and cluster munitions are produced and deployed. “Some countries are not concerned with civilian casualties- or may even deliberately seek to cause them. Others are trying to avoid them.”
This distinction lies at the heart of how Finland and other withdrawing nations are attempting to frame their decision. While they have opted out of the Ottawa Treaty, they maintain they will not abandon humanitarian principles in the process. Finland, for example, has pledged to use landmines responsibly, with a focus on minimizing civilian impact.
“Finland is committed to its international obligations on the responsible use of mines,” President Alexander Stubb posted on X (formerly Twitter), as the government formally announced its exit from the treaty.
Defense officials argue that responsible landmine use is achievable through strict protocols, including accurate mapping and documentation of minefield locations, educating local populations about mine dangers, and clearing or deactivating mines once hostilities end. These steps, they say, are critical to reconciling military necessity with ethical warfare.
Despite these assurances, critics remain unconvinced that any use of landmines can ever be truly “humane.” For organizations like Amnesty International and Humanity & Inclusion, the very nature of landmines—indiscriminate and enduring—makes them incompatible with modern humanitarian standards.
Despite these nations’ assurances that they will use the weapons responsibly, experts and advocates are warning that the decision could undo years of hard-won progress in reducing civilian casualties from these explosive remnants of war.
Landmines have a long and devastating history. They have killed or maimed tens of thousands of civilians worldwide and continue to pose a significant risk long after a conflict has ended. According to the 2024 report from the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor, at least 5,757 people were killed or injured by landmines and explosive remnants of war in 2023 alone. Shockingly, civilians made up 84% of those casualties, indicating the disproportionate toll on non-combatants.
)
