European Nations Rethink Land Mine Ban As Ukraine Conflict Intensifies

Tank on map with Ukraine and Russia flags

Russia’s military threat is prompting multiple European nations to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention banning landmines, signaling a dramatic shift in defense priorities across NATO’s eastern flank.

Key Takeaways

Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are withdrawing from the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines.
The ongoing war in Ukraine has demonstrated the military effectiveness of minefields in deterring and delaying enemy forces.
Major powers including Russia, China, and the United States never joined the treaty, limiting its global impact.
The decision reflects growing security concerns about Russian aggression and practical defense needs among NATO’s eastern members.
Critics warn the decisions could undermine humanitarian principles and increase civilian casualties.

Growing List of Nations Abandoning the Ottawa Convention

A significant shift in European defense policy is underway as multiple nations neighboring Russia announce their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention. Finland recently joined Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in stepping away from the 1997 treaty that banned the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. These decisions represent a fundamental reassessment of security priorities in the face of perceived Russian aggression and the lessons from the ongoing Ukraine conflict.

The Ottawa Convention, which entered into force in 1999, was once hailed by Mozambique’s President Joaquim Chissano as “a driving force … in order to ensure peace, security and prosperity of mankind.” However, the treaty never achieved universal adoption. Major military powers including Russia, China, and the United States declined to sign, significantly limiting the agreement’s global impact and creating disparities in military capabilities that are now being reconsidered by threatened nations.

https://t.co/kK7l0RlTaw

— Stas Kulesh (@stas_kulesh) March 17, 2025

Battlefield Lessons from Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has served as a stark reminder of landmines’ military utility. Both Russian and Ukrainian forces have deployed extensive minefields to control territory, protect defensive positions, and channel enemy movements. These tactical applications have been closely observed by military planners across Europe, particularly in countries sharing borders with Russia. The conflict has demonstrated how smaller forces can effectively use minefields to counter larger invading armies—a scenario that resonates with Baltic nations and Poland.

Finland’s President Alexander Stubb emphasized that his country’s decision was based on thorough assessments by relevant ministries and defense forces. With a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia, Finland faces unique security challenges that have become more pressing since joining NATO. Similarly, the Baltic states and Poland have stressed the need for maximum defense flexibility in the current security environment, where Russian threats have escalated dramatically since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Practical Defense Considerations

For nations with limited military resources facing potentially superior forces, landmines offer a cost-effective defensive option. Countries like Finland, Latvia, and Estonia have dramatically increased defense spending since 2022, but still face the reality of defending long borders against a much larger potential adversary. Anti-personnel landmines can deny territory, slow advancing forces, and multiply the effectiveness of smaller defensive units—tactical advantages that these nations are now unwilling to forgo.

The decisions also reflect growing uncertainty about security guarantees. With questions about American commitment to European defense and the durability of NATO’s Article 5 protections, these nations are pursuing independent capabilities to enhance their defensive posture. This shift represents a pragmatic reassessment of security priorities rather than a philosophical rejection of humanitarian concerns. Finland, for instance, has emphasized its continued commitment to responsible mine use and marking mined areas.

Humanitarian Concerns and Criticism

Critics of these withdrawals warn about severe humanitarian consequences. Ukraine has already become the most heavily mined country globally, with civilian casualties continuing long after military operations cease. Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide expressed disappointment with Finland’s decision, warning it could reduce the stigma against landmine use worldwide. International humanitarian organizations have emphasized that abandoning the treaty threatens to undermine decades of progress in eliminating these weapons and protecting civilian populations.

The Ottawa Convention’s proponents argue that technological advances in modern warfare make landmines less necessary for territorial defense. However, countries withdrawing from the treaty counter that the ban is outdated given current threats from nations with large stockpiles. They point out that the treaty’s primary goal of universal disarmament has not materialized, creating a strategic disadvantage for compliant nations facing adversaries unbound by such restrictions.

As Russia continues its aggressive posture toward its neighbors, more European nations may follow suit in reconsidering their commitment to the Ottawa Convention. This trend reflects a broader shift in European security thinking, where idealistic disarmament goals are increasingly giving way to hard-nosed defensive realism in the face of tangible military threats from the east.