Suddenly, Lots of People are OK With Land Mines Again

Recent decisions by several European nations to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention—a treaty banning the use of anti-personnel landmines—mark a significant shift in international security policy. To sum up: it seems like a whole lot of people who were really comfortable in signing onto the Ottawa treaty are suddenly OK with landmines after all.

Established in 1997, the Ottawa Convention aimed to eliminate the use of anti-personnel landmines worldwide. The treaty has been instrumental in reducing landmine-related casualties and promoting demining initiatives. Over 160 countries are signatories, reflecting a broad international consensus against these weapons.

In early 2025, Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—announced their intent to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention. These decisions are primarily driven by heightened security concerns stemming from increased military activities by neighboring Russia.

• Poland cited the need to enhance its defensive capabilities in light of regional threats.
• Finland expressed concerns over its extensive border with Russia and the necessity for flexible defense strategies.
• The Baltic states emphasized the importance of adapting their military policies to current security dynamics.

The reintroduction of landmines into national defense arsenals is a contentious issue. Proponents argue that landmines can serve as effective deterrents and force multipliers, particularly in regions with challenging terrains. Critics, however, highlight the long-term humanitarian consequences and the potential for significant civilian harm, often long after conflicts have ended. The Ottawa Convention was a response to these humanitarian concerns, aiming to prevent further suffering.

…but it’s also true that landmines work.

The US was never a signatory to the Ottawa Convention, and for good reason. Landmines are an incredibly effective means of denying the enemy the ability to traverse a given piece of land, which often serves as a deterrent or as a way to canalize enemy forces into an area where they can be more-effectively engaged. And the US is a more-responsible user of landmines; their use is tightly controlled and many US landmines have a self-destruct or auto-defuse function to help mitigate civilian harm after war.

Fast forwarding to the present day, it seems obvious that many of the signatories of the land mine treaty never really had any skin in the game. Either they never had any intentions of using landmines in the first place (seriously, what use does Fiji have for landmines?) or never had any intention of living up to the treaty’s tenants in the first place (Palestine). So they ran no risk in signing the treaty. But as it always does, political realism has now smacked a number of nations in the face. With the situation in Ukraine reminding the world once again that we live in an anarchic international system, a number of nations are starting to wake up to the fact that at the end of the day, they are responsible for their own security, and land mines can be a great tool for that.

It’s easy to sign a document with pretty words promising you won’t do something if you think you’ll never need it, or if you think that someone else will do the icky thing for you. But when it comes down to it–when survival is at stake–then nations are going to do what it takes to survive. We would all do well to remember that.

---

Scott is a veteran of a half-dozen combat deployments and has served in several different Special Operations units over the course of his Army career. Scott’s writing focuses largely on veterans’ issues, but he is also a big proponent of Constitutional rights and has a deep interest in politics. He often allows other veterans who request anonymity to publish their work under his byline. Scott welcomes story ideas and feedback on his articles and can be reached at havokjournal@havokmedia.com. 

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.