Five European nations abandon landmine treaty amid security fears
- Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty on landmines, citing fears of possible Russian aggression.
- The decision alarms campaigners who argue landmines disproportionately harm civilians and can contaminate regions long after conflicts.
- This shift reflects a significant change in military strategy, prioritizing national defense despite the risks posed to civilian safety.
In early 2025, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania announced their intentions to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel landmines, due to perceived threats from Russia. This treaty, established in 1997, aimed to promote global disarmament by prohibiting the use, production, and stockpiling of these dangerous weapons, which can severely harm civilians and contaminate areas for decades. The decision has alarmed humanitarian campaigners, as landmines have caused countless civilian casualties worldwide. The context of this decision is rooted in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which has heightened fears in neighboring countries about potential Russian aggression. As the war in Ukraine progressed, these countries reassessed their defense strategies, recognizing the potential effectiveness of landmines in slowing down an invasion by redirecting enemy troops or hindering their movements. Advocates for the five nations justify their decision by claiming they will adhere to humanitarian principles in the deployment of these mines, assuring that their use will be responsible. This strategic shift away from the treaty reflects a significant change in military and defense policy in response to the evolving geopolitical landscape. The announcement, coming amidst increasing tensions with Russia, signifies a retreat from established international norms aimed at civilian protection. The commitment to responsible use suggests that these nations are looking for ways to augment their defensive capabilities while attempting to mitigate civilian risks. Critics, however, view this as a troubling regression in disarmament efforts that may undermine international treaties designed to protect civilians from the long-lasting effects of war. Campaigners contend that even responsible use does not eliminate the inherent risks associated with landmines, which remain a persistent danger long after conflicts have ended. They emphasize that the fundamental argument against landmines remains unchanged: once deployed, these weapons pose a continuous threat to civilian populations.