The article analyzes the recent decisions by several NATO countries, including Finland, to withdraw from the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. This shift is attributed to the ongoing war in Ukraine, where both sides are using landmines as a tactical weapon.
Military analysts argue that landmines are an effective defensive measure, particularly in the context of Ukraine’s war against Russia. However, humanitarian organizations express deep concern about the humanitarian consequences, highlighting the risk to civilians and the reversal of decades of progress towards a landmine-free world. The argument for the use of landmines is based on their effectiveness in slowing enemy advances, while the counterargument focuses on the indiscriminate harm to civilians, a key concern of the Ottawa Treaty.
The article also discusses the development of “non-persistent” landmines, which are designed to self-destruct after a certain time. This technology is presented as a potential compromise, balancing military needs with humanitarian concerns.
The article references Princess Diana's advocacy for banning landmines, emphasizing the contrast between her efforts and the current reality of increasing landmine usage. The diverging views among key players are highlighted: while some argue for the grim necessity of landmines in warfare, others strongly condemn the reversal of decades of progress made toward a landmine-free world.
The article concludes by emphasizing the long-term consequences of landmine use, such as the persistent danger to civilians long after conflicts end, even with the advent of self-destructing mines. The “toxic legacy” of landmines and the challenges of clearing them are highlighted.