Experts Urge Britain and Allies to Reconsider Landmine Use in Response to Russian Threat
Experts are sounding the alarm that Britain and its European allies must urgently reassess their stance on landmines, given the alarming threat presented by Russia. Anti-personnel mines, which claim the lives and limbs of thousands of civilians annually in post-conflict zones, are largely banned under the Ottawa Convention—an agreement that has been ratified by 164 nations, including the UK and all NATO members except for the United States. As a result, most Western nations have dismantled their stockpiles and ceased production of these munitions for years.
However, the international consensus against these weapons is beginning to fracture. Advocates for renewed landmine use argue that advancements in technology could render mines safer, while there is growing concern that European militaries would struggle to contend with Vladimir Putin’s aggressive military strategies, which involve deploying vast human resources and equipment in ongoing conflicts.
Finland, which joined NATO following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, announced in December its consideration of withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty. This decision comes in response to Russia, a non-signatory of the treaty, having laid millions of mines during its ongoing conflict with Ukraine. With an extensive 800-mile border with Russia, Finnish leaders describe this potential withdrawal as a necessary “defensive” measure.
In addition, leaders from the neighboring Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—have also discussed the possibility of reintroducing anti-personnel mines. Senior officials in Estonia have even suggested that leaving the Ottawa ban is a viable option. Campaigners, however, have voiced strong opposition, asserting that there can be no justification for the return of landmines due to their devastating humanitarian consequences.
Leading defense analysts argue that European nations, including the UK, may soon find themselves compelled to follow Finland and the Baltic countries in reconsidering their stance on landmines. As Europe prepares for a future where it must bolster its own defenses—especially in light of Donald Trump’s potential withdrawal of U.S. support for Ukraine—this issue is becoming increasingly pressing. A recent report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think-tank recommended that NATO members in Europe “should regenerate the ability to deploy both anti-tank and anti-personnel mines.” The study cautioned that without the capacity to stockpile and utilize mines in a future land conflict, European militaries would “risk lacking… the required lethality to fight effectively.”
Russia’s Use of Landmines in Ukraine
Russia’s extensive deployment of anti-personnel mines in Ukraine has significantly impacted military operations, complicating Kyiv’s efforts to reclaim territory during its much-anticipated counter-offensive last summer. The Kremlin’s forces have established minefields that stretch up to half a kilometer deep, which played a crucial role in thwarting Ukrainian advances. In response to these challenges, the Biden administration agreed late last year to provide Ukraine with “non-persistent” landmines, aiming to strengthen its defensive positions. This decision ignited backlash from campaigners advocating for a complete ban on landmines.
While the U.S. is not a signatory to the landmine ban, it had previously committed to adhering to its fundamental principles. Nick Reynolds, a research fellow specializing in land warfare at RUSI and co-author of the report, emphasized that Western militaries must confront a new reality of reduced American support while facing an adversary in Russia that shows an unwavering commitment to deploying significant manpower and resources to breach defenses and seize territory. Estimates suggest that Russia has incurred around 600,000 combatant losses due to death or injury, many stemming from its strategy of sending waves of infantry in overwhelming assaults.
As a result, the earlier rationale for abandoning landmines—based on the assumption that Western forces could outmatch any adversary with superior firepower—has been called into question. Reynolds remarked, “What we are witnessing on the modern battlefield is that the combination of artillery and landmines is once again becoming essential for military competitiveness.” He added that European NATO members, facing uncertainties regarding U.S. commitments, require every advantage available, especially since they do not currently match Russian capabilities in several critical areas.
The Debate on Landmines: Military Necessity vs. Humanitarian Impact
The notion of a “Stop! Mines” sign in areas where landmines are deployed in eastern Ukraine underscores the ongoing risk associated with these weapons. Reynolds noted that while alternatives exist for slowing or halting enemy offensives—such as physical barriers and the use of surveillance drones for artillery strikes—there is a growing consensus that the military necessity for European forces to deploy landmines is becoming increasingly urgent.
“The military necessity part of the calculus is frankly terrifying,” he stated, given Russia’s demonstrated capabilities and operational scale. David Galbreath, a professor specializing in war and technology at the University of Bath, echoed these sentiments, suggesting that the persistent military threat at Europe’s doorstep raises fundamental questions about the existing landmine ban in light of security needs.
Any move to reintroduce landmines, after decades of efforts to ban and clear them from conflict zones like Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands, would be highly contentious. Such a decision would not only elicit backlash from campaigners but also from political and military leaders who advocate for a complete prohibition of these weapons.
The UK Foreign Office, responsible for overseeing the Ottawa Convention, reiterated its commitment to the treaty, stating, “The UK strongly supports the Ottawa treaty’s role in protecting civilians from harm and the devastating consequences of anti-personnel mines, and we have no plans to change our position on this.”
Dr. Riccardo Labianco, international policy manager for the Manchester-based Mines Advisory Group—a leading charity focused on mine clearance—argued that any return to landmine use would undermine a “fundamental principle” enshrined in the Ottawa Agreement: that the humanitarian impact of these weapons can never justify their military use.
“The humanitarian toll of deploying landmines is massive and can never be outweighed by the alleged military utility of such weapons,” he stated. “Accepting that current circumstances can alter the fundamental principle of humanity is a dangerous and regrettable retreat.”
Proponents of landmine use cite technological advances that claim to mitigate their humanitarian impact without diminishing their military effectiveness. Innovations such as “non-persistent” mines, which deactivate or detonate after a set period—typically up to two weeks—are being discussed. Other developments include “networked” minefields that communicate proximity to commanders, allowing for decisions on detonation. Russian developers even claim to have created AI-enhanced mines capable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.
This has sparked a debate over whether any form of landmine can ever be considered safe or less risky, as well as whether there is any justification for their deployment. James Cowan, director of HALO, the largest mine clearance charity in the world, stated that he would not categorically condemn the U.S. decision to supply non-persistent mines to Ukraine due to the existential threat the country faces. He underscored the importance of a parallel commitment to mine clearance, saying, “In providing these landmines, the United States is… choosing the lesser of two evils.”
However, according to multiple sources, no landmine currently exists with a 100 percent deactivation guarantee, meaning that territory must still be treated as if it were littered with traditional “dumb” devices. Patrick Wilcken, a researcher focused on military and security issues for Amnesty International, asserted, “Anti-personnel landmines are inherently inhumane and indiscriminate weapons that have caused untold suffering around the world. No technological fixes can resolve this fundamental issue.”
