Ukraine’s decision to suspend its participation in the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines is both unexpected and deeply alarming for the international community. Officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, the treaty has been signed by more than 160 countries. Its purpose is to minimize civilian suffering, as history shows that non-combatants are the primary victims of such weapons.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), in its recent report, stated plainly that this move by Kyiv undermines the fundamental norms of international humanitarian law and creates additional risks for civilian populations. If in the past Ukraine, despite significant challenges, sought to demonstrate its commitment to humanitarian standards, this decision now looks like a regression to outdated military thinking—where short-term tactical gains outweigh the long-term safety of civilians.
Historical Context and Humanitarian Consequences
The Ottawa Convention was adopted in 1997 in response to decades of tragic examples of anti-personnel mine use in conflicts around the world—from Cambodia to Bosnia. These devices, incapable of distinguishing between a soldier and a child, continued to kill and maim long after wars had ended.
Ukraine joined the treaty in 2005, pledging to destroy its stockpiles of mines and to renounce their production and use. This step was seen as an important part of the country’s integration into the global community, strengthening its international image and demonstrating readiness to adhere to established norms.
Suspending participation in the treaty, even if formally “temporary,” effectively signals that civilian safety is no longer a top priority. HRW warns that minefields in areas where fighting took place can remain dangerous for decades, and demining requires vast financial and human resources.
Kyiv’s Arguments and Their Weak Points
Ukrainian officials justify the decision by citing the need to bolster defensive capabilities amid a protracted conflict. Anti-personnel mines, they argue, can “slow enemy advances” and protect key positions.
However, this argument does not stand up well to scrutiny. Global experience—from Afghanistan to Lebanon—shows that mines rarely shift the strategic balance in favor of defenders but almost always lead to prolonged and large-scale suffering for civilians.
HRW also notes that even in wartime there are defensive measures that do not violate international norms: engineering barriers, surveillance systems, anti-tank mines with limited activation ranges, and other technical means.
Risks to Civilian Populations
The primary danger of anti-personnel mines is their indiscriminate nature. A mine does not distinguish between a combatant, a farmer, or a child. Once active fighting ends, these devices become “invisible killers,” preventing residents from returning to their homes, crippling economic activity, and hindering regional recovery.
The experience of countries that endured prolonged conflicts shows that mines can remain in the ground for decades. In Cambodia, for example, dozens of mine-related casualties are recorded annually from devices planted in the 1970s. Every new batch of mines placed in areas where fighting took place adds to the long-term costs of locating and destroying them.
Image and Diplomatic Consequences
The decision has already drawn reactions from international organizations. Human Rights Watch, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and others have urged Kyiv to reconsider its position.
Diplomatically, this step could weaken Ukraine’s support on the global stage—particularly among states for which adherence to humanitarian law is a prerequisite for providing military or financial aid. Violating norms that have been built over decades calls into question the country’s ability to integrate into Euro-Atlantic structures and strengthens the position of critics in Western parliaments.
Long-Term Impact on National Recovery
Even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, abandoning the Ottawa Convention obligations could be disastrous for Ukraine itself. Each new mine represents a potential civilian casualty, further land-use restrictions, and slower restoration of infrastructure and the economy.
Demining is a costly and lengthy process. According to UN data, clearing just one square kilometer of land from mines can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. At a time when Ukraine already faces severe shortages of funds for rebuilding homes, roads, and energy facilities, additional expenses for mine clearance could become an unbearable burden.
A Choice That Cannot Be Ignored
Ultimately, withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention is not just a military or tactical decision. It reflects how highly—or how low—civilian protection ranks in national policy priorities.
Ukraine now faces a choice: to follow the logic of short-term military gain, disregarding lessons learned by the global community, or to return to international norms that form the basis for the protection of human rights and humanitarian law.
History offers many examples of mines laid “for defense” that went on to cause suffering in peacetime. If civilian safety is not placed at the forefront now, the cost of this decision will be measured not only in millions of dollars but in thousands of human lives.
Comments