Knowing that ten, twenty, maybe 50 years after a conflict ends a completely innocent and unrelated person, maybe even not born at the time you did it, might die or get permanently disabled is a sick move.
Place where I grew up is still full of landmines (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and some of the people who placed those mines are government officials today, loved by EU because of their natural resources.
For example, Finland has a program that will mine the entire border with Russia in just hours if Russia invades.
I can't in good conscience say that the Ukrainians are evil for laying mines well after the invasion started, even though we all know that when the fighting eventually stops it's going to be a disaster to deal with.
Now the Balkans was a different story, where mines were intentionally laid in areas to target civilians. So in the end, like any device designed to kill, it's how and why it is employed that makes the act "evil" or not.
As you are aware, in the Balkans this was exclusively done in areas to harm civilians, deep into other countries. I have a plum garden that was near the enemy lines in the 90s, and it was mined. We had to arrange demining squad to go through it, and I still have childhood memories of their tools (mine detectors) being left overnight at our place. Not a memory any person should have.
It wasn’t.
While there were probably some areas that were mined with the intention of harming civilians, most of the mines were laid in places where you would expect the enemy to advance. In the section of the front where I was located, all minefields were laid with the intention of slowing down or preventing enemy infiltration (which does not exclude areas near human settlements).
There was simply no point in mining places that were under your control and where you expected your people to live after the war, unless it was necessary.
Also I think that if you live next to a warmongering country you certainly care more about making a military invasion the shittiest and the most vile thing for the aggressor that you can think of and landmines are cheap and effective there.
I think it's a sufficient trade off that landmines self-disable themselves in, say, 5 years or so. If the war continues you'll keep planting more and when it ends you'll just wait a few years and go collect them.
It is entirely defensible on account of wanting to reduce risk of being invaded by Russia.
PS: Poland also exited the treaty. I entirely support use of mines on territory of mu country for purposes such as reducing risk of Russian invading Poland again. Though deployment should not be premature.
But I hope that production and stockpiling of enough mines is ongoing.
If you think that is indefensible - are you aware of how WW II went for Baltics, Poland, Belarus? In Poland about 16% of population was murdered, in Belarus about 20% of population was murdered. And Poland and Baltics got decades of occupation on top of that. Belarus still has not managed to get from Russia's boot as of 2026.
War crimes are bad, but using ATP land mines is not a war crime by itself.
For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).
While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.
In that vein, the Baltics withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty is commendable because they've stopped lying to everybody about what they're going to do come wartime.
There is not a single doubt in my mind that mines are useful. As are executions of people suspected of collaborating with the enemy. As is instituting precautionary concentration camps to round up folks who might have some bond with the enemy. The utility of dropping atom bombs on civilian centers is probably extremely high in negotiating with the enemy. But, like mines, these things are unconscionable, and when you start using these highly effective means, you should really ask yourself: "am I the good guy in this conflict?"
For me, the answer is no. I don't think we should commit war crimes, which somehow has become a controversial opinion.
For example ATP land mines with reliable self-destruction used properly are OK (yes, some failure rate will exist - in case of war you rarely have 100% sunshine and rainbows solutions).
While dropping randomly land mines over city to target civilians is bad, evil, war crime and terrorism.
Yes, in case of war it is very likely that murdering soldiers of other side will become necessary. It does not make executing PoW acceptable, but guns/mines etc will be used.
Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.
On top of that, you mention something about peppering cities with land mines not being ok (and it wouldn't be), but I'm not convinced that anyone's doing that. And still civilians make up 90% of the victims.
Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.
Pairing their war crimey nature and their low efficacy (2), I personally cannot get behind withdrawing from the Ottawa treaty.
There is much more to say about this, and much more has been said about this. I would recommend giving
https://www.humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/landmines-can-no-lo...
a skim. They give alternative, more effective, less inhumane, solutions to the problems that mines try (and largely fail) to solve.
(1) Which is ultimately a bit of a hypothetical exercise, because the nations that left the treaty, well, left the treaty. They didn't propose an amendment allowing for temporary mines, they left the treaty. And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%. You get 1/5th of a war crime I guess.
(2) Earlier I said something to the effect of "I'm sure they're effective". At the time I hadn't read up on the actual effectiveness of mines, because to me, the effectiveness of a method plays no role in whether it should be allowed in combat. I've since read up on that part too, and I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.
Many types of sophisticated mines cannot be trivially cleared with line charges or engineering vehicles. Soviet style mines can be cleared this way but aren't the only kind that exist.
This tech isn't sophisticated but it costs money and requires maintenance. Many militaries don't use them because they want weapons that can sit in a warehouse for 50 years with zero maintenance.
The military purpose of mines is not to kill anyone. It is to deny use of space in order to shape the battlefield and trap the adversary in areas where they are exposed to other weapons. Mines are highly effective at this purpose and will be for the foreseeable future against almost all adversaries. This is not controversial.
The "expert" in the linked article has no background in mine warfare, only EOD. This became obvious when I was reading the article because it presented an unexpectedly naive understanding of mine warfare. That perspective might make sense if your only experience is clearing old Soviet mines and IEDs but it doesn't generalize.
You are underestimating what kind of evil things people had done and will do. This was in fact done.
> Even if you build in a self destruction mechanism to landmines(1), this indiscriminate nature remains.
Would you claim that dropping bombs from planes is also war crime? Because if mines are placed in exclusion zones or deployed directly in front on enemy charge then mines can be as discriminate as alternatives.
> Of course, there's another thing playing into that 90% figure, which is that, by and large, mines are not very effective against military tartgets because they have ample means to dispose of them. Given the fact that our target here is Russia, and not some poorly funded guerilla outfit, I think this should be taken into consideration.
In Ukraine mines were in fact effective, both against Russia and Ukraine.
> because they have ample means to dispose of them
Main benefit of using mines is slowing down enemy and forcing them to deploy means to dispose them
It drastically lowers speed of advance, even if mines harm noone in the end.
> And on top of that the failure rate for such smart mines is like 20%.
I heard about much better failure rates. Do you have a reliable source for that 20%? I would be happy to educate myself (and maybe change my opinion)
> I would recommend giving > https://www.humanity-inclusion.org.uk/en/landmines-can-no-lo... > a skim
I did, and their claim of "Minefields can now be breached in minutes, using armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges." is highly misleading.
For example Russia lost piles of tanks and other combat vehicles around Vuhledar, large part of them to remotely deployed mines.
For other side, Ukrainian summer offensive failed in large part due to massive mine fields (there were also other factors like insufficient supply of armoured engineering vehicles and explosive line charges and Russian helicopters sniping ones that were trying to breach minefields).
If you restrict claim to ATP mines - they are still useful and they are nightmare to advancing military. Yes, after war they will be also horrible for civilians if not cleaned up.
Manipulation/mistake in quoted source is that any military thing can now be breached in minutes or faster, at least in some cases with proper tools deployed in proper position. The trick is that it is not reliable, you may lack this tools, you may miss window for deploying them, they may be opposed or stopped.
Yes, sometimes mines can be defeated quickly, mines are not win button, mines will not solve all problems. It does not change that mines are extremely useful and side not using them (or giving up ATP mines) is at huge handicap.
> I'm reasonably convinced they're not very effective in our current context.
I am not, at all, and as far as I know this is widely shared opinion among people who are actual experts in military matters. (I am not one)
And don't forget, russians are completely fine with usage of all kind of mines as well as targeting civil critical infrastructure.
The enemy will lose a few soldiers, but will then clear a marked path. The long term effects far outweigh any short-term advantage.