# Russian Aggression Has Consequences: The Erosion of the Ottawa Convention and Global Security
By: Dr. Gregory P. Noone, Kateryna Kyrychenko, and Sindija Beta
Introduction
With Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine, the entire international security and legal infrastructure is being disrupted forcing nations to rethink long-standing disarmament commitments. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia have announced their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines. In fact, the Latvian Parliament has already approved the law providing for the state’s withdrawal.
The Ottawa Convention, a landmark treaty adopted in the 1990s, is an international arms control agreement banning antipersonnel landmines. These landmines are weapons that are usually hidden in the ground and are triggered by weight, such as a person stepping on it. Antipersonnel landmines leave a lasting legacy of suffering even after the armed conflict is over as civilians – frequently children – can fall victim to an abandoned unexploded landmine even generations later. Due to their indiscriminate nature, impacting combatants and civilians alike, their prohibition has been viewed as a major success of international humanitarian law.
The signing of the Ottawa Convention was also a major success for civil society as civil society was among those spearheading its development. Uniquely, the Convention stands out as one of the few international treaties primarily driven by non-state actors, demonstrating the powerful role civil society can play in shaping global disarmament norms. The first decades after its signing witnessed a significant reduction in the production and use of antipersonnel landmines.
Despite its widespread adoption, security concerns prevented some nations from being able to abandon their use of landmines. The U.S. notably refrained from joining due to its strategic concerns in the Korean Peninsula, where landmines are seen as a deterrent against North Korean aggression.
Nearly 30 years later, the treaty, which some even considered “the most successful treaty in the field of conventional disarmament”, is now being loudly questioned. With Russia’s escalating hostility toward its neighbors, the Baltic states and Poland find themselves in a security environment eerily reminiscent of the Korean Peninsula leading these nations to reevaluate their commitments.
Russian Aggression and Its Consequences
Russia’s actions in Ukraine have made it clear to neighboring countries that they cannot rely solely on international agreements for protection. The war has demonstrated Russia’s willingness to ignore international norms, violate borders, and use military force to achieve its objectives. Poland and the Baltic states, which share borders or close proximity with Russia, have been increasingly alarmed by its expansionist behavior and military provocations.
For these countries, the invasion of Ukraine has reinforced the importance of national defense and territorial security. The prospect of a Russian incursion, hybrid warfare tactics, and potential border destabilization have led them to reassess their defense strategies. While the Ottawa Convention sought to limit the use of landmines for humanitarian reasons, Poland and the Baltic states now view such measures as potential vulnerabilities in their border security.
Landmines, though controversial, serve as a deterrent in strategic border areas, much as they do in the Korean Demilitarized Zone. The decision also signals a broader shift in European security policy, where deterrence is taking precedence over disarmament.
Arms Control Trends
This step back from the long-standing ban on antipersonnel landmines is just one piece in the broader puzzle of the erosion of arms control agreements.
Since 2022 and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia and all NATO allies have also withdrawn from or suspended their operations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which was once seen as a cornerstone of European security. The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 and aimed to prevent an arms race in Europe and ensure that NATO and Russia’s conventional weapons deployments were on par. This effectively signifies a new era in how Europe conceptualizes its security infrastructure.
Likewise, in 2019, both Russia and the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty effectively leading to its collapse. The INF Treaty, once a pillar of nuclear stability in Europe, collapsed due to Russian violations and subsequent U.S. withdrawal.
In light of these developments, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) also faces an uncertain future. New START expires in 2026 and it is unclear how the current geopolitical circumstances will impact the feasibility of the Treaty’s renegotiation.
The weakening of these agreements reflects a broader trend: nations are prioritizing their immediate security needs over long-term disarmament commitments. Now, with the potential beginning of the unraveling of the Ottawa Convention, another cornerstone of international security is under threat.
Conclusion
Russia’s war in Ukraine has proven that international agreements alone cannot guarantee peace. The possible withdrawal of Poland and the Baltic states from the Ottawa Convention is a direct response to this reality. While the humanitarian consequences of landmines are well-documented, the strategic necessity of deterrence cannot be ignored in the face of existential threats.
This move is just one development in a broader trend in arms control, where deterrence is regaining primacy over disarmament. As Russia continues to challenge the international order, more nations may follow suit, prioritizing military preparedness over treaty obligations.