Europe faces return of landmines as defence against Putin

Britain and its European allies must urgently regain the ability to deploy landmines if they are to be able to counter the “terrifying” threat posed by Russia, experts have warned.

Anti-personnel mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians a year after being left behind in conflict zones, are widely banned under the 26-year-old Ottawa Convention – an agreement signed by 164 nations, including the UK and all NATO countries apart from America.

Consequently, nearly every Western country has destroyed its stocks and not manufactured mines for years.

But cracks in the international consensus over the weapons are beginning to emerge amid claims that new technology can make mines safer to use and growing concern that European militaries would struggle to counter Vladimir Putin’s willingness to pour manpower and equipment into further conflicts.

Finland, a new member of Nato in the wake of the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine, announced in December that it was considering pulling out of the Ottawa treaty after Moscow, which is not a signatory, planted millions of mines in its ongoing war with Kyiv.

The Scandinavian country, which has an 800-mile border with Russia, said the move should be seen as “defensive”. Leaders in the neighbouring Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have also mooted returning to the use of anti-personnel mines, with senior figures in Estonia floating the idea of leaving the Ottawa ban.

Campaigners told The i Paper that there was no acceptable case for the reintroduction of landmines because of “their massive humanitarian impact”.

But leading defence experts argue European countries including Britain may soon be forced to follow Finland and the Baltic countries as the continent contemplates a future where it will have to defend itself as Donald Trump rips up the post-war security apparatus and withdraws US support for Ukraine.

A report examining the latest implications of the Ukraine conflict by the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) think-tank last month recommended that European Nato members “should regenerate the ability to deploy [anti-tank] and [anti-personnel] mines. The study warned that unless European militaries regain the ability to stock and deploy mines in a future land war they “risk lacking… the required lethality to fight effectively”.

Russia’s extensive use of anti-personnel mines in Ukraine, where Kremlin forces have deployed minefields up to half a kilometre deep, is widely considered to have been an important factor in the failure of Kyiv’s much-anticipated counter-offensive last summer to regain significant amounts of territory.

In the wake of the failed assault, the Biden administration late last year agreed to send Ukraine a shipment of “non-persistent” landmines so it could reinforce its own defensive lines, provoking an outcry from campaigners. Although Washington is not a signatory to the landmine ban, it had previously insisted it would abide by its core principles.

Nick Reynolds, a research fellow for land warfare at Rusi and co-author of the report, told The i Paper that Western militaries were having to confront a new reality of diminished American support while facing an adversary in the shape of Russia with an apparently relentless appetite for deploying personnel and materiel in order to breach defences and take territory.

Moscow is estimated to have lost some 600,000 combatants through death or injury – many of them the result of so-called “meat grinder” assaults sending waves of infantry to try to overwhelm defences – during its ruinous three-year invasion.

As a result, it is argued the previous rationale for giving up landmines – based on the idea that Western militaries could “over-match” an adversary with superior firepower and resources – has been thrown into sharp reverse.

Mr Reynolds said: “What we’re seeing on the modern battlefield is that the combination of [artillery] and landmines is once again pretty essential for a military force to be competitive.

“I think with the current state of European members of Nato, with the questions around the Trump administration, their militaries need every advantage they can get at this stage because they do not over-match Russian capability. In fact, Russian forces have a huge number of advantages in certain areas.”

Mr Reynolds emphasised that other options existed to try and slow or halt an enemy offensive – “counter-mobility capability” in military jargon – such as physical obstacles and the use of surveillance drones to call in artillery strikes. But he said there was increasing concern that it was now a matter of “military necessity” for European armies to be able to use landmines to defend themselves.

He said: “The military necessity part of the calculus is frankly terrifying given some of the capabilities that we see on display and the scale at which the Russian Federation military operates.”

David Galbreath, professor of war and technology at the University of Bath, said the emergence of a persistent military threat on Europe’s borders meant there was an increasing conflict between the landmine ban and the need for security. He said: “I think that any arms limitation treaty that prevents a defensive action is called into question when defence appears to matter more.”

Any attempt to reintroduce landmines after a decades-long campaign to ban their use and clear them from conflict zones as far apart as Afghanistan and the Falkland Islands would be hugely controversial. It would provoke opposition not only among campaigners but also among political and military figures who share the view that mines should be consigned to history.

The Foreign Office, which is responsible for the UK’s oversight of the Ottawa Convention, told The i Paper: “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 mine-clearance charity, said any return to the use of landmines would undermine a “fundamental principle” enshrined in the Ottawa agreement that the humanitarian impact of the weapons meant there could never be a military justification for their use.

He said: “The humanitarian toll of deploying landmines is massive and it can never outweigh the alleged military utility of this type of weapon. Accepting that current circumstances can alter the fundamental principle of humanity is a dangerous and sad retreat.”

Those making a case for the use of landmines point to technological advances which, it is argued, reduce their humanitarian impact without impacting their military utility.

These so-called “non-persistent” mines are fitted with batteries that automatically disarm, or detonate, the devices after a specified time period – normally anything up to two weeks. Other developments include “networked” minefields that communicate the proximity of an individual to commanders who can then decide whether or not to detonate a device. Russian developers claim to have invented an AI-enhanced mine that is able to distinguish between civilians and military targets.

The result is a debate about whether there can ever be such a thing as a safe – or less dangerous – landmine, and whether there can be a justification for their deployment.

James Cowan, director of HALO, the world’s largest mine clearance charity, last year said he would not categorically condemn Washington’s decision to supply non-persistent mines to Ukraine because of the existential threat faced by the country. Underlining the need for a parallel commitment to remove any mines, he said: “In giving these landmines, the United States is… choosing the lesser of two evils.”

HALO declined to comment when approached for this article.

According to several sources, however, there is as yet no landmine with a 100 per cent deactivation guarantee, meaning territory must still be cleared as if it were littered with conventional “dumb” devices.

Patrick Wilcken, researcher on military and security issues for Amnesty International, said: “Anti-personnel land mines are inherently inhumane and indiscriminate weapons that have caused untold suffering around the world… No technological fixes would solve this fundamental issue.”