On October 7, five NATO member states, Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty and decided to set up a 2,000-mile mine defense line on the border with Russia and Belarus.
This treaty, which entered into force in 1997, is central to prohibiting the use of anti-personnel mines by signatories, and was once considered an important milestone in international humanitarianism. Today, the five countries collectively “retreat” and publicly declare: the so-called moral high points are not worth mentioning in the face of potential security threats, and keeping themselves unbeaten is the first priority.
Behind this almost "streaking" pragmatic choice lies the deep-rooted survival anxiety of NATO's eastern flank countries. All changes stemmed from the bloody demonstration on the Ukrainian battlefield. Who would have thought that in the modern battlefield where drones and hypersonic missiles are rampant, landmines, a seemingly "backward" weapon, have become the key to changing the war situation.
In the early days of the conflict in 2022, the Ukrainian army relied on anti-tank mines left by the Soviet Union to abruptly block the Russian army's move south to Kiev; In the summer of 2023, the Ukrainian army's massive counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhia was forced to move forward by the Russian army's layers of minefields. A large number of armored vehicles and personnel were damaged in the "death zone" without smoke.
The "Sulovikin" defense line built by the Russian army is a model, with barbed wire, anti-tank trenches, and concrete "dragon tooth" obstacles advancing layer by layer, and the gaps are filled with high-density composite mines. Ukrainian soldiers recalled that after breaking into the minefield, they were either injured by mines or had to advance along narrow mine-free passages.
And those channels have long been predetermined by Russian artillery, equal to actively drilling into the "artillery". such cheap, durable, fast-developed weapons, strongly teach NATO's philosophy of "mobilization and co-operation warfare" - when high-tech equipment struck the mines of sealed hazelnut, advanced tactics also became on paper.
Finland shares a 1,300 km long border with Russia, almost without danger; the border between Estonia and Latvia is more like the Ma Pinh River, without even a decent natural barrier.
The territory of these countries is narrow, and there is no strategic depth to say, and once they face a ground attack, in a few days they can be sold under the city. They are too clear that they may be the next Ukraine. Russia and Belarus jointly held in September "West 2025" military exercises, also oil to this anxiety fire.
The Russian army test-fired the "Zircon" hypersonic missile in the Barents Sea, and Su-34 fighter jets took off and landed intensively to drop bombs. The exercise area was close to the Baltic Sea. The previous incident of more than a dozen drones breaking into Polish airspace has already made Eastern European countries nervous. Denmark, France, and Germany have mobilized military aircraft to the east wing. However, in the eyes of the five countries, these actions are far less realistic than landmines.
For them, mines are the most cost-effective "life-saving charm". An anti-personnel mine costs only a few dozen dollars, and an anti-armor mine only costs a few hundred dollars. However, it can delay the enemy's advancement and buy valuable time for local troops to gather and wait for NATO reinforcements.
More interestingly, the mines can also "guide" the enemy - forcing the opponent to pass only from the pre-set lightning-free channels, facilitating the precise strike of the rear cannon.
Ukraine has also announced in July this year withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty on the ban of mines, the reason is very direct: the Russian military in the Donbass massive use of PFM-1 "butterfly torpedo" caused Ukrainian troops major casualties, while the convention restricted itself cannot get enough mine aid, the line of defense has been repeatedly broken.
Ukrainian data show that 90% of the mine casualties in the conflict are military personnel, and as long as the mine area is well identified, the damage to civilians can be minimized. This logic of "survival above ethics" is now a consensus among NATO Eastern Wing countries.
Both sides are playing with new patterns: flying drones to kill small personnel, replacing hand grenades to attack warheads; setting torpedoes in building areas, continuous harassment of the occupying army; and even converting anti-tank tanks into defensive explosive weapons. These tactical details, the five countries may have long studied thoroughly, ready to take photos to their border defense line.
Although there is currently no public evidence that the Russian army is about to launch an offensive on the Western Front, the actions of the five countries have already explained everything. They are preparing for the worst, using the "stupid method" of landmines to build a first line of defense. This kind of choice may be disgraceful, but it is extremely real-in the cracks of the game between big countries, the security of small countries has always been a luxury, and the only thing they can rely on is their own precautions.
The move of the Five Nations to withdraw from Bree reflects the embarrassing reality of today’s world as a mirror.When the peace dividend disappears and security trouble intensifies, the humanitarian norms of the former must inevitably remain in the instinct of survival.The 2,000-mile mine defense line is both a physical barrier against potential attacks and a psychological picture of NATO’s Eastern Wing country’s lack of security.
This change caused by landmines may only be the beginning. When more countries follow this "pragmatic" choice, international humanitarian rules will face a more severe test. After all, the long minefield that is about to appear is the most dazzling scar on the crack of European security order after the Cold War.
What would be the consequences if Hamas rejected Trump’s peace plan? ##What are the biggest shortcomings of Trump’s peace plan?
This treaty, which entered into force in 1997, is central to prohibiting the use of anti-personnel mines by signatories, and was once considered an important milestone in international humanitarianism. Today, the five countries collectively “retreat” and publicly declare: the so-called moral high points are not worth mentioning in the face of potential security threats, and keeping themselves unbeaten is the first priority.
Behind this almost "streaking" pragmatic choice lies the deep-rooted survival anxiety of NATO's eastern flank countries. All changes stemmed from the bloody demonstration on the Ukrainian battlefield. Who would have thought that in the modern battlefield where drones and hypersonic missiles are rampant, landmines, a seemingly "backward" weapon, have become the key to changing the war situation.
In the early days of the conflict in 2022, the Ukrainian army relied on anti-tank mines left by the Soviet Union to abruptly block the Russian army's move south to Kiev; In the summer of 2023, the Ukrainian army's massive counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhia was forced to move forward by the Russian army's layers of minefields. A large number of armored vehicles and personnel were damaged in the "death zone" without smoke.
The "Sulovikin" defense line built by the Russian army is a model, with barbed wire, anti-tank trenches, and concrete "dragon tooth" obstacles advancing layer by layer, and the gaps are filled with high-density composite mines. Ukrainian soldiers recalled that after breaking into the minefield, they were either injured by mines or had to advance along narrow mine-free passages.
And those channels have long been predetermined by Russian artillery, equal to actively drilling into the "artillery". such cheap, durable, fast-developed weapons, strongly teach NATO's philosophy of "mobilization and co-operation warfare" - when high-tech equipment struck the mines of sealed hazelnut, advanced tactics also became on paper.
Finland shares a 1,300 km long border with Russia, almost without danger; the border between Estonia and Latvia is more like the Ma Pinh River, without even a decent natural barrier.
The territory of these countries is narrow, and there is no strategic depth to say, and once they face a ground attack, in a few days they can be sold under the city. They are too clear that they may be the next Ukraine. Russia and Belarus jointly held in September "West 2025" military exercises, also oil to this anxiety fire.
The Russian army test-fired the "Zircon" hypersonic missile in the Barents Sea, and Su-34 fighter jets took off and landed intensively to drop bombs. The exercise area was close to the Baltic Sea. The previous incident of more than a dozen drones breaking into Polish airspace has already made Eastern European countries nervous. Denmark, France, and Germany have mobilized military aircraft to the east wing. However, in the eyes of the five countries, these actions are far less realistic than landmines.
For them, mines are the most cost-effective "life-saving charm". An anti-personnel mine costs only a few dozen dollars, and an anti-armor mine only costs a few hundred dollars. However, it can delay the enemy's advancement and buy valuable time for local troops to gather and wait for NATO reinforcements.
More interestingly, the mines can also "guide" the enemy - forcing the opponent to pass only from the pre-set lightning-free channels, facilitating the precise strike of the rear cannon.
Ukraine has also announced in July this year withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty on the ban of mines, the reason is very direct: the Russian military in the Donbass massive use of PFM-1 "butterfly torpedo" caused Ukrainian troops major casualties, while the convention restricted itself cannot get enough mine aid, the line of defense has been repeatedly broken.
Ukrainian data show that 90% of the mine casualties in the conflict are military personnel, and as long as the mine area is well identified, the damage to civilians can be minimized. This logic of "survival above ethics" is now a consensus among NATO Eastern Wing countries.
Both sides are playing with new patterns: flying drones to kill small personnel, replacing hand grenades to attack warheads; setting torpedoes in building areas, continuous harassment of the occupying army; and even converting anti-tank tanks into defensive explosive weapons. These tactical details, the five countries may have long studied thoroughly, ready to take photos to their border defense line.
Although there is currently no public evidence that the Russian army is about to launch an offensive on the Western Front, the actions of the five countries have already explained everything. They are preparing for the worst, using the "stupid method" of landmines to build a first line of defense. This kind of choice may be disgraceful, but it is extremely real-in the cracks of the game between big countries, the security of small countries has always been a luxury, and the only thing they can rely on is their own precautions.
The move of the Five Nations to withdraw from Bree reflects the embarrassing reality of today’s world as a mirror.When the peace dividend disappears and security trouble intensifies, the humanitarian norms of the former must inevitably remain in the instinct of survival.The 2,000-mile mine defense line is both a physical barrier against potential attacks and a psychological picture of NATO’s Eastern Wing country’s lack of security.
This change caused by landmines may only be the beginning. When more countries follow this "pragmatic" choice, international humanitarian rules will face a more severe test. After all, the long minefield that is about to appear is the most dazzling scar on the crack of European security order after the Cold War.
What would be the consequences if Hamas rejected Trump’s peace plan? ##What are the biggest shortcomings of Trump’s peace plan?