Several countries close to Russia, such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland and Finland, suddenly did one thing: withdraw from the Ottawa Convention.
The Ottawa Convention for the Prohibition of Mines, which entered into force in 1999, prohibits the use, storage, production and transfer of mines for the destruction of people.
Over the past two decades, most countries around the world have recognized its humanitarian values, and since 2025, many Eastern and Nordic countries have intensified their retreats.
The start of this shift dates back to March, when the defence ministers of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland jointly issued a statement calling for their respective governments to withdraw from the convention, calling it a key initiative to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank defence.
Estonia is the first country to complete the withdrawal process.
On June 27, the country submitted the withdrawal instrument to the United Nations in New York, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced clearly that Russia’s military action against Ukraine has worsened the regional security situation, and the withdrawal agreement is based on urgent national security considerations.
On the same day, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister announced the withdrawal decision through social platforms, stressing that all necessary measures must be taken to protect the territory and people in the face of Russia's long-term threat.
Latvia's parliament then followed up the vote and unanimously passed the withdrawal bill. Its defense department pointed out that border defense needs more flexible means.
Finland's exit process shows rigor.
The country, which shares 1340 kilometers of border with Russia, announced its readiness to withdraw from the convention in early April, passed legislation in June with an overwhelming majority of 157 votes in favour and 18 against, and formally submitted a withdrawal document on July 10.
According to the rules of the Convention, the withdrawal will take effect in January 2026.The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the withdrawal will not affect the country’s compliance with other international law obligations and will continue to support the Convention’s humanitarian objectives and demining operations.
Poland's withdrawal is in the final phase.The House of Representatives has passed the withdrawal bill, waiting for Senate approval.
Earlier, Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly expressed his support for the decision, and the Defense Ministry stressed that the withdrawal would allow armed forces more freedom to use the new weapons systems.
The country shares a border with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, and border security has always been a focus of defense planning.
These countries have a common security background.
Lithuania’s defense minister said in May that it was taking all possible measures to deter and defend its citizens, while the Estonian foreign minister believed that withdrawal from the convention would greatly expand national security options.
Following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in 2022, Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO, and now withdrawing from the Convention can be seen as a further adjustment of their defense strategy.
Both countries stressed that this decision is not an abandonment of humanitarian principles, but an adaptation of defence needs to the changing security environment.
The international community has remained concerned about this trend, but there has been no strong voice of opposition.
The Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted the notifications from relevant countries and reiterated the important value of the Convention in reducing civilian casualties, while respecting the independent decision-making of countries based on the security situation.
Despite expressing concerns, humanitarian organizations recognize the rights of countries to safeguard territorial security and call for the impact on civilians to be minimized in defense deployments.
Judging from the timeline, the withdrawal actions of various countries are closely connected but have their own rhythm, showing the characteristics of both coordination and respect for their respective procedures.
Poland's joint proposal laid the foundation for action, Estonia and Lithuania took the lead in completing the formalities, while Finland went through the parliamentary voting and document submission process step by step.
Behind this synchronicity lies a common judgment by the Eastern Wing countries of NATO on regional security.
The adjustments of these countries are essentially the adaptation of security strategies to the actual environment.
There is no doubt about the humanitarian value of the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, but when border security is faced with immediate considerations, countries begin to reassess the need for defensive means.
Withdrawal from the Convention does not mean the immediate deployment of mines, but more about reserving flexible options for national defense policy. This pragmatic attitude is not difficult to understand in a complex geographical environment.
Maintaining regional security always requires a dynamic balance.
These countries’ actions to withdraw from the Convention are both a response to the current security situation and a reflection of principles and reality in international security cooperation.
As the situation develops, how to find a balance between ensuring defense capabilities and maintaining the humanitarian bottom line will become an issue that relevant countries need to deal with in the follow-up.
The Ottawa Convention for the Prohibition of Mines, which entered into force in 1999, prohibits the use, storage, production and transfer of mines for the destruction of people.
Over the past two decades, most countries around the world have recognized its humanitarian values, and since 2025, many Eastern and Nordic countries have intensified their retreats.
The start of this shift dates back to March, when the defence ministers of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Poland jointly issued a statement calling for their respective governments to withdraw from the convention, calling it a key initiative to strengthen NATO’s eastern flank defence.
Estonia is the first country to complete the withdrawal process.
On June 27, the country submitted the withdrawal instrument to the United Nations in New York, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced clearly that Russia’s military action against Ukraine has worsened the regional security situation, and the withdrawal agreement is based on urgent national security considerations.
On the same day, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister announced the withdrawal decision through social platforms, stressing that all necessary measures must be taken to protect the territory and people in the face of Russia's long-term threat.
Latvia's parliament then followed up the vote and unanimously passed the withdrawal bill. Its defense department pointed out that border defense needs more flexible means.
Finland's exit process shows rigor.
The country, which shares 1340 kilometers of border with Russia, announced its readiness to withdraw from the convention in early April, passed legislation in June with an overwhelming majority of 157 votes in favour and 18 against, and formally submitted a withdrawal document on July 10.
According to the rules of the Convention, the withdrawal will take effect in January 2026.The Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the withdrawal will not affect the country’s compliance with other international law obligations and will continue to support the Convention’s humanitarian objectives and demining operations.
Poland's withdrawal is in the final phase.The House of Representatives has passed the withdrawal bill, waiting for Senate approval.
Earlier, Prime Minister Donald Tusk publicly expressed his support for the decision, and the Defense Ministry stressed that the withdrawal would allow armed forces more freedom to use the new weapons systems.
The country shares a border with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, and border security has always been a focus of defense planning.
These countries have a common security background.
Lithuania’s defense minister said in May that it was taking all possible measures to deter and defend its citizens, while the Estonian foreign minister believed that withdrawal from the convention would greatly expand national security options.
Following the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in 2022, Finland and Sweden decided to join NATO, and now withdrawing from the Convention can be seen as a further adjustment of their defense strategy.
Both countries stressed that this decision is not an abandonment of humanitarian principles, but an adaptation of defence needs to the changing security environment.
The international community has remained concerned about this trend, but there has been no strong voice of opposition.
The Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations noted the notifications from relevant countries and reiterated the important value of the Convention in reducing civilian casualties, while respecting the independent decision-making of countries based on the security situation.
Despite expressing concerns, humanitarian organizations recognize the rights of countries to safeguard territorial security and call for the impact on civilians to be minimized in defense deployments.
Judging from the timeline, the withdrawal actions of various countries are closely connected but have their own rhythm, showing the characteristics of both coordination and respect for their respective procedures.
Poland's joint proposal laid the foundation for action, Estonia and Lithuania took the lead in completing the formalities, while Finland went through the parliamentary voting and document submission process step by step.
Behind this synchronicity lies a common judgment by the Eastern Wing countries of NATO on regional security.
The adjustments of these countries are essentially the adaptation of security strategies to the actual environment.
There is no doubt about the humanitarian value of the Ottawa Mine Ban Convention, but when border security is faced with immediate considerations, countries begin to reassess the need for defensive means.
Withdrawal from the Convention does not mean the immediate deployment of mines, but more about reserving flexible options for national defense policy. This pragmatic attitude is not difficult to understand in a complex geographical environment.
Maintaining regional security always requires a dynamic balance.
These countries’ actions to withdraw from the Convention are both a response to the current security situation and a reflection of principles and reality in international security cooperation.
As the situation develops, how to find a balance between ensuring defense capabilities and maintaining the humanitarian bottom line will become an issue that relevant countries need to deal with in the follow-up.