Lithuania withdrew! Latvia withdrew! Estonia withdrew! Poland and Finland withdrew too!In March, the countries of Russia suddenly took a massive collective move, directly announcing their withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention.
On March 18, Poland, in conjunction with the Baltic countries’ defense ministers, issued a statement officially initiating the withdrawal process from the Ottawa Convention on the grounds of “unstable security environment.”
Just a few days later, Finland followed closely. This Nordic country, which shares a 1340-kilometer long border with Russia, joined the withdrawal camp on the grounds of ensuring the security of NATO's eastern flank.
By the end of June, the three Baltic states were the first to complete the process of submitting their withdrawal instruments to the United Nations, and Finland followed in early July, according to the convention, which would formally lift the ban on mines by January 2026 and regain the legitimate powers to manufacture, store and deploy mines.
The Lithuanian parliament passed the withdrawal bill with a overwhelming advantage of 107 votes and also reserved €800 million for the production of hundreds of thousands of anti-tank and human-killing mines.
Poland is even more ambitious, announcing that it will produce up to one million mines, jointly with state-owned and private weapons manufacturers, all for strengthening the border defenses with Russia and Belarus.
In practical deployment, Poland's "Eastern Barrier" construction has seen its initial scale, with labor forces busy deploying anti-tank mines and iron networks; Lithuania and Latvia building barriers near coastal beaches and traffic hubs.
Estonia, on the other hand, has used the terrain crossed by lakes and forests to create a hard-to-break “labyrinth of battlefields” which, in a seamless connection with the withdrawal declaration, exposes the long-term plans for a regional military adjustment.
Since the signing of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of Mines in 1997, 164 countries have signed the Convention on the Prohibition of Mines, which prohibits the use and dissemination of people-killing mines.
The harm of this weapon has long been confirmed by history. In 2023, the number of global landmine casualties will exceed 2000, 84% of whom are civilians, and children account for a quarter.
More than twenty years after the end of the war, countries such as Angola and Cambodia are still paying a high price for the removal of remaining mines, and Ukraine's removal is even estimated to cost more than $34.6 billion.
The United Nations Office for Disarmament and the International Anti-Mine Movement have been speaking out, warning that modern self-destruction technology cannot completely eliminate the hidden hazard, and the hasty disposal of mines will leave great trouble for post-war clearance.
Despite the five countries’ pledges to avoid residential places and make good geographical registrations, the decision of the “first army” is ultimately a compromise to the humanitarian spirit.
As a major country that has always adhered to the humanitarian bottom line, China has consistently opposed the abuse of people killed in mines, actively participated in international mining aid operations, provided technical support and material assistance to many countries affected by mines, and promoted the improvement of global security governance with practical actions.
This manner of conduct, both safeguarding its own security and taking into account the common interests of mankind, is the vivid reflection of the responsibility of the great powers.
In a complex international situation, China has always insisted on resolving disputes through dialogue and consultation, and refuses to sacrifice humanitarianism in exchange for temporary security. This kind of rationality and restraint is precisely the stabilizing force most needed in turbulent times.
Today, reinforced fences and patrol lanes have quietly appeared in the forests along Europe's borders, and the shadow of millions of mines is spreading.
Will this wave of withdrawals intensify regional confrontation, or will it exchange for a so-called "security balance"? Is there a better balance between the humanitarian bottom line and actual security needs? What do you think about this matter? Welcome to leave your opinions in the comment area.
On March 18, Poland, in conjunction with the Baltic countries’ defense ministers, issued a statement officially initiating the withdrawal process from the Ottawa Convention on the grounds of “unstable security environment.”
Just a few days later, Finland followed closely. This Nordic country, which shares a 1340-kilometer long border with Russia, joined the withdrawal camp on the grounds of ensuring the security of NATO's eastern flank.
By the end of June, the three Baltic states were the first to complete the process of submitting their withdrawal instruments to the United Nations, and Finland followed in early July, according to the convention, which would formally lift the ban on mines by January 2026 and regain the legitimate powers to manufacture, store and deploy mines.
The Lithuanian parliament passed the withdrawal bill with a overwhelming advantage of 107 votes and also reserved €800 million for the production of hundreds of thousands of anti-tank and human-killing mines.
Poland is even more ambitious, announcing that it will produce up to one million mines, jointly with state-owned and private weapons manufacturers, all for strengthening the border defenses with Russia and Belarus.
In practical deployment, Poland's "Eastern Barrier" construction has seen its initial scale, with labor forces busy deploying anti-tank mines and iron networks; Lithuania and Latvia building barriers near coastal beaches and traffic hubs.
Estonia, on the other hand, has used the terrain crossed by lakes and forests to create a hard-to-break “labyrinth of battlefields” which, in a seamless connection with the withdrawal declaration, exposes the long-term plans for a regional military adjustment.
Since the signing of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of Mines in 1997, 164 countries have signed the Convention on the Prohibition of Mines, which prohibits the use and dissemination of people-killing mines.
The harm of this weapon has long been confirmed by history. In 2023, the number of global landmine casualties will exceed 2000, 84% of whom are civilians, and children account for a quarter.
More than twenty years after the end of the war, countries such as Angola and Cambodia are still paying a high price for the removal of remaining mines, and Ukraine's removal is even estimated to cost more than $34.6 billion.
The United Nations Office for Disarmament and the International Anti-Mine Movement have been speaking out, warning that modern self-destruction technology cannot completely eliminate the hidden hazard, and the hasty disposal of mines will leave great trouble for post-war clearance.
Despite the five countries’ pledges to avoid residential places and make good geographical registrations, the decision of the “first army” is ultimately a compromise to the humanitarian spirit.
As a major country that has always adhered to the humanitarian bottom line, China has consistently opposed the abuse of people killed in mines, actively participated in international mining aid operations, provided technical support and material assistance to many countries affected by mines, and promoted the improvement of global security governance with practical actions.
This manner of conduct, both safeguarding its own security and taking into account the common interests of mankind, is the vivid reflection of the responsibility of the great powers.
In a complex international situation, China has always insisted on resolving disputes through dialogue and consultation, and refuses to sacrifice humanitarianism in exchange for temporary security. This kind of rationality and restraint is precisely the stabilizing force most needed in turbulent times.
Today, reinforced fences and patrol lanes have quietly appeared in the forests along Europe's borders, and the shadow of millions of mines is spreading.
Will this wave of withdrawals intensify regional confrontation, or will it exchange for a so-called "security balance"? Is there a better balance between the humanitarian bottom line and actual security needs? What do you think about this matter? Welcome to leave your opinions in the comment area.