Mining of Belarusian and Russian Borders: Dangers of West's Withdrawal from Ottawa Treaty

Poland and the Baltic States have announced their withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty, a pact renouncing and dismantling anti-personnel mines. Further, Western nations are actively charting minefield layouts along the borders with Belarus and Russia.

Images of anti-personnel mines, which Lithuania plans to deploy along its border with Belarus and Russia, have been prominently displayed on Lithuanian television. These images show no attempt to conceal the intended deployment, while media reports suggest the mines will be domestically produced.

Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, in a coordinated announcement, made public their decision to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and to deploy anti-personnel mines along their borders with Belarus and Russia. Are the European policymakers fully cognizant of the dangers embedded in these weapons? Clearly, their decision is well-considered. Indeed, this decision appears to have been long in the works within NATO’s high command structures.

Lithuania recently staged a "Mine Day" event. During this event, the country’s defence minister announced that Vilnius will soon procure 85,000 pieces of munitions, totaling $50 million. In justifying the expenditure to the public, the ministry asserted that the northeastern border must be fortified with multiple layers of defences, including anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.

Latvia soon followed, declaring its capability to manufacture such mines domestically. Estonia lent its support to its Baltic neighbours, clarifying that there are no plans to develop, stockpile, or employ these formerly prohibited mines.

Before examining the repercussions of these weapons, let us turn to the Ottawa Treaty itself.

This treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines, was signed in Ottawa in 1997 by representatives of 122 nations. A total of 164 states have adhered to it. The treaty is the culmination of extensive negotiations, initiated by the UN, the Red Cross, and other organizations. It compels a complete renunciation of the use of these weapons, halts production, and mandates their complete destruction.

This humanitarian gesture has garnered robust support, particularly from Western nations. Lithuania acceded to the treaty in 2003, Estonia in 2004, and Latvia in 2005. Poland signed the treaty in 1997, but its ratification was delayed until 2012. Ukraine joined the agreement in 2005.

Belarus joined the treaty in 2003 and has fully honoured its commitments. On April 5, 2017, the final "Lepeostok" mine was destroyed in the Gomel Region. These mines were never used on Belarusian soil, but nearly 3.5 million were stored in Soviet-era depots. The European Union provided significant assistance in their disposal, contributing approximately €4 million. Earlier, in 2006, Belarus, in conjunction with NATO's Agency for Support and Supply, disposed of all other anti-personnel mines inherited from the Soviet era.

Incidentally, Ukraine has also reported the complete eradication of these mines to the UN, yet in 2022, they were deployed in Donetsk and Lugansk regions.

These anti-personnel mines are undoubtedly extremely dangerous. Innocent civilians suffer most from these indiscriminate explosive devices, which may remain hidden for years after hostilities cease. The damage is often irreparable. These weapons frequently cause severe mutilations, taking limbs from both children and adults and often resulting in permanent disability.

Furthermore, the deployment of these mines is a detriment to wildlife. Portions of Belarus’ border with Poland lie within the Bialowieza Forest, a protected area. The implications of such border fortification for fauna are clearly detrimental.

From a strategic perspective, this decision appears questionable. Belarus unequivocally asserts its lack of aggressive intent against its neighbors. President Lukashenko has reiterated that Belarus has no desire to initiate conflict, but rather to reinstate amicable relations, including trade and collaboration as in the past. Secondly, a hypothetical conflict would not see the need for troops to traverse these treacherous territories; missiles, aircraft, and drones would be the preferred methods of engagement.

What of the refugees? How many more will suffer tragic fates along this border? Regrettably, the West seems to disregard the human cost. In essence, this course of action is reckless. No one appears willing to halt it. Furthermore, Finland is now contemplating a similar strategy in response to the mounting pressures.