Poland formally withdrew Thursday from the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines, becoming the first NATO member to abandon the landmark 1997 treaty and signaling a fundamental shift in how European nations assess security threats on their eastern frontier.
The decision, announced by Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, reflects Warsaw's conclusion that Russia's war in Ukraine has rendered Cold War-era arms control agreements obsolete in the face of contemporary military realities.
"Poland's security environment has changed fundamentally," Kosiniak-Kamysz said in a statement. "We cannot ask our soldiers to defend our borders with one hand tied behind their backs when our adversary operates under no such constraints."
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The Ottawa Convention, formally the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, emerged from the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s—conflicts in Cambodia, Angola, and the Balkans where mines killed and maimed civilians long after wars ended. Princess Diana's advocacy for mine clearance brought international attention to the issue months before her death in 1997.
One hundred thirty-three nations ultimately joined the treaty, agreeing to destroy stockpiles and never use, produce, or transfer anti-personnel mines. The United States, Russia, and China notably never signed, but most NATO allies did, viewing it as a cornerstone of humanitarian arms control.
Poland's withdrawal dismantles that consensus. It is the first signatory to formally exit the treaty, though several nations have faced accusations of non-compliance. The move grants Warsaw legal authority to acquire, stockpile, and potentially deploy mines along its 232-kilometer border with Russia's Kaliningrad exclave and its frontier with Belarus.
Polish military planners argue that defensive minefields could significantly complicate any Russian ground offensive, buying time for NATO reinforcements to arrive. They point to Ukraine, where both sides have used mines extensively despite Kyiv's treaty obligations—a violation humanitarian groups have documented but which Ukrainian officials defend as necessary for survival.
The humanitarian community has condemned the decision. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines called it "a devastating blow to decades of progress" and warned that Poland's departure could encourage other nations to follow.
Yet the strategic calculation is difficult to dismiss. Russia has never been bound by the Ottawa Convention and has used mines liberally in Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya. Belarus, while a signatory, is effectively under Russian military control. From Warsaw's perspective, unilateral adherence to treaty obligations offers symbolic value but tangible vulnerability.
The withdrawal reflects a broader erosion of the post-Cold War arms control architecture. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty collapsed in 2019. The Open Skies Treaty is defunct. New START, the last remaining U.S.-Russia strategic arms agreement, hangs by a thread. The Ottawa Convention's breach suggests even humanitarian-focused treaties are not immune.
European reactions have been mixed. Baltic states, facing similar security anxieties, have offered understanding if not endorsement. Germany and France, still committed to the treaty, expressed disappointment while acknowledging Poland's security concerns.
What Warsaw has calculated is that the threat is immediate while the humanitarian consequences remain theoretical. Whether other NATO members facing Russian borders follow suit will test whether the Ottawa Convention survives as an international norm or joins the growing list of security agreements consigned to history by great power rivalry.
