Lithuania Withdraws from Ottawa Convention
Alex Blackburn | 19 May 2025
Summary
Lithuania’s decision to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention marks a major shift in its defence policy, driven by escalating threats from Russia and Belarus. Supported by Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Finland, this move reflects a coordinated regional effort to reintroduce anti-personnel mines as a deterrent and strengthen NATO’s eastern defences.
While Lithuanian officials argue that landmines are essential for national security and battlefield control, the decision has drawn strong criticism from humanitarian organisations concerned about civilian harm and post-conflict recovery, highlighting tensions between security imperatives and international humanitarian norms.
In the long term, the reintroduction of landmines by Lithuania and potentially other NATO frontline states could likely erode global disarmament standards, weaken the Ottawa Convention’s influence, and fuel a broader arms race in Eastern Europe, while also straining EU unity between eastern security-driven states and western arms-control advocates.
On 8 May 2025, Lithuania’s parliament approved the withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, a landmark treaty prohibiting the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Requiring a minimum of 85 votes, the motion passed with 107 votes in favour, none against, and three abstentions. The decision will take effect six months after Lithuania submits its withdrawal documents to the United Nations Secretary-General.
Lithuania ratified the Ottawa Convention in 2003, joining a global consensus against the use of anti-personnel mines, which have been condemned for their indiscriminate impact on civilians. Currently, all European Union member states are signatories to the treaty. However, several major military powers, including Russia, China, the United States, India, and Pakistan, remain outside the convention.
This move follows a joint declaration in March by the defence ministers of Poland and the Baltic states, calling for a coordinated withdrawal from the convention, which was later joined by Finland. Citing the deteriorating security situation in the region, particularly growing military threats from neighbouring Russia and Belarus, these countries argued that adherence to the treaty now compromises their national defence strategies. Estonia and Latvia have already begun formal steps to exit the convention, while Poland and Finland are also reviewing their positions.
The Lithuanian Defence Ministry and military officials contend that lifting the ban on anti-personnel mines is a strategic necessity. According to the ministry, using such mines would improve Lithuania’s defensive capabilities, particularly by restricting enemy movement at key and hard-to-access points along the battlefield. Officials argue that mines serve as a vital deterrent and are essential for practical troop training. National security figures have supported the move within the Seimas. Social Democrats MP Ruslanas Baranovas cited lessons from Ukraine’s defence against Russian aggression, emphasising the importance of a whole arsenal in modern warfare. Former Chief of Defence MP Arvydas Pocius stressed that reinforcing NATO’s eastern flank, including through mine deployment, is necessary to safeguard Lithuanian territory and reinforce the vital Suwalki Gap, which is paramount for NATO coordination in the Baltic states.
However, the decision has drawn criticism from international humanitarian groups. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called the withdrawal a "dangerous setback for the protection of civilians in armed conflict." While Lithuania maintains it will uphold international humanitarian law through other treaties and customary laws, critics warn that the reintroduction of mines increases long-term risks for non-combatants and post-conflict recovery. In 2023, there were 1,052 verified civilian casualties from landmine and explosive ordnance incidents - nearly triple the 390 incidents recorded in 2022.
Lithuania’s exit from the Ottawa Convention marks a significant policy shift with broader regional and international implications. It signals a recalibration of defence priorities in the face of escalating tensions with Russia and Belarus. The move also challenges the unity of the EU’s stance on disarmament and humanitarian standards, creating potential friction within the bloc, particularly with Western European states that are further away from the current adversaries.
The decision could prompt similar actions by other countries along NATO’s eastern flank, reshaping the security architecture of Europe. While Lithuania insists its commitment to protecting civilians remains intact, the normalisation of mine use in the region could trigger an arms control regression that undermines decades of humanitarian progress.
Santeri Viinamäki/Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY SA 4.0
Forecast
Short-term (Now - 3 months)
Despite not being a signatory state itself, the decision made by the Lithuanian government is highly likely to draw criticism from the Russian government, as the justification for Lithuania’s actions has been rooted in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Estonia and Latvia are likely to complete their own withdrawal processes, aligning with Lithuania. There are also realistic possibilities that Poland and Finland may announce formal decisions, increasing regional coordination.
Medium-term (3-12 months)
There is a realistic possibility that Lithuania and other Baltic states may begin deploying mines in strategic areas, especially in the Suwalki gap near borders with Belarus and Russia, and integrating them into NATO exercises.
Lithuania will likely face growing legal and ethical scrutiny at international forums such as the UN and the EU, potentially affecting its influence in humanitarian and arms control policy debates. Although considering the increasing tensions on the Russo-NATO borders, this criticism will likely be muted.
Long-term (>1 year)
The normalisation of anti-personnel mine use along NATO’s eastern flank is highly likely to lead to a gradual erosion of global disarmament norms, weakening the influence of the Ottawa Convention and undermining decades of humanitarian progress.
If Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and potentially Poland and Finland maintain or expand their mine deployment, this will likely set a precedent that other NATO frontline states could follow, further entrenching a more militarised and deterrence-focused posture in the region.
Over time, there is a realistic possibility that these developments will contribute to a long-term strategic rift within the EU between security-focused eastern members and arms-control-prioritising western states, complicating EU consensus on foreign and defence policy. In parallel, Russia and Belarus are highly likely to increase their own deployments of area-denial weapons, exacerbating the regional arms race and solidifying a new, hardened security architecture in Eastern Europe.
