When Good Intentions Kill: Why the World Must Abandon Bans on Landmines and Cluster Munitions
When nations across the globe signed conventions banning landmines and cluster munitions, they acted with noble intentions but limited perspective. Most were far from geopolitical hotspots and never imagined their signatures could one day embolden aggression and cost innocent lives in distant lands.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—Europe’s deadliest war since World War II—has tragically revealed the unintended consequences of these agreements. While distant nations showed symbolic solidarity—lighting buildings blue and yellow, waving flags—many also upheld treaty commitments that delayed Ukraine’s access to essential defensive weapons.
Cluster munitions and landmines, while controversial, have proven decisive in Ukraine’s defense. Over half of Russia’s nearly 900,000 casualties are reportedly due to cluster munitions, underlining their brutal effectiveness against massed infantry. At the same time, Russia’s extensive use of landmines has stalled Ukraine’s counteroffensives, revealing their strategic utility in defensive warfare.
Yet, for over a year and a half, Ukraine’s requests for cluster munitions were delayed—due in large part to pressure from treaty-bound nations. And it wasn’t until December 2024 that the United States began supplying landmines to Ukraine, acknowledging that they are needed in the face of an existential threat. Had the Ottawa Convention not existed, Ukraine might have received these tools earlier—saving lives and territory.
Of the thirteen countries that border Russia, only Norway and Afghanistan are signatories of the Cluster Munitions Convention. Lithuania originally signed, but last year realized the danger to their country had increased by signing it, not decreased Lithuania recently withdrew from the Cluster Munitions Convention. Not one country bordering China or North Korea signed. This is no coincidence. Nations on the front lines of potential aggression understand what distant signatories do not: these weapons, though imperfect, are often essential for survival.
Meanwhile, countries like Iceland, Costa Rica, and the Bahamas, far removed from immediate threats and some without standing armies, likely never imagined that their signatures would delay military aid and constrain a democracy under siege. But that is precisely what happened. Their adherence to these conventions—however well-meaning—effectively aided Russian aggression by restricting Ukraine’s options.
To avoid repeating this mistake, these nations must reconsider their commitment to these treaties. On April 4th, International Landmine Awareness Day, Ukraine should announce its withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention and call on all treaty members to do the same—following the leadership of the United States, Eastern Europe, Taiwan, and South Korea.
Several nations have already taken steps. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland have declared their intent to withdraw. Others—particularly those facing existential threats—should follow. Democracies must be empowered to defend themselves without being obstructed by well-intentioned policies that ignore battlefield realities.
This is an urgent call to action. Conventions drafted in times of peace, by nations far from danger, should not determine whether democracies can defend their populations when war arrives. Your signature may have once felt like a gesture of peace. Today, it could cost lives.
