Minefields are “hidden killers”.
November 10-11, 2025, Zagreb, Croatia
The conference “Rethinking the Ottawa Convention 2025” is scheduled to take place on November 10-11, 2025, in Zagreb, Croatia. The conference is organized by the Ukrainian NGO Charity Foundation “Kharkiv with you” (https://kharkiv-with-you.org/en/). The event will be participated by the representatives of several European and Asian demining agencies, Ukrainian and European experts and victims of the mine warfare from around the globe.
Minefields — the “hidden killers” — continue to claim thousands of lives each year, primarily among civilians. The 1997 Ottawa Convention, which banned anti-personnel mines, was a landmark in international efforts to address the humanitarian consequences of their use. Yet, nearly three decades later, an urgent question emerges: has it lost its relevance, particularly in the context of asymmetric wars?
The convention was born out of the crises of the 1990s, when countless people in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Angola were killed by landmines. Today, however, its effectiveness is being tested by new conflicts. Russia, which never signed the treaty, has mined nearly a third of Ukraine’s territory. France’s colonial legacy continues to exact a toll: in Algeria, its mines killed thousands after independence, while in Mali, operations against jihadists caused further civilian casualties. In the Caucasus, Armenia, retreating from occupied Azerbaijani territories, left behind minefields that have killed and maimed hundreds since 2020. These examples illustrate that the greatest harm stems from aggressors who use mines as instruments of terror and control.
It is therefore unsurprising that debates have arisen in Finland and the Baltic states about potentially withdrawing from the convention. A total ban, critics argue, limits their ability to defend against aggression. The rationale for allowing defensive use is clear: mines are inexpensive, effective tools for border protection, and the responsibility for their consequences should lie with the aggressor. The problem is that the convention makes no distinction between attacker and defender, a flaw that undermines its credibility.
For this reason, the upcoming conference must consider reform. The ban should remain in place for aggressors, but victims of aggression should be permitted to employ mines in a strictly limited defensive capacity. Such a change would preserve the spirit of the convention while adapting it to the realities of the 21st century.
