Biden’s Authorization of “Nonpersistent” Antipersonnel Landmines to Ukraine: A Policy Reversal with Far-Reaching Implications

The recent authorization by outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden to deliver “nonpersistent” antipersonnel landmines to Ukraine represents a marked shift in the administration’s stance on landmine usage. This decision, reportedly aimed at enhancing Ukraine’s defensive capabilities against advancing Russian forces, has reignited global debates over the use of antipersonnel mines, their humanitarian impact, and the broader implications of this policy reversal. Biden’s move appears to contradict his own 2022 condemnation of antipersonnel mines as “reckless” weapons that place civilians at risk. The policy shift has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters while also highlighting the geopolitical tensions surrounding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The comprehensive exploration below delves into the technical specifics of antipersonnel landmines, the historical context of their usage, the international frameworks governing their prohibition, and the geopolitical and humanitarian ramifications of Biden’s decision. This analysis meticulously incorporates every critical detail and date while integrating relevant contemporary research and insights.

Historical Context of Antipersonnel Landmines in Warfare

Antipersonnel landmines have been a fixture of military strategy for centuries, with their first widespread use dating back to World War I. Initially employed as rudimentary explosive devices to protect trenches and key installations, these weapons evolved into more sophisticated tools of warfare by World War II. Landmines became an integral part of defensive military doctrines, particularly for countries facing adversaries with superior manpower or resources. Their primary utility lay in their ability to restrict enemy movement, deny access to strategic territories, and inflict casualties on advancing forces.

By the mid-20th century, antipersonnel mines were mass-produced and deployed in conflicts worldwide. They played a pivotal role in conflicts such as the Vietnam War, where the U.S. military’s use of landmines—including remotely delivered scatterable types—left a long-lasting legacy of unexploded ordnance. In Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, millions of mines and unexploded bombs remain buried, posing a continuous threat to civilians decades after the cessation of hostilities. This historical precedent underscores the indiscriminate nature of these weapons and their enduring impact on post-conflict societies.

Escalating Tensions in the Ukraine Conflict: A Deep Dive into Western Involvement and Global Implications

Cold War and the Proliferation of Landmines

During the Cold War, landmines became a staple of both NATO and Warsaw Pact military doctrines. The proliferation of antipersonnel mines mirrored the era’s broader arms race, as nations sought to enhance their defensive capabilities against potential invasions. The Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) remains one of the most heavily mined areas globally, reflecting the strategic value placed on these weapons during this period.

While landmines provided tactical advantages, their widespread use also highlighted their long-term consequences. In Afghanistan, for example, the Soviet invasion in the 1980s saw extensive deployment of antipersonnel mines. These devices have continued to cause civilian casualties and hinder development efforts long after the conflict ended, illustrating the enduring legacy of mine warfare.

The Humanitarian Turn: Global Movements Against Landmines

The late 20th century witnessed a growing recognition of the humanitarian crisis caused by landmines. The images of maimed civilians, especially children, and the plight of communities unable to farm their land or access basic infrastructure galvanized international efforts to address the issue. Advocacy groups like the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) played a crucial role in raising awareness and lobbying for change.

The culmination of these efforts was the adoption of the Ottawa Convention in 1997. This landmark treaty marked a significant shift in international norms, framing landmines as unacceptable weapons of war due to their indiscriminate impact and long-term consequences. The treaty’s success can be measured by the widespread ratification it has received and the tangible progress made in mine clearance and victim assistance.

Ukraine’s Potential Nuclear Development: A Comprehensive Analysis of Emerging Risks and Geopolitical Tensions

Antipersonnel Landmines: Technical Overview

Antipersonnel landmines are explosive devices designed to detonate upon pressure, targeting individuals who inadvertently trigger them. Typically buried beneath the surface or concealed in the environment, these devices are intended to incapacitate or kill, causing injuries such as severe limb amputations, blindness, and hearing damage. Their deadly efficiency lies in their capacity to harm indiscriminately, affecting civilians and combatants alike.

The “nonpersistent” variants of antipersonnel mines authorized for Ukraine are equipped with mechanisms to self-destruct or deactivate after a designated period, ranging from several days to weeks. This feature is intended to mitigate the long-term risks associated with traditional mines, which often remain active for decades after conflicts have ended. However, arms control experts warn that the reliability of these mechanisms cannot be guaranteed, potentially leaving civilians vulnerable to unexploded ordnance.

Historically, landmines have been a staple of warfare, employed for their defensive capabilities. However, their extensive and indiscriminate harm led to a global push for their prohibition in the latter half of the 20th century. The 1997 Ottawa Convention, or Mine Ban Treaty, emerged as a cornerstone of international efforts to eradicate antipersonnel mines, with significant successes in mine clearance and stockpile destruction.

The Strategic Implications of Rheinmetall’s Ukrainian Operations Amid the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Ottawa Convention and Global Efforts to Ban Landmines

Adopted in 1997, the Ottawa Convention prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines. To date, 164 nations have ratified the treaty, committing to demining efforts and supporting the rehabilitation of affected regions. According to the United Nations, the treaty has facilitated the destruction of millions of mines and the clearance of thousands of square kilometers of contaminated land.

Despite its near-universal acceptance, the treaty is not without gaps. The United States, among several other nations, remains outside its framework, citing strategic and security considerations. Biden’s recent decision underscores the challenges posed by these exceptions, as it highlights the continued reliance on landmines in modern conflicts.

Global Patterns and Implications of Antipersonnel Mine Use in Modern Conflicts

Antipersonnel landmines remain a pervasive and devastating weapon in modern warfare, affecting both combatants and civilians long after hostilities have ceased. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, as well as other regions like Myanmar, the Sahel, and Colombia, have underscored the challenges posed by the use and proliferation of these weapons. The following comprehensive analysis delves into the documented use of antipersonnel mines, focusing on recent evidence from Ukraine and other global hotspots, alongside an evaluation of their broader implications under international law and treaties.

Antipersonnel mines continue to inflict significant harm across diverse regions, used both by state actors and non-state armed groups (NSAGs). The following sections provide a detailed account of the models, characteristics, and impact of antipersonnel mines used during the reporting period, illustrating the scale of the problem and the international response.

Use of Antipersonnel Mines by Non-Signatory States

Despite widespread international efforts to eliminate the use of antipersonnel mines, certain states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty—such as Russia, Myanmar, Iran, and North Korea—have continued to deploy these weapons in military operations. These states employ a range of models with varying characteristics and initiation mechanisms, designed to inflict maximum harm or achieve strategic objectives.

• Russia: Russia has used at least 13 types of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine since its full-scale invasion began in February 2022. These include:
  • MON-Series Mines: The MON-50, MON-90, MON-100, and MON-200 are fragmentation mines with both command-detonated and victim-activated modes. These mines feature pre-formed fragments, such as ball bearings or chopped steel rods, designed to project horizontally, causing severe injury or death.
    • Details:
      • MON-50: Contains 540 ball bearings or 485 pieces of 5mm chopped steel rod.
      • MON-100: Contains 400 pieces of 10mm chopped steel rod.
    • Prohibition Under the Mine Ban Treaty: When activated by victims, these mines violate international standards.
  • OZM-72: A bounding fragmentation mine designed for either command-detonated or victim-activated deployment. It ejects fragments upon detonation, posing significant risks to personnel within a wide radius.
  • PFM-1/PFM-1S: Known as the “butterfly mine,” this blast mine is scatterable by various delivery methods, including rockets and dispensers. Its small size and unusual shape make it attractive to children, increasing civilian casualties.
  • PMN-2 and PMN-4: Circular, plastic-cased mines primarily used in victim-activated modes. The PMN-4 represents a modern iteration, first showcased by Russia in 1993, but never stockpiled by Ukraine.
  • POM-2 and POM-2R: Bounding fragmentation mines delivered via helicopters or ground-fired rockets. These mines self-destruct after a set period but remain lethal during their active phase.
  • POM-3: A seismic-activated fragmentation mine introduced by Russia in 2021. Scattered by rockets or truck-mounted launchers, it demonstrates advanced technology designed for rapid area denial.

The use of these mines highlights Russia’s extensive reliance on antipersonnel mines, despite international condemnation and the severe humanitarian implications.

Table – Antipersonnel landmines used in Ukraine by Russia since February 2022 – copyright debuglies.com

Name	Origin	Type	Initiation	Notes
MOB	Russia	Fragmentation	Multiple options	Hand-emplaced directional multipurpose mine that can be used in either a command- detonated or victim-activated mode. When used in victim- activated mode with a mechanical pull, tension release, or seismic fuze, these mines are prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.
MON-50	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/command	MON-series hand-emplaced directional multipurpose mines can be used either in a command-detonated or victim-activated manner. When used in victim-activated mode with a mechanical pull, tension release, or seismic fuze, these mines are prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.
MON-90	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/command
MON-100	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/command
MON-200	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/command
OZM-72	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/command	A multipurpose bounding munition emplaced either in a command-detonated or victim-activated manner. When used in victim-activated mode with a mechanical pull, tension release, or seismic fuze, these mines are prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty.
PFM-1/PFM-1S	USSR	Blast	Pressure/self-destruct	Uniquely shaped and constructed, this plastic-cased mine can be scattered by mine-laying rockets and dispensers mounted on trucks or helicopters. It contains 37 grams of a liquid high explosive. Both Russia and Ukraine stockpile this type.
PMN-2	USSR/Russia	Blast	Pressure	A circular, plastic-cased mine. Ukraine destroyed its stockpile of this type in 2003.
PMN-4	Russia	Blast	Pressure	A modern circular, plastic-cased mine produced by Russia. First publicly displayed by Russia in 1993, it has never been stockpiled by Ukraine.
POM-2/POM-2R	USSR/Russia	Fragmentation	Tripwire/self-destruct	A metal-case bounding mine delivered by helicopter, ground-fired rockets, or other means. POM-2 and POM-2R mines are stockpiled by Russia, Ukraine destroyed its stocks of this mine in 2018.
POM-3	Russia	Fragmentation	Seismic	Used only by Russia, POM-3 mines were first publicly displayed during annual military exercises in 2021. The POM-3 is scattered by rockets or truck-mounted launchers. Ukraine does not possess the POM-3 mine or its delivery system. Markings on an expended delivery canister photographed with POM-3 mines that failed to deploy properly indicate that it was produced in 2021.

Non-State Armed Groups and Their Use of Antipersonnel Mines

Non-state armed groups (NSAGs) have employed antipersonnel mines in various conflict zones, including:

• Colombia: NSAGs, such as dissident factions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), have utilized improvised mines to secure territories and deter government forces.
• Gaza: Armed groups have reportedly used improvised mines as defensive measures in urban combat zones, exacerbating risks to civilians.
• Myanmar: Both state forces and ethnic armed groups continue to deploy antipersonnel mines in ongoing conflicts, contributing to one of the world’s most mine-contaminated regions.
• India and Pakistan: In areas of insurgency and along contested borders, NSAGs have used mines to target military personnel and infrastructure.
• Sahel Region: Extremist groups operating in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have incorporated antipersonnel mines into their tactics, compounding the region’s security challenges.

Allegations of Ukrainian Use of Antipersonnel Mines in 2022

Reports of antipersonnel mine use by Ukrainian forces in and around the city of Izium during 2022 have raised concerns about compliance with the Mine Ban Treaty. Human Rights Watch (HRW) documented evidence of 9M27K3 Uragan rockets carrying PFM-series mines being used in Russian-occupied areas near military facilities. These mines reportedly caused at least 11 civilian casualties.

Ukraine has since engaged with the Mine Ban Treaty’s Committee on Cooperative Compliance, initiating a pre-trial investigation into the allegations. At the June 2024 intersessional meetings, Ukraine reiterated its commitment to the treaty and ongoing investigations to determine the responsible parties.

International Response to the Use of Antipersonnel Mines

The international community has strongly condemned the use of antipersonnel mines in Ukraine and elsewhere. Key developments include:

• CCW and Mine Ban Treaty: States parties to the Mine Ban Treaty and the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) have repeatedly called for adherence to international norms prohibiting victim-activated explosive devices.
• United Nations and Civil Society: Organizations like the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and Human Rights Watch have urged all actors to cease mine use and accelerate clearance operations.

Implications of Landmine Use in Ukraine

The extensive use of antipersonnel mines by Russian forces has made Ukraine one of the most heavily contaminated regions in the world. The scale of contamination poses challenges for demining, reconstruction, and civilian safety, necessitating sustained international support.

• Booby Traps and Improvised Devices: Russian forces have emplaced booby traps using grenades and tripwires, further complicating clearance efforts.
• Drone Deployment: Social media evidence indicates that Russian forces are using drones to scatter landmines, including PFM-1, POM-2, and PMN-4 models.

Long-Term Impact and the Path Forward

The widespread use of antipersonnel mines underscores the urgent need for renewed global efforts to strengthen mine action programs. Key priorities include:

• Clearance and Demining: Expanding resources and technology for the systematic removal of landmines in affected areas.
• Victim Assistance: Providing medical care, rehabilitation, and socioeconomic support to mine survivors and their communities.
• Universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty: Advocating for the adoption of the treaty by all states to achieve a mine-free world.

The challenges posed by antipersonnel mines require a coordinated and sustained international response, integrating humanitarian, legal, and security perspectives.

Ecological Disruption from Antipersonnel Mine Deployment

Antipersonnel mines cause profound and lasting harm to the natural environment. When deployed en masse, their presence alters ecosystems, destroys arable land, and disrupts local fauna. Mines buried in agricultural fields make them inaccessible, turning once-productive land into unusable zones. Decaying mine casings leach chemicals into the soil and groundwater, potentially contaminating essential resources for years or decades.

In forested and wildlife-rich areas, mines inadvertently target animals, which either trigger explosions or sustain injuries after stepping on these devices. This disruption has cascading effects on ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and altering natural cycles like pollination and seed dispersion. The environmental legacy of mine contamination parallels their impact on human populations, demonstrating the far-reaching consequences of their use.

The Economic Costs of Landmine Clearance and Rehabilitation

The economic toll of antipersonnel mines extends well beyond the initial cost of deployment. Mine clearance is one of the most resource-intensive tasks in post-conflict recovery. Clearing an area requires:

• Highly trained personnel who risk their lives to disarm mines.
• Advanced technologies such as ground-penetrating radar, robotic systems, and explosives-sniffing dogs.
• Long periods of time to systematically map, identify, and remove mines from even relatively small areas.

For example, estimates indicate that demining costs range from $300 to $1,000 per mine, depending on the complexity of the terrain and the type of mine involved. In regions like Ukraine, where large-scale contamination exists, the financial burden quickly scales into billions of dollars. These expenses divert funds from critical areas like healthcare, education, and infrastructure development.

Additionally, mines prevent the use of natural resources and disrupt transportation networks, further hampering economic recovery. Communities often face compounding losses, as land rendered unsafe for cultivation or grazing eliminates key sources of livelihood.

The Role of Technology in Antipersonnel Mine Evolution

Technological advancements in antipersonnel mines reflect a paradoxical evolution: while designed to achieve military efficiency, they also create unforeseen humanitarian risks. Recent innovations include:

• Seismic Sensors: Mines like Russia’s POM-3 are equipped with seismic activation mechanisms that detect footfalls or vibrations, making them more effective against infantry. However, this sensitivity increases the likelihood of accidental detonation by civilians or animals.
• Self-Destruct and Deactivation Features: Intended to address post-conflict risks, these mechanisms are often unreliable. Factors such as manufacturing defects or environmental conditions can render self-destruct systems ineffective, leaving mines active well beyond their intended lifespan.
• Drone Deployment Systems: The use of drones to scatter mines has significantly expanded their reach, allowing them to be deployed in hard-to-access or heavily contested areas. However, this method complicates clearance efforts, as mines are distributed randomly and often without proper mapping.

Geopolitical Strategies Driving Antipersonnel Mine Use

The deployment of antipersonnel mines often aligns with broader geopolitical strategies. For states like Russia, mines serve multiple tactical and strategic purposes:

• Area Denial: Mines prevent enemy forces from accessing key territories, such as supply routes, industrial hubs, or transportation corridors.
• Psychological Impact: The presence of mines instills fear among both military personnel and civilians, effectively discouraging movement and fostering a sense of insecurity.
• Prolonged Occupation: Mines ensure that previously occupied areas remain dangerous even after a retreat, complicating efforts by opposing forces to reclaim and stabilize these zones.

NSAGs also leverage mines strategically, often using improvised devices to target government forces or secure strongholds. In asymmetric warfare, mines level the playing field, enabling smaller groups to resist larger, better-equipped militaries.

The Evolution of Antipersonnel Mine Technology: From Simplicity to Sophistication

The technological evolution of antipersonnel landmines reflects the broader advancements in warfare, as these weapons have transitioned from basic explosive devices to highly engineered tools of modern conflict. Understanding the progression of mine technology is essential to comprehending the current debate surrounding their use, particularly the “nonpersistent” mines authorized for Ukraine.

Early Developments: The Foundation of Mine Warfare

The first antipersonnel mines were relatively simple devices, designed to function as area-denial weapons. Constructed from basic materials, these early mines relied on mechanical triggers or pressure plates to detonate. While effective in certain tactical scenarios, their lack of sophistication meant they were prone to unintended activation and posed a significant risk to non-combatants.

During World War II, technological innovations significantly improved the effectiveness of landmines. The introduction of metal casings, fragmentation enhancements, and tripwire mechanisms increased their lethality and versatility. By the end of the war, landmines had become a central component of defensive military strategies, particularly in heavily contested theaters such as the European and Pacific fronts.

The Cold War Era: Proliferation and Standardization

The Cold War marked a period of rapid proliferation and standardization of antipersonnel mines. Both NATO and Warsaw Pact countries invested heavily in developing mines tailored to specific tactical needs. Scatterable mines, which could be deployed from aircraft, artillery, or ground-based systems, became a key innovation. These mines allowed for rapid deployment over large areas, enabling militaries to respond quickly to advancing forces.

However, scatterable mines also introduced new challenges. Their widespread use in conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Soviet-Afghan War underscored their indiscriminate nature, as many failed to detonate on impact and remained active for decades. These “legacy mines” have caused significant civilian casualties and impeded post-conflict reconstruction efforts.

The Advent of “Smart” Mines: A Double-Edged Sword

In response to growing international criticism of traditional landmines, defense industries began developing “smart” mines equipped with self-destruct or self-deactivation mechanisms. These features aimed to address the primary humanitarian concerns associated with mines—namely, their persistence and indiscriminate nature.

“Nonpersistent” mines, such as those authorized for Ukraine, are a product of this technological shift. These mines are designed to deactivate after a specified period, typically ranging from hours to weeks. Self-destruct mechanisms rely on timers or electronic circuits to render the mines inert, while self-deactivation systems involve battery-operated components that lose power over time.

Despite these advancements, experts caution that “smart” mines are not foolproof. Manufacturing defects, environmental factors, and deliberate tampering can compromise their reliability, leaving unexploded ordnance in the field. Moreover, the deployment of “smart” mines in large quantities presents logistical challenges for monitoring and recovery, raising questions about their long-term impact on civilian populations.

The U.S. Approach to Peace and Stability in Ukraine Under President Trump’s Second Term: A Comprehensive Analysis

Antipersonnel Mines and International Law: Navigating the Legal Landscape

The legal framework governing the use of antipersonnel mines is rooted in both international humanitarian law and specific treaties such as the Ottawa Convention. These legal instruments aim to balance the legitimate military uses of landmines with the imperative to protect civilians and uphold ethical standards in warfare.

The Ottawa Convention: A Milestone in Arms Control

Adopted in 1997, the Ottawa Convention represents a landmark achievement in the global effort to ban antipersonnel mines. The treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of these weapons, reflecting a broad consensus that their humanitarian costs outweigh their military utility. Signatory states commit to:

• Ceasing the use of antipersonnel mines immediately.
• Destroying stockpiles within four years of ratification.
• Clearing mined areas and assisting affected populations.

The treaty has been ratified by 164 countries, encompassing a majority of the world’s nations. Notable exceptions include the United States, Russia, and China, which have refrained from joining due to strategic and security concerns. This lack of universal adherence has limited the treaty’s effectiveness, particularly in regions where major powers continue to rely on landmines.

The United States and the Ottawa Convention

The U.S. has maintained a complex relationship with the Ottawa Convention. While successive administrations have expressed support for the treaty’s principles, none have fully committed to its requirements. The U.S. argues that antipersonnel mines remain a necessary component of its military strategy, particularly in areas such as the Korean Peninsula, where they play a critical role in deterring potential aggression from North Korea.

Biden’s 2022 rollback of Trump-era landmine policies marked a step toward greater alignment with the Ottawa Convention. However, the recent decision to supply “nonpersistent” mines to Ukraine underscores the tension between the U.S.’s stated humanitarian commitments and its strategic imperatives.

Customary International Law and the Use of Landmines

Beyond the Ottawa Convention, customary international law imposes additional constraints on the use of landmines. The principles of distinction and proportionality, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, require combatants to minimize harm to civilians and avoid excessive force relative to military objectives. These principles have been invoked by critics of antipersonnel mines, who argue that their indiscriminate nature violates the foundational tenets of humanitarian law.

The U.S.’s reliance on “nonpersistent” mines raises questions about compliance with these legal norms. While proponents contend that self-destruct mechanisms mitigate civilian risks, skeptics argue that the potential for malfunction and misuse remains a significant concern.

Humanitarian Impacts: The Lingering Toll of Landmines

The humanitarian consequences of antipersonnel mines extend far beyond the battlefield. Even in their “nonpersistent” forms, these weapons pose enduring risks to civilian populations, particularly in post-conflict environments where demining efforts are slow and resource-intensive.

Civilian Casualties and Community Displacement

Landmines disproportionately affect civilians, who often encounter them while farming, gathering firewood, or traveling along unmarked roads. In many cases, the victims are children, drawn to unexploded devices by curiosity or unaware of the dangers they pose. The physical and psychological toll on survivors is profound, as many face lifelong disabilities, stigmatization, and economic hardship.

The displacement of communities is another significant consequence. Mined areas become uninhabitable, forcing families to abandon their homes and livelihoods. The loss of arable land exacerbates food insecurity, while the presence of unexploded ordnance impedes infrastructure development and reconstruction efforts.

Challenges in Demining and Rehabilitation

Demining operations are labor-intensive and costly, often requiring years or decades to complete. The process involves identifying contaminated areas, removing mines manually or with specialized equipment, and providing education to local populations about the dangers of unexploded ordnance. Despite advances in demining technology, the scale of the challenge remains daunting, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Rehabilitation efforts for mine victims are equally critical but underfunded. Prosthetics, medical care, and vocational training are essential for helping survivors rebuild their lives, yet many affected regions lack the infrastructure and resources to provide these services.

Nonpersistent Antipersonnel Landmines: Models, Characteristics, and Functionality

The concept of “nonpersistent” antipersonnel landmines stems from advancements in mine technology aimed at mitigating the long-term dangers associated with traditional mines. These devices are designed with built-in mechanisms to self-destruct or deactivate within a predetermined timeframe, typically ranging from hours to weeks. While they are intended to reduce civilian harm and environmental hazards, nonpersistent mines still present significant risks and complexities in their design, deployment, and post-conflict implications.

This section provides a comprehensive exploration of the models, characteristics, functionality, and potential dangers associated with nonpersistent antipersonnel mines, with a focus on their application in the Ukrainian conflict.

Key Models and Types of Nonpersistent Antipersonnel Mines

Several models of nonpersistent antipersonnel mines are widely known and have been deployed in various conflicts. Although exact details of the models supplied to Ukraine remain undisclosed, the following provides an overview of common nonpersistent mine systems and their relevant specifications.

M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition (PDM)

• Overview: The M86 PDM is a small, hand-emplaced mine designed for quick deployment in pursuit or defensive scenarios. It incorporates a self-destruct mechanism to ensure that the mine becomes inert after a pre-programmed period.
• Key Features:
  • Activation: Triggered by pressure or a tripwire.
  • Self-Destruct Timeframe: 4 hours to 48 hours, depending on configuration.
  • Weight: Approximately 1.5 kg, making it portable for infantry use.
  • Explosive Payload: 180 grams of high explosive, with shrapnel dispersion designed to incapacitate within a 10-meter radius.
• Deployment Context: Used to slow enemy pursuit or secure retreat routes.

M74 Scatterable Mine

• Overview: Part of the U.S. GATOR system, the M74 mine is delivered via cluster munitions and can be deployed from aircraft, artillery, or missile systems. It is scatterable, meaning it can cover a wide area rapidly.
• Key Features:
  • Activation: Pressure-activated.
  • Self-Destruct Timeframe: Configurable from 4 hours to 15 days.
  • Explosive Payload: Approximately 350 grams of Composition B explosive.
  • Area Coverage: Multiple mines dispersed over a wide radius.
• Deployment Context: Used for area denial, particularly in open terrain or along defensive perimeters.

ADAM (Area Denial Artillery Munition)

• Overview: The ADAM is an artillery-delivered mine designed for rapid area denial. It is equipped with a combination of self-destruct and anti-handling features to enhance safety and tactical effectiveness.
• Key Features:
  • Activation: Pressure or tampering.
  • Self-Destruct Timeframe: Typically 48 hours but can be adjusted.
  • Explosive Payload: Approximately 200 grams.
  • Deployment Mechanism: Delivered via 155mm artillery shells.
• Deployment Context: Frequently used to protect advancing forces or delay enemy reinforcements.

PDM-7

• Overview: A newer-generation nonpersistent mine designed for use in modern conflicts. It features advanced electronic circuits for self-deactivation and tamper-resistance.
• Key Features:
  • Activation: Pressure or vibration-sensitive.
  • Self-Destruct Timeframe: Adjustable from 6 hours to 30 days.
  • Explosive Payload: Fragmentation-based, with a lethal radius of up to 12 meters.
  • Deployment Context: Tailored for urban and semi-urban combat zones.

Functionality and Technical Characteristics

Nonpersistent antipersonnel mines operate based on several core principles designed to enhance their tactical utility while addressing humanitarian concerns. Key functionalities and technical characteristics include:

Self-Destruct Mechanisms

Nonpersistent mines are equipped with timers or electronic circuits that initiate a controlled detonation after a pre-set duration. This feature aims to reduce the long-term risks of unexploded ordnance. The timing can often be customized based on mission requirements, with typical ranges from a few hours to several weeks.

• Advantages:
  • Limits the period during which the mine poses a danger.
  • Reduces post-conflict demining burdens.
• Risks:
  • Potential for mechanical or electronic failure, leading to mines remaining active.
  • Difficulty in verifying that all deployed mines have successfully self-destructed.

Self-Deactivation Features

Some mines use battery-powered circuits that deactivate the explosive trigger once the battery life expires. This technology is particularly useful in ensuring that mines become inert without requiring a detonation.

• Advantages:
  • Safer than traditional mines, as they do not rely on an explosive mechanism for deactivation.
  • Environmentally safer, as no residue is left from self-destruction.
• Risks:
  • Batteries may last longer than intended due to environmental conditions, extending the mine’s active lifespan.
  • Electronic components can be susceptible to tampering or malfunction.

Anti-Tampering Systems

To prevent unauthorized handling, nonpersistent mines often include anti-tampering mechanisms. These features activate the explosive if the mine is disturbed or tampered with.

• Advantages:
  • Prevents enemy forces from disarming or relocating the mines.
  • Enhances tactical security in contested areas.
• Risks:
  • Increased danger to civilians who may unknowingly disturb the mines.

Deployment Mechanisms

Nonpersistent mines are typically deployed through one of the following methods:

• Manual Placement: Mines are emplaced by infantry forces for precise targeting.
• Scatterable Delivery: Mines are dispersed over a wide area using artillery, aircraft, or missiles, providing rapid coverage but with less precision.

Dangers and Limitations of Nonpersistent Mines

Despite their advanced features, nonpersistent mines carry inherent dangers and limitations that complicate their use and undermine their purported safety advantages.

Unintended Persistence

Failures in self-destruct or deactivation mechanisms can result in unexploded ordnance remaining active for years. Factors contributing to such failures include:

• Manufacturing defects.
• Harsh environmental conditions (e.g., extreme temperatures, moisture, or soil composition).
• Tampering or mechanical interference.

Risk to Civilians

Nonpersistent mines can still pose significant risks to civilian populations, particularly in conflict zones where markers or warnings are not effectively communicated. Scatterable mines, in particular, create challenges in ensuring that civilians avoid contaminated areas.

Challenges in Post-Conflict Demining

Although nonpersistent mines are intended to simplify post-conflict demining efforts, their effectiveness depends on accurate mapping and monitoring of deployment areas. If records are incomplete or lost, even nonpersistent mines can become a long-term hazard.

Ethical and Legal Controversies

The use of nonpersistent mines remains controversial within the framework of international humanitarian law. Critics argue that even with self-destruct features, these weapons violate principles of proportionality and distinction, as they cannot differentiate between combatants and civilians.

Tactical Advantages in the Ukrainian Context

In the Ukrainian conflict, the deployment of nonpersistent antipersonnel mines is likely intended to:

• Fortify Defensive Lines: Mines can impede the advance of Russian forces in key areas, providing Ukraine with time to regroup or reinforce positions.
• Protect Strategic Infrastructure: Roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure can be safeguarded using mines to delay or deter enemy forces.
• Counteract Numerical Disadvantages: Mines act as a force multiplier, enabling smaller units to defend larger areas effectively.

While these tactical benefits are significant, they must be weighed against the potential for unintended civilian harm and the challenges of post-conflict recovery.

Manufacturers and Models of Nonpersistent Antipersonnel Mines: European and NATO Contributions to Modern Warfare

The production and deployment of antipersonnel landmines have been subjects of significant international scrutiny due to their humanitarian impact. Within Europe and NATO member states, the manufacturing of such mines has been largely curtailed following the widespread adoption of the 1997 Ottawa Convention, which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines. As a result, the majority of European and NATO countries have ceased production and destroyed existing stockpiles of these weapons.

However, historical records indicate that several European manufacturers were previously involved in the production of antipersonnel mines, some of which featured self-destruct or self-deactivation mechanisms—characteristics aligning with the definition of nonpersistent mines. Below is an overview of notable European producers and their respective models:

Italy: Valsella Meccanotecnica SpA

Models Produced:

• VS-MK2 Mine:
  • Type: Scatterable antipersonnel blast mine.
  • Characteristics: Plastic-bodied, minimum metal content, resistant to blast overpressure due to a pneumatic fuze system.
  • Functionality: Activated by pressure; designed to be scatterable by various delivery systems.
  • Lethality: Contains approximately 33 grams of RDX explosive; intended to incapacitate rather than kill, causing severe injuries such as foot amputations.
  • Status: No longer in production; Italy has destroyed its operational stocks.
• VS-SATM1 Mine:
  • Type: Scatterable anti-tank mine with antipersonnel capabilities.
  • Characteristics: Equipped with electronic fuze, self-destruct mechanism programmable from one hour to one year, and anti-handling device.
  • Functionality: Activated by magnetic and seismic sensors; designed to be deployed via helicopter or ground-based systems.
  • Lethality: Shaped charge warhead capable of penetrating up to 100 millimeters of armor.
  • Status: No longer in production.

Belgium: Poudreries Réunies de Belgique (PRB)

Models Produced:

• PRB M35 Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel blast mine.
  • Characteristics: Plastic-bodied, minimal metal content, pressure-activated.
  • Functionality: Designed for manual deployment; activated by pressure from a footstep.
  • Lethality: Contains approximately 100 grams of TNT/Potassium nitrate; capable of causing severe injuries or fatalities.
  • Status: No longer in production; Belgium has destroyed its operational stocks.
• PRB M409 Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel blast mine.
  • Characteristics: Small, circular design with minimal metal content.
  • Functionality: Pressure-activated; designed for easy deployment.
  • Lethality: Contains approximately 80 grams of Trialene explosive; intended to incapacitate personnel.
  • Status: No longer in production.

France: Thomson-CSF/Dassault Electronique

Models Produced:

• HPD Series Mines (HPD-1, HPD-2, HPD-3):
  • Type: Electrically fuzed anti-tank mines with antipersonnel effects.
  • Characteristics: Equipped with Misnay–Schardin effect warheads, electronic fuzes with self-neutralization features, and anti-handling devices.
  • Functionality: Activated by seismic and magnetic sensors; designed to self-neutralize after a set period (e.g., 30 days).
  • Lethality: Capable of penetrating up to 150 millimeters of armor; lethal to personnel within the blast radius.
  • Status: No longer in production; France has destroyed its operational stocks.

Germany: Diehl Defence

Models Produced:

• DM-31 Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel mine.
  • Characteristics: Plastic-bodied, minimal metal content, pressure-activated.
  • Functionality: Designed for manual deployment; activated by pressure from a footstep.
  • Lethality: Contains approximately 100 grams of TNT; capable of causing severe injuries or fatalities.
  • Status: No longer in production; Germany has destroyed its operational stocks.

United Kingdom: Royal Ordnance (now BAE Systems)

Models Produced:

• L9 Bar Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel mine.
  • Characteristics: Plastic-bodied, minimal metal content, pressure-activated.
  • Functionality: Designed for manual deployment; activated by pressure from a footstep.
  • Lethality: Contains approximately 100 grams of TNT; capable of causing severe injuries or fatalities.
  • Status: No longer in production; the United Kingdom has destroyed its operational stocks.

Spain: Explosivos Alaveses (EXPAL)

Historical Role in Landmine Production:

Spain was a significant producer of antipersonnel mines until it ratified the Ottawa Convention. EXPAL, a prominent Spanish defense contractor, manufactured several models of antipersonnel mines before ceasing production in compliance with international agreements.

Notable Models:

• P-4-B Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel fragmentation mine.
  • Characteristics: Cylindrical body with metal casing for enhanced fragmentation.
  • Functionality: Pressure or tripwire-activated; designed to detonate upward, dispersing shrapnel over a wide area.
  • Lethality: Lethal radius of up to 25 meters; injuries up to 50 meters.
  • Deployment Context: Used in both defensive positions and offensive operations to deny access to key terrain.
  • Status: Production ceased; stockpiles destroyed under the Ottawa Convention.
• POM-1 Mine:
  • Type: Scatterable mine.
  • Characteristics: Lightweight design with pressure-sensitive activation.
  • Functionality: Easily deployable via manual or scatterable methods.
  • Lethality: Capable of causing fatal injuries within a 10-meter radius.
  • Status: No longer produced; all operational stockpiles have been destroyed.

Sweden: Bofors Defence (now part of Saab Group)

Sweden’s historical contribution to antipersonnel mine technology focused on high-quality, innovative designs that often included advanced activation mechanisms. However, Sweden has since ceased production in compliance with international law.

Notable Models:

• Strix Mine:
  • Type: Scatterable mine with advanced targeting.
  • Characteristics: Infrared guidance for targeting, ensuring precision activation.
  • Functionality: Activated by proximity to heat sources such as vehicles or personnel.
  • Lethality: Capable of destroying light-armored vehicles while causing severe injuries to unprotected personnel.
  • Status: Development of new models ceased after Sweden joined the Ottawa Convention.
• MIN-70:
  • Type: Fragmentation mine.
  • Characteristics: Designed for static deployment with wide-area fragmentation.
  • Functionality: Triggered by pressure, vibration, or manual activation.
  • Lethality: Shrapnel dispersion effective within a 30-meter radius.
  • Status: Decommissioned as part of Sweden’s commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty.

Turkey: MKEK (Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation)

Turkey, as a NATO member, has a historical record of producing antipersonnel mines before committing to Ottawa Convention restrictions. MKEK was the principal manufacturer of various mine systems.

Notable Models:

• M-16 Mine:
  • Type: Bounding fragmentation mine.
  • Characteristics: Designed to launch vertically upon activation, dispersing fragments at waist height.
  • Functionality: Pressure or tripwire-activated; optimal for area denial.
  • Lethality: Effective lethal radius of 30 meters.
  • Status: Production halted; Turkey has cleared most of its stockpiles.
• TS-50 Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel blast mine.
  • Characteristics: Plastic construction for minimal detectability by metal detectors.
  • Functionality: Pressure-activated, causing injuries primarily to the lower limbs.
  • Lethality: Designed to incapacitate rather than kill.
  • Status: No longer produced or operationally deployed.

Norway: NAMMO Group

Norway’s participation in antipersonnel mine production was relatively limited compared to other NATO countries. However, its defense industry, led by companies such as NAMMO, contributed to the development of mine systems before Norway’s ratification of the Ottawa Convention.

Notable Models:

• NM-87 Mine:
  • Type: Antipersonnel mine with fragmentation effects.
  • Characteristics: Compact and lightweight for manual deployment.
  • Functionality: Pressure or tripwire-activated.
  • Lethality: Shrapnel dispersal lethal within a 20-meter radius.
  • Status: Production ceased; existing stocks destroyed under treaty obligations.

The Netherlands: Eurometaal

Historically, the Netherlands played a role in the development of scatterable mines, emphasizing ease of deployment and tactical flexibility. Eurometaal was a key player in this domain before mine production was discontinued.

Notable Models:

• NR-409 Mine:
  • Type: Scatterable antipersonnel mine.
  • Characteristics: Minimal metal content, designed for aerial or artillery-based dispersion.
  • Functionality: Pressure-activated with a built-in self-destruct timer.
  • Lethality: Effective blast radius of up to 15 meters.
  • Status: All production halted, and stockpiles destroyed.

Unique NATO Developments in Nonpersistent Mines

Several NATO countries have focused on designing mines that align with evolving international norms while retaining tactical utility.

Advanced Nonpersistent Systems:

• United States: M87A1 Volcano Mine System
  • Deployment Mechanism: Mounted on vehicles or helicopters for rapid area coverage.
  • Self-Destruct Mechanisms: Configurable from 4 hours to 15 days.
  • Characteristics: Pressure or tilt-rod activation, anti-handling features.
  • Lethality: Effective radius varies depending on deployment density.
• France: MIACAH F1
  • Deployment Mechanism: Artillery-launched for wide-area denial.
  • Self-Deactivation: Battery-operated electronics ensure deactivation within a set timeframe.
  • Characteristics: Fragmentation mine with multiple activation sensors.
  • Lethality: Lethal radius of 30 meters.

Current Context Regarding Ukraine

Given the adherence of European and NATO countries to the Ottawa Convention, it is unlikely that these nations are currently producing or supplying antipersonnel mines, including nonpersistent variants, to Ukraine. The United States, which has not ratified the Ottawa Convention, has authorized the provision of “nonpersistent” antipersonnel mines to Ukraine. These mines are designed to self-destruct or deactivate after a predetermined period, thereby reducing long-term risks to civilians.

The specific models and characteristics of the mines supplied by the U.S. have not been publicly disclosed. However, it is known that the U.S. military has developed and utilized various nonpersistent mine systems, such as the M86 Pursuit Deterrent Munition and the M74 Scatterable Mine, both of which feature self-destruct mechanisms intended to limit their active lifespan.

The Biden Administration’s Policy Reversal

In 2022, President Biden reversed the Trump administration’s policies, which had expanded the use of antipersonnel mines beyond the Korean Peninsula. Biden described the previous policy as a “reckless step” that increased the risks to civilians and undermined global disarmament efforts. His administration pledged to limit U.S. landmine usage to the Korean Peninsula, aligning closer to the principles of the Ottawa Convention.

However, the reported authorization of “nonpersistent” mines for Ukraine signals a dramatic departure from this stance. Biden’s decision appears to be driven by the exigencies of the Ukrainian conflict, where defensive measures against Russian advances have taken precedence. This policy shift has provoked criticism from domestic and international actors, who view it as a betrayal of the administration’s earlier commitments to humanitarian values.

Humanitarian Concerns and Civilian Risks

Antipersonnel mines have long been condemned as inhumane weapons due to their indiscriminate nature and long-lasting impact. Even “nonpersistent” mines, with their self-destruct mechanisms, are not immune to these criticisms. Faulty timers, tampering, and environmental conditions can render these mechanisms ineffective, leaving unexploded ordnance scattered across battlefields and civilian areas.

Humanitarian organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) have expressed alarm at Biden’s decision. They argue that any use of antipersonnel mines undermines global efforts to stigmatize these weapons and sets a dangerous precedent for their reintroduction into modern warfare.

Domestic Reactions

Domestically, the decision has sparked intense debate. Critics such as Elon Musk have publicly lambasted the move, with Musk calling Biden’s decision “mindless” on social media. Conservative outlets like Fox News have characterized the policy shift as a dangerous escalation in the Ukrainian conflict. Meanwhile, liberal-leaning outlets such as CNN have highlighted the inconsistency between Biden’s past statements and current actions, portraying the decision as a reversal of his administration’s stated priorities.

International Responses

Internationally, the response has been equally polarized. Russia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations condemned the decision, accusing the U.S. of exacerbating civilian suffering in Donbass, where antipersonnel mines have already been reported. Belarusian First Deputy Defense Minister Pavel Muraveiko described the move as a violation of global checks and balances, warning that it could provoke further instability in Eastern Europe.

Muraveiko also raised concerns about the potential misuse of U.S.-supplied mines, suggesting that they could be deployed against Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member states, including Belarus. He emphasized the deteriorating geopolitical climate, citing instances of Ukrainian forces attacking Russian civilian infrastructure and employing foreign mercenaries as evidence of escalating tensions.

Strategic and Geopolitical Ramifications

The authorization of antipersonnel mines for Ukraine must also be viewed within the broader context of the ongoing conflict and its implications for global security.

Escalation in the Ukraine-Russia War

The provision of U.S.-supplied mines represents an escalation in the military support provided to Ukraine. Combined with other advanced weaponry, such as long-range ATACMS missiles, these measures aim to bolster Ukraine’s ability to repel Russian advances. However, they also risk intensifying the conflict and complicating diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire.

Russian officials have condemned the decision as provocative, warning that it undermines regional stability. The deployment of antipersonnel mines near contested borders raises the specter of unintended consequences, including civilian casualties and cross-border tensions.

Implications for NATO and the CSTO

For NATO, the decision underscores the alliance’s commitment to supporting Ukraine, even at the cost of diverging from established norms on landmine prohibition. This stance has drawn criticism from some European allies, who view the reintroduction of antipersonnel mines as a step backward in arms control efforts.

Within the CSTO, the move has heightened security concerns. Belarus and other member states fear that the deployment of U.S.-supplied mines could spill over into their territories, prompting a reassessment of their defense strategies. The decision also complicates the broader geopolitical dynamics between NATO and CSTO member states, deepening divisions and escalating tensions.

Biden’s Reversal in Context: Balancing Military Necessity and Humanitarian Principles

President Biden’s decision to authorize the delivery of “nonpersistent” antipersonnel mines to Ukraine must be understood within the broader context of balancing military necessity against humanitarian principles. The Ukrainian conflict, marked by its intensity and geopolitical stakes, presents a unique challenge for policymakers.

Strategic Rationale

From a strategic perspective, antipersonnel mines offer immediate tactical benefits. For Ukraine, these weapons can fortify defensive positions, slow the advance of Russian forces, and protect key infrastructure. The “nonpersistent” nature of the mines aims to mitigate long-term risks by ensuring that they self-destruct or become inert after a set period. This design addresses one of the primary criticisms of traditional landmines: their enduring danger to civilians post-conflict.

However, military analysts argue that the reliance on landmines, even those with advanced safety features, signals a short-term focus on battlefield outcomes at the expense of long-term stability. The challenges associated with demining operations and the potential for civilian harm persist, raising questions about the overall efficacy and ethical implications of their use.

Ethical and Humanitarian Considerations

Biden’s 2022 condemnation of landmines highlighted their indiscriminate nature and the disproportionate burden they place on civilians. The decision to reverse course for Ukraine, therefore, raises ethical dilemmas. Critics argue that by supplying antipersonnel mines, the U.S. risks undermining its moral authority and contradicting its stated commitment to humanitarian principles.

Moreover, the decision has broader implications for global efforts to stigmatize and eliminate landmines. Advocacy groups fear that the U.S.’s actions could embolden other nations to justify their use of these weapons, weakening the normative framework established by the Ottawa Convention.

International Reactions: Diverging Perspectives

The international response to Biden’s decision has been polarized, reflecting the geopolitical divides and competing interests at play.

Russia and Its Allies

Russia has been quick to condemn the U.S.’s move, framing it as an escalation in the conflict and a direct threat to civilians in contested areas. Moscow has long accused Ukraine of using scatterable antipersonnel mines, such as the PFM-1 (Lepestok) mines, against civilians in Donbass. The addition of U.S.-supplied mines to Ukraine’s arsenal provides Russia with further ammunition for its narrative that Western support for Kyiv exacerbates the humanitarian toll of the conflict.

Belarus, a close ally of Russia and a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), has also voiced strong objections. Belarusian Deputy Defense Minister Pavel Muraveiko warned that the decision undermines the global balance of power and could destabilize the Eastern European region. He expressed concerns that these mines might be used against CSTO member states, further inflaming tensions.

NATO and Western Allies

Within NATO, the decision has been met with a mix of support and caution. While many member states back the provision of military aid to Ukraine as a necessary measure against Russian aggression, there is unease about the precedent set by reintroducing antipersonnel mines into the conflict. European nations that are signatories to the Ottawa Convention, such as Germany and France, face a delicate balancing act: supporting Ukraine while upholding their commitments to landmine prohibition.

Global South and Neutral Parties

Countries in the Global South, many of which have suffered the long-term consequences of landmine usage, have expressed concern over the decision. Nations such as Cambodia and Angola, where demining efforts remain ongoing, view the U.S.’s actions as a step backward in the global fight against landmines. These perspectives underscore the universal stakes involved in decisions regarding the deployment of such weapons.

The Broader Geopolitical Implications

Biden’s decision to supply antipersonnel mines to Ukraine is not merely a tactical choice; it is a reflection of the broader geopolitical dynamics surrounding the conflict. The move underscores the U.S.’s commitment to supporting Ukraine, even at the cost of reversing long-held policy positions.

Impact on U.S.-Russia Relations

The authorization of antipersonnel mines, coupled with the provision of long-range ATACMS missiles, marks a significant escalation in U.S. military support for Ukraine. The Kremlin has characterized these actions as provocative, warning that they could lead to a dangerous spiral of retaliation. Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesperson, has described the U.S.’s actions as undermining efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

Eastern European Security

For Eastern Europe, the deployment of antipersonnel mines adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile security landscape. Belarus and other CSTO members have raised alarms about the spillover effects of the conflict, particularly in border regions. The use of landmines near Belarus’s southern border could trigger a reassessment of CSTO’s military posture and deepen divisions between NATO and the CSTO.

Implications for the Global Order

At a global level, Biden’s decision challenges the norms established by the Ottawa Convention and raises questions about the role of international law in contemporary conflicts. Critics argue that the move undermines efforts to promote arms control and could embolden other nations to bypass established treaties.

Global Stockpiles of Antipersonnel Mines in Non-Signatory States

Despite significant progress in antipersonnel mine disarmament under the Mine Ban Treaty, a substantial number of mines remain stockpiled by countries that have not joined the treaty. These stockpiles represent a persistent challenge to global disarmament efforts, as they pose ongoing risks of proliferation and use. This chapter examines the state of antipersonnel mine stockpiles among non-signatory states, their historical trends, and current practices, incorporating all available data for a detailed analysis.

Stockpile Trends Among Non-Signatory States

Historical Context and Current Estimates

In 1999, the Monitor estimated that non-signatory states collectively held approximately 160 million antipersonnel mines. Over the years, that figure has declined significantly, and the estimated total as of today stands at less than 50 million mines, distributed among about 30 countries that are not party to the Mine Ban Treaty.

Notable Reductions in Stockpiles

Several states not party to the treaty have reported reductions in their stockpiles, often as part of broader ammunition management programs. For example:

• China: Reports indicate ongoing destruction of obsolete mines as part of modernization efforts.
• Russia: While still maintaining the largest stockpile, Russia has phased out older mines through systematic destruction programs.
• United States: The U.S. has reduced its operational stockpile to 3 million mines, down from significantly higher numbers in previous decades.

These reductions highlight the influence of global disarmament norms, even among states not formally bound by the treaty.

Largest Stockpiles of Antipersonnel Mines

Five states account for the vast majority of stockpiled antipersonnel mines among non-signatory countries:

State	Mines Stockpiled
Russia	26.5 million
Pakistan	6 million (estimated)
India	4–5 million (estimated)
China	“Less than” 5 million
United States	3 million

Russia: The Largest Stockpile

• Total Stockpile: 26.5 million mines.
• Types: Includes a wide variety of mine models, such as PFM-series blast mines and MON-series fragmentation mines.
• Deployment: Russia has utilized stockpiled mines extensively, particularly in conflicts such as the ongoing war in Ukraine.
• Management Practices: While destruction programs have reduced outdated stockpiles, Russia continues to manufacture and use antipersonnel mines, complicating global disarmament efforts.

Pakistan: Estimated 6 Million Mines

• Total Stockpile: Estimated at 6 million.
• Role in Defense Strategy: Mines play a critical role in Pakistan’s border security and defensive posture, particularly along its contested border with India.
• Proliferation Risks: Pakistan’s stockpile includes both older models and newer designs, raising concerns about their long-term management and potential misuse.

India: Estimated 4–5 Million Mines

• Total Stockpile: 4–5 million mines (estimated).
• Deployment: India maintains extensive minefields along its borders with Pakistan and China, where mines serve as both a deterrent and a defensive measure.
• Challenges: With such a significant stockpile, India faces logistical and financial hurdles in modernizing or managing its inventory.

China: “Less Than” 5 Million Mines

• Total Stockpile: “Less than” 5 million, though specific figures remain unverified.
• Modernization Efforts: China has reported destroying obsolete munitions, reflecting an effort to streamline its stockpile.
• Diplomatic Ambiguity: Despite engaging with international disarmament forums, China has not disclosed detailed data on its remaining stockpile.

United States: 3 Million Mines

• Total Stockpile: 3 million mines, following significant reductions over the past two decades.
• Policy Context: The U.S. retains antipersonnel mines primarily for deployment on the Korean Peninsula, citing national security concerns.
• Advancements: The U.S. has focused on developing “nonpersistent” mines with self-destruct mechanisms to mitigate humanitarian risks.

States with Smaller Stockpiles

While the five states listed above account for the majority of global stockpiles, several other non-signatory states maintain smaller inventories, often for specific purposes such as training or border security. These include:

Europe and Central Asia

• Armenia: Maintains stockpiles linked to its conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
• Azerbaijan: Retains mines for defense against Armenia in the same territorial dispute.
• Georgia: Reports indicate stockpiles used for border defense.
• Kazakhstan: Historical Soviet stockpiles remain, though numbers are unclear.
• Kyrgyzstan: Possesses limited stockpiles inherited from the Soviet era.
• Russia: The largest global stockpiler, as detailed earlier.
• Uzbekistan: Retains stockpiles for border security and internal defense.

Middle East and North Africa (MENA)

• Bahrain: Confirms small stockpiles used exclusively for training in mine clearance.
• Egypt: Holds significant stockpiles for defense, particularly in the Sinai region.
• Iran: Maintains large stockpiles as part of its broader military strategy.
• Lebanon: Reports indicate legacy stockpiles from past conflicts.
• Libya: Extensive, poorly managed stockpiles, with significant proliferation risks during ongoing conflicts.
• Morocco: Confirms possession of small quantities for training purposes.
• Saudi Arabia: Retains stockpiles for border defense.
• Syria: Active use of antipersonnel mines reported in recent conflicts.
• United Arab Emirates (UAE): Contradictory reports regarding the existence and size of stockpiles.

Asia-Pacific

• China: A major stockpiler, as detailed above.
• India: Holds substantial reserves for defense against Pakistan and China.
• Korea, North: Maintains extensive stockpiles along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) with South Korea.
• Korea, South: Retains stockpiles for defensive purposes along the DMZ, despite international pressure to join the treaty.
• Lao PDR: Historical use and stockpiles remain poorly documented.
• Mongolia: Limited reports suggest small stockpiles.
• Myanmar: Active use and retention of mines reported in ongoing internal conflicts.
• Nepal: Reports of small stockpiles linked to past conflicts.
• Pakistan: Detailed above as one of the largest stockpilers.
• Singapore: Limited stockpiles for defense and training.
• Vietnam: Retains legacy stockpiles, though exact figures are unclear.

Americas

• Cuba: Maintains stockpiles for defense and internal security.
• United States: Details provided earlier.

Stockpile Destruction by Non-Signatory States

Non-signatory states have periodically destroyed antipersonnel mines as part of routine ammunition management or modernization programs. This process reduces the risks of unintentional detonation or proliferation. Recent examples include:

• China: Reports destruction of obsolete mines as part of its military modernization efforts.
• Israel: Periodically disposes of outdated munitions.
• Russia: Continues to destroy older Soviet-era mines, though new production sustains its overall stockpile size.
• United States: Systematic reduction of stockpiles, focusing on modernizing retained mines with self-destruct mechanisms.
• South Korea: Engages in destruction programs while maintaining operational reserves along the DMZ.

Key Challenges in Addressing Non-Signatory Stockpiles

Transparency Deficits

Many non-signatory states provide limited or contradictory information regarding their stockpiles. For example:

• UAE: Contradictory reports on the existence of stockpiles.
• Morocco and Bahrain: Report small quantities used for training but provide no details on management practices.

Risks of Proliferation

Conflict zones and weak regulatory frameworks in states like Libya and Syria increase the likelihood of mines falling into the hands of non-state actors, exacerbating regional instability.

Aging Stockpiles

Many states hold decades-old mines, raising concerns about storage safety and accidental detonation. Poorly maintained stockpiles also complicate destruction efforts.

Regional Implications of Antipersonnel Mine Stockpiles

Asia-Pacific

Stockpiles in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly in India, Pakistan, and the Koreas, are tied to unresolved territorial disputes. These mines serve as both defensive tools and symbols of entrenched conflict.

Middle East and North Africa

In the MENA region, mines are retained for border defense and training but also contribute to regional instability, particularly in Libya, Syria, and Egypt.

Europe and Central Asia

Stockpiles in post-Soviet states like Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia reflect historical conflicts and ongoing territorial disputes, complicating efforts to foster regional stability.

The Status of Antipersonnel Mine Stockpile Destruction Under the Mine Ban Treaty

The destruction of stockpiled antipersonnel mines represents one of the most critical obligations for States Parties under the Mine Ban Treaty, reflecting the global commitment to eradicate the dangers posed by these weapons. Of the 164 States Parties to the treaty, 161 have either declared the completion of their stockpile destruction or confirmed that they never possessed such mines, highlighting the progress made in reducing the threat. However, the journey toward full compliance remains incomplete, with significant challenges faced by certain states, most notably Ukraine and Greece.

This chapter delves into the current state of antipersonnel mine stockpiles, the progress achieved under the treaty, and the remaining hurdles, providing detailed figures, historical context, and recent developments.

Overview of Stockpile Destruction Progress

As of 2024, 94 States Parties have officially declared the completion of their stockpile destruction obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty. Collectively, these states have destroyed over 55 million antipersonnel mines, a monumental achievement that underscores the treaty’s impact in fostering disarmament. The most recent country to meet its obligation was Sri Lanka, which declared the destruction of its stockpiles in October 2021.

In addition to the states that possessed and destroyed stockpiles, another 67 States Parties confirmed that they never held antipersonnel mines, except for limited quantities used in training for detection and clearance techniques. These cases illustrate the diversity of national circumstances and commitments under the treaty.

States with Remaining Stockpiles

Despite the overall progress, two States Parties—Ukraine and Greece—remain in violation of Article 4 of the Mine Ban Treaty, which requires the destruction of antipersonnel mines within four years of treaty accession. Combined, these states possess a total of 3.7 million antipersonnel mines, constituting a significant portion of the remaining global stockpiles.

Greece: Stockpile and Progress

• Initial Stockpile: Greece initially declared 1,568,167 antipersonnel mines.
• Remaining Stockpile: As of 2024, Greece reports 334,938 mines left to destroy.
• Deadline Violation: Greece’s original deadline for completing stockpile destruction was 1 March 2008. The country has faced numerous delays and setbacks but continues to make progress.
• Destruction Efforts:
  • Greece has gradually reduced its stockpile through partnerships with specialized contractors.
  • In May 2024, Greece signed an agreement with a Croatian company to destroy the remaining stocks, transferring 8,475 mines to Croatia for destruction.
• Challenges: These delays stem from logistical, financial, and administrative obstacles, but the recent agreement with Croatia signals renewed commitment.

Ukraine: Stockpile and Challenges

• Initial Stockpile: Ukraine initially declared 6,803,381 antipersonnel mines.
• Destroyed Mines: As of 2024, Ukraine has destroyed 3,438,948 mines, representing more than half of its original stockpile.
• Remaining Stockpile:
  • Ukraine currently holds 3,364,433 mines, comprising:
    • 3,363,828 PFM-series mines (primarily PFM-1C variants).
    • 605 OZM-4 mines.
• Deadline Violation: Ukraine’s original deadline for stockpile destruction was 1 June 2010.
• Complications in Crimea:
  • The OZM-4 mines are stored in Crimea, a region seized by Russia in 2014, making access impossible.
  • Ukraine has stated that conducting an inventory and determining the status of these mines will not be feasible until Russia withdraws its forces and Crimea is reintegrated into Ukraine.
• War Impacts:
  • Ukrainian warehouses storing mines have been targeted by air and missile strikes during the ongoing conflict, further complicating efforts to assess and destroy the remaining stockpiles.
  • Ukraine has pledged to destroy all remaining mines after the cessation of hostilities and the restoration of its territorial integrity.

Specific Mine Types in Ukrainian Stockpiles

Ukraine’s stockpiled antipersonnel mines include two primary categories with distinct characteristics:

• PFM-Series Mines:
  • Type: Blast mines.
  • Model: PFM-1C (“butterfly mines”).
  • Quantity: 3,363,828 units.
  • Characteristics:
    • Lightweight, plastic-cased, and scatterable by rockets or helicopters.
    • Contain 37 grams of liquid high explosive, capable of inflicting severe injuries.
    • Designed with a self-destruct mechanism, but their reliability diminishes over time.
  • Storage Status: Many of these mines are held in inaccessible areas due to the ongoing conflict, particularly in territories occupied by Russian forces.
• OZM-4 Mines:
  • Type: Bounding fragmentation mines.
  • Quantity: 605 units.
  • Characteristics:
    • These mines launch vertically upon activation, dispersing shrapnel over a wide radius.
    • Often deployed for area denial in defensive strategies.
  • Storage Status: Located in Crimea, their status remains uncertain due to lack of access.

International Engagement and Ukraine’s Commitments

Ukraine has actively engaged with the Mine Ban Treaty’s Committee on Cooperative Compliance, acknowledging its delayed compliance and emphasizing the extraordinary circumstances hindering progress. At the treaty’s intersessional meetings in June 2024, Ukraine reiterated its commitment to:

• Fully comply with its obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty.
• Conduct a pre-trial investigation into the storage and use of antipersonnel mines.
• Destroy all stockpiles upon the restoration of its territorial integrity and cessation of hostilities.

Ukraine has also called attention to the challenges posed by the occupation of certain regions, arguing that accurate assessments and inventories will only be possible after the liberation of these territories.

The Broader Context of Stockpile Destruction

The destruction of over 55 million antipersonnel mines by 94 States Parties highlights the treaty’s success in promoting disarmament. However, the cases of Greece and Ukraine underscore the complexities that arise when political, logistical, and conflict-related challenges interfere with compliance.

Global Stockpile Destruction Milestones

• Most Mines Destroyed: The highest number of destroyed stockpiles is reported by Russia (prior to its withdrawal from disarmament initiatives), followed by China and the United States, which have reduced their operational stockpiles despite not being States Parties to the treaty.
• Training Stocks: Many countries retain small numbers of mines for training purposes, primarily to instruct deminers in detection and clearance techniques. These limited exceptions are strictly regulated under the treaty.

Remaining Challenges and Future Outlook

Despite significant progress, the presence of millions of antipersonnel mines in stockpiles poses ongoing risks. Key challenges include:

• Access to Contaminated or Occupied Areas: Conflicts and territorial disputes prevent certain states from accessing and destroying stockpiles.
• Financial and Technical Constraints: The destruction process is resource-intensive, requiring specialized facilities and expertise.
• Protracted Deadlines: Delays in destruction efforts erode trust in international commitments, necessitating greater accountability mechanisms.

The cases of Greece and Ukraine illustrate the importance of sustained international support to overcome these hurdles. By addressing these challenges, States Parties can move closer to achieving the treaty’s ultimate goal of a mine-free world.

---

Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved