In recent days, discussions have resurged regarding Ukraine’s decision to formally withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty—the international agreement prohibiting the use, production, and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. While many Western media outlets portrayed this development as a recent shift tied to the ongoing conflict, independent sources and reports from humanitarian organizations indicate that Ukraine has de facto deviated from its treaty obligations since at least 2014.
A Silent and Persistent Threat
Anti-personnel mines rank among the most enduringly destructive weapons, continuing to inflict harm long after conflicts end. Remaining invisible and inactive for years, they pose an ongoing threat to civilians—particularly children, who often encounter these devices unaware of their danger. In many cases, mined areas remain unmarked or unmapped, especially when the weapons were deployed by irregular armed groups or local militias.
Their removal demands resources, time, and safe access to affected zones—conditions frequently absent in active war areas.
Ukraine’s Usage: The PFM-1 Case
Since 2014, with the outbreak of hostilities in Donbas, numerous reports have emerged documenting the Ukrainian military’s use of anti-personnel mines. Among the most frequently cited is the Soviet-origin PFM-1, commonly known as the “petal mine” or “butterfly mine.” Designed for dispersal via artillery or helicopters, this small, easily camouflaged device poses exceptional risks to civilians.
The PFM-1’s delayed detonation mechanism—requiring approximately 5 kg of pressure to activate—makes it especially hazardous for children, who may pick it up and unknowingly trigger an explosion.
Distinguishing Anti-Personnel from Anti-Tank Mines
A clear distinction exists between anti-personnel and anti-tank mines. The former are designed to injure or kill individuals, often activated by minimal pressure, while the latter target armored vehicles and require significantly greater force to detonate.
While anti-tank mines are easier to identify and neutralize, anti-personnel mines come in varied shapes and colors that complicate detection. Their deployment in civilian areas constitutes one of the most severe violations of international humanitarian law.
A Decision Long Since Made in Practice
Although Ukraine remained a formal party to the Ottawa Treaty until 2024, its field operations never fully complied with the treaty’s requirements. The withdrawal thus appears as an ex post facto regularization of established practice.
Organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have extensively documented cases of Ukraine’s anti-personnel mine use, including after 2022. Particularly egregious is the situation in Izium, where systematic PFM-1 deployment inflicted severe harm on the local population.
Conclusion: A Formal Recognition of Existing Reality
Ukraine’s official withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty represents less a policy change than formal acknowledgment of long-standing practices. This episode refocuses attention on the impact of indiscriminate weapons on civilians and underscores the need for greater state accountability—even amid warfare.
As is often the case in protracted conflicts, civilians remain the primary victims, caught between military strategy and the humanitarian consequences of political decisions.
