By Matt Underwood Poland to start producing anti-personnel mines to lay along eastern border, a move that undoubtedly sparks a wave of complex thoughts and emotions. It’s easy to see why, considering the history, the current geopolitical climate, and the very nature of these weapons. There’s a definite sense of “better safe than sorry” echoing through this decision. The idea is to deter potential aggression, to make any incursion into Polish territory a costly and difficult undertaking. Poland remembers the lessons of the past, the vulnerability experienced in World War II, and the potential for being left to face an aggressor alone.
I don’t think Poland is simply hoping for a quick fix or just preparing for the absolute worst-case scenario. It’s about ensuring they can hold their own, at least initially, until NATO reinforcements can arrive. It’s a pragmatic approach, acknowledging that even with Article 5 – the cornerstone of NATO’s collective defense – there’s a need for a degree of self-reliance. There is always the question of what specific allies would come to their defense, and Poland is preparing for whatever that looks like.
The discussion also raises the uncomfortable question of international law and the use of anti-personnel mines. While not universally banned, they are subject to treaties and agreements. The concerns, however, aren’t necessarily about international legality. The real issue is the humanitarian impact. These mines can remain active for years, posing a deadly threat to civilians long after a conflict has ended. However, the prevailing sentiment is that Russia’s disregard for international norms creates a situation where Poland feels compelled to take defensive measures. As the saying goes, “If your opponent doesn’t give a flying [expletive] about treaties, then you trying to uphold them is just going to make it harder to defend against them.”
This isn’t just about the mines themselves, it’s about the broader context of modern warfare. Drones, artillery, and the ease of defense versus the difficulty of attacking are also factors. Poland wants to make it incredibly difficult for an invading force to make any gains. They want to avoid a scenario where their cities become battlegrounds, reduced to rubble.
The decision is also rooted in a deep understanding of history. Poland’s geographical location and its past experiences, including the actions of Russia and its allies during World War II, have shaped its current stance. The Poles know that they need to be ready, regardless of the future, given the rising tide of far-right sentiment in Europe and the potential for a weakening of alliances.
The reasoning behind this strategy is fairly clear: to deter, to inflict disproportionate casualties, and to make it incredibly difficult for any invading force to make any headway. The goal is to slow down, to inflict pain, and to buy time for the arrival of allied support. The use of mines is seen as one piece of a much larger puzzle, a necessary component of a comprehensive defense strategy in an era where warfare increasingly resembles the trench warfare of World War I. This is a sad state of affairs, indeed.