Anders Puck Nielsen on Anti-Personnel Mines Is a Tactical Victory for Strategic Asymmetric Thinking
- john raymond
- Aug 13
- 2 min read
Anders Puck Nielsen’s latest analysis on the Ottawa Convention and anti-personnel mines is more than a technical breakdown—it is a case study in how strategic thinking should be communicated to the public. While the subject matter is narrow enough to avoid political landmines of its own, Nielsen uses it as a vector to teach a far larger lesson: how to approach modern conflict as a problem of leverage, adaptation, and operational effect. In doing so, he delivers the kind of substantive, educative commentary that should be the gold standard for the defense and security commentariat.
Nielsen’s tactical choice of topic is important. Anti-personnel mines are historically framed as relics of indiscriminate warfare, outlawed in much of the democratic world and surrounded by humanitarian stigma. By bringing them back into the conversation—anchored in new technologies, shorter active lifespans, and the demands of drone-era war—he demonstrates that the serious analyst does not shy away from controversial tools when those tools have evolved into precision instruments of battlefield control. The point is not to glorify the mine, but to reframe it as part of a coherent operational vocabulary: cost imposition, tempo control, and positional advantage. Basically, asymmetric warfare.
This is where Nielsen separates himself from the dead weight in the analysis sphere. His presentation does not simply recite treaty history or recast moral talking points; it builds a bridge from law and policy to operational reality. He shows how mines can be programmed to neutralize themselves, how unmanned systems can emplace them dynamically, and how commanders can use them offensively to shape the battle on their terms. It’s an object lesson in connecting the civilian audience to the logic of modern warfighting without losing either clarity or ethical framing.
By contrast, the weekly output of strategically inert figures like William Spaniel offers almost nothing to educate the public or sharpen policy debate. Such commentary floats above the battlefield in abstract bargaining models and empty “go big or go home” rhetoric, never engaging with the concrete mechanics that determine success or failure in combat. It’s performance, not analysis—entertaining to some, but strategically useless. Nielsen’s mine discussion is the opposite: grounded, precise, and directly relevant to how wars are fought and won.
What makes this a tactical victory for strategic thinking is that Nielsen accomplishes two missions at once. First, he informs—viewers leave with a better grasp of why certain capabilities matter, how they function, and how they fit into the broader operational picture. Second, he models an analytic method—start with the reality of the enemy’s capabilities, assess your own constraints, and identify the adjustments needed to close the gap. This is the kind of disciplined reasoning the public should expect from military analysts, and it’s the kind of reasoning policymakers can actually use.
In an era when too much commentary is either abstract moralizing or technology cheerleading, Nielsen shows the way forward: explain the tool in terms of its evolved function, connect that function to battlefield advantage, and address the ethical and political dimensions without surrendering to them. That is what serious analysis looks like.
The rest of the commentariat should take note, because credibility is not a static attribute—it is earned and re-earned by meeting the moment with insight.
On this subject, Nielsen has done exactly that.
Comments