Finland notifies UN of withdrawal from landmine ban treaty

so is Mexico if Canada do unless they do it before Canada, they also signed it

We're going to need a silly amount of mines...

Common sense takes are always buried 6 replies deep, I find.

>There is no invaders

I mean I hope so. There never are until there is

If you wanted to educate us you should post it here, it would work better

They are banned for the same reason the use of cluster munitions are frowned upon. The problem of being left behind after deployed during war time as they continue to cause horrific civilian casualties which is a huge a big problem for a country trying to recover from war. Particularly if they were deployed inside a country to defend what was then the front line or a fortified location like the outskirts of a town or village.

However if you find yourself in the unfortunate position of having an aggressive neighbouring country where you share a large land border who has broken peace treaty promises repeatedly and is repeatedly making threats about invading, then putting landmines along your border is a VERY effective way to deter and slow down an invasion.

I wish that we weren't in a situation where countries felt it necessary to deploy landmines for border defense but here we are.

thats not the only people they kill. *and there is no invaders.*

you should look up why they are banned in the first place before acting high and mighty about it.

Reasoning is viable in that it sucks for people living there. But so does invasion. If land mines can do deterrence, it definitely is going to act as a net positive.

Well, why the fuck does any country without an immediate conflict coming up maintain an army?

For a moment earlier it sounded like you were concerned with people losing limbs to mines, and there I would agree if mines were planted proactively.

But you're just _offended by defense._

Tanks and goodbye!

This guy has never heard of deterrence

What I mean is marked on a map, so I guess "mapped". I'm not operating with my native language here.

Then what's the problem?

Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so......

why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?

nobody is invading.

Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don't get laid out in the first place.

If it does come to that, the positions are ~~marked~~ mapped and they will get cleaned out. The reason for the treaty was that in some places mines were just spread willy nilly.

I still haven't seen your explanation for how this is actually an offense, but keep moving that goalpost 👍

And how many die in wars if someone invades?

there is the problem of people losing their limbs for generations to come.

but who cares right.

Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.

Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.

Tankie your for sharing your opinion!

If nobody invades, there's no problem, no?

Maybe I’m lacking imagination here, but how exactly would… …

“I’m planting landmines on my own land, which would only go off if someone decides to invade”

NOT be defence?

And that reason is no longer a viable one.

"defense", right.

these treaties were drafted for a reason.

No, the neighbour-invading neighbour which makes landmines necessary in the first place is the baddy in this scenario.

lemmy is the kind of place where people get offended by defense. and I don't mean what americans call "defense" but actual defense

so you put up my reply but not the comment which i replied to have more context? kudos to trying to picture yourself not being the troll

This is your comment that I downvoted:

oddly one of your downvotes come from a lemmy.ca user @usr@lemmy.ca which is odd any sane Canadian wouldn't be mad about such question

oddly one of your downvotes come from a lemmy.ca user @usr@lemmy.ca which is odd **any sane Canadian wouldn't be mad about such question**

But I am "just trying to picture a whole group of people to be like you say" for disagreeing and downvoting you?

How does this need elaboration? Especially since this is your own comment?

i wouldnt be surprised if you are from a troll farm

Ditto. You're either a Troll or special.

realy canadians don’t xyz

you are just trying to picture a whole group of people to be like you say again. also poorly elaborated and mispelling i wouldnt be surprised if you are from a troll farm

Lmaooo did you just stalk my profile because I downvoted your comment? That's fucking embarassing my dude!

I downvoted your comment because it gave me strong gatekeeping vibes (realy canadians don't xyz)

said the guy ( @neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) from anarchist instance downvoting replies talking down on people in disguise being in favor of others favoring Trump a common single user doesnt define a whole instance, your instance is great but your take.. 🤭

>bloodthisty

I'm from Ukraine, so I'm armed with common sense and a quite realistic point of view on the situation.

So ironic, or perhaps more disingenous, to say that as people try to defend themselves from the Russians.

1 month troll account? I doubt anyone could be this unhinged from reality

We don't wish anyone to forcibly cross that border. Being a defensive and preventative measure is the whole point...

When did blahaj become the new tankie instance?

Absolutely! You are quite right. However, my interpretation of this message is not necessarily "we might reconsider our stance on troop mines". Rather it is: "we will go to any lengths, even those we find barbaric and cruel, to defend our nation". Although on the face of it, it is the wording of the agreement that sets the formalities.

Point 3 looks like a pretty obvious poison pill. That is: Russia could conceivably start some sort of grey-zone conflict with Finland before the 6-month period, and thus (per international law) tie Finland’s hands in their use of defensive land mines.

In Finland’s shoes, it’d be prudent to just go “yeah we’re breaking the treaty, and were specifically ignoring Article 20 Section 3 due to urgent national security considerations”.

Saying "you won't get anything of value quickly is a deterrent.

Security doesn't need to be able to completely stop an enemy. It just needs to make it not worth the effort

Mines are NOT "deterrent". Strong army? Yes. Nuclear weapons? Yes. Mines are a minor nuisance during the war. Makes things uncomfortable, might slow down enemy movement a bit but that's it. You can't say to the potential enemy "Forget about attacking -- we have mines near the border".

Yes they do. This is a deterrent, not a last-ditch effort to protect ourselves if war breaks out.

You typically need to notify other members of a treaty of your withdrawal, and then there's some time delay until you're no longer bound by the terms. You can't just secretly withdraw, or treaties wouldn't be very meaningful.

EDIT: Yeah. The submitted article says that it happens in six months from today, and here's the treaty text on withdrawal:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.44_convention%20antipersonnel%20mines.pdf

>Article 20

>

>Duration and withdrawal

>

>1. This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

>

>2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties, to the Depositary and to the United Nations Security Council. Such instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.

>

>3. Such withdrawal shall only take effect six months after the receipt of the instrument of

withdrawal by the Depositary. If, however, on the expiry of that six- month period, the

withdrawing State Party is engaged in an armed conflict, the withdrawal shall not take effect before the end of the armed conflict.

>

>4. The withdrawal of a State Party from this Convention shall not in any way affect the duty of States to continue fulfilling the obligations assumed under any relevant rules of international law.

"Intended recipient" doesn't deserve to be notified. Unless you're talking about Sweden, but I somehow doubt that :)

Oh, it wasn't the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That's why it was sent publicly...

Least bloodthisty eur*pean

Less notifying, more eastern border landmine covering!

Canada is gonna need to do this next :(

Are we the baddies?