5 ms·

Sadly demand for such heros may increase in the future. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Finland withdrew from the Ottawa Treaty banning personne

Sadly demand for such heros may increase in the future. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Finland withdrew from the Ottawa Treaty banning personnel mines. And probably more countries will follow.

caycep 7mo ago
Is that their fault or is there maybe a giant reason nearby why they are doing this?
- jampekka 7mo ago
  Whatever the reason, this will increase the likelihood of landmine casualties in the future. And not necessarily (only) in this area, but it weakens the treaty in general. Part of these kinds of treaties is to accept some additional difficulty or expenses in defence for a more widespread benefit. I'm living in Finland and I would have accepted these.
  - nickff 7mo ago
    Would you expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if the country had declined to employ all the ‘force-multipliers’ that were available to it? I would not expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if Finland had made such decisions.
    - jampekka 7mo ago
      161 countries are still in the Ottawa Treaty, including all European countries except the ones who withdrew. I have hard time seeing how this treaty would have much effect on wartime alliances. But if that's the case, what are "all the force multipliers"? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? What share of the GDP for defence?
      - nickff 7mo ago
        It's nice that so many countries are signatories, but the countries which are currently involved in significant conflicts, have been, or are likely to be, are all non-signatories, have withdrawn, or are not abiding by their commitment. I'm not sure how much it matters that many non-warring countries are signatories to the convention, unless you think the Ottawa Treaty has actually prevented one or more conflicts (which I doubt). I find some of the signatories laughable, as both sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have used them (with Ukraine being a signatory), while countries like Palestine and Eritrea have committed egregious human rights violations (since assenting), so I don't trust any commitment of theirs. With respect to chemical and biological weapons, I think the reason they're not widely used is that they're relatively ineffective, and inconvenient, so I don't think they're a force-multiplier at all. Russia & Syria's (likely) uses of chemical weapons seem like more of a (mostly ineffective) desperate gamble than a brilliant move, though they demonstrate the non-existent consequences to such violations of treaty obligations.
        Pay08 7mo ago
        The main problem with biological and chemical weapons isn't their effectiveness (or lack thereof), but the impossibility of controlling them.
        jampekka 7mo ago
        The main effect of the treaty is that personnel mine production and trade has dramatically decreased, thus making it harder for (small) non-signatories to deploy too. International treaties tend to be always somewhat aspirational and are often violated and sparsely enforced. This does not mean they don't have any effect.
BurningFrog 7mo ago
With an expansive Russia next door it's hard to forego effective defense measures.
- jampekka 7mo ago
  I'm in Finland and I would have forgone this measure. It is not a critical, or even an important, part of the defence strategy.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    You couldn't be more wrong about that.
    - aa-jv 7mo ago
      Better a diplomat than a warmonger. Lets hope there are saner heads in Finland as such methods become more and more relevant.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        Well, there is a bit of a problem. Ukraine has shown the reality of dealing with Russia and unfortunately landmines are back on the menu. Yes, it would be much better if we didn't need to defend from aggressors. But if you tie your own army one hand behind their backs then they will lose for sure. This about war, not Oxford boxing rules, and if one side commits one human rights violation after the other it would be great if you could keep the high ground but there are practical limits to that. Note the incredible restraint of Ukrainians troops in dealing with Russian civilians and captured Russian military. But that does not translate into 'let's handicap our own forces'. The warmongers are on the other side of the border. Europe is just reacting to this and the states that have rescinded the landmine ban are all directly in the line of fire.
        aa-jv 7mo ago
        Ukraine also showed the world how to utterly fail at finding diplomatic solutions to ones problems.

caycep 7mo ago

Is that their fault or is there maybe a giant reason nearby why they are doing this?

jampekka 7mo ago
Whatever the reason, this will increase the likelihood of landmine casualties in the future. And not necessarily (only) in this area, but it weakens the treaty in general. Part of these kinds of treaties is to accept some additional difficulty or expenses in defence for a more widespread benefit. I'm living in Finland and I would have accepted these.
- nickff 7mo ago
  Would you expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if the country had declined to employ all the ‘force-multipliers’ that were available to it? I would not expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if Finland had made such decisions.
  - jampekka 7mo ago
    161 countries are still in the Ottawa Treaty, including all European countries except the ones who withdrew. I have hard time seeing how this treaty would have much effect on wartime alliances. But if that's the case, what are "all the force multipliers"? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? What share of the GDP for defence?
    - nickff 7mo ago
      It's nice that so many countries are signatories, but the countries which are currently involved in significant conflicts, have been, or are likely to be, are all non-signatories, have withdrawn, or are not abiding by their commitment. I'm not sure how much it matters that many non-warring countries are signatories to the convention, unless you think the Ottawa Treaty has actually prevented one or more conflicts (which I doubt). I find some of the signatories laughable, as both sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict have used them (with Ukraine being a signatory), while countries like Palestine and Eritrea have committed egregious human rights violations (since assenting), so I don't trust any commitment of theirs. With respect to chemical and biological weapons, I think the reason they're not widely used is that they're relatively ineffective, and inconvenient, so I don't think they're a force-multiplier at all. Russia & Syria's (likely) uses of chemical weapons seem like more of a (mostly ineffective) desperate gamble than a brilliant move, though they demonstrate the non-existent consequences to such violations of treaty obligations.
      - Pay08 7mo ago
        The main problem with biological and chemical weapons isn't their effectiveness (or lack thereof), but the impossibility of controlling them.
      - jampekka 7mo ago
        The main effect of the treaty is that personnel mine production and trade has dramatically decreased, thus making it harder for (small) non-signatories to deploy too. International treaties tend to be always somewhat aspirational and are often violated and sparsely enforced. This does not mean they don't have any effect.

BurningFrog 7mo ago

With an expansive Russia next door it's hard to forego effective defense measures.

jampekka 7mo ago
I'm in Finland and I would have forgone this measure. It is not a critical, or even an important, part of the defence strategy.
- jacquesm 7mo ago
  You couldn't be more wrong about that.
  - aa-jv 7mo ago
    Better a diplomat than a warmonger. Lets hope there are saner heads in Finland as such methods become more and more relevant.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      Well, there is a bit of a problem. Ukraine has shown the reality of dealing with Russia and unfortunately landmines are back on the menu. Yes, it would be much better if we didn't need to defend from aggressors. But if you tie your own army one hand behind their backs then they will lose for sure. This about war, not Oxford boxing rules, and if one side commits one human rights violation after the other it would be great if you could keep the high ground but there are practical limits to that. Note the incredible restraint of Ukrainians troops in dealing with Russian civilians and captured Russian military. But that does not translate into 'let's handicap our own forces'. The warmongers are on the other side of the border. Europe is just reacting to this and the states that have rescinded the landmine ban are all directly in the line of fire.
      - aa-jv 7mo ago
        Ukraine also showed the world how to utterly fail at finding diplomatic solutions to ones problems.