all 53 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 39 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • 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”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -29 points 1 year ago (11 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    When did blahaj become the new tankie instance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    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.. 🤭

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Canada is gonna need to do this next :(

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -27 points 1 year ago (23 children)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (21 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

    Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    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 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty was called a mistake even back then. Public opinion was about fifty-fifty for a long time and there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal, or even for the opponents to be particularly vocal about it.

    So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic became hot immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. That took some time, but it's how we got here.

    Edit: improved my bad explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    As long as there's no military need for them against an invasion there will be zero mines in the ground. No one will hurt themselves with them, unless some storage worker happens to drop a box on their toes.

    As of why now, you can't pull out of agreement and start to build up manufacturing and logistics if there's active invasion going on. I hope not a single one of them is ever dug on our Finnish soil, but I'm glad that our military is prepared to use any viable option if they need to.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)