this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
183 points (99.5% liked)

World News

48366 readers
2162 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Canada is gonna need to do this next :(

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] parker@sh.itjust.works 4 points 23 hours ago

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

[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 39 points 2 days ago (13 children)

Less notifying, more eastern border landmine covering!

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 27 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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

[–] tal@lemmy.today 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

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”.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day 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.

[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] TaTTe@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›