Canada is gonna need to do this next :(
so is Mexico if Canada do unless they do it before Canada, they also signed it
Less notifying, more eastern border landmine covering!
Oh, it wasn’t the UN that was the intended recipient of that particular message. That’s why it was sent publicly…
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:
Article 20
Duration and withdrawal
-
This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
“Intended recipient” doesn’t deserve to be notified. Unless you’re talking about Sweden, but I somehow doubt that :)
Yes they do. This is a deterrent, not a last-ditch effort to protect ourselves if war breaks out.
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”.
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
Least bloodthisty eur*pean
bloodthisty
I’m from Ukraine, so I’m armed with common sense and a quite realistic point of view on the situation.
When did blahaj become the new tankie instance?
said the guy ( @[email protected] ) 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… 🤭
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)
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
This is your comment that I downvoted:
oddly one of your downvotes come from a lemmy.ca user @[email protected] which is odd any sane Canadian wouldn’t be mad about such question
oddly one of your downvotes come from a lemmy.ca user @[email protected] 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.
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
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…
Are we the baddies?
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
“defense”, right.
these treaties were drafted for a reason.
Tankie your for sharing your opinion!
Offensive landmines killing poor innocent invaders who come in and step on them.
Finland is being so aggressive in this landmine assault.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
If nobody invades, there’s no problem, no?
there is the problem of people losing their limbs for generations to come.
but who cares right.
Wrong. If nobody invades, the mines don’t get laid out in the first place.
If it does come to that, the positions are
markedmapped 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 👍
why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?
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!
Specifically marked minefields were never illegal even with that treaty so…
What I mean is marked on a map, so I guess “mapped”. I’m not operating with my native language here.
nobody is invading.
Then what’s the problem?
And that reason is no longer a viable one.
