Canada is gonna need to do this next :(
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
186 points (100.0% liked)
World News
48384 readers
1898 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We're going to need a silly amount of mines...
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.
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?
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.
Common sense takes are always buried 6 replies deep, I find.
Tankie your for sharing your opinion!
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 ~~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 👍
why the fuck make all that posturing around landmines, if they are not needed at all, and theres no indication it will?
This guy has never heard of deterrence
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
And how many die in wars if someone invades?
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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”.
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
load more comments
(12 replies)
view more: next ›