Poland and Baltics to quit landmine treaty over Russia fears
Posted by Previous_Knowledge91@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 59 comments
Posted by Previous_Knowledge91@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 59 comments
Inevitable-Dream-272@reddit
Understandable. Should probably completely mine borders with Russia and Belarus. Worked effectively against Ukrainians and western tanks, vehicles in Ukraine War. Not so effective against Russian artillery but slows down advance.
PreviousCurrentThing@reddit
The Ottawa Treaty only covers anti-personnel mines, not anti-tank mines. The anti-personnel ones account for most of the deaths and maimings, often of children, in the years after active hostilities end.
Inevitable-Dream-272@reddit
Seems like anti-tank mines need to be combined with anti-personnel mines to be truly effective. Otherwise you could just send infantry to disarm the anti-tank ones. Both are needed for effective defense.
ShootmansNC@reddit
There's plenty of footage of vehicles, both russian and ukranian ones, running over anti-tank mines sitting out in the open in roads.
Stubbs94@reddit
Or you know, don't use anti personal mines because they're extremely dangerous and have no way of discriminating against a child or a soldier.
Monterenbas@reddit
Oh no, à child might get hurt!
Better open those borders to Russia then.
Stubbs94@reddit
Yeah, there's 0 room between putting mines everywhere on the border or allowing Russia to conquer all of the NATO countries.
Monterenbas@reddit
Just like there’s zero room between fortifying your country’s borders and killing some innocent children, apparently.
Stubbs94@reddit
Land mines are banned because they pose a risk to literally everyone in the area... I'm not saying it's an intentional killing/maiming of children.
Rindan@reddit
Invading armies represent a threat many orders of magnitude higher than mine fields on a border. You are better off losing a few civilians a year that decide to walk into a mine field, then you are losing a few hundred thousand citizens to invasion.
GrAdmThrwn@reddit
But a few hundred thousand people haven't been lost in THIS invasion. Millions *left* both to Europe and to Russia, but civilian casualties are nowhere remotely close to what you're implying. But don't take my word for it, here's the UN.
https://ukraine.un.org/en/289667-civilian-harm-and-human-rights-abuses-persist-ukraine-war-enters-fourth-year#:\~:text=More%20than%2012%2C654%20civilian%20men,2022%2C%20as%20verified%20by%20HRMMU.
Rindan@reddit
You will apparently be shocked to learn that Ukraine counts the people that died defending their homeland from invasion by the Russian empire as losses, as well as the civilians killed by Russian air strikes.
GrAdmThrwn@reddit
Firstly, we were discussing the civilian cost felt after the conflict by anti-personnel mines...
And secondly, I certainly am shocked to learn that Ukraine would count the people who died fighting the Russians as losses, especially hundreds of thousands of losses as you've claimed...
I have it straight from the mouth of Zelensky himself that Ukraine hasn't remotely lost close to that number.
https://kyivindependent.com/over-45-000-ukrainian-soldiers-killed-since-start-of-war-zelensky-says/
Rindan@reddit
No, that's what you were doing because you're trying to do some sort of weird mental gymnastics about how the invasion of Ukraine isn't that bad or something. I was talking about the cost of being invaded and having your country occupied, which absolutely includes the invading army killing your soldiers trying to defend their home. Clearly, minefields to keep out invaders will result in fewer deaths than not having minefields and being invaded.
You are shocked that Ukrainians would consider people that died defending their country as losses? Are you stupid? Of course Ukraine considers the people that died defending their country to be losses. A dead father is still a dead father, regardless if he died trying to keep the invading army back so his kids don't have to grow up as serfs for whatever psycho has murdered his way up to the top of the Russian "political system", or if he died to a bomb blast from an air raid.
GrAdmThrwn@reddit
I never said "Ukrainians". I said "Ukraine", as in the state.
The people of course view every unnecessary death as an irretrievable loss. I simply don't see much evidence of the current government of Ukraine holding the lives of their population in the same high regard. Same as anyone delusional enough to think that mindless resistance with little regard for realpolitik, power disparity and the utter lack of strategic thinking displayed at the higher levels of the Ukrainian government since mid 2022 will somehow yield an outcome that benefits the Ukrainian people (note, I say people because I can see many many benefits for the people on charge, they sure as hell aren't getting any poorer despite the war).
Of course Ukraine has lost a catastrophic amount of soldiers. Far more than they claim publicly in english media for performance purposes. Anyone with a shred of Ukrainian or Russian and access to Telegram can find that out in half a second. I simply pointed out that the UN has not found the war as destructive on the civilian population as you and others here have indicated, especially when compared to other modern conflicts like the War on Terror or Israel's recent intervention which provide a useful comparison for how civilian casualties could have been had the Russians been more inclined towards causing them over flattening the front line with artillery and FABs.
More to the point, I disagree with the notion that somehow more civilians would have died had Ukraine surrendered in February 2022 when the Russians were bearing down on Kiev, or negotiated from strength in July 2022 after Ukraine's successful offensives in Kherson and Kharkov, or offered territorial concessions in exchange for peace when their 2023 counteroffensive spectacularly failed.
More minefields won't solve the key issue of unrealistic leadership. The biggest minefield in Europe won't prevent another war if the leadership ignores reality and refuses to engage in meaningful security discussions with the other side, or when that fails, to realize when a war is no longer winnable.
You'll disagree, this conversation will go nowhere, because quite frankly it seems like you and many others on here hate the Russians far more than you want to save the Ukrainians.
I personally have convinced several friends in Ukraine to get the hell out and move overseas rather than fight. Very unpatriotic of them, I suppose, but I doubt they'll regret the decision when this war wraps up. Their kids will likely actually learn Ukrainian, because they'll be alive to teach them. So take the argument you like, but most the Ukrainians in the west (who aren't on Reddit lol) are outright wishing Kiev folded in 2022, for the generation of men who would still be alive, the millions of women and children who would still be Ukrainian in the long run as opposed to eventually naturalising in the countries they ended up in, and the vast generational wealth and effort that will be lost to all the Ukrainians who simply lack the funds or mobility to travel to Russia to claim their pre-war properties before the deadline (a process currently taking place there if I recall correctly).
In any case, while the notion of "depriving" Ukraine of a handful of strong able bodied men (i.e. depriving us of just a few more "last Ukrainians" to fight the Russians with) might cause the armchair generals to chest thump and screech, I can comfortably say I've done more for "Ukrainians" than 99% of the NAFO ghouls on this site.
Rindan@reddit
I get it bro, you love Putin and the Russian empire, and really want to talk about your love of Russia instead of whether or not nations should build appropriate defensive weapons to keep empires out.
Your belief that anyone attacked by an empire should immediately flee or surrender is duly noted. I believe you when you say you'd run screaming or drop to your knees and beg for mercy if someone mad dictator invaded your nation.
Okay. You are free to feel that way.
GrAdmThrwn@reddit
Hey, if you hate them so much, Ukraine still needs bodies, off you go buddy.
But that would be too hard right?
Rindan@reddit
Lol. Literally yes, that would be too hard. I can in fact feel sympathy for people being invaded by a blood thirsty land hungry dictator without wanting quit my job, leave my friends and family, fly to Ukraine, and risk my life fight on the front line against the invading Russian army. Like seriously, what sort of hilarious argument is that? I like how you are just incoherently angry that someone is against the invading Russian empire as it violently expands its borders again. This entire exchange was started by your being triggered at the idea that any nation cursed to have Russia as a neighbor might consider arming up.
Kazruw@reddit
Minefields can be created quickly and it would be only done right before a likely invasion. E.g., Russians start moving forces, equipment and supplies close to your border, so you organize military training exercise nearby and create minefields as part of the exercise while keeping civilians out of the way.
You’re only going to step on one of those mines in peace time, if you break into a warehouse, assemble the mine yourself and then step on it. Modern day Europe is not Africa or Russia.
Rindan@reddit
Or you know, do use anti personal mines because they're extremely dangerous to invading empires and there is no better alternative.
It's a lot easier to keep kids from playing on a militarized border in the middle of a mine field than it is to keep an invading empire out. A lot of Ukrainian kids would be alive or safely home with their living parents if Ukraine had mined and defended their borders better.
The "no land mines" stuff was from the delusional heady days of pax Americana, back when Europe thought they had a super power at their back that was going to make wars of territorial conquest impossible. The new reality is that the US might turn on them and help their invaders if the price is right. In fact, everyone who thinks they are under the American shield is being delusional if they hold into that belief. Pax Americana is dead. Arm up or make friends with your regional empire. There is no safe place in the new multipolar world for anyone not already eaten by an empire.
esjb11@reddit
The issue isnt so much the minefields but how we basically know for certain that in case of war mines would also be fired with artillery like butterfly mines etc. Those wont be trackable and if the military has such permission they will use it.
Kazruw@reddit
I am not worried about Western countries using Western weapons on our own soil, because we care about own population a lot more than the rest of the world. Furthermore, Western clusterbombs etc. actually detonate at a significantly higher rate when they’re supposed than Russian ones, and we know the exact coordinates where they were fired.
The same can’t be said about invading Russians mining our land.
esjb11@reddit
More than the rest of the world sure. But enough when shit hits the fan? I,m doubtful. NATOs plan during the cold war in case of a Soviet invasion of Norway was to nuke northern Norway to prevent the Russians from getting past it...
Norway was ofcourse not notified of this until decades later when the documents got released.
The question is not whatever or not they detonate better or worse than Russians. What matters is to the degree they detonate.
No we do not know the exact locations they are fired. They spread. We do however know the roundabouts of where they are located. At least when it comes to the majority of such weapons.
Ofcourse its even worse if its the invaders placing said mines.
Rindan@reddit
Everyone understands the issue, and it doesn't matter. Ukraine would have been better off with robust mine fields that render the land unsafe forever, then having a thousand mile wasteland in the middle of their nation that will forever be a maze of dangerous exploded ordinance, which also includes countless mines.
Survival is the first duty of a nation invaded by an empire. You will lose many more people without mines field, then you will if you have to pick up mines later. Ukraine would be in deeper ruins and have more of their nation conquered by Russia if they had been dumb enough to ban mines.
I'm sorry, but banning mines only made sense under pax Americana where the US empire was going to stomp anyone dumb enough to invade anyone in their alliance system. That system is dead. Defend yourself or get ready to bend a knee to whichever psycho lead empire is closest to you. A "multi-polar world" is one where you need to submit to your regional power, or be prepared to defend yourself against a larger and completely ruthless amoral empire. Anyone not using mines in this new world is delusional and going to end up bending a knee to a foreign dictator.
esjb11@reddit
Not saying you are wrong in that they would be better of. Doubt the difference would be that big tough. They would still have a thousand mile wasteland etc.
Keep in mind that they have always been perfectly allowed to have mines for vechiles. The law was always only about personell. The rapid advances from the early stage of the war was done purely with vechiles. They had almost no infantery. Those mines wouldnt have made a difference back then and today they use them. Situation would have been bassicly the same. Then thats due to Russias misstanke ofcourse.
Lets also keep in mind that Ukraine dident actually follow the law. Just said that they would. They had such mines, and had to some extent used them in the war in Donbass.
Rindan@reddit
They'd have thousands of miles wasteland closer to the Russian border. In inadequate border defenses is what Russia get so deep. Where they had proper defenses, they actually often held the Russians back.
Vehicle mines without anti-personal mines are useless. You need to anti-personal mines to protect the vehicle mines. You also need anti-personal mines to stop soldiers not in a vehicle. Refusing to use mines will buy you literally nothing. The battlefield is going to be a wasteland of unexploded ordinance regardless of whether you cripple your defenders by refusing to use mines or not.
This is flatly wrong. Proper defenses would have held the Russians back. This isn't hypothetical. Where Ukraine had proper defenses the Russians were unable to push. As soon as you have property defenses, the Russians will be forced to dismount, at which point a mine field is your best friend. They were only able to move so far on vehicles because they got behind the lackluster border defenses.
And of course, this all ignores that right now mines are absolutely critical to their defense, so I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make.
Mines are an effective weapon, that's why people use them. Your armchair philosophizing is clearly and obviously wrong. We have a war everyone and see going on right now. Neither combatant is being stupid when they pour mines all over the front line.
Do you think that then using mines on the only part of the front where they totally stopped the Russians during the first push helps or hurts your argument?
esjb11@reddit
Again. Go back and to the initial stage of the invasion. They were not walking by foot..they did not have infantery supporting their vechiles. In this particular situation they would have been just as good of having normal legal mines. If Russia actually supported their vechiles you would have been correct but they did not.
Yes the issue was not lack of anti personell mines. It was lack of lines in general. They dident even have the legal mines so it has nothing to do with said law.
I am not saying that mines arent effective. What I,m saying is that during this particular topic it wouldnt have made a difference. Russia did not support their vechiles with inf. So the amount of wasteland would have been the same. If they would have had lines of anti tank ditches, dragonteeths, anti vechiles mines etc it would have made a difference. Allt har vi completely legal. They did not.
Rindan@reddit
Mines all by themselves obviously do not stop the Russians. A robust defense that includes mines does. Again, this isn't hypothetical. The Ukrainians completely stopped the Russian advance in the Donbas where they had proper defenses. Your assertion that there were not using mines in the Donbas where they held is flatly incorrect. Ukraine has been using mines since 2014 and did not agree to the anti-mine treaty.
Really; it's a completely unarguable reality that Ukraine held off the initial invasion in the Donbas, and a large part of that included robust mine fields. If they had defended all of their borders like the way they defend Donbas, Ukraine would be fighting on the border of Russia, rather than in the middle of the country. Zero civilian lives were saved by their restraint in border defenses.
Inevitable-Dream-272@reddit
Yeah let's just let russians take the land and mine it afterwards like they do In Ukraine. Nah friend, mines are effective defense. Russians win this war thanks to them. They need to get the taste of their own medicine in case of another invasion. No more playing Mr. Nice Guy against them.
Stubbs94@reddit
Land mines are an effective defence.... But also reeks havoc on the civilians living in that country. It's not being nice to Russia etc... it's thinking about the innocent people who will be injured or killed decades down the line.
secondOne596@reddit
If the invader takes the land and then uses landmines to prevent its recapture (like Russia's done) then you've just increased the amount of civilian suffering as they have to deal both with the landmines and an invader occupation.
Stubbs94@reddit
But it doesn't actually matter who lays the mines though, they still will injure and kill a person.
Kazruw@reddit
It absolutely does matter who places the mines. If the defender does it using the (old) standard procedures then they know exactly where and what kind of minefields there are and can also remove the mines easily. Good luck getting that kind of information out of the Russians. This is without taking into account the fact that defenders are unlikely to intentionally target their own population with mines.
secondOne596@reddit
Yeah, that's my point. There'll be mines either way so they may as well go to the side defending their own territory rather than the one defending the territory they stole. Plus minefields being there to begin with rather than after an advance provides a more static front which saves civilian lives.
Stubbs94@reddit
"but these are the good mines, not the evil bad mines"
secondOne596@reddit
You're not comprehending what I'm writing so I'll try and make it simpler.
If side a (attacker) choose to use mines but side b (defender) doesn't then the end result is a bunch of mines in side b's country.
If both sides decide to use mines then the result is there are still a bunch of mines in side b's country but side b has been able to defend more effectively.
So the only real result of the defender choosing not to use mines is the attacker is able to invade more easily. The places being fought over are still full of mines and also often end up more savaged as side a causes a lot of damage and death when they successfully advance through an area.
Stubbs94@reddit
I do understand what you're saying.... I'm saying there is a reason why landmines are banned by most countries.
Rindan@reddit
Yeah, they were banned because they are dangerous and the US thought that they should keep the peace without them because they were so overwhelming powerful. They banned cluster munitions for the same reason. The US built a fucking sword missile because they thought that the only wars in the future would be against terrorist where every dead civil is a failure. THAT WORLD IS DEAD.
That world is dead, and it's time to get over it. The Americans are not coming to save you, and your local empire definitely wants your land and are okay with territorial conquest to get it.
Yeah, we banned them because they are an inhumane and ineffective weapon in fighting a "war on terror" insurgency when you comically overpower your enemy. That world is dead, and you need to get over it.
If you are dumb enough to not use all of the weapons, your new overlord will. Anyone you building mines and cluster weapons is being stupid, and hundreds of thousands of their citizens will die for their stupidity and inability to understand the new world order.
SpudroTuskuTarsu@reddit
yeah but the Baltics and Poland (and Finland soon) happen to live next to barbarians who will use mine everything in sight (see Ukrainian bodies booby trapped, mines air dropped in cities... )
Id like to see more self disarming mines so there isn't so much UXO
secondOne596@reddit
Landmines are bad, yes. I never disputed this in any of my comments. My point is if the country is going to be filled with landmines anyway then they may as well partially go towards defending the country and population rather than purely helping an invader occupy territory (and free up forces for further offensives).
pythonic_dude@reddit
That's why the suggestion is to mine the fuck out of the borders. You know, the typically guarded areas that are highly unwelcome of any civilians even during peace times.
Hyndis@reddit
No minefield by itself will stop anyone. All it has to do is slow down the attack long enough for the defenders to bring artillery on target. Troops bogged down trying to defeat a minefield are sitting ducks for artillery, drone, or missile strikes.
BarbequedYeti@reddit
The bigger problem is a lot of those anti-personnel mines are randomly tossed out of a converted bomb to cover large areas easily. No way to track them or insure they are not sitting there for 50 years waiting for a two generations from now kid to find.
Rindan@reddit
Yeah, everyone was signing that treaty in a more ideal time when people thought maybe territorial conquest was a thing of the past. All of the major empires have decided that conquest is back on the table. Anyone not arming themselves to teeth is being stupidly naive.
Nethlem@reddit
Leave it to the US flaired account to frame this situation as an "arms race to the death", with allegedly no other choice.
Should be noted that the US never signed/ratified that treaty, the US also never signed treaties banning cluster munitions, or a no-first-use treaty for nuclear weapons, something even the literal Soviets managed to bring themselves to.
The most cynical part is how this is being framed as Russia's fault, trying to outsource responsibility for their own actions, while then still trying to preach from the moral highground.
The treaty was signed in the 90s, when NATO was busy territorially conquesting what remained of Yugoslavia to enforce Kosovo separatism with military force, already nearly starting WWIII back then.
Only a few years later the US, Poland and Baltics, were territorially conquesting their way through the Middle East for some of that sweet Iraqi oil.
Or maybe they are just smart enough to remember history that ain't even that old and taught basic geopolitical principles.
According to those "more weapons" don't translate to "more peace", just like one can't fuck their way back to virginity.
Dizzy_Response1485@reddit
How much land did the Poland and Baltics annex, cretin?
Samuraignoll@reddit
Russian bot
yungsmerf@reddit
Prolly just a western tankie.
Rindan@reddit
I'm sorry, but in your incoherent off topic ramblings about the US's history with land mines, a nation I never mentioned, I must have missed the counter argument to, "empires are on the move and you should arm the fuck out of yourself, which definitely includes land mines".
Are you saying that the best way to not be invaded by an empire is to disarm yourself and hope that they will be nice to you, because that's what it sounds like. "Disarm yourself and hope the empire next door doesn't want to take your stuff and add you to its empire" has got to be one the dumbest defense strategies I have ever heard.
Pklnt@reddit
It's not just about territorial conquest, nowadays mines can be relatively safe (with safeties making sure they de-arm after a certain period) and they can be launched via artillery making them a very potent A2/AD not only in a defensive context, but in an offensive one as well.
When you have a state like Russia having access to that weaponry, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you chose not to have the same capabilities. Be it a war for territorial conquest or not.
Of course you still have the risk of having mines that won't de-arm and maim civilians, but frankly speaking I doubt militaries really care about civilians if the state is genuinely at risk.
Dreadedvegas@reddit
Its also the same thing with cluster munitions. Which I think the Baltics also left that treaty as well and I bet Poland will be soon too.
Ivanow@reddit
Poland never signed anti-cluster munitions treaty. We ceased production of those, but kept the doors open.
esjb11@reddit
The margin of error in those mines are massive tough. But yeah your last point is sadly true
SteveoberlordEU@reddit
All i'm saying is GO CANADA GO
NearABE@reddit
Explosives can be made with water soluble pin holes. Within a few rain storms bacteria get into the explosive filling and consume it. Even the metal shell that becomes shrapnel can be made out of rapid rusting steel. Magnesium-iron alloy would do this quickly.
It getting more complicated with drone technology. A fully autonomous lethal device is technically a “mine”. They might be more capable of parsing military vs civilian than an artillery crew.
The__Hivemind_@reddit
Hell yeah brother. This will totally own those goddamn r̶u̶s̶k̶i̶e̶s̶ campers, people on a family trip and random ass deer or whatever.
. Stupid rule, stupid rule, stupid rule, fan fact, there is pornogrpahic material on automods account
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
Hi empleadoEstatalBot,
We've found 153 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:
EURACTIV (Leans Left): "Poland and Baltics to withdraw from Ottawa mine convention"
Reuters (Center): "Poland and Baltic nations plan to withdraw from landmine convention"
Anadolu Ajansı (Right): "Baltic states, Poland to withdraw from mine ban treaty"
Of all the sources reporting on this story, 27% are right-leaning, 35% are left-leaning, and 38% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 153+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.