“Today’s decision to leave the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention is a retrograde move that will only further weaken the global consensus aimed at minimising civilian harm during armed conflict,” said Esther Major, Amnesty International’s deputy director for research in Europe.
“We call on the Lithuanian government to reverse this decision that could put civilian lives at risk,” she said, adding that anti-personnel mines have devastating effects on civilians.
In a recent interview, the Lithuanian Minister of National Defense Dovilė Šakalienė said:
While for some it may seem cruel [to exit the landmine ban treaty], for me it is a necessity. Because we are going to have mines on our territory, but they will either be Russian mines, where we won’t know where they are and they will be in large quantities and may kill a lot of our citizens. Or it will be our own mines where we will know where they are placed, and they do have a very good deterrence effect on Russian soldiers … We have to imagine the worst-case scenario for us to be prepared. This is not a mistake that can be corrected. This is not a possibility to get an extended deadline.
Lithuania is threatened by its much larger neighbour. The commitment of many of Lithuania’s allies can be questionable. Lithuania should, in my opinion, have access to any and all tools it believes necessary to deter an attack and eventually defend against an attack. Amnesty and their lopsided idealism can go take a long look at the mirror and ask themselves why liberal democracies have been on the back foot for a decade.
The one thing I truly appreciate is that they have chosen to remain neutral, not picking a good or bad side but calling out everyone’s bad behaviour. They decided to be one of the forces in the balance of powers. If you’re the good guy, and do to the bad guy what the bad guy does to you, you’re still doing a bad thing and deserve to be called out upon. Lithuania is free to decide on what they want to do, Amnesty’s judgement doesn’t have legal power.
I’m a big fan of Amesty, but their point is stupid. Look how much Ukrainians have suffered at the hands of Russia. Russia is literally comitting genocide right fucking now, kidnapping children and forcefully displacing adults and moving Russians into the occupied territory.
Now, landmines are bad, true. But genocide is a whole lot fucking worse. You can remove landmines, and the ones you miss will not kill tens of thousands of people every year.
Why make up this false dichotomy of “either landmines or genocide”?
Its not a total dichotomy, but one absolutely contributes to not having the other.
I’m still not really sure about how I feel about this, but one thing that is obvious is that landmines aren’t the only way to prevent Russia from crossing into Lithuania. We shouldn’t act as if they have no choice at all. If Russia never ends up invading Lithuania then this will only harm Lithuanians, either people who step on it by accident or while trying to remove them. It has been proven far and wide these things kill long after a conflict has been resolved.
If Russia never ends up invading Lithuania then this will only harm Lithuanians, either people who step on it by accident or while trying to remove them
Wait, I think there’s a big disconnect here. Nobody is suggesting they scatter a million landmines around Vilnius, or even emplacing them along the border right now. You can have landmines ready, but not place them until you notice troop buildups. You can even pre-place basic fences to keep civilians out of the zones you plan to use, it still works.
The time to place landmines is when you’re (about to be) at war. Not just for humanitarian reasons, landmines don’t actually work reliably forever.
It has been proven far and wide these things kill long after a conflict has been resolved.
And, very harshly, you can weigh those deaths against immediate deaths when you’re at war. Against an enemy that has repeatedly demonstrated that losing a war will mean you stop existing as a people, the equation becomes a lot less complex.
Fair point, nukes also deter if you don’t use them. But the point that still stands is that if you spend your money on mines you can’t spend it on other things. I don’t know enough about warfare to know how to spend money wisely, but I do hope Lithuanian government takes the downsides of mines into consideration enough.
Don’t worry you’ve got the Bundeswehr on site, now. The Bundeswehr specialises in stalling the enemy at the border until an army arriv… wait.
Amnesty and their lopsided idealism can go take a long look at the mirror and ask themselves why liberal democracies have been on the back foot for a decade.
Uh… Because they’re all ran by pussies and downright collaborators?
The great weakness of a true democracy is that it allows skilled, well-intentioned politicians and corrupt assholes to run just as easily. And the corrupt assholes tend to be better funded.
There’s never been a consensus to ban landmines, just idealism.
Long story short the ban they formulated went too far: It also outlaws anti-personnel mines which deactivate themselves after some time. So you either sign up and lose access to a very useful tool that does spare civilians, or you don’t sign up and then there’s basically no limitations.
The reason the Geneva convention has such wide acceptance is because it isn’t idealistic – it doesn’t try to outlaw cruelty. It outlaws pointless and unnecessary cruelty, cruelty for cruelty’s sake instead of military objectives. The landmine treaty was not written with that kind of attitude so of course, if states decide that they really need landmines to e.g. secure their borders, then they will leave it, or never sign it.
more slamming!
🎵 I like to slam the jam. 🎵
It's real early morning No-one is awake I'm back at my cliff Still throwing things off I listen to the sounds they make On their way down I follow with my eyes 'til they crash Imagine what my body would sound like Slamming against those rocks When it lands Will my eyes Be closed or open?
