Another NATO member pulls out of landmine treaty
Drafted in 1997, the Ottawa Treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of APLs due to their long-term threat to civilians. While 164 nations have ratified the treaty, major military powers such as the US, China, and Russia have not joined.
Finland acceded to the treaty in 2012, but its government began preparing to withdraw earlier this year, citing a growing security threat from Russia. Last month, the Finnish parliament overwhelmingly approved the decision.
'The decision to withdraw from the Convention is based on Finland's defense needs in the deteriorated security environment,' the Finnish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Finland's withdrawal comes shortly after four other NATO members – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – announced similar decisions earlier this year. In a joint statement issued in late March, the countries cited heightened military threats from Russia as justification for the move.
The Kremlin has consistently denied any aggressive intentions toward NATO, claiming that the Ukraine conflict was provoked by the military bloc's eastward expansion.
At the same time, Moscow has stated that it shares the goals and principles of the Ottawa Convention, but considers joining it impractical. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, 'anti-personnel mines remain an effective and low-cost means of securing Russia's borders.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump issues ten-day ultimatum to Russia
Washington will impose new sanctions against Moscow if it fails to reach a deal with Kiev to settle the Ukraine conflict within ten days, US President Donald Trump stated on Tuesday. His initial deadline was due to expire in early September. Trump announced his plans to reduce the time frame during a visit to the UK on Monday. When further pressed on the issue by journalists on his way back on Tuesday, the president said it would be 'ten days from today.' 'And then… we're going to put on tariffs and stuff,' he added. The new sanctions are expected to include 100% tariffs on Russian imports and secondary sanctions on countries and companies that continue to trade with the nation. Moscow has repeatedly said it is willing to negotiate but has maintained that any talks must account for the realities on the ground and the root causes of the conflict. Commenting on Trump's statements on Monday, the Kremlin said his words were 'taken into account.' Russia will still continue its military operation but it also remains 'committed to the peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement,' according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov. On Tuesday, Trump admitted that he did not know if the new restrictions were going to work. It 'may or may not affect them [Russia],' he said. Since entering office this year, Trump has repeatedly stated he wanted a quick diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. Trump has recently grown frustrated with what he described as the lack of progress and spoke about his 'disappointment' with Russia, while threatening the country with sanctions. Moscow responded by calling such actions counterproductive. No new sanctions would prevent Moscow from continuing to 'move along our independent, sovereign, and sustained path,' Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated earlier this month. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said this week it was not up to Washington to 'dictate' when Moscow and Kiev should negotiate. Any threat only marks 'a step towards war' between Russia and the US, he warned.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
EU armies way below NATO targets
European NATO members' armed forces are operating at just half the strength required by the bloc, the EU's top defense official has warned, stressing the need to reduce dependence on US suppliers to drive down the costs of militarization. Just days after US President Donald Trump claimed the bloc had committed to purchasing a 'vast amount' of American weaponry under a new trade deal, European Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius argued that the EU must 'spend more on European products.' In an interview with Euractiv published on Tuesday, Kubilius said EU forces were 'at 50% of what we need to have now, according to NATO's targets.' He noted that around 40% of the bloc's military budgets is still being spent on American-made arms, although that figure has decreased from 60% a year ago. 'Diminishing that number by 10% or 20% means a huge amount of money will stay in the European industry,' he said. 'If member states pursue joint procurement, which means larger contracts, the average production price goes down to 70%.' On Sunday, President Trump touted a one-sided US-EU trade agreement, under which he claimed the EU would purchase 'hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of military equipment,' as well as $750 billion in US energy and $600 billion in investment – all without reciprocal tariffs on American exports. White House adviser Sebastian Gorka described the deal as a geopolitical triumph, claiming the EU had effectively 'bent at the knee' before Trump. European critics have condemned the agreement as a one-sided 'submission' and a 'moral fiasco.' Kubilius confirmed plans to launch a European Defence Union this autumn, which could include Norway, the UK, and Ukraine, and eventually provide a roadmap for making EU militaries 'war-ready' by 2030. The Commission has also proposed €131 billion in defense spending for the next EU budget cycle and is promoting joint arms procurement under its SAFE loan initiative, which has already drawn €127 billion in requests from 18 countries. The effort aligns with broader EU militarization plans, which Brussels argues are necessary to deter Russian aggression. Moscow denies harboring any hostile intent toward the EU or NATO, accusing Western leaders of using fear-driven rhetoric to distract citizens from internal political and economic challenges.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
From Union to Eunuch: How Trump fixed EU's spine problem
In history, some things become clear only in hindsight. For instance, German unification all over again – good thing or bad thing? That jury is still out. At this point, it looks as if we'll soon look back with regrets from yet another very bleak postwar situation to ponder that question. But there are also things that are obvious from the moment they start happening. For example, Israel and the West's Gaza genocide, no matter that many talking heads now pretend they've only just noticed. Something else that's as in-your-face obvious as a concrete wall you've just run into is that the EU has just suffered a catastrophic, crippling defeat. As usual with America's European vassals, the defeat is strange. First, it has been inflicted not by an enemy, but by an 'ally' and big-brother-in-'values': This is the moment the NATO-EU underlings are falling over each other to keep paying for the US-instigated and failing proxy war in Ukraine while also building the equivalent of a dozen new Maginot Lines (this time including a 'drone wall') against the big, bad Russians. Yet it is Washington that has struck its eager-to-please sycophants in the back. The EU has also done its very worst to assist in its own trouncing. As Trump retainer Sebastian Gorka – himself, ironically, a European slavishly serving the US empire – has correctly put it, Europe has 'bent the knee.' And once it was all over, with the blood not yet dry on the floor, the EU picked itself up, dusted off its pantsuit and said thank you, in the best tradition of German chancellors who grin and scrape when American presidents tell them they will 'put an end' to Germany's vital infrastructure. We are talking, of course, about the so-called tariff and trade 'deal' just concluded at the Scottish luxury golf resort of Turnberry, between the US, under self-declared 'tariff man' and elected, if by very messy rules, President Donald Trump (also owner of that golf resort) and the EU represented – no one really knows on the basis of what mandate – by the pristinely unelected head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The same one who promised us a 'geopolitical' Commission and EU. If this is your 'geopolitics,' it's suicidal. It was a bloody affair, but we can't even call it the 'Battle of Turnberry' because there was no fight before the EU went down. The gist of what really was an economic massacre is simple. After months of negotiations, seven trips to Washington and over 100 hours of empty talk by its touchingly useless trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic alone, the EU has brought home not a bad deal but pure, total defeat, as if it had been busy distilling the very essence of being on the losing side at Cannae, Waterloo, and Stalingrad: While Trump could enumerate a substantial list of big, expensive concessions made by the Europeans, von der Leyen got nothing, strictly nothing. This is not a 'deal' at all. It is unconditional surrender. Without a preceding war. In essence, the US will now levy 'baseline' tariffs of 15% on most of its massive imports from the EU, including on cars. But there are exceptions! Already punitive American tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum will remain in place. In return, for the US, selling in the giant if decaying EU market will be, in essence, free, at an average tariff rate of zero or, at best, below 1%. And to show its appreciation of such a fine, evenhanded 'deal,' the EU sweetened it by throwing in some extras as if there is no tomorrow. Like at one of those late-night TV direct sales shows. Only that the EU slogan is not 'order immediately and…' but 'ruin us right now and get an extra $1.35 trillion just to make us even poorer and you even richer!' That $1.35 trillion consists of two promises of direct EU tributes (yes, that is the correct, real term) to Washington: an additional – as Trump stressed – $600 billion which EU companies, surely dizzy with gratitude, will invest in the US; and $750 billion of especially dirty and expensive American LNG (liquefied natural gas) which they will buy to feed into whatever will remain of European industry. Meanwhile, Trump is making concessions – again – to China. China, of course, being the sovereign country and economic powerhouse that did what the EU completely failed to do: fight back against the Washington bullies. And now imagine what the EU could have achieved if it had worked with China to check US aggression. Instead, the recent EU-China summit in Beijing has shown that the EU is still not ready to abandon its arrogant stance of hectoring and threatening China, in particular in a futile attempt to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow. The other thing the summit has made clear is that China will not budge. And why would it? The absurdity of all of the above is staggeringly obvious, even if there already are quarrels about the details. Because between Team Trump and Team von der Leyen, two card-carrying egomaniacs and narcissists, there was of course no one to take care of those. Regal von der Leyen – with aristocratic nonchalance – besides, never cared to check if she even has a right or the practical means to promise away $1.35 trillion that, actually, only specific companies could make available. Hint: she does not. But what does it all mean? Here are three take-away points: First, we must, for once, agree with American regime change and war addicts, such as Anne Applebaum and Tim Snyder: European appeasement is a real thing. But not of Russia, which has never been appeased but provoked, needlessly fought, and, mostly, systematically denied even a fair hearing. No, what the Europeans appease is, obviously, the US, their ruthless and utterly contemptuous hegemon and worst enemy, from letting America and its cut-outs blow up Nord Stream to the Turnberry Fiasco. Look at the feeble official attempts to sell this exploitation and devastation pact with Washington to the European public: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – only recently the undeserving recipient of exorbitant praise at home simply for not having been humiliated too crassly at the Trump White House – has officially thanked the EU negotiators, especially Sefcovic and von der Leyen, and praised the 'deal' for averting an even worse outcome and providing 'stability.' Likewise, von der Leyen has praised herself for giving us 'certainty in uncertain times.' What a channeling of Neville Chamberlain, the interwar British premier who gave appeasement its bad name by caving in to Hitler! Dear Tim Snyder: We know, for you it's always 1938 somewhere. Here you have a full re-enactment: 'Certainty for our time!' von der Leyen virtually shouted raising not an umbrella but her thumb, while still at the American leader's golf club Berghof in Scotland. Second, there goes the new German 'Fuhrungsmacht' (meaning leadership, and with extra oomph). And we hardly ever knew it. Because – pay attention now, Berlin – here's the catch: One cannot claim leadership in Europe and initiate full self-destruct mode just to please the US at the same time. I know, this is complicated. But people just don't like being led by those who sell them out. In this regard, it is, of course, important that it will be two Germans, von der Leyen and Merz, who will be most associated with the Turnberry Fiasco. They have made sure that Germany does not stand for leadership but for submission to the point of self-harm. The rhetoric of collaboration – 'We are betraying your interests only to avoid even worse things, please be grateful!' – will either not work at all or not for long. In the end, it's the De Gaulles who win, not the Petains. Third, there is a difference between a trade war and economic warfare. Merz may claim that a trade war with the US has been avoided. In reality, we will never know, of course: If the EU had stood its ground – and it had the means and even some plans to do so – there might not even have been a trade war or it might have ended quickly, and with a better outcome for the EU. China, again, is the proof. But one thing is certain: there is ongoing economic warfare, namely by the US against its own European vassals. They have submitted to their own impoverishment and ongoing deindustrialization, but the American laying waste of their economies has not stopped but accelerated again. Europe is under massive economic attack – and it is not fighting back. In an ideal world, the Europeans would now finally see sense: For starters, they would rebel against the EU Commission and its power grab, get rid of Ursula von der Leyen and her team, and disavow their 'deal.' Then they would stop taking over America's proxy war against Russia, cut their ties with the corrupt Kiev regime, and normalize their relationship with Russia – and with China, too. In other words, they would find partners to help them emancipate themselves from an American overlord that is not merely dominating but devastating its 'allies.' None of the above, however, will happen. Witness the sorry spectacle of the last, recent attempt to chase von der Leyen from office. Real change to save Europe from the EU will require tectonic shifts in the continent's politics. Indeed, the EU is probably hopeless and will have to be abandoned first. Europe's current 'elites,' who behave as if they serve the US and not their fellow Europeans, will have to lose power. But how? In late 1916, a Russian politician gave a famous speech. Enumerating the then tsarist government's failures, he kept asking the same simple question: 'Is this stupidity or treason?' Less than half a year after that speech, Russia's Ancien Regime fell. Europeans must wake up at long last and ask the same question about their leaders.
