Baltics and Poland announce planned withdrawal from landmine treaty
It comes shortly after defence ministers of the Baltic states and Poland unanimously recommended withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention.
In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the defence ministers said they "believe that in the current security environment it is paramount to provide our defence forces flexibility and freedom of choice to potentially use new weapons systems and solutions to bolster the defence of the alliance's vulnerable eastern flank."
Latvia's Prime Minister Evika Silina said a draft would be submitted to the parliament, who have to make the final decision, by next week.
"This decision will give our National Armed Forces additional capabilities, when they can buy and what," Silina said.
The Prime Minister added that "Latvia has also considered the possibility that we could produce, as this also correlates with our military industrial strategy adopted today."
Latvia's Minister of Defence, Andris Spruds, said the move would be a crucial step towards building the "Baltic defence line together."
"We must be given the opportunity to strengthen our security defence capabilities by withdrawing from this Convention," he added.
Also Lithaunia emphasised its willingness to step up its production of the explosives.
"Talks and discussions have been going on since the very beginning of the full-scale war in Ukraine—about having the means, especially for the production of explosives, at home," Chief of Defence Raimundas Vaiksnoras said.
Lithuania's defence minister Dovile Sakaliene said the joint decision sent a strong signal to others indicating that the states "are serious about deterrence and border defence."
The decision could result in a ripple effect, with more countries following suit. "We will not be the first or the last country to leave the Convention," Latvia's Prime Minister said.
Finland could be the next to withdraw from the treaty, having previously said they were also considering leaving the treaty due to Russia's use of anti-personnel mines in Ukraine.
More than 160 countries and territories are signatories to the Ottawa Convention, including Ukraine, but excluding Russia and the US.
The 1997 treaty prohibits the production, possession, and transfer of anti-personnel mines, which are designed to be hidden under the ground and have killed or maimed thousands of civilians globally, often long after a conflict has come to an end.
US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agreed during their call Tuesday to seek a limited ceasefire against energy and infrastructure targets in Russia's war in Ukraine, according to the White House and the Kremlin.
Both sides published written statements shortly after the lengthy phone call, with the White House describing it as the first step in a 'movement to peace' that it hopes will eventually include a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea and a full and lasting end to the fighting.
The White House said negotiations would 'begin immediately' on those steps. It was not immediately clear whether Ukraine is on board with the phased ceasefire plan. US Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shared the readout in a post on X.
Putin also called on Trump to end foreign military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine as the US looks to bring an end to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, according to the Kremlin.
The Kremlin's statement included a long list of conditions and demands from Putin's side, including Moscow's "key condition" to 'completely cease' foreign military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine, in a demand it claims is to prevent further escalation of the conflict, which has reached its fourth year.
Trump and Putin's phone call lasted more than one hour, with a White House source saying during the conversation that the conversation was "going well."
The US president said a day earlier on Monday that "many elements of a final agreement have been agreed to, but much remains" to be agreed upon with Putin during their conversation.
Earlier on Monday, the US president said that Washington and Moscow had discussed land, power plants and "dividing up certain assets" between Russia and Ukraine as part of a deal.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff and Karoline Leavitt suggested that US and Russian officials have discussed the fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine, which was seized by Russian forces in the early weeks of the war.
"There's a power plant that is on the border of Russia and Ukraine that was up for discussion with the Ukrainians and he will address it in his call with Putin tomorrow," Leavitt said on Monday.
The power plant has been caught in the centre of the crossfire since Moscow invaded and seized the facility shortly afterwards — sparking alarm from international bodies that fighting around Europe's largest nuclear power plant could lead to a potential nuclear catastrophe.
In his nightly address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Putin of deliberately prolonging the war.
"The implementation of this proposal could have begun long ago. Every day in wartime is a matter of human lives," Zelenskyy said.
This is a developing story and our journalists are working on further updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
6 hours ago
- France 24
‘Today it's paper, tomorrow it's nothing': the perils of security guarantees for Ukraine
Ukraine and its Western allies have said the specifics of a post-war security agreement are expected to be finalised in the next few days. Such security guarantees have long been considered key to maintaining a post-war peace in Ukraine. The UK and France gathered a mostly European 'coalition of the willing' in March as a potential peacekeeping force, but many worried it would lack effectiveness without robust US support. In an apparent breakthrough following Monday's gathering of European and NATO leaders at the White House, US President Donald Trump suggested potential security guarantees for Ukraine as part of a future peace deal with Russia. 'When it comes to security, there's going to be a lot of help,' he said alongside Zelensky in the Oval Office, while noting that European countries would take the lead. 'They are a first line of defence because they're there. But we'll help them out.' In a subsequent interview with Fox News, Trump said US help would probably take the form of air support. Following a much-anticipated meeting between Trump and US President Vladimir Putin last Friday in Alaska, Trump's Russia envoy Steve Witkoff said the US might consider offering Ukraine ' Article-5-like protection ', a reference to NATO's principle of collective defence, in which an attack on one is considered an attack on all. Witkoff added that Russia had agreed to the proposal, calling it 'game-changing'. Zelensky said on Tuesday that 'we are already working on the concrete content of the security guarantees', a process he said will continue at full speed in the upcoming weeks. Mykhailo Samus, a defence and politics analyst from Kyiv, spoke to FRANCE 24 about the security guarantees Ukraine might receive following a peace agreement ending the war with Russia. But with the failure of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum still vivid in the minds of many Ukrainians, he also advocates building a strong Ukrainian army that is fully integrated in the European defence system. FRANCE 24: What will 'security guarantees' for Ukraine most likely mean in practice? We (Ukraine) have a long history of security guarantees, which started with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 (a non-aggression pact cosigned by the US, the UK and Russia in return for Ukraine surrendering the nuclear weapons it inherited from the USSR). We don't believe in paper guarantees. We need a strong Ukrainian defence industry which is totally integrated into the European defence structure. That's why we should base Ukrainian security on deterrence, like deterrence against aggression against the Baltic states or an invasion of Moldova. A joint approach means a European security system including Ukraine. Some might think this could mean French boots on the ground. Of course we don't need it, because we have one of the strongest armies in the world. Instead, we need help integrating Ukrainian forces in the European defence system. This means providing Ukraine with long-range capacities: ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. European forces should provide us with the equipment with the joint understanding that we are using the equipment to protect us and them. FRANCE 24: Why is the prospect of European boots on the ground unlikely to ensure peace in Ukraine? It shouldn't be forgotten that Russia is imperialistic; it only cares about Ukraine as an extension of its empire. It sounds impossible in the 21st century, but Putin lives in this paradigm. If they want to live in an empire, then we should be strong enough to [stand up to] the empire. Sending several thousand troops to Ukrainian territory is not the solution. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had an interesting idea during the talks at the White House to provide security guarantees modelled on NATO's Article 5 (the principle of collective defence, in which an attack on one is considered an attack on all). Yet this will be impossible to implement. The next Russian aggression towards Ukraine will get the same reaction – or non-reaction – from Western allies. We had a bad experience with the Budapest Memorandum. The United Kingdom signed it, and the United States signed it. These countries guaranteed the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine. But when Russia attacked Crimea, nothing happened. FRANCE 24: Why do you advocate for a defence-industry approach to supporting Kyiv? Joint capacities are easier to formulate and build upon. I think for now we can talk about a defence-industry approach with elements that will support Ukraine: monitoring, intelligence, the training of Ukrainian armed forces, support with ammunition and elements to keep Russia out of the front line. If the US doesn't want to sell us certain technologies, we should be able to develop them ourselves. European defence security policy is mostly Europe focusing on defence. The Ukrainian approach is the same as Europe's, yet we need to create modern, breakthrough technologies like long-range ballistic missiles. No country in Europe is building these and we need them. We also need joint capacities in missile defence – missile defence should be joint because it's impossible for one country to build them on its own. There needs to be a multi-layer European defence system. In Ukraine, we have attacks by [Iranian-made] Shahed drones every night. We need to build a common system. It would be a disaster if a Shahed drone hit Estonia, for example, and the same should apply to Ukraine. We have several layers [of defence] in Ukraine: drone interception, helicopters, fighter jets – all of these layers function together. Since Russia is a nuclear power, we should have a joint European nuclear doctrine. France and the United Kingdom have nuclear capacities; how to share these resources is something to be considered. When Putin talks about 'demilitarisation', it's so that he can take advantage. With a strong army in Ukraine, Putin won't be able to attack again. Without this – even with all the guarantees and all the paper in the world – Ukraine won't be safe. FRANCE 24: What would the US role be in a Ukrainian security guarantee? Europe doesn't have ballistic missiles and it depends on the US – this is a big problem. Europe depends on the F-16 fighter jets. We shouldn't depend on the moods of US President Donald Trump; he might say, 'You can have F-16s today' and tomorrow he could change his mind. The US is an important provider but not the main provider. That's why there should be a joint approach [involving] both the armed forces and the defence industry. When we are talking about security guarantees, and especially boots on the ground, Trump doesn't want to participate in this – so NATO can't participate. Trump is trying to divide us. There is an ocean between the US and Russia, while between Europe and Russia there is nothing. If we imagine that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelensky sign a peace agreement, the next step is how to [enforce] it. There will be complex mechanisms at work. For example, Putin will likely propose China as a peacekeeper, while rejecting any NATO forces on the ground in Ukraine. There are going to be many additional discussions. FRANCE 24: Ukraine obviously feels betrayed after the Budapest Memorandum failed to ensure its security. What other precedents are there for Russia breaking agreements? All the time. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty. There were security guarantees of Russia respecting borders and the sovereignty of Ukraine. We had a lot of agreements involving the Black Sea. Everything was destroyed by Russia. When someone says we should sign a treaty with Russia, we say, 'Guys, go home.' Today it's paper; tomorrow it's nothing.
LeMonde
6 hours ago
- LeMonde
In the Donbas, a Ukrainian high schooler's rebellion against Russification
You have to close your eyes and imagine the scene, since journalists are not free to go to Russian-occupied Donbas. Picture a large U-shaped table in the center of a meeting room inside an administrative building in the suburbs of Luhansk (or Lugansk, in Russian). The president of the administrative commission "in charge of minors' affairs and the protection of their rights" for the district stood behind a lectern. Around the table, 14 other officials each had a microphone, including, at the end of the table, a lively 43-year-old lawyer and her daughter, a 15-year-old high school student. Police officers had knocked on their door to notify them of the appointment: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, at 2 pm, on Lenin Street. "The district commission for juvenile affairs (...) regarding the review of the report from secondary school no. x (...) concerning the violation of the minor's rights to education and instruction by her mother (...) will examine the report in a public session (...)." The mother was accused of not raising her daughter in the patriotic spirit of Russia, their new country. The evidence? Her daughter's insolence and repeated absences during the weekly class called "Conversations About the Essentials," a kind of Putinist catechism established in 2022 in all schools in the Russian Federation, where the "special operation" in Ukraine and traditional Russian values are glorified.
Euronews
6 hours ago
- Euronews
NATO defence chiefs discuss security guarantees for Ukraine
NATO defence chiefs held a "candid discussion" on Wednesday about what security guarantees they could offer Kyiv to help forge a peace agreement that ends Russia's three-year war on Ukraine, a senior alliance official said. Italian Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, the chair of NATO's Military Committee, said that 32 defence chiefs from across the alliance held a video conference amid a US-led diplomatic push to end the fighting. He said they had had a "great, candid discussion." "I thanked everyone for their always proactive participation in these meetings: we are united, and that unity was truly tangible today, as always," he said in a post on social media platform X but gave no further details. Assurances that it won't be invaded again in the future are one of the keys for getting Ukraine to sign up for a peace deal with Russia. It wants Western help for its military, including weapons and training, to shore up its defences, and Western officials are scrambling to figure out what commitments they could offer. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chided efforts to work on security arrangements in Ukraine without Moscow's involvement. "We cannot agree with the fact that it is now proposed to resolve collective security issues without the Russian Federation. This will not work," Lavrov said on Wednesday, in comments carried by state news agency RIA Novosti. Russia will "ensure (its) legitimate interests firmly and harshly," Lavrov added at a news conference in Moscow. US General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe who advised during the Trump-Putin summit last week in Alaska, took part in the virtual talks, Dragone said. US General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also due to participate, a US defence official said. Caine also met with European military chiefs on Tuesday evening in Washington to assess the best military options for political leaders, according to the defence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The details of a Ukraine security force US President Donald Trump met last Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska and on Monday hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and prominent European leaders at the White House, but neither meeting delivered concrete progress. Trump is trying to steer Putin and Zelenskyy toward a settlement more than three years after Russia invaded its neighbour, but major obstacles remain. They include Ukraine's demands for Western-backed military assurances to ensure Russia won't mount another invasion in the future. "We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace," Zelenskyy said in a Telegram post on Wednesday after Russian missile and drone strikes hit six regions of Ukraine overnight. Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could act as a backstop to any peace agreement and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan and Australia, has signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work. The role that the US might play is unclear. On Tuesday, Trump ruled out sending US troops to help defend Ukraine against Russia. Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine. Attacks on civilian areas in Sumy and Odesa overnight into Wednesday injured 15 people, including a family with three small children, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian strikes also targeted ports and fuel and energy infrastructure, officials said. Zelenskyy said the strikes "only confirm the need for pressure on Moscow, the need to introduce new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy works to its full potential."
