Weakening the global landmine treaty to hold off Putin is a panic response, just like building new pipelines in Canada to hold off Trump. That makes oil and gas the landmines of our time.
thanks for this important piece connecting dots Mitchell. The landmines treaty of countries coming together to address a problem is key, and has been international norm for over 20 years - saving lives of ordinary people & returning land to communities worldwide. There are many lessons of that and the unusual multilateralism efforts of other countries wanting to address crises together can and will come forward at this time in history too -such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty https://fossilfueltreaty.org/
I got a good laugh at the first sentence about lefties defeating Trump. That won't happen. Cry harder, we can't hear you. Ban landmines. Also ban perpetual war, like Trump is trying to do. Develop renewable energy. Promote energy conservation. Also drill here, drill there, drill everywhere. The elites may be able to get by without fossil fuels. The starving, huddled masses need all the energy they can get.
Wholeheartedly agree regarding pipelines - particularly Energy East - becoming a stranded asset that private enterprise won't pay for and should never be funded with our taxes.
However, as a 21 yr veteran of army service and familiar with the value and risk of landmines in warfare, I'd suggest that the judgement over their use is something for the people we've asked to risk their lives to hold us safe from naked aggression and the barbaric consequences that we've seen follow it.
Thanks, Chris. I'll definitely defer to that knowledge. I learned a tonne by covering the treaty conference nearly three decades ago, but would never assume that outweighs on-the-ground experience.
I did hear both sides of the coin in Bob Lawson's comments -- that in desperate times you turn to every tool in the toolbox, but we also incur risks and losses when we deploy landmines. I hope both of those perspectives are fairly reflected in the post.
I appreciate and respect that: (1) you've taken the time and effort to read and respond; (2) this dialogue is a conversation, unlike the often negative tone of online discourse; and (3) that you've researched opposing perspectives.
You needn't reply - as I wrote, I respect your acknowledgement already - I just wanted to register that the threat in warfare can sometimes be so extreme as to warrant consideration of such long-term and expensive risks as those posed by the use of landmines. I also wanted to make two points I don't recall being in your article or in our discussion.
Firstly, consider that the people choosing to renege have all lived under Russian control. They know from lived experience the extent of cruelty and barbarism that Russians are capable of. Losing to the Russians is in no way comparable to losing to the USA or Canada: our societies have rule of law (at least Canada's still does) based on values, and our militaries have laws of their own which are extensions of our domestic policy. Russia does not work this way, and their militaries certainly do not either.
Look to the experience of Ukrainian civilians: the bombing of homes, shopping centres, "double-taps" to kill first responders, destruction of dams to destroy and deny broad areas where people sustain themselves, and bombing of nuclear facilities. Consider the experience of their military: the execution of captives, the torture and execution of prisoners, and the stealing, indoctrination and training of Ukrainian children many to ultimately be soldiers in the fight for their native land.
Such barbarism is a cultural feature of Russia and regimes associated with Russia. I personally saw it in Kosovo, where the Serbian police routinely tortured, maimed and killed detainees, dumping their bodies on the side of the road. Reports from Ukraine are no different.
My second point is that an enemy that has already decided to use mines and remotely deployed mines, as well as multiple warhead munitions (DPICM / cluster artillery shells and rockets), will invariably leave a battlefield littered with unexploded ordnance (UXO). Note: Russian munitions are notoriously bad for dud rates. Such munitions are used because they are extremely effective. Russia already mined vast areas of Ukraine when establishing the three-level defensive zone known as the Surovikin Line. It is not much of an argument to deny oneself the use of an effective weapon to reduce future risks to life, increase the risk of being conquered with the concomitant theft of property, certainty of torture, killing and being denied and repressed as a culture.
To sum up, I defer to those fighting for the personal existence and that of their culture, especially those who have known life under the Russians. They know the risks and future costs they incur and have judged that living with UXO, demining restrictions and costs, and certainty that future citizens will lose lives and limbs, is a worthy price for their collective survival as a people.
Great post Mitchell!
thanks for this important piece connecting dots Mitchell. The landmines treaty of countries coming together to address a problem is key, and has been international norm for over 20 years - saving lives of ordinary people & returning land to communities worldwide. There are many lessons of that and the unusual multilateralism efforts of other countries wanting to address crises together can and will come forward at this time in history too -such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty https://fossilfueltreaty.org/
I got a good laugh at the first sentence about lefties defeating Trump. That won't happen. Cry harder, we can't hear you. Ban landmines. Also ban perpetual war, like Trump is trying to do. Develop renewable energy. Promote energy conservation. Also drill here, drill there, drill everywhere. The elites may be able to get by without fossil fuels. The starving, huddled masses need all the energy they can get.
Wholeheartedly agree regarding pipelines - particularly Energy East - becoming a stranded asset that private enterprise won't pay for and should never be funded with our taxes.
However, as a 21 yr veteran of army service and familiar with the value and risk of landmines in warfare, I'd suggest that the judgement over their use is something for the people we've asked to risk their lives to hold us safe from naked aggression and the barbaric consequences that we've seen follow it.
Thanks, Chris. I'll definitely defer to that knowledge. I learned a tonne by covering the treaty conference nearly three decades ago, but would never assume that outweighs on-the-ground experience.
I did hear both sides of the coin in Bob Lawson's comments -- that in desperate times you turn to every tool in the toolbox, but we also incur risks and losses when we deploy landmines. I hope both of those perspectives are fairly reflected in the post.
I appreciate and respect that: (1) you've taken the time and effort to read and respond; (2) this dialogue is a conversation, unlike the often negative tone of online discourse; and (3) that you've researched opposing perspectives.
You needn't reply - as I wrote, I respect your acknowledgement already - I just wanted to register that the threat in warfare can sometimes be so extreme as to warrant consideration of such long-term and expensive risks as those posed by the use of landmines. I also wanted to make two points I don't recall being in your article or in our discussion.
Firstly, consider that the people choosing to renege have all lived under Russian control. They know from lived experience the extent of cruelty and barbarism that Russians are capable of. Losing to the Russians is in no way comparable to losing to the USA or Canada: our societies have rule of law (at least Canada's still does) based on values, and our militaries have laws of their own which are extensions of our domestic policy. Russia does not work this way, and their militaries certainly do not either.
Look to the experience of Ukrainian civilians: the bombing of homes, shopping centres, "double-taps" to kill first responders, destruction of dams to destroy and deny broad areas where people sustain themselves, and bombing of nuclear facilities. Consider the experience of their military: the execution of captives, the torture and execution of prisoners, and the stealing, indoctrination and training of Ukrainian children many to ultimately be soldiers in the fight for their native land.
Such barbarism is a cultural feature of Russia and regimes associated with Russia. I personally saw it in Kosovo, where the Serbian police routinely tortured, maimed and killed detainees, dumping their bodies on the side of the road. Reports from Ukraine are no different.
My second point is that an enemy that has already decided to use mines and remotely deployed mines, as well as multiple warhead munitions (DPICM / cluster artillery shells and rockets), will invariably leave a battlefield littered with unexploded ordnance (UXO). Note: Russian munitions are notoriously bad for dud rates. Such munitions are used because they are extremely effective. Russia already mined vast areas of Ukraine when establishing the three-level defensive zone known as the Surovikin Line. It is not much of an argument to deny oneself the use of an effective weapon to reduce future risks to life, increase the risk of being conquered with the concomitant theft of property, certainty of torture, killing and being denied and repressed as a culture.
To sum up, I defer to those fighting for the personal existence and that of their culture, especially those who have known life under the Russians. They know the risks and future costs they incur and have judged that living with UXO, demining restrictions and costs, and certainty that future citizens will lose lives and limbs, is a worthy price for their collective survival as a people.