Poland, Baltics may withdraw from anti-personnel landmine treaty
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, the four allies say that 'it is essential to evaluate all measures to strengthen our deterrence and defense capabilities,' according to a joint statement. This includes a potential return to using landmines to secure their respective borders with Russia.
The treaty bans the development, manufacturing, use, storage and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
Since ratifying the convention, 'the security situation in our region has fundamentally deteriorated,' the four defense ministries said in their statement. 'Military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased.'
In light of the unstable security environment in the region, 'we — the Ministers of Defence of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland —unanimously recommend withdrawing from the Ottawa Convention. With this decision, we are sending a clear message: our countries are prepared and can use every necessary measure to defend our territory and freedom,' the statement reads.
Concluded in September 1997, the convention has gathered 133 signatories and 165 parties, according to the latest available data from the United Nations. Russia is not a signatory of the treaty, nor is the United States.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
With no guarantee of an EU-U.S. trade deal, Europe keeps its options open
A trade agreement between the European Union and U.S. could be imminent, however with no guarantees Brussels continues to prepare retaliatory measures. A 15% baseline tariff rate, which includes an around 4.8% duty currently in place, is currently the base-case scenario for EU imports to the U.S., an EU diplomat told CNBC on Wednesday. However, there could also be some exemptions that are still being worked out, they added. The EU may in turn reduce its own levies on the U.S., according to the diplomat. Negotiations between the U.S. and EU have been tough going with pressure mounting ahead of the Aug. 1 deadline which would see imports from the EU to the U.S. hit with a 30% tariff. While this is lower than the 50% rate Trump had previously threatened, it would likely still heavily impact businesses and economies in both the EU and the U.S. "Relative to the risk of much higher extra tariffs such as 30% or even 50% that Trump had occasionally muted before, that would be a positive outcome," Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg, commented in a note. But the deal is by no means done yet, with an EU diplomat telling CNBC the "final decision [is] in hands of President Trump." A second EU official also appeared hesitant, telling CNBC that media reports that the EU and the U.S. are closing in on a deal are "too optimistic." "Contacts between both sides continue, but until President Trump speaks his mind we don't have anything concrete. Everything still remains in the open," they said. Trump's administration appeared to strike a similar tone Wednesday. When asked about the potential for a 15% tariff rate, White House Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai said discussions about any potential trade deals should be considered "speculation," according to a report from Reuters. Trump is notorious for last minute changes of heart and making quick decisions, the latest example of which took place earlier this week on the U.S.-Japan trade deal. During a meeting between Trump and the Japanese delegation, discrepancies and edits were seen on a card outlining the deal on Trump's desk, according to a photo posted on X by Dan Scavino, the White House deputy chief of staff. Despite European markets on Thursday being buoyed by the prospect of a deal, the uncertainty surrounding what a EU-U.S. agreement could look like remains. In the meantime the EU is still working on countermeasures it could impose if U.S. tariffs do come into effect next week. Primarily, these are set to include retaliatory tariffs which could come into force just days after the U.S.' duties. Under the EU's new plan, previously prepared lists of countermeasures targeting goods, will be combined in one list, totalling 93 billion euros ($109.4 billion). There has also been widespread talk about the EU deploying its so-called "Anti-Coercion Instrument," which has been described as the "nuclear option." If enforced, U.S. suppliers could face restricted access to the EU market. For example they would be unable to participate in public tenders in the bloc, there could be curbs on exports and imports, and foreign direct investment could be limited. While France has so far been the only country to call "for immediate establishment of coercion," if no agreement is struck, "there seems to be a broad qualified majority voting for establishing coercion," the EU diplomat told CNBC.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Thousands gather for second day as protest spread in several cities over new anti-corruption law
Ukrainians took to the streets for a second day to protest a new law they say weakens Ukraine's anti-corruption watchdogs. (AP Video: Vasilisa Stepanenko/Hnat Holyk)
an hour ago
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON -- Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general. Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." CLAIM: The Obama administration "manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment.
