[ad_1]
Two years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, countries such as the Baltic states and Finland are warning that threats to their territories may be imminent, and some intelligence agencies say the Kremlin has It has been stated that such an attempt may be made within the next few days. Now they are taking lessons from the enemy’s strong defenses in Ukraine, noting that Russia’s system of minefields, concertina wire and trenches made Kiev’s military advance nearly impossible last summer. There is.
European nations still seek F-35 jets and space-age weapons, but there is renewed interest and investment in the century-old tactic. Russia’s war in Ukraine is the latest example of a renewed emphasis on interdicting tanks and mobile artillery, upending long-held assumptions about how to defend NATO territory. And while policymakers said they remain confident that NATO will protect them, they added that President Trump’s comments make it more important than ever to preserve their country for as long as possible. Ta.
Nowhere are the choices more stark than in the landmine debate. The military is weighing the risk to future generations of its own citizens against the low-cost ability to slow down tanks and buy time for NATO rescue workers. Landmines come in many forms, but the cheapest and simplest anti-personnel mines, once planted, can pose a danger decades after a conflict ends. Landmines and other explosive remnants of war will kill or injure at least 12 civilians a day around the world in 2022, many of them children, according to the Landmines and Cluster Munitions Monitor.
Policymakers in the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) have been discussing in recent weeks whether to withdraw from an international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. So far, countries have chosen no, but all are investing in anti-tank mines and other weapons that pose less of a risk to civilians. This is a surprising development in a country where forests and fields still occasionally eject unexploded ordnance and ammunition from heavy fighting during World Wars I and II.
“The goal is for all of us to strengthen our defense capabilities and for our borders to do everything to protect our societies,” said Andris Spruds, the defense official who commissioned the Latvian army to consider whether the withdrawal makes sense. Ai said. Landmine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Treaty. “We must protect every inch of our territory.”
Spruce and its compatriots Lithuania and Estonia recently agreed to build something called the Baltic Defense Line, a coordinated system of bunkers and fortifications. Until recently, Russia’s borders with these countries were mostly rolling fields and open pine forests, with few obstacles to crossing. The two countries began building fences in 2020 to stop migrants being sent by Russian authorities in an effort to destabilize their European neighbors. Borders are now becoming more militarized, with plans to install sensors and physical obstacles to deter tanks and other vehicles, as well as anti-tank mines and remote-controlled mines that can be deployed in the event of an attack by Russian forces. Investment in mine storage is also planned. Start gathering at the border.
The fortification plan draws lessons from the defense lines of occupied Russia. In eastern Ukraine, troops have dug hundreds of miles of trenches, spread bellows of wire and anti-tank barriers, and laid unusually large minefields. As the Ukrainian army tried to clear landmines, Russian drones were able to direct artillery fire at them, and despite their great ambitions, the Ukrainian army’s territorial gains were minimal.
“Russia has used the power of landmines in place of human resources,” said James Cowan, a former British army general and chief executive of demining organization HALO Trust.
Lithuania and Latvia are each about the same size as West Virginia, and Estonia is about the same size. That means, unlike the much larger Ukraine, there is little territory to escape to if Russian tanks cross the border.
Estonia’s foreign intelligence chief said: “Within the next 10 years, NATO is expected to face a large Soviet-style military that is technically inferior to its allies but poses a significant threat due to its size, firepower and reserves.” said. The service’s Kaupo Rosin wrote as part of its annual intelligence assessment released this month.
Finland, which has held separate domestic negotiations regarding landmines, significantly expanded its border with Russia when it joined the NATO alliance last year. Due to security concerns along the 832-mile Russian border, Finland signed the anti-personnel mine ban treaty more than a decade later than most countries, and only finished destroying its stockpile in 2015. Many policymakers have questioned this decision in the past, including President-elect Alexander Stubb, but the country currently has no plans to withdraw from the competition.
Some policymakers in the Baltic states say Ukraine’s recent experience has increased the need to deter Russian aggression, despite NATO defense guarantees. In 2022, world leaders initially estimated that Kiev was lost, and it took about 10 days for them to shift their attitude and support to one that would help Ukrainians regain territory rather than escape. .
However, no country currently plans to withdraw from the Treaty on the Ban of Anti-Personnel Landmines. In Latvia, Spruds said the disadvantages, such as the risks to civilians and the international backlash that could result from such a move, outweigh the benefits.
“There is a wide range of mines that we can use. And Latvia is absolutely eager to develop this capability,” he said. “We have mines in our arsenal and intend to develop our capabilities without acquiring mines, which are prohibited by the treaty.”
The treaty allows countries to use anti-tank mines, but they are considered safer for civilians because they require much more downward pressure to detonate than a person walking over them. ing. The treaty also authorizes the use of small, remotely controlled mines that can kill individual soldiers, as long as they are operated by someone who can distinguish between military and civilian targets. This type of mine is much more expensive than older anti-personnel mines, which are dotted around anti-tank mines to make larger charges harder to disable as part of conventional military doctrine.
Neither the United States nor Russia is party to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty, which is signed by 133 countries, but the Biden administration has announced that it intends to comply with the rules, with the exception of South Korea, which uses the device. A means of countering North Korean aggression.
The Biden administration has not sent banned antipersonnel mines to Ukraine, but the Pentagon announced it has sent an unspecified number of Cold War-era antitank mines to help fight Kiev.
Kusti Sarm, permanent secretary of Estonia’s Ministry of Defense, said anti-personnel mines are “difficult to manage”. “In the end, mines will be cleared not by our enemies or enemies, but by our own children and animals.”
Estonia plans to build 600 small fortified bunkers along its border with Russia, and Latvia and Lithuania, which have long land borders, are expected to build even more air raid shelters. Planners say each bunker can hold about 10 soldiers and can withstand artillery fire.
Russia, with its fortified borders, would need “much more resources and much more firepower” to attack, Salm said. He noted that the Kremlin’s need to accumulate these additional forces would give NATO countries early warning of an impending attack and give them more time to prepare.
“Our plan is to use a lot of anti-tank mines, targeting mines and all kinds of other mines,” Salm said. “That has been our policy from the very beginning. We have supplied Ukraine with tens of thousands of anti-tank mines. We are replenishing these stocks.”
Some anti-landmine activists argue that even landmines permitted under the treaty can cause problems for civilians. They warn that unmonitored landmines of any kind can pose a security risk.
At the time the treaty was being negotiated, many international anti-landmine groups wanted to ban anti-tank mines, but that was because “many refugee transport buses and vehicles were being blown up,” says a survivor at James Madison University. said political science professor Ken Rutherford. Landmine explosion in Somalia in 1993.
“Just because anti-tank mines are not included in the Ottawa Treaty does not mean they are humane or prudent,” he said.
But some policymakers argue that frontline states should go further, withdraw from the treaty and do everything in their power to force the Kremlin to think twice about crossing borders.
“In Ukraine, these fortified fronts actually turned out to be very effective,” said Janice Garisons, who until last month was Latvia’s top civil servant at the Ministry of Defense. “It’s a good deterrent if the Russians know we’re prepared to use whatever we have at our disposal.”
For now, leaders are likely to focus on what can be done under current treaty commitments, but will continue to watch the fighting in Ukraine for new lessons.
Latvia’s Minister of Defense Spruds said: “The battlefields of Ukraine are an important example of how modern warfare is fought, and in practice it combines both modern technology and older, cheaper solutions. ” he said. “We are witnessing a blending of everything: 19th-century ambition, 20th-century trench warfare brutality, and 21st-century technology. Much of what we previously took for granted. should be corrected.”
[ad_2]
Source link
