Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Protests have erupted in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities against a new law that threatens the independence of Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions. The legislation was hastily passed on July 22 by parliament and signed by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, that same day.

It places Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bureau and its special anti-corruption prosecutor’s office under the direct control of the prosecutor general, one of Zelensky’s appointed officials. Zelensky has argued that the measure was necessary to address Russian infiltration of anti-corruption bodies.

Critics of the measure, however, believe the real purpose of the law is to give the president the power to quash ongoing investigations into alleged corruption by members of his inner circle. These include his close ally and former deputy prime minister, Oleksiy Chernyshov.

Politicians from opposition parties and civil society activists also regard the new law as an example of the president attempting to take advantage of wartime conditions to silence critics and consolidate power.

The protests have involved thousands of ordinary people. This includes veterans of the war against Russia’s invasion, some with visible war injuries such as missing limbs. Anger at the attempt to curb the independence of anticorruption bodies has broken the informal agreement between the government and Ukrainian society to show a united front to the world while the war continues.

The protests may be the most serious domestic political challenge Zelensky has faced since he was elected president in 2019.

Formally, Zelensky’s political position is secure. His Servant of the People party holds the majority of seats in parliament and governs without the constraints of coalition partners. Zelensky and his party will also not face voters anytime soon. There is a ban on holding elections during martial law, which is due to continue for the duration of the war.

Zelensky is not unpopular in Ukraine. According to a survey conducted in June by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Zelensky’s personal popularity was running at 65%. This is down from the heady heights of 90% in the first few months after Russia’s 2022 invasion, but up significantly from 52% in December 2024.

However, Zelensky was quick to respond to the street protests by promising to reverse the new law. He said he would submit a new bill to parliament to restore independence to the agencies. The speed of his response reveals the sensitivity of the president – and indeed most Ukrainian politicians – to criticism on the corruption issue.

Why corruption is a big issue

Corruption is a topic that resonates strongly with Ukrainian society. Anger at the corruption of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency fuelled the Maidan protests of 2013 and 2014, which began in response to his decision to break off negotiations with the EU and instead pursue closer political and economic ties with Russia.

The “revolution of dignity” that followed robustly rejected Yanukovych’s leadership and his policies, and ultimately saw him ousted from power. The revolution was a resounding demonstration of the strength of Ukraine’s civil society and its determination to hold its elected officials to account.

Any suggestion that Ukraine is failing to address corruption is also a matter of great concern for Ukraine’s international supporters. This is especially the case for major lenders such as the International Monetary Fund. Its willingness to disperse the large loans that help keep the Ukrainian economy functioning depends on Kyiv reaching the good governance milestones it sets.

European leaders have expressed concern at the new law and the possibility that Zelensky may be taking a backwards step when it comes to dealing with corruption.

President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, phoned Zelensky to express her strong concerns and ask for an explanation for diluting the independence of anti-corruption bodies. French and German leaders have also indicated that they intend to hold discussions with Zelensky about the issue.

Meanwhile, Russia has been quick to take advantage of the protests in Ukraine. According to intelligence from Ukraine’s ministry of defence, Moscow has already distributed doctored photographs of the protesters that show them holding pro-Russian signs. It has falsely claimed that Ukrainians are coming on to the streets to demand an immediate end to the war.

So far, there are no indications that these protests will spill over from demanding the reversal of one controversial piece of legislation into calls for a change of government. Some protesters have even been explicit in their remarks to the media that they are broadly supportive of Zelensky, but are calling on him to take action on this specific issue.

However, Zelensky cannot afford to be complacent. He needs to act quickly to keep his domestic and international supporters on side. A great deal of effort has been expended to demonstrate Ukraine’s commitment to democratic values and its suitability to join western institutions like the EU and Nato. Any hint of backsliding on anti-corruption could undermine that message.

Ukrainians continue to be remarkably united in their support for the war effort and their approval of the armed forces. But the mobilisation process is itself tainted with corruption. Ordinary citizens are reluctant to respond to the state’s call for more soldiers when it is widely known that the family members of powerful and wealthy Ukrainians are able to avoid military service and instead lead comfortable lives abroad.

Zelensky cannot afford to let dissatisfaction with corruption grow. Even if it does not threaten his hold on power today, society’s anger at corrupt practices and the inequalities they create is already damaging the war effort. Ukraine’s political leaders need to demonstrate that their commitment to democracy is as strong as that of the society that they lead.

Jennifer Mathers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ukrainian protests: Zelensky faces biggest threat to his presidency since taking power – https://theconversation.com/ukrainian-protests-zelensky-faces-biggest-threat-to-his-presidency-since-taking-power-261876

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alvina Hoffmann, Lecturer in Diplomatic Studies, Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London

The United States has imposed sanctions against the UN’s special rapporteur in the Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese. It’s an unprecedented situation. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, cited as the reason her direct engagement with the International Criminal Court “in efforts to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel”.

The statement also described Albanese’s “threatening letters to dozens of entities worldwide, including major American companies” as an escalation of her strategies. The sanctions were framed as preventing “illegitimate ICC overreach and abuse of power” and as part of Trump’s Executive Order 14203 on imposing sanctions on the ICC.

This raises the question: who are special rapporteurs and why would Albanese’s performance of her role elicit such a strong reaction from the US? Special rapporteurs are independent human rights experts, part of the UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures system established in 1979. There are 46 “thematic mandates” on issues such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and the environment, and 14 “country mandates”, including in Palestine.

Experts on human rights from academia, advocacy, law and other relevant professional fields are appointed to fulfil a variety of tasks. These include undertaking country visits, sending communications to states about individual cases of human rights violations, developing international human rights standards, engaging in advocacy and providing technical cooperation based on their legal and thematic expertise.

In 1967, 22 years after it was set up, the United Nations established institutional provisions for independent experts on human rights. This happened first in 1967 when it appointed an ad hoc working group of experts on apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa. In 1968 the same group of experts was appointed to investigate “Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”. This is still in place today.

Neither South Africa nor Israel allowed experts to enter their territories to inspect their human rights record at the time. But in 2003, nearly a decade after it first held democratic elections, South Africa issued a standing invitation to all thematic special procedures, meaning they committed themselves, at least in theory, to always accept requests to visit from rapporteurs.

Attacks on individual rapporteurs

Albanese, a specialist in international human rights law, is the eighth rapporteur since the creation of her mandate in 1993. She was appointed to this pro bono position in 2022 for three years, and her mandate was recently renewed for another period of three years.

It was her most recent report from June 30 which led to her being sanctioned by the US. The report focused on the role of the corporate sector in “colonial endeavours and associated genocides” and named over 60 companies as “complicit”.

A host of institutions and leading human rights figures have come to her defence. Agnes Callamard, a former special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, now the secretary general of Amnesty international noted the “chilling effects for all special rapporteurs” of the US decision. Top UN human rights officials denounced this dangerous precedent and called for its reversal.

In February 2024, the government of Israel declared Albanese persona non grata in response to her remark that “the victims of the October 7 massacre were not murdered because of their Jewishness, but in response to Israeli oppression”. As with the newly imposed sanctions, she called this step a distraction and called upon the world to keep their focus on Gaza.

Diplomatic immunity

Special rapporteurs are granted diplomatic immunity which, in theory, should enable them to speak up or write critical reports without the fear of reprisals. But in 1989 and 1999 the ICJ had to intervene with an advisory opinion on two cases when this status was jeopardised after the home countries of two special rapporteurs tried to restrict their freedom of speech. This involved Romanian national Dumitru Mazilu, tasked with writing a report on “Human rights and youth”, and Malaysian national Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Special rapporteurs wrote a collective letter denouncing the second case, when the Malaysian government filed several legal proceedings against Cumaraswamy. The body of experts called this “judicial harassment of a special rapporteur” and “a challenge to the status of the United Nations as a whole, its officials and its experts on mission”.

Special rapporteurs occupy an ambiguous institutional position. They take their mandate from the Human Rights Council, but they act in their personal capacity, and hence are not considered to be UN officials. In practice, they need to balance relations carefully between the UN secretariat, civil society, state representatives and, at times, their own countries.

The advisory opinions helped clarify that it was the secretary general, as the head of the United Nations, that entrusts them with the privileges of diplomatic immunity. The arrangement also leaves the door open for national courts to disagree with the secretary general. This enabled individual countries in some cases to exercise some form of control over their own nationals.

The recent attack on Albanese adds to the broader budgetary crisis of the UN, as the Trump administration is withholding funds of about US$1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) in addition to other countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. These are serious challenges for the UN human rights and humanitarian aid programmes. As past cases of attacks against individual rapporteurs have shown, it is important for all rapporteurs to stand together as one body and defend the integrity of the system as a whole.

Despite these attacks on her integrity and person, Albanese maintains faith in the human rights law instruments. As she stated during a public talk I attended at SOAS University of London in November 2024, we are yet to unlock the full potential of these instruments. This can only be done as a collective.

Alvina Hoffmann has previously been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (UKRI).

– ref. The US has sanctioned UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese – here’s why she’s the wrong target – https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-sanctioned-un-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-heres-why-shes-the-wrong-target-261788

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

In the past two months, more than 1,000 people seeking food have been killed, according to the UN Human Rights Office. While the figure has been disputed by Israel and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which was set up to distribute aid, 28 nations this week condemned the “horrifying” killing of Gazans trying to get food.

As the Israel Defense Forces continues its assault in the city of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza, including an attack on the staff residence of the World Health Organization on July 21, UN bodies are warning that the besieged strip’s last lifelines are collapsing.

Already around 60,000 Gazans have been killed and growing numbers are now dying from hunger and malnutrition, according to the Hamas-led Gaza Health Ministry. More than 90% of the private homes in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed.

For all the talk of a ceasefire – one that is long overdue – there is little hope. Israeli military operations continue and Gazans must risk their lives in search of food and aid.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

Malnutrition is rife. According to the IPC’s report in May – the international organisation that monitors food security – “goods indispensable for people’s survival are either depleted or expected to run out in the coming weeks” with nearly 500,000 people considered to be facing “catastrophe”, with a further 1.1 million in an “emergency” risk category.

For the IPC, the catastrophe category is one of extreme food shortages, critical malnutrition leading to starvation and high death rates. The emergency category is one of severe food shortages, very high malnutrition and even death.

Israeli officials continue to speak of moving Gazans into what has been termed a “humanitarian city” but what former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert described as a “concentration camp”. In the same interview Olmert called decision to move Gazans into the camp as “ethnic cleansing”.

All the while, the world’s leaders look on. Most are apparently content to condemn – but little action has been taken.

The clamour for Israel’s allies to take a harder stance on its actions in Gaza is growing louder by the day. On July 23, a group of 38 former EU ambassadors published an open letter to EU heads of states and senior officials accusing Israel of taking “calculated steps towards ethnic cleansing” and calling out the EU’s failure to “respond meaningfully to these horrific events”.

But what do actions look like? Pressure must be applied to the Netanyahu government. In the UK, both prime minister Keir Starmer and foreign minister David Lammy have been quick to stress that the UK has urged Israel to respect international law.

They point to the sanctions the UK has imposed on Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, two rightwing ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government, as a result of their repeated incitements of violence against Palestinians. While Lammy suggests that further sanctions could follow if Israel does not change its behaviour in Gaza and bring about an end to the suffering, the atrocities continue.

Practical steps to pressure Israel

Pressure is growing on the UK government to recognise Palestine as a state – something that I was told by a contact in the Labour government more than a year ago was on Labour’s agenda before October 7. Lammy insists the government is committed to a two-state solution, but this is not diplomatically viable given that the UK only recognises one state involved in these events.

The state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign entity by 147 other members of the UN. That’s 75% of all members.

Other steps could be a full arms embargo, something that has long been called for but rejected by the UK government, which has banned some, but by no means all arms sales to Israel. A number of countries have properly banned arms sales to Israel since October 2023, including Italy, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan.

There are other more incendiary options. One would be for the UK and others to properly adhere to their obligations under international law.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, in November 2024. There are 125 countries that have signed up to the ICC (the US isn’t one of them). They could arrest Netanyahu if he enters their countries.

There are a range of other things that could be tried. A look at what the international community did to make South Africa a pariah during the later years of apartheid would be worthwhile.

EU should use its diplomatic muscle

As Israel’s biggest trading partner, the EU has the potential to wield considerable clout, so the question must be asked: why has so little been done, beyond mere words.

In June, the EU found Israel to be in breach of its human rights commitments under the terms of the EU-Israel association agreement. Yet to date there have been as yet no moves to suspend trade.

Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief declared that “all options remain on the table if Israel doesn’t deliver” on its pledges. These include full or partial suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, sanctions on members of government, military or settlers, trade measures, arms embargoes, or the suspension of academic cooperation – including the prestigious Horizon Europe Research and Innovation programme.

Of course, getting all 27 member states to agree to such an approach is easier said than done. And national leaders will obviously have to consider that taking steps to put pressure with Israel could damage relations with the Trump administration in the US.

But all the while, the situation on the ground is deteriorating, with the world watching while Gaza burns. The failure by Israel’s allies to take meaningful steps to pressure Israel to prevent the wanton killing and displacement is a stain on humanity.

After the horrors of the second world war, Rwanda, Myanmar and Srebrenica, the world said “never again”. Without action, there’s a risk it will shrug its shoulders and say “never mind”.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Simon Mabon receives funding from Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Henry Luce Foundation.

– ref. Gaza is starving – how Israel’s allies can go beyond words and take meaningful action – https://theconversation.com/gaza-is-starving-how-israels-allies-can-go-beyond-words-and-take-meaningful-action-261783

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Petra Alderman, Manager of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science

There has been a dramatic escalation in a long-running border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. On July 23, five Thai soldiers from a border patrol unit in Ubon Ratchathani province were seriously injured after stepping on a land mine – a second such incident in a week.

This prompted the Thai government to expel Cambodia’s ambassador from the country and recall its own ambassador from Cambodia. The following morning, Cambodia retaliated by expelling the Thai ambassador and recalling its embassy staff from Bangkok. Both sides have exchanged increasingly lethal fire.

Cambodia has fired rockets and artillery across the Thai border into several provinces, killing at least 11 civilians and one soldier. Thailand launched air strikes at Cambodia in return, reportedly targeting military bases in the disputed area around the Preah Vihear Hindu temple. Verified information is currently scarce as both sides are blaming each other for starting the fight.

The current flare-up started in late May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a exchange of fire between the two armies. But the roots of the conflict date back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Before European powers expanded their colonial interests to south-east Asia, the concept of a bordered nation-state was alien to local rulers. Life in pre-colonial south-east Asia was organised into loosely structured polities that had no clear boundaries.

There were several larger cities, which served as important centres of power and trade, and many smaller towns and villages that maintained relations with these cities. The further these towns and villages were from the cities, the less control and influence the cities had over them.

The British and French introduced the concept of nations with borders to mainland south-east Asia, drawing the first official maps of Thailand (then known as Siam) and Cambodia. In the case of Thailand, the only south-east Asian nation never to be formally colonised, the mapping was also done at the request of the Siamese kings.

Thailand’s current borders were shaped by several different maps and treaties that followed the 1893 Paknam incident, during which two French gunboats sailed up the Chao Praya River and blockaded Bangkok.

To preserve its sovereignty as an emerging nation, Siam ceded considerable territorial claims to France after this incident. This included several provinces in present-day Cambodia, which are home to ancient temples.

A 1907 map drawn by the French defined these territories, although with a considerable degree of vagueness. The map became a sore point in Cambodia-Thai relations following Cambodia’s independence in 1953, especially in regard to disputes over the Preah Vihear temple.

Preah Vihear temple

Following France’s withdrawal from south-east Asia in 1954, Thailand occupied Preah Vihear. Cambodia raised the issue of Thai occupation with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia based on the French map. Thailand reluctantly accepted the ruling, but continued to dispute the area surrounding the temple.

The conflict flared up again in 2008 when the UN world heritage body Unesco awarded the temple world heritage status. Cambodia’s application initially received support from the then new Thai government of prime minister Samak Sundaravej, a close ally of the recently ousted Thaksin Shinawatra.

Anti-Thaksin groups used the government’s support to drive an ultra-nationalist campaign against the Samak government. This eventually contributed to large-scale domestic political protests that saw Samak’s government and that of his successor, Somchai Wongsawat, both ousted from power in 2008 in a series of judicial coups.

The period from 2008 to 2011 was marked by high tensions between the two countries, with sporadic armed clashes between their respective armies in the areas surrounding the temple.

The newly appointed Thai government of Abhisit Vejjajiva was sympathetic towards the ultra-nationalist anti-Thaksin groups. So there was no de-escalation of the conflict from the Thai side. Hun Sen, who was then Cambodia’s prime minister, also benefited from the conflict as it helped buttress his nationalist credentials.

But a particularly violent round of armed clashes followed in February 2011, resulting in at least eight civilian fatalities, 20 injured soldiers and many displaced civilians on both sides. Hun Sen then raised the issue of Cambodian sovereignty over the temple and its surrounding area with the ICJ.

The ICJ issued a provisional ruling favouring Cambodia and ordered both sides to withdraw military personnel from the area. Despite the initial refusal of Thai troops to leave, the two countries agreed to withdraw their forces in December 2011.

The final ICJ ruling came in late 2013, again affirming Cambodia’s sovereignty of the area. It coincided with another period of domestic political instability in Thailand. The government of Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s younger sister, was facing mass public protests from anti-Thaksin groups.

While the ruling did not play a decisive role in the eventual downfall of her government, it added fuel to the already explosive political environment. The border conflict went largely dormant after the 2013 ICJ ruling, until the new round of clashes broke out in May 2025.

Given the history of tensions and armed disputes over territory between Cambodia and Thailand, the recent escalation is not without precedent. What is new, though, is that this round is as much between two countries as it is between two ruling families.

Over the past 20 years, a close personal relationship formed between Hun Sen and Thaksin. But this relationship unravelled when Hun Sen, who remains a hugely influential figure in Cambodian politics, released a private audio recording of his call with Thaksin’s daughter, Paetongtarn. The leak put her premiership on the line.

Paetongtarn has since been suspended from office pending a court ruling, with Cambodia-Thai relations reaching new lows. Given the intermixing of personal animosities, a quick diplomatic resolution to the escalating conflict seems unlikely.

Read more:
A border conflict may cost the Thai prime minister her job

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Petra Alderman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Thailand and Cambodia’s escalating conflict has roots in century-old border dispute – https://theconversation.com/thailand-and-cambodias-escalating-conflict-has-roots-in-century-old-border-dispute-261873

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Vondermassen, Scientific Coordinator and Deputy Executive Manager of the IZEW, University of Tübingen

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently signed a decree to withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. This move follows the example of Finland, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, who all quit the treaty in recent months.

The logic behind these states withdrawing from the treaty is mostly because of the threat posed by Russia. At first glance landmines seem like a cost-effective way to deter or slow an invader. Proponents see them as a necessary evil to protect national sovereignty against the threat from a much larger conventional force deployed by an aggressive neighbour.

But this short-term thinking can be dangerous, because it doesn’t consider the long-term cost of putting explosive devices into the ground. According to the Landmine Monitor for 2024, more than 110,000 people were killed by landmines and explosive remnants of war in the past 25 years, and over 5,700 died just last year. Eight out of ten of those killed were civilians, many of whom were children.

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

Although it is cheap to lay landmines, demining is expensive and creates a financial burden for future generations. The UN estimates that it can cost between five and 100 times more to clear a mine than to lay one, depending on the circumstances.

In Angola, for example, demining efforts continue nearly 50 years after the civil war broke out and 23 years after it ended. Encouragingly, Angola has reduced the threat with help of Halo Trust, a UK-based nongovernmental organisation. In 30 years they destroyed over 123,000 landmines. But to get Angola landmine free will require about US$240 million (£177 million) in additional funding.

While Angola aims to be landmine-free within a few years, the current scale of contamination in Ukraine will pose a deadly hazard to civilians for generations, as Sarah Njeri – a landmines expert at SOAS, University of London, wrote in 2023.

Looking through the prism of peace

What Europe needs today is better analysis and more public awareness of the current crisis and its long-term effects. This is a tricky task, especially for the media, because the violence is “asynchronous”. This means that mines can be laid years before anyone is harmed by them. It’s important to have open and honest conversations in public so that both politicians and the public have something clear and trustworthy to rely on when making these fateful decisions.

This means accepting that the concerns of the Baltic nations, Poland and Finland are valid. Their actions are a response the threat posed by Russia and the uncertainty surrounding America’s future role on the world stage. But there’s also an opportunity. Nobody in these countries takes the decision to use landmines lightly. This means, that if their European allies can provide credible security guarantees, these countries might change their plans.

Nevertheless, the Peace Report 2025, compiled by four leading German peace research institutes, highlights that this way of thinking remains rooted in a military mindset. The planned increase in military budgets among Nato countries should be complemented by greater investment in diplomacy, peace research and peace building.

The Peace Report lists nine recommendations for a more peaceful world, which are not pacifist. They recognise the need to close the gaps in European defence capabilities – but this is not enough. To create a peaceful Europe the legitimate security interests of all sides need to be considered. This includes Russia. At the same time, the report emphasises the need to strengthen, not weaken, the rules-based order. Abandoning the Ottawa treaty will further weaken that order.

Withdrawing from the landmine treaty is not just a military calculation, and it affects more than just eastern European countries. It’s an issue that presents a real challenge to Europe as a whole. Laying mines would litter future farmland and forests with an indiscriminate threat that recognises no ceasefire and cannot distinguish friend from enemy, combatant from civilian or adult from child.

If we don’t learn from the past, future reports will still be counting thousands of child casualties, but from the landmines laid in the 2020s.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Marcel Vondermassen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ukraine joins other Russian neighbours in quitting landmines treaty: another deadly legacy in the making – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-joins-other-russian-neighbours-in-quitting-landmines-treaty-another-deadly-legacy-in-the-making-261684