Lithuania withdraws from Convention on Cluster Munition due to concerns over Russia

Lithuania’s move is understandable in the context of rising geopolitical tension, but it should also serve as a moment of reflection. Are we, once again, allowing fear to dictate policy in a way that narrows the path to de-escalation?

History offers a clear warning and the lesson from 1914 remains painfully relevant. Panic leads to unintended consequences. Real security comes not just from military capability but from calm, measured decision-making. The challenge today is to prepare without becoming the architects of our own crises.

Strategy and discipline shape decision-making, especially in matters of national security. The difference between a calculated response and a fear-driven reaction can determine whether a situation escalates into conflict or is defused before reaching a point of no return. Lithuania’s recent withdrawal from the Convention on Cluster Munitions is more than a legal or political move; it signals a shift in mindset, one that reflects deep anxiety. This decision is part of a broader pattern, where states react to uncertainty with actions that may accelerate the very threats they seek to deter.

History offers a clear warning. The outbreak of World War I was not the result of a single event but a series of decisions made under pressure, each fueled by the fear of inaction.

When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in June 1914, war was not inevitable. What followed, however, was a cascade of rushed responses: Austria-Hungary, fearing a loss of credibility, issued an ultimatum to Serbia designed for rejection. Serbia, knowing it had Russian support, mobilized. Austria responded by declaring war. What should have remained a regional crisis became a global catastrophe, largely because nations acted out of panic, not patience.

Germany’s fear of encirclement further accelerated the descent into war. The Schlieffen Plan dictated that a two-front war would be unwinnable unless Germany struck first. So, when Russia mobilized, Germany preemptively declared war on both Russia and France, invading Belgium in the process and drawing Britain into the conflict. What unfolded was not a calculated strategy for long-term stability but a series of worst-case assumptions—each nation believing that waiting would leave them at a disadvantage, each decision closing off options for de-escalation.

The same logic is at play today. Governments, confronted with rising tensions, increasingly make decisions rooted in fear rather than deliberate strategy. Lithuania’s withdrawal from the Cluster Munitions Convention is a modern reflection of this historical pattern. As a NATO frontline state bordering Russia and Belarus, Lithuania undoubtedly faces real security concerns. However, by opting out of an international treaty designed to curb the use of indiscriminate weapons, it signals a mindset driven by worst-case assumptions. Just as Austria-Hungary feared it could not afford to look weak in 1914, and Germany rushed to war believing that delay meant inevitable defeat, Lithuania’s decision reflects a broader shift toward escalation in response to perceived vulnerability.

There is a fine line between preparedness and escalation. Military readiness means being equipped to respond while maintaining stability—not taking steps that inadvertently increase the likelihood of conflict. The very same fear that drove nations into World War I now risks influencing modern security policies, where preemptive actions based on uncertainty can create the very instability they seek to prevent.

The expectation of conflict makes conflict more likely!