By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Finland’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention, mirroring actions by Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, cites increased military threats from Russia and Belarus as justification. This decision, while not explicitly linking the withdrawal to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, follows a national security assessment and leaves Norway as the sole Russian-bordering European signatory. Although regretting the decision, other nations expressed concerns regarding the responsible use of mines. Finland maintains a commitment to responsible use despite leaving the treaty.
Read the original article here
Finland’s impending withdrawal from the anti-personnel mine treaty is a stark reflection of the escalating geopolitical tensions with Russia. The decision, while regrettable given the treaty’s aim to minimize civilian casualties, stems from a perceived necessity to bolster Finland’s defense capabilities in the face of a perceived existential threat. The rationale centers on the belief that existing treaties are rendered ineffective when dealing with an adversary unwilling to abide by international norms.
The vast expanse of Finland’s border with Russia—far exceeding that of the US-Mexico border—makes traditional border security measures incredibly challenging. Constructing a physical barrier, for example, is simply impractical. In this context, landmines appear to be a more readily deployable defensive measure, even if morally questionable. The argument is that in a potential conflict, the deterrent effect of landmines might be sufficient to halt an aggressor, at least temporarily.
This decision is not made lightly. The devastating long-term consequences of landmines are well understood, including the persistent threat they pose to civilians long after a conflict concludes. However, the Finnish government appears to be weighing the potential benefits of deterrence against the potential costs of humanitarian fallout. This calculus reflects a belief that in a conflict with Russia, the immediate threat to national sovereignty outweighs the long-term concerns related to landmine casualties.
The argument for this action extends beyond purely defensive considerations. It reflects a broader erosion of trust in international agreements and a fear that relying on treaties alone will leave Finland vulnerable. The precedent set by other nations, like Poland, further justifies the decision from a purely strategic perspective. The belief is that a country cannot rely on treaties alone when facing a potentially aggressive neighbor willing to violate them.
Furthermore, the Finnish government appears to be calculating that the potential cost of inaction—a successful Russian invasion—far outweighs the potential cost of using landmines. The comparison with Ukraine is telling—a country that might have benefited from similar defensive measures had they been available before the invasion. Proponents argue it is crucial to negate any potential military advantage that Russia might gain through its willingness to disregard international treaties.
The broader concern is that this might signal a trend toward a breakdown of global arms control agreements. There are fears that this decision, coupled with other geopolitical developments such as China’s growing nuclear arsenal, might presage the unraveling of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. The situation in Ukraine has undeniably hastened these concerns.
While many would condemn the use of landmines on moral grounds, the argument from the Finnish perspective is one of self-preservation. It acknowledges the horrific consequences of landmines but weighs them against the catastrophic consequences of a Russian invasion, concluding that the former is a lesser evil given the circumstances.
Critics might point to the hypocrisy inherent in a nation leaving a treaty designed to limit the use of a particularly devastating weapon. However, the underlying rationale centers on the perceived unreliability of international agreements when faced with a belligerent actor unwilling to adhere to them. The prevailing argument is that the treaty’s benefits are negated when the other party is not a signatory or is simply unwilling to respect its terms.
Ultimately, Finland’s decision to potentially leave the anti-personnel mine treaty highlights the complex ethical and strategic challenges posed by great power competition. The choice reflects a difficult calculation between the perceived need for self-defense and the potential humanitarian costs, framed within a context of deep distrust in international norms and the actions of a powerful and potentially aggressive neighbor. While regrettable, the decision seems to stem from a belief that in a life-or-death situation, the survival of the nation must take precedence.