By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Finland’s Defence Forces are set to reintroduce anti-personnel mines as early as January, following the country’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention. This move is part of a broader defence reform plan, which includes developing rapid mine deployment capabilities and exploring the acquisition of advanced mine technologies. Alongside this, Finland is significantly modernizing its army by integrating unmanned systems, upgrading soldier equipment, and extending the service life and capabilities of existing artillery. This response is partly influenced by lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, with an emphasis on acquiring new infantry fighting vehicles to replace older models.
Read the original article here
Finland to reintroduce landmines in January is a significant move, and it’s understandable why it’s sparking a lot of discussion. The decision, seemingly driven by the evolving geopolitical landscape and Finland’s recent entry into NATO, is a complex one with a blend of strategic necessity and ethical considerations. Considering the current tensions and Finland’s proximity to a potentially aggressive neighbor, the rationale behind this step is becoming clearer, even though it’s undeniably a serious matter.
Landmines in January, or rather the renewed use of them, is largely a response to the reality of modern warfare and the specific challenges Finland faces. The context of the situation is critical: Finland shares a long border with Russia, a country that has not signed the Ottawa Treaty, which bans the use of anti-personnel landmines. This means that, unfortunately, Russia is free to use these weapons. Given these circumstances, and in the face of a potential threat, Finland is seemingly choosing to level the playing field in its defense strategy. This is likely a strategic measure, designed to deter aggression and, if necessary, to shape the battlefield in a way that favors Finnish defense. The argument is that if Russia isn’t playing by the rules, Finland can’t afford to be at a disadvantage.
Furthermore, it’s not simply about mirroring Russia’s tactics; it’s about ensuring national security and preserving the integrity of Finnish territory. The deployment of landmines is seen, in this scenario, as an essential part of a defensive strategy. It is also important to emphasize that the modern type of mines planned for use are considerably different from those of the past. Modern technology allows for mines that automatically deactivate after a set period. This feature helps reduce the long-term risks to civilians, which was a major concern surrounding older models. This significantly changes the implications of this decision, making it less about legacy concerns and more about a calculated, modern defensive strategy.
The conversation around landmines always brings up some thorny ethical debates, especially when considering weapons of war. Acknowledging these concerns is important. However, it is also important to examine the context of the situation. The argument is that the use of landmines is not seen as a choice to initiate aggression, but a choice made out of necessity, given the unique circumstances of the region. In this framework, the focus is on deterring and ultimately defending against potential aggression.
The military and strategic considerations also seem to be dominating the discussion. It is understood that landmines, even modern ones, can effectively channel invading forces into pre-determined areas, creating vulnerabilities that Finnish forces can then exploit. This approach is meant to reduce the overall number of casualties, a key element in any military operation. The strategic goal is to be ready to defend the nation, and to do so as efficiently as possible, given the circumstances.
It is also easy to understand why it will also bring up memories of the past. Finland’s history with Russia is complex and fraught with conflict. In the context of this historical relationship and the current global situation, this decision to use landmines makes more sense, as a necessary, albeit unfortunate, part of national defense. Some find that the move is not a sign of aggression, but a proactive response.
Finally, the move isn’t a reflection of a decline in confidence in international alliances. In fact, joining NATO suggests greater confidence in Finland’s security. Rather, the action is one taken by a country with a long and experienced defense history. Finland has always prioritized its national defense and this measure further emphasizes that. The decision reflects a commitment to being prepared for any eventuality. The situation isn’t ideal, and everyone would likely prefer a world without landmines. But in this specific context, where strategic considerations and national security are paramount, the reintroduction of landmines appears to be a calculated decision, designed to safeguard Finland and its people.