Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

In 2012, Finland joined the Ottawa Treaty, effectively prohibiting itself from using anti-personnel mines in the event of a Russian attack. The treaty was championed at the time by socialist president Tarja Halonen, who justified the decision by citing accidents caused by landmines, particularly in developing countries.

However, the irresponsible use of mines has never applied to the Finnish military, which has always ensured that civilians are kept away from minefields.

Perhaps for this reason, the Finnish far-left jurist Martin Scheinin came up with the claim that mines could pose a danger to migrants brought into Finland as hybrid warfare tools by Russia. This comment has mostly sparked amusement, as by the same logic, Russian tanks transporting asylum seekers should also be allowed to cross the border without resistance.

The discussion about the security risks caused by the Ottawa Treaty began in Finland about a month ago, when the Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces, Janne Jaakkola, stated that Finland's security environment has changed since 2012. Many ordinary citizens had already been contemplating the same issue since the start of the war in Ukraine.

Thus, on Finland’s Independence Day, December 6, a campaign was launched to gather supporters for a citizens' initiative calling for Finland to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. The initiative quickly gathered the required 50,000 signatures and was submitted to the Parliament's office today.

It remains to be seen whether Parliament will approve the initiative or ignore the will of the Defence Forces Commander and the people, thereby discarding one of the most effective means of defending the country’s 1,300-kilometer border with Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's useful idiots in Finland
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
Finland after the Russian war in Ukraine

Estonia is Arming its Military, but Does the Nation Have the Will to Defend Itself?

The Estonian Defense Forces have begun to significantly develop their naval combat capabilities. One example of this is that the northernmost Baltic country has acquired Blue Spear anti-ship missiles this year, which can also be used against land-based targets. The range of these missiles extends from Estonian territory to areas off the coast of St. Petersburg and as far as the northern parts of Kaliningrad. Additionally, the missile's guidance system cannot be electronically disrupted.

Estonia is also accelerating its weapons, ammunition, and drone production. To facilitate this, it plans to build a defense industry park, which is expected to attract €150 million in investments within just a couple of years.

Estonia already has Korean K9 Thunder howitzers, and more are on the way. Furthermore, it has ordered Caesar howitzers from France and HIMARS rocket systems, which have proven extremely effective in Ukraine.

However, Estonia's navy is very small, and the country also lacks a proper air force. For this reason, the effectiveness of its defense forces depends heavily on the support of other NATO countries in the event of a crisis. In this regard, Finland is likely to play a key role.

Nevertheless, Finnish military historian Martti Turtola has expressed doubts about the Estonians' willingness to defend their country. This was also lacking in 1939 when the country, under pressure from the Soviet Union, signed an agreement that gave the Red Army free access to Estonia.

As a result of this decision, the Soviet Union occupied all of Estonia without resistance in 1940, and after World War II, it remained a part of the "workers' paradise" ruled by Stalin and his successors for five decades. In this sense, one can only hope that Turtola is wrong and that Estonians have learned something from their history. One would hope they would defend their country as resolutely as the Finns did in the Winter War of 1939–1940, thereby preserving their independence and Western way of life.

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
NATO's Northern Europe Headquarters to be Established in Mikkeli, Finland's Former Military Command City
Will Russia Test NATO's Article Five?
Estonias voted for economic liberalism

Western Countries Must Stay United Against the Russian Threat

According to Finland's former ambassador to Washington, Mikko Hautala, Russia poses both an acute and a long-term threat to Finland. He also does not believe in a democratic future for Russia.

Instead, Putinism will continue in Russia even after the current leader, Vladimir Putin, leaves his position, which will likely happen within the next ten years. As a result, Finland’s eastern border will remain closed for years—if not decades—according to the ambassador.

For this reason, Finland should be prepared for a full-scale and prolonged war. At the same time, to deter Russia’s potential aggression, Finland must strengthen its military deterrence and create sufficient force to stop a possible Russian attack.

This would mean enhancing the current—already strong—army’s responsiveness and combat capability. For example, by creating a "semi-professional" reserve of approximately 50,000 soldiers who train annually and are well-armed, expanding the military fortifications along the eastern border, and significantly increasing defense spending. Additionally, Finland’s economy must remain stable, and the country's domestic defense industry should be developed into as significant an exporter as possible to ensure it can produce sufficient arms for the military in a crisis.

Ambassador Hautala also estimates that Russia’s military industry and economy will be able to continue producing enough military material to compensate for the losses in Ukraine. Nor does he believe that the Russian people will rise against the war, despite the heavy casualties.

This also applies to those who do not necessarily support the war, as even they do not accept defeat or the reparations for the war’s destruction. According to Hautala, "for the majority of Russians, taking responsibility for the war is almost impossible... In reality, public opinion supports the war of aggression."

The ambassador also reminds us that completely defeating a nuclear power is not possible. On the other hand, using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be highly risky, even if Zelensky's army—with Western support—were to gain the upper hand in the war against Russia.

The views expressed above are serious and should be considered by decision-makers in Finland and other countries. Especially, it should be clear in all situations that neither Vladimir Putin nor the Russians, in general, should be given the impression that Russia could win a war against the Western world. Therefore, Western countries must remain united against the threat it poses—especially now, in Ukraine.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Bad News for Vladimir Putin and His Imperialistic Dreams
General Pekka Toveri, the Chair of the European Parliament's Delegation for Ukraine
Finland Must Avoid Ukraine’s Fate

Palestinian Youth Require More Understanding, Less Aggression

According to recent information, support for the terrorist organization Hamas has grown among young Palestinians. This is because they favor armed resistance against Israel, as they do not remember the previous intifada or the heavy toll that previous wars have exacted on the Palestinian people.

This is, of course, a development that will not bring peace to the Holy Land in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, it ensures that Israel will not grant Palestinians even the freedoms they have previously enjoyed—the most significant being the potential transfer of the Gaza Strip to direct Israeli military control.

Thus, two conclusions can be drawn from this development. First, as has already been stated, the lack of understanding among Palestinians will only harm them and their people. This is best demonstrated by Gaza's miserable fate over the past year.

Secondly, we must recognize that the increasing orientation towards violence among Palestinian youth pushes the dream of Palestinian independence even further away. It is clear that Israel has no intention of continuing to be a target for Palestinian rocket attacks now, or especially in the future, if support for armed resistance continues to grow among Palestinians.

Finally, I note that if the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would need to understand that Israel, due to its hostile surroundings, can never afford to lose a war. Therefore, it will continue to defend itself with excessive rather than minimal force, both against Palestinian uprisings and the aggressions of neighboring states.

Thus, the only realistic path to peace for the Palestinians would be to build trust with Israel. And to wait patiently, as this would eventually lead to an improvement in the status of Palestinians, either as part of Israel or as an independent state that does not threaten Israel’s security.

In this sense, there is still hope, as there are still moderate people among the Palestinians — including among the youth. Perhaps they will eventually form a majority that adopts a peaceful approach toward the existence of the Jewish state, following the example set by Egypt and Jordan.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Hassan Nasrallah Has Been Killed, but Lebanon Is Unlikely to Become the Switzerland of the Middle East Again
A Fair Peace Proposal for Gaza
Two out of three Palestinians support October 7 attack