Ukraine’s Justified Exit From the Ottawa Convention

Ukraine is doing the same as Finland—that is, withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. This is, of course, understandable given that by refraining from using mines, its army gives an unnecessary advantage to Russia’s invading forces, who sow mines wherever they go.

In fact, I find it astonishing that the Ukrainians have abided by the treaty for this long, even though it has likely cost the lives of many Ukrainian soldiers. That alone shows Ukraine’s genuine intent to comply with the treaty for as long as possible.

However, enough is enough, and upholding a treaty cannot be more important than a nation’s independence. For this reason, I fully support President Zelensky, who today signed the necessary decree for the withdrawal. 

I also hope the country will soon have access to the mines it needs to ease its defensive struggle. Perhaps Finland and Ukraine could even cooperate on this issue!?

This case also demonstrates that treaties restricting military capabilities are a double-edged sword. While they may, in principle, reduce human suffering—as is the goal of the landmine ban—there can be even greater values at stake, such as the very survival of an entire nation.

That’s why I believe states should take a very cautious approach toward agreements that reduce their military effectiveness, especially when they share borders with nations harboring imperialist ambitions. In other words, nations like Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

Parliament decided today by a clear majority that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, allowing its Defence Forces to once again utilize anti-personnel mines in their operations. The vote result was 157 in favor and 18 against.

Thus ended the risky decision taken in 2011 by Finland’s Social Democratic President Tarja Halonen and the National Coalition Party’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen. At that time, the only parties voting against the treaty in Parliament were the Finns Party and a small number of Centre Party representatives.

Today, those who voted against the withdrawal agreement — effectively voting in favor of Putin — included ten members of the Left Alliance parliamentary group (1), seven members of the Greens (2), and one representative of the Swedish People's Party (3). These individuals are widely regarded in Finland as errand boys and girls for Putin.

All other members present supported the reintroduction of anti-personnel mines as a means of defense, to ensure that Russia remains on the eastern side of the approximately 1,300-kilometer border between the two countries. Many recognized the urgency of this need already in 2014, when Putin’s "little green men" occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. For those slower to grasp the situation, the reality became clear in 2022, when the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

* * *

In this context, I cannot help but express my astonishment at UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who took it upon himself to interfere in Finnish decision-making by strongly advocating for Finland to remain in the treaty. The reasons for this are anyone’s guess, as it would seem quite strange if the head of the United Nations were somehow under the influence of the Russian dictator.

Of course, it’s also possible that Guterres was simply unaware of how Finland uses anti-personnel mines and feared they would pose a danger to civilians. However, this fear is unfounded, because — unlike in developing countries — Finnish mines are not scattered randomly in the terrain.

Instead, the Finnish army lays minefields only when there is a clearly identified threat, and even then, their locations are recorded both on paper and in electronic systems. This ensures that minefields can be dismantled immediately when no longer needed — and therefore do not pose a threat to civilian lives or health.

1. Timo Furuholm, Veronika Honkasalo. Mai Kivelä, Anna Kontula, Minja Koskela, Pia Lohikoski, Laura Meriluoto, Aino-Kaisa Pekonen, Hanna Sarkkinen and Johannes Yrttiaho)
2. Fatim Diarra, Tiina Elo, Bella Forsgrén, Inka Hopsu, Saara Hyrkkö, Jenni Pitko and Oras Tynkkynen
   
3. Eva Biaudét

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might

UN Secretary-General António Guterres made an appeal to countries planning to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and reintroduce anti-personnel landmines. Among these countries, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland are neighbors of Russia.

Their departure from the treaty is justified precisely by this geographical fact — and by the fact that Russia is an aggressive and imperialist great power that has invaded the territory of several of its neighbors. There is no doubt that its current regime might also decide to test the security guarantees NATO has given to these countries — once it is done with Ukraine.

That is why it is fair to ask Mr. Guterres how he intends to prevent Russia’s intentions, should it decide to attack, for example, my own homeland. And whether, in such a situation, he would take responsibility for the Finnish lives that would have been saved by effective mining.

I do not expect an answer from the UN Secretary-General, but I remind him that Finland once sought help — in vain — from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, before the Winter War that began in 1939. No help came then, and I do not believe Guterres would be able to provide any in the 2020s either, should Russia’s Putin choose to repeat Stalin’s move and order his army to seize Helsinki and strip Finland of its independence.

For this reason, I believe the UN Secretary-General would do well to keep quiet about the affairs of Eastern Europe, and instead focus on achieving a just peace in Ukraine, resolving the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and ensuring that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons program after its war with Israel comes to an end.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Highlights of the BRICS Meeting in Kazan, Russia
United Nations, corruption and terrorism

What the U.S.–Ukraine Mineral Agreement Means

Today, we’ll be hearing politically charged speeches from the leaders of various Finnish parties on current issues—which, of course, is above all entertaining.

But the most significant May Day event was likely already reported early this morning.

I am, of course, referring to the fact that the United States and Ukraine have indeed signed a mineral agreement. According to the deal, the U.S. and Ukraine will establish a joint investment fund intended, among other things, to support Ukraine’s reconstruction and to facilitate investments related to Ukraine’s natural resources.

The agreement explicitly states that Russia initiated the war, enables U.S. military aid to the victim of the aggression, and recognizes Ukraine’s right to control the minerals within its territory. At the same time, it offers Americans the opportunity to invest in Ukrainian mineral assets through the newly created fund.

According to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, “The United States is committed to helping end this cruel and senseless war. This agreement sends a clear message to Russia that the Trump administration is dedicated to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine.”

Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, for his part, described the agreement as “good, fair, and favorable.” And there’s no reason to doubt that he meant what he said.

It remains to be seen how this new agreement will influence American realpolitik regarding the war in Ukraine. In other words, will it lead to increased or decreased military and diplomatic engagement by the U.S. on Ukraine’s behalf?

On one hand, it could be argued that since Americans now have a deal concerning Ukraine’s natural resources, their interest in ensuring those resources remain under their partner’s control may grow. That could even lead to actions aimed at liberating at least the most mineral-rich areas currently occupied by Russia.

On the other hand, it’s equally possible that the U.S. and President Donald Trump will begin pressuring Ukraine to make peace at any cost, in order to begin exploiting the deal quickly. In the worst case, this might take the form of increased pressure on President Zelensky’s government to accept peace terms reflecting the current front lines—playing into Putin’s hands.

At this stage, the only thing that’s clear is that the war in Ukraine has entered a new phase, one that will most likely differ in nature from what we’ve seen so far. One can only hope that, at least from a European perspective, it doesn’t take a turn for the worse—that is, in favor of the Russians.

In that regard, it sounds particularly encouraging that Bessent also stated that “no entity that financed or equipped Russia’s war machine will benefit from Ukraine’s reconstruction project.”

It’s as if Trump’s Ukraine policy made a complete U-turn overnight—but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch. Instead, for now, let’s focus on May Day traditions."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
May Day Reflections from a President—and a Student
Trump Speaks from Putin’s Pocket – A Perilous Shift in the Ukraine War
Should Finland Heed the Warnings of a Left-Wing Idealist?

Bless Ukrainian Soldiers With the Spirit That Once Defined the Celebrated Finnish Veterans

During the Second World War, Finland fought three separate wars. The first of these was the legendary Winter War, in which a nation of just 3.7 million people fought virtually alone against the Soviet Union, which was indirectly supported by Germany. Despite overwhelming odds, Finland managed to preserve its independence, though it had to cede one-tenth of its territory.

This loss fostered a spirit of revenge, leading Finland to attempt to reclaim its lost lands — and to conquer Eastern Karelia, home to related Finno-Ugric peoples — when Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941. In this Continuation War, too, the Soviet Union was the first to initiate hostilities. Unlike Germany, however, Finland managed to halt the Soviet Red Army’s major offensives toward the end of the Continuation War and preserved its independence, with borders roughly similar to those agreed after the Winter War.

The two wars mentioned above are relatively well known even outside Finland. However, few have even heard of the Lapland War. It broke out on September 15, 1944, because the Soviet Union made the rapid expulsion of German troops from Finland one of the conditions of the Continuation War’s armistice.

At that time, northern Finland was a major base for a very large number of German troops — over 200,000 men — who had fought alongside Finland during the Continuation War and now had to be expelled swiftly according to the peace terms. If the Finns failed to do so, Stalin threatened that the Soviet Union would "send assistance" — effectively meaning a renewed attack on Finland, which was simultaneously required to demobilize most of its own army.

Due to this situation, and the relatively small size of the Finnish forces in Lapland — at most about 75,000 soldiers — the Finns were forced to attack the Germans first by surprise, without a formal declaration of war, and later with increasing but often tactically unwise aggressiveness. As a result, Finnish casualties were very high, and the surprised German troops retaliated for what they saw as betrayal by burning almost every building in northern Finland to the ground. Fortunately, most of the civilian population had been evacuated across the border into Sweden.

Moreover, the Germans scattered anti-personnel mines from their depots throughout the region, causing deaths and injuries well into the 1960s, during my own childhood. It is no wonder, then, that until the collapse of the Soviet Union — and the inflow of money brought by East German tourists that followed — the people of northern Finland harbored a deep hatred toward the Germans.

Through great sacrifice, Finland managed to satisfy Stalin and avoid a new Soviet invasion. This was achieved even though the Finnish army ultimately failed to capture the narrow northwesternmost corner of Finland, where German forces held strong positions in extraordinarily defensible — virtually unconquerable — terrain. They abandoned these only when the broader situation of the ongoing world war forced them to.

Today marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the Lapland War. It is also the Finnish Veterans’ Day, when we honor the memory of those men who defended our country in their youth. 

At the same time, I extend my heartfelt wishes to all the soldiers fighting for Ukraine, hoping they may be blessed with the same skill, valor, courage, resilience, and unwavering determination that the Finnish veterans so nobly displayed during the Second World War.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
A Different Kind of Christmas
Finns - Among the World’s Best
Ukraine’s Situation Mirrors Finland in 1944

Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia

The defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recommended in a joint statement to withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel mines. The reason cited is the increasing security threat posed by Russia.

Finland is also expected to join this group soon, as discussions have been ongoing about reintroducing anti-personnel mines. According to Jukka Kopra (National Coalition Party), chairman of the Defense Committee, Finland could withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty within the next few months.

This would enable the eastern border states of Russia, from Lapland to the Belarusian border, to defend themselves better against potential Russian aggression. And considering Belarus as a puppet state of Russia, this extends further down to Ukraine’s border.

Finland and Poland, in particular, have strong and well-equipped armies, which are undoubtedly capable of independent defense long enough for other NATO countries to come to their aid. If necessary, they can also help counter an attack against the Baltic states.

Since this text may be read in Putin’s dictatorship, it is important to state that none of the aforementioned NATO countries—let alone NATO as a whole—are planning any military operation on Russian soil. Any claims by Putin’s administration suggesting otherwise, now or in the future, are nothing but attempts to mislead ordinary Russians, much like Stalin’s administration did in 1939–40 when it ordered its army to occupy Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and eastern Poland, as well as launch an unsuccessful invasion to occupy Finland, which resulted in approximately 350,000 casualties for the Red Army in just three months.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine
Are We on the Brink of World War III?
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

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