Renaissance of the Finnish Defense Industry

Now that Finland has withdrawn from the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, it is time to take practical action. This means starting Finnish production of anti-personnel mines for both domestic use and for Ukraine.

The reason for this is, of course, the military threat posed by Russia—something that can no longer be ignored since Putin’s “special operation” initiated the attempt to conquer Ukraine. This is true even though the Russians have been unable to bring the operation to completion; instead, it has become more like a Moloch’s maw, fed with the lives of Russian soldiers.

The Finnish arms industry is currently doing quite well in general. A sign of this was, for example, the clear growth in both turnover and operating profit for the defense equipment manufacturer Patria in the January–June period.

Turnover increased by around 12 percent and operating profit by as much as 35 percent. In addition, the company’s order backlog showed a modest increase. In the future, most of the growth is expected to come from the armored vehicle sector, but the company has also recently invested—based on lessons from the war in Ukraine—particularly in drone technology.

It remains to be seen whether the Finnish defense industry is experiencing a renaissance now that the country is a member of the Western defense alliance NATO and has the best preparedness in Europe to take advantage of a networked economy—something that will be a key factor in high-innovation sectors like defense in the coming years.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?
The Poor Can't Afford to Buy Second-best
Finland Boosts Military Self-Sufficiency and Support for Ukraine

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

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

History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic

This is the fourteenth part of a blog post series where I go through the significant events in Finnish history. In the thirteenth post, I described how Finland managed to develop again through peaceful democratic means after the rise of the extreme right-wing following the civil war initiated by the old Social Democratic Party.

As my esteemed reader well remembers, this development was interrupted by World War II. For Finland, the most significant chain of events occurred already before the Winter War.

I'm referring to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, in which Finland was defined as part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. As a result, the Kremlin offered our country a trade-off, in which we would give up areas on the Karelian Isthmus and Hanko, seen as important for the security of Leningrad, but would receive land in East Karelia in return.

Finland refused the trade mainly because the government believed that the Soviet Union was just bluffing. Not even the fact that Hitler's closest confidant - Marshal Hermann Göring - advised Finland to accept the offer, hinting that our country would get its losses back with interest during the coming major war. In the Baltic countries, Göring's similar speeches were believed and they agreed to Moscow's demands, which later, in a changed situation, led to the occupation of these countries.

As a result of Finland's stubbornness, Russia began to threaten our country through its media and moved its troops to the border. Since these methods did not make the Cajander government yield, Stalin also staged the shelling in Mainila and denounced the non-aggression treaty between the countries.

Even these measures did not change the Finnish government's position because it could not believe in an attack, at least not without an ultimatum or a threat to start a war. Moscow, on the other hand, could not give such a declaration because it would have been contrary to the propaganda image it created of the Soviet Union as a peace-loving state.

Therefore, the Soviet army eventually crossed the border, citing the shots fired at Mainila. This surprised the Finnish government, which believed in the impossibility of war, and it fell. After that, a new government tried to agree on a territorial exchange with Stalin. However, it was already too late, as Stalin was only discussing with the puppet government led by Otto Wille Kuusinen that he had established.

During the Winter War, the Finns remembered Göring's offer, which led to Finland's submission to the harsh peace terms of the Winter War, despite the still unbeaten army and military assistance offered - although not given - by England and France. However, the latter made Stalin begin negotiations with Finland.

At this point, the Finnish leadership had assessed that Germany would win the upcoming great war, at least against Russia, and that Finland would get its losses back with interest. This view was based mainly on the fact that Russia had also suffered a defeat during the First World War against Germany, which later lost the war.

Thus, our country was drawn into the Continuation War, in which the objectives were set clearly beyond the borders of 1939. Finland became dependent on Germany for both energy and food self-sufficiency. As a side note, it should be mentioned that the extradition of some Jews to the Nazis was done because Germany required it as a condition for grain deliveries.

In Finland, it was understood no later than 1942 that Germany would not win the war. This led to peace enquiries, during which Stalin was proposed to withdraw to the borders prior to the Winter War, which, of course, did not suit to the Generalissimo, who demanded the peace borders of the Winter War. This was not accepted, so Stalin agreed on future borders with other allies at the Tehran Conference in 1943, receiving in return permission to retain the Baltic states - that had previously "voluntarily" joined the Soviet Union - as his own after the war.

Thus, Finland's fate was left to weapons, and the solution proved to be the breaking of the front in the battles of June 9-10. After that, President Risto Ryti made his famous personal agreement with Hitler to receive military support, and the Commander-in-Chief transferred troops from Olonets Karelia, where the Soviet war machine was once again stopped - primarily due to the technically superior artillery fire of the Finns.

After this, a peace process was initiated as the Soviet Union needed its soldiers in the race to Berlin. Finland got its post-Winter War borders with Petsamo reduced and exchange of Hanko peninsula to the Porkkala peninsula closer to Helsinki. Additionally, Finland committed to clearing Lapland of German troops and paying heavy war reparations.

The war marked the end of the era of the first republic, often referred to as White Finland. During this time, the society that was extremely divided after the Civil War had gradually and especially during the Winter War, grown into a unified state, where the old aristocracy had been ousted and the working class had taken its place.

It was a world of peasants, businessmen, higher civil servants, and the intelligentsia, where even working-class families had dreams of social advancement by sending their children to study and thus pursue success in society. In other words, this was the foundation for poor Finland's development into one of the world's best places to live.

The original blog post in Finnish:
Suomen ensimmäisen tasavallan loppu

All the blog posts in this series:
History of Finland I: How did Finland become culturally part of the West?
History of Finland II: From a hinterland of the Union into a modern state
History of Finland III: The legal and economic weakening of the position of the people
History of Finland IV: The bleakest time in Finnish history
History of Finland V: The pursuit of economic profit saved the country
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility
History of Finland VII: The dictator of the era of Enlightenment promoted capitalist economy
History of Finland VIII: Joining of Finland to Russia led to an increase in crime
History of Finland IX: Enlightended dictator initiated economic growth
History of Finland X: The birth of Finnish identity
History of Finland XI: Finnish democracy and gender equality for women
History of Finland XII: Bloody civil war
History of Finland XIII: The far-right's rebellion
History of Finland XIV: The end of the first Finnish Republic
History of Finland XV: Paasikivi-Kekkonen doctrine
History of Finland XVI: Through rise and fall to a new kind of future