…
Around 100 million euros is earmarked for the acquisitions.
Preparations for the purchase began after Finland’s withdrawal from the Ottawa Convention took effect in January, Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finnish news agency STT. He said there are around half a dozen companies in the country able to make mines.
Finland reintroduced landmines due to the worsening security environment. Ahead of the decision, Prime Minister Petteri Orpo called Russia a long-term threat to Finnish and European security.
…
I don’t know, but it is another one of all those treaties that Russia and China never signed and don’t care for.
Best reasoning ever™: our enemies are evil, that’s why we need to become evil as well in order to defend our…checks notes…uh, important values of being the good guys.
What would you suggest then? Waiting until the next invasion?
I mean, that’s a good idea anyway, because if you’re not waiting for the invasion, you basically start a war.
But then, there’s only giving up or using forbidden weapons? There’s nothing in between, like e.g. fighting without forbidden weapons?
So what do you suggest Finland and the rest of Europe should do?
Buy (or better let the state produce without profit motive) weapons that are not anti-person landmines? There’s a reason those are on the “bad guy” list.
I am not a weapon expert nor a fan of any weapon, but which weapons would hold back an invader as effective as landmines?
So Russia and China, amongst others, are bad guys, right?
Idk, but it’s about standing firmly to “we don’t do that here” is important. Like, having rules and only following them when it’s easy and convenient…makes no sense in my book ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They certainly are.
Have you heard of the concept of “lesser evils”? Mines are terrible, but it’s a lesser evil compared to the damage a Russian armored assault could cause without there being mines present. Even with drones and various anti-tank weapons existing, mines remain incredibly effective as a defensive tool.
No, listen guys! We don’t need weapons. We will win them over with kindness and smiles!
Because there’s no room between “no weapons” and “the most cruel weapons on which we agreed that they are too cruel”
If you want to preserve your moral integrity in a war why do it only partially? Go all the way! Nonviolent resistance, baby!
You realize that this potential war basically is about said moral integrity? So, giving it up beforehand is a win for the enemy already. It’s the same shit with this “war on terror” stuff some 20 years ago.
“They are attacking our free societies, in order to stop them we need to abolish as many freedoms as possible”
Please do elaborate. The way I see it it’s about not being killed and protecting your independence. “Moral integrity” is just PR used to get support from other nations. Russians don’t need it so they don’t care about any rules. Finland/Ukraine needs it so they have to respect the rules most people in the west care about. No one puts limits on themselves in war because it’s the right thing to do.
But why protect the independence in the first place? Because we don’t want to live under Russian rule, because it’s shitty. But getting more and more like Russia, i.e. not respecting international treaties and responding authoritorian to developments, doesn’t make anything better. Like, what to do with my awesome independence, when it’s just like Russia.
I mean, maybe the Finns don’t fear that, but from Germany’s perspective the threat of just being Russia without Russia invading is very real.
Come on, you can’t be serious. People are not worried they will live in a country that ignores international treaties about white phosphorous and chemical weapons. They are worried about being raped, having their children kidnapped and starving in a gulag.
“My house was burned down by invading army and my family is dead but at lest my country is not using landmines” said no one ever.