On April 1, 2025, Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo announced that the country would withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, a landmark international agreement banning anti-personnel landmines, while simultaneously committing to increase defense spending to 3% of its gross domestic product by 2029.
Finland rearms with mines and cash to deter Russia’s next move
Photo credit: Finnish MoD
This dual decision, unveiled in Helsinki, marks a significant shift for the Nordic nation, which shares a 1,340-kilometer border with Russia and joined NATO in 2023. The move reflects Finland’s response to a deteriorating security environment in Europe, driven largely by Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and its broader implications for NATO’s eastern flank.
Orpo emphasized that while no immediate threat looms over Finland, the long-term challenge posed by Russia necessitates a more robust and flexible defense posture.
BREAKING: Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty and increase defence spending to 3% of its GDP by 2029.
Finland is a security provider to all of Europe. 🇫🇮 pic.twitter.com/qNwQsx4ycK
— Henri Vanhanen (@HenriVanhanen) April 1, 2025
The Ottawa Treaty, signed in 1997 and effective since 1999, has been a cornerstone of global efforts to eliminate anti-personnel mines, weapons designed to detonate upon contact with a person and notorious for their devastating impact on civilians long after conflicts end.
Finland’s decision to exit this pact follows a similar move by Poland and the Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—announced in March 2025, signaling a regional reevaluation of security priorities.
For Finland, withdrawing from the treaty opens the door to reintegrating landmines into its arsenal, a choice rooted in the tactical realities of defending its vast, rugged frontier.
BREAKING:
Finland announces it’s withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty which bans the use of anti-personnel mines.
In an ongoing press conference, the government also announced that Finland is gradually increasing its military spending from 2.3% this year to 3% in 2029.
🇫🇮 pic.twitter.com/xyW2Wa5sZn
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) April 1, 2025
The accompanying pledge to boost defense spending, projected to rise by approximately $3.24 billion by the end of the decade, underscores Helsinki’s intent to fortify its military capabilities amid heightened tensions.
Finland’s border with Russia stretches across dense forests, swamps, and sparse road networks, a landscape that has historically shaped its defense strategy. During the Winter War of 1939–1940, when the Soviet Union invaded, Finland relied heavily on its terrain to offset the enemy’s numerical superiority.
Mines, including anti-personnel variants, played a critical role in slowing Soviet advances, complementing the efforts of Finnish ski troops and fortifications like the Mannerheim Line. Today, that same geography drives the logic behind reintroducing landmines.
With limited natural barriers and a border too expansive for a small population to patrol comprehensively, mines offer a cost-effective way to deter or delay infantry assaults. Orpo, in his press conference, framed this as a pragmatic adaptation, noting that the security environment has fundamentally changed since Finland joined the Ottawa Treaty in 2012.
The tactical value of anti-personnel mines lies in their ability to deny access to key areas, channeling enemy forces into kill zones where defenders can concentrate firepower. In Ukraine, Russian forces have employed extensive minefields to bog down Ukrainian counteroffensives, a lesson not lost on Finland’s military planners.
Modern mine warfare, however, goes beyond static fields of explosives. Finnish strategists are likely to pair landmines with cutting-edge technologies like drones and remote sensors, creating a layered defense system.
Drones, such as the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 or the American MQ-9 Reaper—though Finland currently lacks these specific models—could monitor minefields in real-time, while sensors like the U.S.-made AN/PSS-14 mine detector could enhance safety during deployment and clearance.
This hybrid approach aligns with Finland’s existing investments in artillery, such as the K9 Thunder howitzers acquired from South Korea in 2017, which boast a 155mm cannon capable of firing up to 40 kilometers with precision-guided munitions.
Finland’s military hardware reflects a blend of domestic innovation and international procurement, a trend that could accelerate with the increased budget. The K9 Thunder, for instance, is a self-propelled howitzer designed for rapid deployment and high mobility, ideal for the country’s challenging terrain.
Weighing 47 tons and powered by a 1,000-horsepower engine, it can reach speeds of 67 kilometers per hour and fire six rounds per minute, delivering explosive shells or rocket-assisted projectiles.
Compared to Russia’s 2S19 Msta-S, a 152mm howitzer with a slightly shorter range of 29 kilometers, the K9 offers superior agility and firepower, though it lacks the Msta’s ability to fire nuclear-capable rounds—a capability Russia retains but rarely advertises. Finland’s decision to potentially develop or purchase anti-personnel mines could complement such systems, creating a formidable barrier against ground incursions.
The industrial implications of this shift are equally significant. Finland’s defense sector, anchored by companies like Patria and Nammo, stands to benefit from the influx of funds. Patria, a state-owned firm, produces the AMV [Armored Modular Vehicle], an 8×8 wheeled platform that has seen action in conflicts from Afghanistan to Ukraine.
With a maximum weight of 27 tons and options for mounting everything from 120mm mortars to anti-tank missiles, the AMV exemplifies Finland’s focus on versatile, exportable hardware. Nammo, a joint Finnish-Norwegian company, specializes in ammunition and explosives, including 155mm artillery shells and shoulder-fired rocket systems.
While neither has confirmed plans to manufacture anti-personnel mines, their expertise positions them as potential players if Finland opts for domestic production over imports from non-Ottawa signatories like the United States or Israel.
The United States, a NATO ally that never signed the Ottawa Treaty, could become a key partner in this endeavor. The U.S. military employs the M18A1 Claymore, a directional anti-personnel mine weighing just 3.5 pounds and capable of projecting 700 steel balls across a 100-meter arc.
Unlike traditional buried mines, the Claymore is command-detonated, offering greater control and reducing postwar hazards. Finland might seek similar designs, balancing effectiveness with the humanitarian concerns that originally drove the Ottawa Treaty.
Israel, another non-signatory, produces the No. 12 anti-personnel mine, a pressure-activated device with a 300-gram explosive charge, though its use has drawn criticism for civilian casualties in past conflicts. Finland’s choice of supplier—or decision to go it alone—will shape both its military capabilities and its diplomatic stance.
Regionally, Finland’s move aligns with a broader realignment along NATO’s eastern edge. Poland, which plans to spend 5% of its GDP on defense, and the Baltic trio have cited Russia’s aggression as justification for exiting the Ottawa Treaty.
Estonia’s Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur, while endorsing the regional shift, clarified that his country has no immediate plans to stockpile mines, suggesting a cautious approach. Lithuania’s Dovile Sakaliene, however, called the withdrawal a “clear message” about border security.
Together, these nations could form a de facto northeastern bloc within NATO, pooling resources and tactics to counter Russia’s 6.3% GDP defense spending, which supports a sprawling military-industrial complex. Ukraine, though not a NATO member, offers a potential model, having adapted Soviet-era mines like the PMN-2—a 550-gram device with a 10-meter lethal radius—to devastating effect against Russian troops.
This emerging axis could also test NATO’s cohesion. Western European members like Germany and France, staunch Ottawa supporters, may view the eastern flank’s pivot as a fracture in the alliance’s unity. Germany, spending just 1.57% of its GDP on defense in 2023, has prioritized economic recovery over military expansion, while France’s 1.9% reflects a focus on expeditionary forces rather than territorial defense.
The United States, at 3.38%, bridges the gap, but President Donald Trump’s renewed calls for allies to reach 5%—a target only Poland currently exceeds—could amplify tensions. Finland’s 3% commitment, while ambitious, positions it as a mediator, bolstering NATO’s deterrence without fully endorsing Trump’s maximalist vision.
Looking ahead, Finland’s withdrawal could reshape Russian military calculus. Moscow’s reliance on massed infantry, evident in Ukraine, would face a stiffer challenge along a mined Finnish border. Russia might counter by investing in demining equipment like the UR-77 Meteorit, a tracked vehicle that launches explosive hoses to clear paths through minefields, capable of breaching a 6-meter-wide lane in seconds.
Alternatively, it could shift to air or missile strikes, leveraging platforms like the Su-34 fighter-bomber, which carries up to 12 tons of ordnance over a 4,000-kilometer range. Finland’s response—integrating mines with its F-35 jets, set for delivery starting in 2025—could offset this, as the stealth aircraft’s 18,000-pound payload includes precision-guided bombs ideal for targeting Russian assets.
Historically, Finland’s neutrality during the Cold War kept it outside superpower blocs, but Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Ukraine invasion erased that buffer. Joining NATO transformed Finland from a peripheral player to a frontline state, a role now cemented by this policy shift. The F-35 deal, valued at $8.9 billion, underscores this evolution, equipping Finland with 64 fifth-generation fighters to replace its aging F-18 Hornets.
With advanced radar-evading capabilities and a top speed of Mach 1.6, the F-35 outclasses Russia’s Su-35, though the latter’s thrust-vectoring agility offers advantages in dogfights. This hardware, paired with mines, signals Finland’s intent to deter through both denial and punishment.
In the final analysis, Finland’s decision reflects a sober reckoning with a volatile world. The Ottawa Treaty’s humanitarian ideals, while noble, clash with the stark realities of a militarized Russia unwilling to abide by the same rules.
By embracing landmines and a beefier budget, Finland isn’t just protecting itself—it’s redefining its place in NATO as a linchpin of Europe’s northeastern defenses. The industrial boost could spark innovation, while the regional alignment hints at a new strategic bloc.
Yet questions linger: Will this escalate a tit-for-tat arms race with Russia, or will it stabilize a jittery frontier? For now, Finland’s gamble is a calculated step into an uncertain future, balancing security with the ghosts of its wartime past.
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.