you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Mines are cheap and due to geography, they would be a relatively effective defense. For that reason, signing them away with the treaty was called a mistake even back then. Public opinion was about fifty-fifty for a long time and there was never enough political will to seriously consider withdrawal, or even for the opponents to be particularly vocal about it.

    So why now? The full scale invasion in Ukraine was a shock that kicked the ball rolling. The topic became hot immediately and there was also a petition that collected signatures very fast. That took some time, but it's how we got here.

    Edit: improved my bad explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    As long as there's no military need for them against an invasion there will be zero mines in the ground. No one will hurt themselves with them, unless some storage worker happens to drop a box on their toes.

    As of why now, you can't pull out of agreement and start to build up manufacturing and logistics if there's active invasion going on. I hope not a single one of them is ever dug on our Finnish soil, but I'm glad that our military is prepared to use any viable option if they need to.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)