• LihmaLähmäLehmä@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    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.

      • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours 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.

      • LihmaLähmäLehmä@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Now you have circled us back to the question you dodged before. You said there’s no invasion. No invasion => No mines. What is the problem?