Norway has publicly criticised Finland’s decision to exit the 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines, framing the move as a dangerous precedent that undermines global efforts to stigmatise indiscriminate weapons.
The rebuke comes as Nordic and Baltic nations grapple with heightened security concerns linked to the war in Ukraine. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide reaffirmed Oslo’s commitment to the treaty.
This particular decision [by Finland] is something that we regret. If we start weakening our commitment, it makes it easier for warring factions around the world to use these weapons again, because it reduces the stigma.
Norway, which shares a 200-kilometre Arctic border with Russia, now stands as the sole European nation neighbouring Russia not reconsidering landmine stockpiling. This contrasts sharply with Finland, Poland, and the Baltic states, which argue that border security trumps treaty obligations amid perceived threats.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb announced the withdrawal on Tuesday, citing the need to “prepare for changes in the security environment.” Finland, which shares NATO’s longest border with Russia (1,340 km), also pledged to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2029.
Broader implications for European security
The decision aligns with a broader regional shift: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania declared their intent to exit the treaty in March, emphasising the need for “flexibility to defend NATO’s eastern flank.”
However, Amnesty International condemned Finland’s move, warning it “puts civilian lives at risk” and erodes decades of progress in curbing indiscriminate weapons. The Ottawa Convention, ratified by 165 states, prohibits the use, production, and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines.
The split underscores a deepening divide in Europe’s approach to defence. While Norway and humanitarian groups stress adherence to international law, Finland and its Baltic allies prioritise deterrence against potential military conflicts. As Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo noted, the withdrawal allows “more versatile preparations” for evolving threats.
The controversy highlights the fragile balance between military necessity and ethical warfare, with the Ottawa Treaty’s future increasingly uncertain as frontline states recalibrate their strategies in response to a volatile geopolitical landscape.
