Whatever the reason, this will increase the likelihood of landmine casualties in the future. And not necessarily (only) in this area, but it weakens the treaty in general.

Part of these kinds of treaties is to accept some additional difficulty or expenses in defence for a more widespread benefit. I'm living in Finland and I would have accepted these.

▲

nickff 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Would you expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if the country had declined to employ all the ‘force-multipliers’ that were available to it?

I would not expect other countries to come to Finland’s aid if Finland had made such decisions.

	▲	jampekka 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		161 countries are still in the Ottawa Treaty, including all European countries except the ones who withdrew. I have hard time seeing how this treaty would have much effect on wartime alliances. But if that's the case, what are "all the force multipliers"? Chemical weapons? Biological weapons? What share of the GDP for defence?