Breaking News: Finland and Lithuania End Ban and Restart Landmine Production to Strengthen Baltic Defense Against Russia.

On July 9th, 2025, two NATO states have taken a historic and controversial step back from a decades-old international norm by formally notifying the United Nations of their withdrawal from the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. This move, as reported by Reuters, marks a dramatic response to growing fears of Russian aggression along NATO’s eastern flank. Lithuania and Finland have announced concrete plans to restart domestic landmine production, signalling a shift that could reshape Europe’s defence landscape.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link

As NATO strengthens its deterrence posture, Lithuania’s and Finland’s move to revive landmine production illustrates how deeply Russia’s shadow looms over Europe’s defence calculus (Picture source: U.S. Army)

Lithuania’s plan focuses on investing hundreds of millions of euros to produce tens of thousands of anti-personnel mines, leveraging its national defence industry to ramp up supply. Finland, which shares NATO’s longest border with Russia, aims to restore its Cold War-era stockpile capabilities, citing domestic production as vital for its own security and a potential lifeline for Ukraine’s battlefield needs. Both countries, once signatories of the Ottawa Treaty, now see mines as an unavoidable asset in deterring hostile incursions.

Historically, both Finland and Lithuania relied on imported or stockpiled mines, but since the Ottawa Treaty’s ratification they destroyed vast arsenals. Finland, for instance, dismantled over one million mines before joining the treaty in 2011. The new pivot revives old industrial capabilities and forges new partnerships, with officials confirming production lines will be operational by early next year. Compared to legacy stockpiles, modern mines are expected to include updated fuzing systems and safer storage protocols, aligning them more with today’s battlefield requirements.

In contrast to other NATO members still bound by the Ottawa Convention, Lithuania’s and Finland’s decision highlights a calculated trade-off between humanitarian risk and hard security. Mines remain controversial, but both governments argue that the strategic advantage, creating layered defences, denying terrain to a numerically superior enemy, and supplying embattled allies like Ukraine, outweighs reputational costs. Unlike older mass-produced Soviet-era designs, the new mines are expected to be more precise and cost-efficient, as Finnish officials stress domestic manufacturing ensures reliability and rapid delivery compared to foreign imports.

Geopolitically, the renewed embrace of landmines signals how Russia’s actions continue to redefine Europe’s security posture. NATO’s eastern states see them as indispensable to fortifying borders stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic Circle. For Ukraine, additional mine supplies could hinder Russian mechanized offensives in critical sectors. Strategically, this choice underscores how small states on Russia’s periphery are willing to recalibrate international commitments for perceived existential defence needs, fueling debates at the UN about whether such shifts undermine humanitarian disarmament norms or reflect a pragmatic adaptation to modern threats.

The financial scale is significant. Lithuania alone plans to spend “hundreds of millions of euros” according to Lithuanian Deputy Defence Minister Karolis Aleksa, with local industry poised to secure major contracts. Finland’s parliamentary defence leadership echoes the commitment, calling domestic production “highly effective and cost-efficient.” While specific company names have not yet been disclosed, the Lithuanian Defence Industry Association has confirmed its members will be core suppliers, and discussions about potential exports to Ukraine are already under way.

As NATO strengthens its deterrence posture, Lithuania’s and Finland’s move to revive landmine production illustrates how deeply Russia’s shadow looms over Europe’s defence calculus. It is a decision that reopens old debates on the balance between military necessity and humanitarian risk, but for these frontline states, it is one they see as vital to holding their ground and reinforcing an ally under siege.