Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

presidentti.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#271

Post by bigDinosaur »

antris wrote: post #249
fsloth wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process was quite fast mainly because most Finns are very pragmatic, clearheaded people and intuitively understood how the rules of the game had changed. You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy. The root of the matter is that without NATO membership conscription would have become morally untenable. And hence the backbone of Finnish defence would have collapsed leading to…

>You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy. I suggest reading on Manufacturing Consent. People living in liberal democracies are swayed all the time. It has happened over and over again. Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11. Bush approval rating spiked from 60% to 92%. When scary things happen, media coverage and politicians can together make drastic changes t…

You can point to any change in public sentiment as 'manufactured'. Doesn't mean it actually is. This seems the opposite: aggressive neighbour starts biggest war in Europe since WW2 has influence on public opinion of much smaller and weaker country.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#272

Post by refurb »

RandomLensman wrote: post #110
aiilns wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war? Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion? It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant…

1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave…

The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake.

You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam.

1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence.

2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist aligned country. it had negotiated a neutral policy towards Laos with the communist bloc. It wasn’t interested in resources or territory, at least not in anyway similar to what France had done.

Why on earth would North Vietnam think that US was just replacing France as a colonial power? That’s absurd! No way they think that, it’s just rhetoric!

——-

Of course after decades of being under the colonial yoke of France, Vietnam had a very different perspective. It was clear post-WW2 France was hell bent on restoring the colonial structure. And the only thing France understood was military defeat.

So the North, very reasonably, thought the US was lying about any sort of “neutrality in IndoChina” and that Vietnam would have any sort of independence. So they held to a hardline and were willing to sacrifice 2M+ Vietnamese for the goal of total victory and independence.

Think about it from Russia’s perspective. They had warned in 2015 about their "red line" for NATO expansion.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#273

Post by wiseowise »

aa-jv wrote: post #135
mrep wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So even if NATO completely surrounded Russia, do you think any of said war crimes would actually be committed against Russia directly because if so I want whatever you're smoking. They have 6000 nukes and US + EU combined have 25 times the GDP of Russia. We have everything to lose and practically nothing to gain from attacking Russias worthless economy.

Yes, I do believe that NATO is a war-crime committing, human-rights abusing entity that is bringing much death and destruction and turmoil to the world for the sake of special interests - political and commercial - who stand to gain billions in profit from every single NATO base built. But, I've been paying attention to NATO's war crimes over the last two decades, as well as the immensely evil crimes against humanity…

Nobody asked about your opinion of NATO, answer the question.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#274

Post by watwut »

nonameking2026 wrote: post #108
sph wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions. I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.

They can do a lot of things. None which are good for Russia but their leaders might perceive this as a direct threat to their sovereignty and take extreme measures. Either they stop this now or it's all over anyway. This is reckless - we need to start a path of de-escalation - give Putin an offramp. Get to back to calm waters. Then let diplomats do their little dances until there is a hopefully more reasonable people…

> Nobody wants war.

Objectively, this is not true. Putin wanted war. Leadership around him wanted war too. They wanted war they will win fast, but even if that succeeded it would be war too.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#275

Post by koolba »

rocqua wrote: post #141
martimarkov wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can also be kicked out ;) Edit: Here is some thoughts one it: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/28337/on-what-g...

AFAIK kicking someone out of NATO is very difficult. Otherwise I suspect that about 5 years ago Turkey would have been at risk of being removed.

Not just difficult, it impossible. There’s no provisions for removal.

The closest thing to kicking someone out of NATO would be all the other countries simultaneously withdrawing and forming NATO 2.0.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#276

Post by sorenjan »

bitL wrote: post #205
ngold wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is rather apt. And mirroring Russian claims to disarm nazis in Ukraine and take over the government in 3 days. Only to get sanctioned into economic doom, and have Ukraine forever supplied with the teeth of all western nations. It did not work out so well. We are all rooting for spinal cancer.

If there is a nuclear war because of this mess in the near future, then we will all see how did this work out for everyone on this planet. If you pressure a weakened nuclear power into a corner, what will they have left? Western countries operate under a false assumption that oligarchs/rich call the shots in Russia while it's the power/security forces who do, keeping oligarchs on a short leash. From that point of vie…

Nobody is pressuring Russia, that's Russian propaganda. They want to paint themselves as attacked and surrounded, but it's them attacking sovereign neighbors and trying to expand beyond their borders. Who would have any interest in invading Russia? China attacking from the east would probably make more sense than NATO attacking from the west, but I've never heard anyone suggesting that as a realistic event.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#277

Post by antris »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #271
antris wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy. I suggest reading on Manufacturing Consent. People living in liberal democracies are swayed all the time. It has happened over and over again. Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11. Bush approval rating spiked from 60% to 92%. When scary things happen, media coverage and politicians can together make drastic changes t…

You can point to any change in public sentiment as 'manufactured'. Doesn't mean it actually is. This seems the opposite: aggressive neighbour starts biggest war in Europe since WW2 has influence on public opinion of much smaller and weaker country.

I already gave examples of media/politican manufactured narratives in the parent post regarding the Nato discussion.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#278

Post by klibertp »

watwut wrote: post #265
klibertp wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post was dead when I stumbled upon it. I don't agree with it, for the obvious reasons, including the fact that I'm not American. Yet, my understanding is that this kind of opinion is shared by a large number of US citizens. I don't believe censoring it is the correct way to deal with it - it's not even off-topic as we discuss NATO membership in the first place.

Do large amount of Americans think that " We all know Russia will win."? Also, Finland builds its army? As in, NATO seems to be so eager on Finland joining cause they think they will gain something too.

I don't know, I'm not American, and don't care that much. I was referring to this part:

> I'm just tired of the USA paying for everything when we don't have the money.

Which seems to be one of the things that made the previous President the President.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#279

Post by spaniard89277 »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #119
spaniard89277 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see it (am spaniard), and there's definitely propaganda. But ultimately it was Russia who invaded Ucraine and the reasons provided are very vague, at best. The Speech Putin did had some etnonationalism BS and claims of defending the land agains the threat of NATO. In most bordering NATO countries what you have is SAMs (anti-air missiles), and honestly pretty much any NATO country could claim that they feel thre…

thank you. i am not sympathizing with anyone for that matter. i am pointing out what i observe.... you know when america invaded iraq for "WMDs" and they turned out to be nothing and literally nothing happened? "strong anger" does not equate to waging a war against america like its being done against russia. let me ask you, you and me are neither americans nor russians. did the world care when america invaded afghani…

I care more because I understand it's happening in european soil, just on EU borders and Ukranians feel as Europeans as Romanians are.

So yes there's a gregarian component to it, yet it also have a huge impact for us. Russia did this because they know we're dependent on their energy and there's little the EU can do without stomaching huge economic losses.

It's not about peace, It's about interests,a power struggle. Russia also invaded Georgia, and Azerbaijan had a war with Armenia yet the EU did almost nothing about it.

I'd really like to have a paceful relationship with Russia, as it's on our best interests, but it seems they don't think the same about us.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#280

Post by fsloth »

antris wrote: post #249
fsloth wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process was quite fast mainly because most Finns are very pragmatic, clearheaded people and intuitively understood how the rules of the game had changed. You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy. The root of the matter is that without NATO membership conscription would have become morally untenable. And hence the backbone of Finnish defence would have collapsed leading to…

>You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy. I suggest reading on Manufacturing Consent. People living in liberal democracies are swayed all the time. It has happened over and over again. Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11. Bush approval rating spiked from 60% to 92%. When scary things happen, media coverage and politicians can together make drastic changes t…

I love Manufacturing Consent! Even though I don't agree with it's implied worldview I enjoy Chomsky's skill as an eloquent polemiscist.

But Chomsky does not really understand the world outside US.

I am a Finn and I can guarantee Chomsky does not help you in understanding what happened here. We share 1500km border of Russia. We feel the geopolitic shifts in our backbones.

Almost every finnish male regardless of wealth or class would be up in arms as a combatant in the military if Russia was to invade. You can't have more skin in the game than that.

Post reply on HN