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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#411

Post by agent008t »

brabel wrote: post #305
tremon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has been threatening Finland/Sweden with consequences for years. As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech with Boris Johnson a few days ago, Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free.

> Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free. When did Ukraine actually comply with any threat from Russia since at least the Maidan Revolution??

Crimea was effectively allowed to be annexed by Russia.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#412

Post by doikor »

fsloth wrote: post #212
antris wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership This is a very generous description of what happened. There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media. People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that…

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…

> IMO The cost of NOT joining NATO would have been de facto loss of sovereignty.

This to me as a Finn is the most important part. The moment your neighbor country says "you can't join alliance X" and you actually take their opinion seriously and don't due to their pressure means you just lost your sovereignty as a nation.

And Finland has experience of that from the years after WW2 under YYA[1]. While we were lucky to not be fully take into the soviet union shit just sucked. Press was heavily censored "voluntarily", got a god king president for decades (this is why the President has 0 power in internal politics now), etc. After the fall of soviet union we got rid of the bullshit of licking Russias ass and are never going back.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Soviet_Treaty_of_1948

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#413

Post by xdennis »

aiilns wrote: post #306
RandomLensman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya. 2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years. 3) My geography knowledge is…

> but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation

It was annexed by Russian in 1945 and had its entire population forcibly moved (a war crime even at the time).

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#414

Post by unmole »

teh_klev wrote: post #399
unmole wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they closed the Turkish Straits.

> But they closed the Turkish Straits. But they didn't. Turkey only upheld the conditions of the Montreux Convention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...

Huh? Turkey has the right but not the obligation to close the straits in times of war. And they exercised that right:

> Around February 27–28, Turkey refused permission for 3 of 4 Russian warships to enter the Black Sea, as 3 did not have a home base in the Black Sea.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#415

Post by JKCalhoun »

golergka wrote: post #285
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am not an american, nor russian. i come from a third world country far from this drama. to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia? blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates…

> to me, "russian propaganda" is the same as "american propaganda" which demonizes the other and calls their version as the "ultimate truth". This only means that you're misinformed and haven't really followed the situation.

A coworker once made the (perhaps tired) comment, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and I had to ask, "Is this man's freedom fighter targeting civilians?"

I dislike bankrupt moral equivalency arguments.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#416

Post by ericmay »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #385
is_true wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need NATO because you are already a member. Ask Ukrainian civilians whether they would prefer to be part of NATO right now.

Quoted post unavailable.

They would be sleeping just as terribly now, given Putin’s reason for invading Ukraine has very little to do with NATO and the EU.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#417

Post by Wildgoose »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #369
Wildgoose wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO aggressively bombed Serbia over the issue of Kosovo. I don't know how anyone can seriously claim "NATO is purely a defensive pact" with a straight face. I think that bombing Serbia was probably the rupture that has led us to the terrible situation we have in Ukraine now.

Being a "defensive pact" does not exclude preventing genocide next to it's borders. The fact that you call it "the issue of Kosovo" is telling.

What is really telling is your admission that NATO is also an Offensive Alliance, which is exactly the point I was making, and which has led directly to this tragedy.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#418

Post by [deleted] »

antris wrote: post #170
fsloth wrote: post #2

There was some discussion on plausible NATO membership of Finland and Sweden. At that point the disucssion was based on guestimates from media. But now it's official. This is not the NATO membership application, but a statement from the political leadership in Finland that they support and suggest parliament proceeds with the application process with maximum urgency. The President and Prime Minister of Finland have p…

>Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership This is a very generous description of what happened. There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media. People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that…

[deleted]

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#419

Post by ericmay »

belter wrote: post #410
fsloth wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boy I have good news for you! If you are worried of the finance of Finland joining NATO - This will be a strategic partnership, not aid. It's a "good deal" for both sides. Finland will be an asset for NATO, not a cost. We already have a credible NATO compatible military. We just don't have nukes, and in wartime materiel replenishment would be a problem. https://www.ft.com/content/e85825af-5172-44c4-9662-f7ceca40e...…

Where did you find the money? 64 F-35 at my calculations comes at approximately 5 Billion dollars, this is excluding spare parts and training. Finland military complete spending/defense budget for 2019 was $3.97B. Edit: Actually it seems my calculations where off by 50%. This will cost you 10 Billion... "Audit clears Finnish F-35 buy amid rising spending on pandemic, Ukraine" https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe…

And you know that you can like spend money over time right? Or maybe even raise the budget? Or maybe they have a savings account that they draw from?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#420

Post by aiilns »

RandomLensman wrote: post #336
aiilns wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya. 2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years. 3) My geography knowledge is…

1) Of course, joining NATO is picking a side. 2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison) 3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (…

>Russia/Russian government is allowed to perceive it any way he wants, but that might not dictate NATO policy.

Also, picking this from a comment of yours further below:

>In the end, not sure it really matters how Russia sees the situation to be honest or what Russia thinks is relevant to them in.

Obviously Russia wanted Ukraine under their influence and NATO stood against that. It really _does_ matter how Russia sees things, now there's a war in Ukraine.

2) Probably because Russia sanctioning Ukraine would not be as debilitating for the country as the embargo against Cuba has been for Cuba.

3) You're talking about land that is part of the Russian Federation since 1945, is very close to Moscow and the mainland and is surrounded by NATO members because Poland and Lithuania joined NATO in 1999 & 2004. I'm not sure you're making any sense in this. Also, it's nowhere near the USA, Russia's main adversary.

At the end of the day, yes NATO and the USA may do as they wish, will removing Ukraine from Russia's influence lead to better lives for the Ukrainian people? Will this war that has already caused so many deaths and so much pain, be worth it? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can answer with much certainty.

Post reply on HN