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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#421

Post by KptMarchewa »

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…

>Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11.Probably the most notable example being USA after 9/11. When scary things happen, media coverage and politicians can together make drastic changes to public opinion.

That's an weird assertion. People genuinly liked his first reaction.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#422

Post by jonathanstrange »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #393
jonathanstrange wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not Reddit, calling names is not helpful for an intelligent discussion.

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't know how other people feel. I'm as frequent on Reddit as on HN but the rules are stricter on HN than on most subreddits. It is highly doubtful that calling names could be good for "communicating the right messages." In any case, if you don't want to abide to HN's rules, then please go somewhere else!

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#423

Post by belter »

klibertp wrote: post #244
donthellbanme wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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.

I agree with you. Sadly you sometimes see comments being downvoted not because of the quality of the argument, the technical correctness of the analysis or validity of the logic arguments. Instead because they are presenting a less popular view.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#424

Post by trash8435798 »

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…

Obviously the costs are distributed over multiple years. As far as I know, the deal was 8.something billion €.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#425

Post by NicoJuicy »

skissane wrote: post #313
NicoJuicy wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turkeye is balancing things. They also closed it for NATO and did it after Russian ships arrived.

Turkey does have some recent history of "balancing" with Russia, but I'm not convinced its decisions on the Straits are an example of that. My understanding is that under the Montreux Convention, Turkey closes it for everybody involved in the war or nobody, I don't believe it allows Turkey to block one side of a conflict's ships but not the other, unless it is a conflict in which Turkey itself is directly involved. (…

I think we reached more or less the same conclusion.

I don't think the Barayktar has such a significant influence, but it could be a smart move from Ukraine to have add some difficulties to the balancing part of Turkeye.

Not sure about the last part though.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#426

Post by thow-58d4e8b »

helloworld11 wrote: post #281
donthellbanme wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

But will Russia really win? As of the last that I saw, Ukraine was doing remarkably well in getting Russian forces to pull back from many positions they initially captured, and what they have captured has cost them considerably. A German invasion of Poland this is definitely not in terms of agility. It's more like Italy's invasion of Greece, but without a bigger power to step in and take the reins. Putin can try othe…

Notice who is pushing the narrative of Russia bogged down - journalists, politicians and their nominees, economists, and people with an active career in the military. There are also some dissidents in the West pushing the opposite narrative - ex-marine, retired intelligence officer, weapons inspector, colonel from a neutral country. Which group knows more about how a modern war is waged? Which group has a better track record so far? Which group openly admits they're releasing unverified claims in order to shape the public opinion?

> How much would it cost to continuously occupy a country of 48 million largely hostile people

If Russia limits the territorial acquisition to Russian-speaking regions, they'll be fine. Minorities are almost always strongly in support of unification with their nation-state. Some historical examples - 77% of Sudeten Germans voted for Nazi Sudetendeutsche Partei. 99.7% of Austrians voted for unification with Germany in 1938 referendum. 95.6% of Crimeans voted for unification with Russia. 95.7% of Cypriots voted for unification with Greece in 1950

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#427

Post by myko »

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.

Joining NATO is literally in the Ukrainian constitution. It is not optional, attempting to join is a requirement of the government of Ukraine and not working toward that end would be unconstitutional.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#428

Post by aiilns »

xdennis wrote: post #413
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…

> 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).

Yes, "annexed" by Russians from Nazi Germany. As in, becoming part of the Soviet Union since the Red Army had taken the city near the end of WWII after the Russians and British had bombed ~90% of the city.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#429

Post by g0ran »

senko wrote: post #381
shimonabi wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Croat president has publicly said he will veto new members if the status of the Croat minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not improved legally. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-p...

The Croatian president is stupid (as is the Prime Minister, fwiw), with little actual power, and spewing things left and right to make himself more relevant. Thankfully, Croatia doesn't have any real influence in NATO so nobody will be obliged to listen to that stupidity. Source: I live in Croatia.

> Croatia doesn't have any real influence in NATO so nobody will be obliged to listen

Unfortunately, same applied when that drone with explosives fell in the middle of Zagreb. Deafening silence from NATO.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#430

Post by myko »

shimonabi wrote: post #246
M2Ys4U wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).

The Croat president has publicly said he will veto new members if the status of the Croat minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not improved legally. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-p...

This is coming up a lot lately but folks don't seem to realize (as noted by others) that the Croat president has no power here, it is up to the legislature. I do not understand how so fundamental a point is lost regarding this.
Post reply on HN