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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#541

Post by tsimionescu »

mach1ne wrote: post #443
KptMarchewa wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the leading thought before we were shown how ineffective Russian conventional military is.

Indeed they demonstrated that, but don't underestimate the effect an existential crisis like this has. We will almost certainly see heavy changes coming to the Russian military. It could be that in five to ten years their military is actually capable, after both structural and strategical upgrades. And the lines we now draw between NATO, Russia and China could well be the lines of a WW3 within a decade. Hopefully not…

The more NATO expands, the higher the risk of that war. Russia joining China wasn't even a foregone conclusion, but our leaders are doing everything they can to push it in that direction.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#542

Post by belter »

ericmay wrote: post #455
belter wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it will be spent over time, but we are talking about a single weapons system, unproven in combat so far, that represents four times the overall annual defense budget of Finland for Army, Air Force and Navy.

Yes that appears to be correct. I’m not following what point you are trying to make here.

That is a strange choice to spend 400% your annual overall defense budget on a new unproven system.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#543

Post by throwaway4aday »

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 (…

You should drop #3, Poland and Lithuania are former Soviet states and late joiners of NATO '99 and '04 respectively so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd since they were the ones that expanded those borders around Kaliningrad.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#544

Post by tsimionescu »

rodgerd wrote: post #326
logifail wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I were living in Finland, I'd feel safer (against external aggression) if the country was in NATO than if it wasn't Finland might feel safer once they're in NATO. The rest of NATO (and non-NATO states in Western Europe), perhaps not quite so much. Surely the risk of NATO being involved in any conflict only increases as NATO grows?

How has appeasement worked out in Chechnya, the invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea, Georgia, shooting down a civilian airliner? What shall we give Russia this time? Then when they come for Poland or Romania, who do you suggest we offer to rape and murder?

Given that Russia couldn't even cleanly occupy Ukraine, it's laughable to suggest they could attack NATO countries such as Poland and Romania.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#545

Post by CRConrad »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #46
golergka wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what plan, exactly? That's a question on everyone's mind about this whole invasion. I guess I should have said “idiotic justification as portrayed by Russian propaganda” instead of “plan”.

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…

> 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".

Yeah, third world countries far away have their own perspective, and it's usually at least as weird as the other two. Well, in many it's of course just a copy of he Russian propaganda; don't know about yours.

> don't americans/west see their media/actions as what it is, propaganda aganinst russia?

No. Because it isn't. Because we have free speech, with media of different persuasions all allowed to spread their own versions of the truth.

To people from dictatorships -- like Russia, or many places in the third world -- this seems impossible, because they're not used to it. So when they -- you, apparently -- see that most media in the West on the whole agree on the basic facts, the "obvious" conclusion to them (you) becomes that "This must be just their side's propaganda!". Please try, in Occam's spirit, to consider the simpler explanation: The reason they all seem to more or less agree is that they've all done their own research, and what they're reporting is the truth they've found. You hear the same from them all, because the truth is the same for everyone.

> blocking RT across america/EU is seen as protecting free speech but god forbid if russia reciprocates with banning american companies? then its an action against free speech, again?

Yes, because what the West is blocking is a state-owned and -controlled Russian propaganda channel, and what Russia is blocking are free independent media. (Well, except for the VoA perhaps.)

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#546

Post by ethbr0 »

tsimionescu wrote: post #522
helloworld11 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All indications are that Russia and Putin simply can't allow Ukraine to win. Their attempt at (probably) Blitzkrieg and regime change failed, and of course they don't have the resources to occupy Ukraine. So instead, unless Ukraine acceeds to their demands, they will get more and more bloody and bomb it to the ground. If that is the only course of action afforded to them, that is what they will do - as they have done…

There appear to be more nuanced balances than that. Putin avoided escalating the war via an explicit and public mobilization on May 9th, yet he certainly doesn't think he can easily win with the forces on hand.

Consequently, he must feel as though a public mobilization would have a higher risk (public opinion?) than reward (additional military manpower?).

In lieu of an influx of manpower, the existing Russian forces seem destined to grind down over time, both in terms of personnel and materiel.

IMO, he annexes Kherson-Crimea-Mariupol-Donbas, and calls it a victory.

Unfortunately, Kherson is still semi-resistant, Mariupol still (somehow!!) has active defenders, and ~1/3 of Donbas is still under Ukrainian control.

Donbas also has the misfortune of being an explicitly delineated area... so there's less wiggle room to redefine it as the portions already under Russian control.

And it's unclear that the Ukrainians would accept the above under any terms. Maybe "give us this and the rest of the country can join NATO"? But Kherson & Mariupol seem huge sticking points.

So the most likely outcome is that the war grinds on, with Russia attempting to achieve the above goals, Ukraine continuing to stubbornly resist (with NATO armaments and supply), and Russia continues to launch long-range strikes against western Ukrainian industry to increase pressure for peace. Which is to say, ugly.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#547

Post by CRConrad »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #104
bergie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, your comment format follows a pretty typical pattern utilized by paid Russian trolls, so I'm likely wasting my time here. But anyway: There is a slight difference between de-platforming Russian propaganda channels in the West, and Russia jailing anybody speaking about the war in any other terms than those approved by Kremlin.

i literally said i come neither from russia nor america so i am basically more "independent" from you if you are an american citizen or the like. manning/assange anyone? oh they are terrorists right? for giving sensitive information to enemies but russian or chinese defectors are given "protection" because they do the same for america but if russia/china goes after them, well..... you know

> i literally said i come neither from russia nor america

But that is of course exactly what you'd say if you were a Russian troll.

I noticed the clue "Kashmiri" in your name only after my previous reply to a comment of yours. So, if that means your "third world country far away" is India... Yeah, pretty goddamn Russia-aligned. Maybe consider whether your own "neutral" media environment is really that neutral at all?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#548

Post by CRConrad »

aa-jv wrote: post #229
RandomLensman wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about picking a side. Luckily, people are free to move to the side they prefer (somehow Russia does not seem as popular as the "West"...). If you prefer the Russian system - move there. If you are totally indifferent, maybe make a coin toss.

Actually, its about choosing peace instead of picking sides. And yes I have left my 5-eyes birth nation, and abandoned any and all ties to nationalist mental disease, over this particular issue. You should, too.

Nationalist, perhaps, but seem to have replaced it with several other varieties.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#549

Post by throwaway4aday »

mcv wrote: post #301
refurb wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I don't think anyone is disputing that the US was wrong in Vietnam. And in Iraq (the second time at least) for that matter. Yet I often see people use these examples where the US was clearly wrong as reasons why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine.

When we argue for you to view things from Russia's perspective we aren't condoning their actions, we're trying to prevent an escalation in response to misinformed policy. No one here has stated that they should be allowed to invade Ukraine. What many are trying to do is tamp down the calls for further military engagement or even all out war with Russia. Diplomacy is the only way we get out of this without piling up more dead bodies on all sides.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#550

Post by selimthegrim »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #93
klausjensen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process. In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.

> In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members. Really? Why is this true of Finland but not Ukraine?

This is turnkey, UKR isn’t
Post reply on HN