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

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#561

Post by JasonFruit »

jacquesm wrote: post #353
rightbyte wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we pretending conventional war between NATO and Russia is a thing?

Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.

What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#562

Post by refurb »

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.

The argument isn't "we should let Russia invade Ukraine".

The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"?

Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?".

The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now.

Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#563

Post by ericmay »

belter wrote: post #542
ericmay wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> on a new unproven system.

How are you qualifying whether or not this system is proven?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#564

Post by unmole »

teh_klev wrote: post #508
unmole wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a subtle difference. The straits weren't "closed", one of the Russian ships was allowed passage because its home port was registered as Sevastopol prior to the present conflict. "pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Turkey cannot block Russian warships based in the Black Sea from returning to their registered base."

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Are you saying Turkey should have gone against the rules based international order and blocked Black Sea based ships?

Turkey was under no obligation to do anything. Yet they closed the straits to Russian ships to the extent that they possibly could.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#565

Post by CRConrad »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #524
JKCalhoun wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know the real feeling in the US. About half of us called bullshit the instant "WMDs" were paraded as the reason to go to war. And I think the other half have, over time, come to see the whole operation as a regretful waste of time, money, and lives. So, no, I don't think there are any fans of the U.S. invasion of Iraq still around. Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.

>Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though. this is the only point i'm trying to make. suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades, thats there but what about the rest of the world community? how many will arm IRAN against USA when they know USA to be the one who is invading? who will figh…

> >Some of us are still incensed by the lies that were trotted out though.

> this is the only point i'm trying to make.

And it's a bad one. Because:

> suppose tomorrow biden comes up and wants to invade iran for example. will american public lap it up like they have for the last so many decades,

The very line you quoted told you that many (most?) of them didn't "lap it up" then either.

You're really not very good at this, are you?

> its fine when usa takes revenge but russia cant defend its borders?

Russia ISN'T "defend[ing] its borders"! Holy shit, how often do people have to explain this so you Putin-Versteher will get it?!? NOBODY WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK RUSSIA.

> i am not a troll

Even if you think you aren't, you're walking and quacking like one. Which in the end means you are one.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#566

Post by kibwen »

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…

> A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone

I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it certainly isn't true.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#567

Post by jacquesm »

JasonFruit wrote: post #561
jacquesm wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.

What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?

In principle nothing, but in practice NATO has shown considerable restraint so far and I see no reason why they would suddenly and catastrophically deviate from that. So unless Russia uses nuclear weapons first - which they have threatened now multiple times - I do not see this or any other conflict NATO is involved in escalate to nuclear.

NATO has never publicly committed to a NFU policy because that would weaken their hand on the political stage but in practice they seem to be following that line. It's a smart way to position themselves, and other nuclear capable entities have done the same.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#568

Post by refurb »

im3w1l wrote: post #559
tyleo wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. My understanding of WW1 is that the defense treaties were like multiple nets that all made enemies of each other come wartime. Today it seems that NATO is one big net and Russia is more or less an isolated node with no seriously powerful country to call to for help.

Wouldn't surprise me if Russia had a secret treaty with China.

There was an interesting video posted on social media of a military fighter plane that crash in China. Two people ejected and some farmer took video of the two of them. One was Chinese and told him to stop filming, the other Russian.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#569

Post by selimthegrim »

Wildgoose wrote: post #312
simonh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO is purely a defensive pact, nowhere in it's charter is there any provision for initiating hostilities and there is zero political support in the west for aggression against Russia or the acquisition of Russian territory. Until February the west was absolutely more than happy to funnel billions into Russia in return for oil and gas, and almost pathologically avoided any thought of taking any action that might aff…

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.

How much credibility would NATO or EU have had with Turkey if a bunch of Muslim Bantustans were permitted to be made?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#570

Post by darkteflon »

herbst wrote: post #392
wiseowise wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you can link at least one.

Ok I guess? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ukraine#Situ...

You’re referring to transgressions under Yanukovych? That’s not a great example, since he’s famously a Russian puppet, removed from office in the Maidan Revolution.
Post reply on HN