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

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#841

Post by avgcorrection »

fsloth wrote: post #481
calf wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this point a lot but I don't understand it. I'm of both Taiwanese and Hong Kong ethnicity. The world has already seen what China did to Hong Kong's autonomy. But Chomsky's essays and lectures have helped me understand my old countries' political issues more clearly than many other sources, even when he isn't directly talking about Asia. So I don't understand the frequent assertion that Chomsky's arguments or hi…

Chomsky starts from the position that the general population is ignorant of history and politics and can be programmed by the elites to what ever worldview. He does not start from the position that an individual voter would have skin in the game, or understand the consequences of political and economic actions. Ukrainians feel in their guts their country is being invaded by an genocidal adversary. They are not driven…

> Chomsky starts from the position that the general population is ignorant of history and politics and can be programmed by the elites to what ever worldview.

Oh right, that they are a blank slate that one can just write things on? Except that’s a thesis about human beings that he has specifically argued against.

Typical “ignorant masses” projection by some vulgar Marxist interpretation.

Speaking of skin in the game: Chomsky protested against the Vietnam War. A war fought in part by conscripts on the American side. How does that jive with your condescending theory that Americans have no skin in the game?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#842

Post by mcv »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #549
mcv wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I agree. The problem is that Putin is not interested in diplomacy. Putin has made it very clear that he only respects force. So the only way to convince him not to invade a country he wants to invade, is a hard guarantee that NATO will defend that country. That's the only way. And NATO didn't give that promise to Ukraine, which is why Putin felt he could invade it.

NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#843

Post by mcv »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #691
stoltzmann wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with kicking out members is that it starts a precedent. The idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Article 5 is invoked.

> idea is that NATO got your back if you're in, you won't get kicked out if your membership starts being inconvenient, and that the other members will act when Article 5 is invoked None of that is violated by kicking someone out before they are attacked.

Kicking someone out who is really counting on NATO would make them incredibly vulnerable, though.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#844

Post by jarek83 »

narag wrote: post #772
jarek83 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope my country, Poland, could find a way to abate russian fools, that seemingly have their prime time now here. I see similar to russian type of rhetoric in TV and social media and some people support them because they seem to provide easy solutions to big problems. I wished it was more plain to see that it's all russia-driven. And yes - I write russia with small letter because I don't see their _state_ representi…

Trusting social media as a measure of general opinion is not a good idea. They could be a tiny minority making a lot of noise.

I know, and I get it that loudest people are a minute fraction of all users. But it seems that people are under their influence as the ruling party keeps acting against the state but they still have majority in the polls.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#845

Post by denton-scratch »

mcv wrote: post #837
denton-scratch wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why Russia should be permitted to invade Ukraine That's awkward language. Who gets to grant permission for the invasion of a foreign country? The question is whether it's legitimate to go to war against the invader. NATO is not a schoolmaster, issuing invasion passes. Unfortunately NATO doesn't have clean hands (Libya, and arguably Iraq).

I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion (though they can't really enforce anything). It's why the US presented their case against Iraq to the UN 20 years ago. Though in this particular case, the demands Putin made before the invasion, that NATO should promise never to allow Ukraine in, and should abandon eastern Europe entirely, sounded a lot to me like Putin was basically demanding permission…

> I guess the UN could pass a resolution to authorize an invasion

Could it? Isn't that in direct opposition to the declared purpose of the UN?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#846

Post by throwaway4aday »

denton-scratch wrote: post #739
throwaway4aday wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. 1. NATO isn't a country, and can't annexe anything. 2. Former Soviet states are states that are no longer Soviet. NATO didn't ccoerce Poland and Lithuania into joining. Your notion of what annexation means is at odds with mine.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

2. I said nothing about coercion.

Care to speak to the point I made, which I'll repeat for clarity:

> Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd

or would you prefer to find issue with other irrelevant or imagined details?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#847

Post by maratc »

GolDDranks wrote: post #745
0x737368 wrote: post #742

Wow, some real hot takes in here. It's particularly funny that commenters here mention what happened in Georgia and Ukraine as reasons for Finland joining NATO, when it's exactly those countries cosying up to NATO/the West at Russia's security what lead to the conflicts. Goes to show how people will happily swallow the media narrative without thinking about the big picture.

As a Finn (so I happen to know _my_ reasons for why I support joining NATO perfectly well), I'm curious: how do you perceive the media narrative to be biased or wrong?

As a Finn, do you think it was smart of Mannerheim to join Nazi Germany against Russia?

[EDIT] Appreciate the downvoting, but would appreciate an answer even more.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#848

Post by denton-scratch »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #846
denton-scratch wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. 1. NATO isn't a country, and can't annexe anything. 2. Former Soviet states are states that are no longer Soviet. NATO didn't ccoerce Poland and Lithuania into joining. Your notion of what annexation means is at odds with mine.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes 2. I said nothing about coercion. Care to speak to the point I made, which I'll repeat for clarity: > Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd or would you prefer to find issue with other irrelevant or imagined details?

Please explain "annexed"; your wikipedia link makes it clear that different people intepret scare-quotes in different ways. If you are talking about annexation not involving coercion, then we aren't reading from the same dictionary page.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#850

Post by mrits »

mordnis wrote: post #794
mrits wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also result in the removal of Russia from the planet.

I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.

Without a doubt NATO would release every single nuke needed to make sure Russia can't launch another missile. We'd take tremendous damage and introduce a possibility of nuclear winter, but we aren't going to sit around and wonder what other targets Russia has in mind.

So yeah, we'd blast them back before the first nukes even landed.

Post reply on HN