Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

presidentti.fi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 218 posts

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#111

Post by davisoneee »

Animatronio wrote: post #80
haspok wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same as Turkey would expect of Sweden if, say, Russia invades. Please stop thinking that Turkey (or any other country) is doing a favor to Sweden (or to Finland) by accepting their NATO application. It benefits all parties - Russians included.

How would that benefit the Russians? What would the point of that be?

I presume parent is implying that war doesn't really provide any benefit to the occupants of either nation, so by expanding NATO--or otherwise encouraging 'don't start a fucking war'--we get to keep the populace out of war.

War might benefit _some_ russians, or _some_ americans, or _some_ , but I doubt that on balance 'peace' is a worse situation for most people. So, if NATO can encourage peace (even through threat of force), that's overall a benefit

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#112

Post by Animatronio »

khochesh_kushat wrote: post #102
Animatronio wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

By demanding, you mean requesting?

Obviously "requesting" is a much better word. However, the gist of my comment was they are trying really hard to sell the idea that their membership is beneficial to NATO (which I believe it most definitely is not).

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#113

Post by Animatronio »

greedo wrote: post #95
Animatronio wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But NATO literally (and I also mean geographically) NATO has Ukr on its side. So what more would a country like say Portugal gain from Ukraine's NATO membership, except perhaps having to contribute to their defense even more?

Portugal has barely hit the 2% goal for defense spending that NATO members are supposed to be targeting. So it's not like they'd be spending more to protect Ukraine.

Portugal was only an example. They could however find themselves pressured to send soldiers, and not only supplies, should NATO decide to openly declare war on Russia.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#114

Post by bshipp »

unmole wrote: post #109
bshipp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one was ever going to invade a country with ICBMs. The invasion occurred because of Ukraine's movement toward the EU which, eventually, would curtail the ability of Putin and the oligarchs to swindle Russias oil and gas wealth through rampant price fixing and kick-backs. Everything else was rhetoric.

> The invasion occurred because of Ukraine's movement toward the EU What meaningful move did Ukraine make towards joining EU to trigger an invasion?

You mean beyond the 2014 Maidan Revolution and restoration of the 2004 constitutional modifications that began the process of moving toward the EU? Or the 2019 constitutional amendment that placed joining the EU and NATO as a strategic objective for Ukraine?

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#115

Post by arethuza »

lesuorac wrote: post #110
causi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never about NATO. It's about the Bessarabian Gap and the Black Sea. Putin wants the potential invasion routes into Russia.

Whose invading through the Bessarabian Gap or the Black Sea? Egypt? - USA is just going to come across either Alaska, the North Pole, or EU allies' military bases. - UA/Finland/etc are going through their land borders. - Rest of EU is going to have a problem without sending troops through their neighbors. (And using the Black sea is just a huge detour ...) - China would use its land border.

Maybe someone is planning a Crimean War 2 - seems unlikely though! ;-)

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#116

Post by causi »

bshipp wrote: post #71
causi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never about NATO. It's about the Bessarabian Gap and the Black Sea. Putin wants the potential invasion routes into Russia.

No one was ever going to invade a country with ICBMs. The invasion occurred because of Ukraine's movement toward the EU which, eventually, would curtail the ability of Putin and the oligarchs to swindle Russias oil and gas wealth through rampant price fixing and kick-backs. Everything else was rhetoric.

I didn't say it was a reasonable course of action.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#117

Post by JeremyNT »

rossdavidh wrote: post #73
credit_guy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand who you think is to blame here? Was NATO supposed to accept Ukraine without Ukraine applying for membership?

I believe Ukraine did apply, or at least indicate they wanted to. The real reason Ukraine did not get invited to join NATO is that, even after the 2014 invasion of Crimea, lots of people in Europe wanted to believe that it was still possible to do business with Russia, and that they would come around eventually. There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to dem…

> There are a lot of people who still believe that doing business with someone makes them come around to democracy eventually; this was also a reason given by President Clinton for normalizing trade with China (where it has also not worked).

Well I suppose it's impossible to determine real motivations of politicians, but I always assumed this was simply BS that nobody in power ever really believed.

I mean, when you're addicted to cheap oil/labor/whatever but the regime with the cheap oil/labor/whatever has some pesky anti-democratic tendencies, what better way to sell it to a skeptical population than to tell them that by merely consuming the cheap goods the transaction itself will somehow change the problematic regime's ideology?

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#118

Post by Animatronio »

cableshaft wrote: post #74
tommiegannert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I must invade a neighboring country to prevent having NATO on my doorstep Even without involving Finland, it's worse than that. If he successfully invades and conquers Ukraine, he will certainly have NATO at his doorstep. I doubt this was his real reasoning. Maybe the plan was to take only as much of Ukraine to show that he could , if he wanted to, take the whole. Effectively turning the Ukraine into a no-mans-land…

Technically NATO is already 'at their doorstep'. Norway, Estonia, and Latvia share a border with mainland Russia (with Estonia and Latvia being much closer to Moscow than Ukraine is), and Lithuania and Poland also directly border Kaliningrad, which is Russian territory, and Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey only have the Black Sea separating them.

Yes, but only technically. What matters is the advanced weapons system each of these countries has on its territory. Think Aegis Ashore and the likes of that. Otherwise, they're just empty land (from a military viewpoint).

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#119

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

IgorPartola wrote: post #47

As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NA…

I life in a european country, and to be honest, im shocked how many of the "old guard" politicians and diplomats consider the whole crisis just a temporary upheaval in the russia relations, that can be waited out before everything is normal again. Waiting to resume the careers as if nothing happened.

A quarter million people dead, because these corrupt non-show of a generation failed to act decisevly, hypnotized itself and after wakeup they do not have the decency to fade into the shadow, step back from all posts and make way for a new guard, ready to take decisive action.

So many dissapointments, especially among the pacifists and anti-imperialists.. intellectual & moral bankruptcy wherever you look.

Might aswell trash the last 50 years of nice words and nothing to show for it. The idea, for all these creatures of comfort to return after the conflict, from the dark and moist places they hid, and try to carry on playacting civilized makes me vomit. "Never again" they yell, while being usefull idiots for those who are at it again.

A majority of cowards, who think that power of believe alone will make them good at the end of history after all this. Im so sorry i wasted all those years listening to them, reading there books and actually believing them to have value beyond the "heating" of the pulped wood.

Re: Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April

#120

Post by slaw »

tejohnso wrote: post #88
IgorPartola wrote: post #47

As a Ukrainian immigrant living in the US the current situation in Ukraine is infuriating. I left Ukraine when I was a teenager nearly a quarter of a century ago and it was obvious to me then that sooner or later Russia would want its breadbasket back and an invasion would happen. How was this not clear to those in power? Zelinsky started the process of trying to get the country’s ducks in a row to be able to join NA…

As a Ukrainian immigrant, how do you feel about the claims that ehtno-Russians in eastern Ukraine were being harassed and killed and having their culture made illegal by the Ukrainian government or its actors? There's so much propaganda on both sides. How do you feel about western involvement in 2014?

It is whataboutism. There are no saints in this world.
Post reply on HN