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

181–190 of 218 posts

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

#181

Post by smegger001 »

Animatronio wrote: post #92
flexie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukrainian NATO membership does benefit NATO in several ways: - Ukraine is the only country in Europe to have fought off NATO's main adversary - Ukraine has a large, powerful and experienced army, much larger than those of most NATO countries - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the older NATO members as a adding another buffer state - Ukraine in NATO will be seen by the newer NATO members such as the Baltic countries or…

- Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany. - Ukraine's army if frankly in tatters, being propped by massive supplies of ammo, weapons and mercs - Ukraine is already a buffer state by virtue of its geographical position - your last 3 points are simply appeals to emotions and in no way arguments for Ukraine's membership.

>Ukraine is the only country to have fought off Russia, except Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Germany.

Finland sure but the Winter War ended due as much to the valor of the Fins as to Stalin getting ready to fight Nazi Germany. Also Russia won the rest of your list taking took over Poland, Lithuania, and half of Germany. that was the whole WWII easterrn front/cold war warsaw pact thing.

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

#182

Post by smegger001 »

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.

the whole point is by having this big block of countries agreeing to cooperatively fight Russia is if any of them are attacked, is that we don't actually have to fallow through because its to big of a risk for Russia to act up. If they had been part of NATO to begin with none of us would actually had to of sent any aid like we are now. NATO membership is as much about mutual coordination and defense as is is about deterring Russia from starting war in Europe.

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

#183

Post by smegger001 »

foverzar wrote: post #136
khochesh_kushat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is taking advantage of a golden strategic opportunity, because why wouldn't they, but it's Russia scoring the own goal here. If they wanted to stop destabilizing themselves they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home. Nobody is going to follow them into Russia. They don't even have to do anything diplomatically. Just leave, no special agreements require…

> they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home I wonder if that's actually realistically true. The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.

home here being Russia not mearly Ukrainian land the Russians have been illegally occupying for a bit longer.

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

#184

Post by smegger001 »

nradov wrote: post #178
foverzar wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "why war when we can have commerce"? Can't help but sad chuckle over this whole clash of rams battle of perspectives and the fact that Russia, Ukraine and other western countries had somewhat great relationships at the beginning of the century. One could ask the same question from the Russian perspective when analyzing how Russia-West relations have deteriorated from Russia being in love with it, towards Russia hav…

That's the wrong question to ask. From an amoral game theory perspective, the real question is: how can we bleed Russia to death? The ideal outcome would be to trigger multiple civil wars in Russia where various provinces break away from Moscow, leaving the rump successor state no more of a threat than North Korea. In that scenario, Russia would still have to be taken seriously as a nuclear threat but would no longer…

thats not ideal either a bunch of breakaway states would be eaten by china which is not something NATO wants either.

from the wets prospective a quick internal cue falloewed by regim change to a more western friendly pro democracy leader that ideally is afraid of china would be the best outcome.

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

#185

Post by smegger001 »

mongol wrote: post #173
yencabulator wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the Russian threat in particular, I simply don't see a way for Russia to attack Sweden without inherently having to attack Finland, Norway or Denmark also. Sure, they might fly some planes & bomb some things, but that won't win a war by itself. There's just no viable beach head attack route purely from international waters to Sweden -- the defense plan for the Baltic sea is based on mine blockades, and Swedes exc…

On the other hand, the cost for military aggression has never been lower. All easy western retaliations, such as sanctions, have been spent. A few rockets, sent from a far, towards for example Gotland, will cost almost no political capital, since it has already been spent. It will not threaten Sweden's soverignity, but it will threaten it's security. And why? As a retaliation, for example. To dissuade more Swedish eq…

Except NATO has said they are treating attacks Finland and Sweeden as an Attack on NATO while they go through the application/approval process. attacking Sweden would be tantamount to starting WWIII even Russia's puppet state allies wouldn't back Putin if he picked that fight. Russia can barely hold its own now on one front

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

#187

Post by smegger001 »

walkhour wrote: post #10

This is an excellent deal for Finland, whose sovereignty is protected. Is it the same for the US? Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? An attack against the US can unleash the end of humanity. I find very risky to leave this at the whims of some out of touch Russian dictator.

Yeah your right Mr Chamberlain, its only Czechoslovakia, oh and Poland, and oh shit its France too now, and are those plane overhead?

letting power mad dictators take over their weaker neighboors territory uncontested tends to not turn out well be it Napoleon, Hitler Stalin, or Putin.

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

#188

Post by rendall »

smegger001 wrote: post #186
rendall wrote: post #163

This war must end only with Russia's defederation and demilitarization.

while that would be ideal, they have nukes on ICBMs. no one is going to invade and force them. change has to come from within.

True, but invasion is unnecessary. It would be the condition for normalization.

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

#189

Post by foverzar »

smegger001 wrote: post #183
foverzar wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they can always leave - the war ends literally the second they turn their tanks around and drive home I wonder if that's actually realistically true. The civil war has been going on for far longer and it will have to be dealt with. Ukrainian government seems to have also been signaling that its goal is to liberate Crimea, so this is also something that will be going on.

home here being Russia not mearly Ukrainian land the Russians have been illegally occupying for a bit longer.

Yeah, let our imagination run wild and suppose this happens.

How would you deal with the Crimeans who got overly cozy showered with Russian Oil/Gas money?

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

#190

Post by mongol »

smegger001 wrote: post #185
mongol wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, the cost for military aggression has never been lower. All easy western retaliations, such as sanctions, have been spent. A few rockets, sent from a far, towards for example Gotland, will cost almost no political capital, since it has already been spent. It will not threaten Sweden's soverignity, but it will threaten it's security. And why? As a retaliation, for example. To dissuade more Swedish eq…

Except NATO has said they are treating attacks Finland and Sweeden as an Attack on NATO while they go through the application/approval process. attacking Sweden would be tantamount to starting WWIII even Russia's puppet state allies wouldn't back Putin if he picked that fight. Russia can barely hold its own now on one front

No they haven't. The different statenents are much more careful than this.
Post reply on HN