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

171–180 of 218 posts

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

#171

Post by slaw »

tejohnso wrote: post #164
slaw wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you wrote, I only tried to point that your comment, even if valid is not related to Finland joining NATO.

> your comment...is not related to Finland joining NATO. Neither was the post I was responding to. It was about the situation in Ukraine, Zelenskyy, Putin, Russia, Crimea, and their historical context. Someone submitted their opinion on all of that, and I asked them about their opinion on some further detail related to all of that.

That's true. Asking questions against mainstream thinking are not welcomed here.

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

#172

Post by freehorse »

qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #119
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 itse…

Do you mean that they should have started the third world war? What do you think they should have done exactly by "taking decisive action"?

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

#173

Post by mongol »

yencabulator wrote: post #170
rossdavidh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that Turkey does not believe the rest of NATO takes the threat to it from some Kurdish organizations seriously. I have no access to unbiased data to say whether there is any actual significant threat to Turkey's security from Kurdish groups in Sweden, but it does appear that Turkey actually believes this to be a problem. The main risk here is that, now that Finland is a member of NATO, it is not clea…

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 equipment to be sent to Ukraine. Or to rally support for some imaginary cause. Russia is completely unreliable.

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

#174

Post by freehorse »

stametseater wrote: post #151
walkhour wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't accept that dichotomy despite I see value in the argument. Since the invention of nuclear bombs, how many countries without nuclear weapons have lost their sovereignty of those surrounding Russia? Btw if it's either NATO or nuclear bombs, why didn't Finland get nuclear bombs in the last 60 years?

If Finland doesn't need NATO, then why is Finland now joining NATO after 60 years? Finland's policy was one of soft appeasement. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has revealed this to be a bad idea, so Finland continuing as it was is no longer a responsible option.

Because everything gets more polarised as we are moving towards WW3. Nothing to be celebratory about.

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

#175

Post by freehorse »

ajross wrote: post #32
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.

> Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? NATO is about deterrence, not really defense per se. NATO membership makes wars with Russia less likely, and provably so. So your answer is yes: the only way the modern global economy works is if all the players are guaranteed they won't get crushed and pillaged by rogue neighbors. A continuous land war in Europe is absolutely not safer…

When NATO was bombing Afganistan, was it also deterrence?

NATO is neither defense nor deterrence, it is about asserting US dominance over the rest of the world.

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

#176

Post by Animatronio »

lostmsu wrote: post #169
Animatronio wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same thing, it's just that they have aligned themselves with Russia. Your point is?

That geographical location alone is insufficient.

Didn't stop you from commenting on that alone.

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

#177

Post by ajross »

freehorse wrote: post #175
ajross wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do I want an attack against Finland to be considered an attack against the US? NATO is about deterrence, not really defense per se. NATO membership makes wars with Russia less likely, and provably so. So your answer is yes: the only way the modern global economy works is if all the players are guaranteed they won't get crushed and pillaged by rogue neighbors. A continuous land war in Europe is absolutely not safer…

When NATO was bombing Afganistan, was it also deterrence? NATO is neither defense nor deterrence, it is about asserting US dominance over the rest of the world.

NATO's action vis a vis Russia is clearly deterrent, and the core purpose of the alliance is quite clearly deterrance. That the same command structures have been used to coordinate non-Russia-related actions (Yugoslavia too) isn't relevant to the point you're responding to.

You can deploy all the anti-imperialist hyperbole you want, but the "reason" for having a mutual defense treaty among quite-clearly-non-dominated nations like Germany or the UK is pretty obviously defense.

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

#178

Post by nradov »

foverzar wrote: post #143
diego_moita wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're stuck in the 19th century imperialist mindset, like most of your Russian/Chinese compatriots. Come to the 21st century and ask yourself: "why war when we can have commerce"?

> "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 have enough conventional force to seriously threaten most of their neighbors.

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

#179

Post by coffeebeqn »

seydor wrote: post #45
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.

Article 5 says it will be considered an attack against "them all", not against the US. In reality this is very convenient for US. What ukraine is suffering now is what would happen if russia invaded finland: the US would provide endless material support and the threat of nukes, but the vast majority of damage and losses would be Finnish. NATO acts as a shield for the US in Europe, keeping the wars away from the Ameri…

It would be a sheer impossibility for a country of 5 million to defeat the Soviet Union which could mobilize tens of millions of soldiers. It simply became too expensive for them and it was terrible timing for the soviets to launch an attack. Bad weather and their officer corps had been culled to shit

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

#180

Post by smegger001 »

t0bia_s wrote: post #146
qikInNdOutReply wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 itse…

You can grab a weapon and go to help Ukranians right now, instead of complaining on internet. Will you do it?

I is one thing to say our military should be involved it is another for a privet person to do so. If i alone as a private citizen go over there I I would have no logistical support to supply me with weapons, ammunition, food, equipment, medicen or direction. Hell I dont speak or read the local language, as a privet citizen going over there I would be a hindrance rather than a aid. if drafted and sent as part of a organized funded military all of those things are taken care of. for every one infantrymen the army fields on the front line they have about 3-5 soldiers working is various support roles. expecting random people to go alone is not helpful
Post reply on HN