Finland Becomes a Member of NATO on Tuesday 4 April • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by nakkaya » Tue, Apr 04, 2023, 9:43 PM UTC

ianburrell wrote: post #139

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…

Things may change based on the upcoming Turkish presidential election. If Ergodan gets kicked out, Turkish policy to Sweden will change.

The thing most people on the West doesn't seem to get is, there are issues that predate Erdogan. Such as this one, whoever replaces him will make similar requests in a less childish more diplomatic way. There is legitimate concern across the voter base that the West is supporting Kurdish terrorist groups. No matter which party wins if they want to be re-elected they will need to address the same concerns.

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

#212

Post by Tommstein » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 12:31 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #24

This is great news! When can we expect Finland to gain western missile defense systems?

Looks like they already have some: https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/intl_cooperation/finland/

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

#213

Post by foverzar » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 9:08 AM UTC

actionfromafar wrote: post #208

foverzar wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how would the relationship you're describing be different from early post-Cold War era relationships between Russia and Europe?

Europe is more democratic and has more liberty than China.

Might be, but that wouldn't affect Russia that much specifically.

China's and Europe's attitudes and practices towards their let's say "dependent trade and strategic partners" is a different story, but EU can hardly boast on that front, judging e.g. by various African states.

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

#214

Post by throwaway4aday » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #209

throwaway4aday wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I thought it was clear that I meant US and Russia. That is the overarching narrative here.

How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.

I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.

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

#215

Post by throwaway4aday » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 1:23 PM UTC

0xBDB wrote: post #199

throwaway4aday wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aggressive war is inexcusable and I condemn all nations that engage in it including Russia and the United States. Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty just as all other nations do, but what you posted is shallow thinking. Look at a map of Europe, put yourself in the mind of a highly suspicious and pessimistic person and ask yourself "how would I invade Russia?" "how do I get an SRBM or MRBM within striking range of…

"Ukraine as a neutral, sovereign country" Based on what Ukraine at least appears to want, especially now, if it is sovereign it won't be neutral, and if forced to be neutral it isn't really sovereign.

Check your logic. If you want to be my room mate and I refuse, does that make you less of an individual?

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

#216

Post by rendall » Wed, Apr 05, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

HideousKojima wrote: post #70

haspok wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be so condescending - Finland is one of the few countries that successfully resisted a Russian invasion. It is very much capable of protecting itself, much more so than Ukraine (which is also doing it, albeit with significant support from the west). The NATO (and the US actually) benefits a lot by Finland joining, and will benefit from Sweden joining too - only a matter of time.

>Finland is one of the few countries that successfully resisted a Russian invasion. While the Finns absolutely kicked the Soviets' asses in the Winter War, they actually did lose the war a ceded territory to the USSR.

Dunno man. Booting the invaders and keeping sovereignty after your tiny nation of 3 million is invaded by an army of over 500K soldiers seems like a win to me, especially when literally every other neighbor fell. But whatever. Finland's ready for Russia.

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

#217

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 10:09 AM UTC

ihatepython wrote: post #96

snehk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's just my opinion. Germany's infrastructure was attacked, Sweden said "We're not gonna share our findings with German intelligence". Not sure how there's any situation in which Germany should go to a literal war - no questions asked - should Sweden be attacked if Sweden cannot even share their findings when it comes to an attack on an supposed ally. Would you be willing to help out your neighbor if he told…

Read between the lines. They can't openly say that the US was responsible for Nordstream.

You mean 'fantasize between the lines'.

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

#218

Post by arrrg » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

throwaway4aday wrote: post #214

arrrg wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the US withdraw from Ukraine given that they are not fighting there? How can the US negotiate a cease fire in Ukraine over the head of Ukraine? Can you tell me how that is even supposed to be possible? That makes no sense.

I said they should withdraw both politically and militarily. What that would look like is up to whatever agreement could be reached in peace talks. On the other points you're simply being blind to history, read about peace negotiations and you'll find that the parties involved extend far beyond just the combatants especially in conflicts adjacent to super-powers.

How do you want to achieve that? What path do you see for such a solution?

What you are suggesting ist just not realistic in any way. It’s pure fantasy.