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

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#301

Post by mcv »

refurb wrote: post #272
RandomLensman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave…

The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake. You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam. 1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence. 2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist a…

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.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#302

Post by ceejayoz »

shimonabi wrote: post #246
M2Ys4U wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).

The Croat president has publicly said he will veto new members if the status of the Croat minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not improved legally. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-p...

Does that actually mean anything? As the “if he can” in the headline suggests, it doesn’t seem to be up to him.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#303

Post by RandomLensman »

refurb wrote: post #272
RandomLensman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave…

The problem is you’re using your own perspective to imagine how Russia is assessing the situation. That’s the big mistake. You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam. 1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence. 2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist a…

In what way is 2) or 3) of my points related to a perspective? Those are either historical fact or current situation.

On territory, Russia can have a different view and they are entitled to it - but doesn't change that it is a wrong perception. Not sure, if Russia's perspective should then guide policy "in the West".

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#304

Post by ajrbyers »

stoltzmann wrote: post #173
mcv wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a serious problem for NATO if a pro-Russian Hungary could basically act as a fifth column and cripple NATO by vetoing everything. There simply has to be a process to kick out insincere members.

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.

This argument goes both ways though, I suppose. NATO has your back and you have to have NATO's back. If Hungary start dicking about then things wont go well for them, I think.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#305

Post by brabel »

tremon wrote: post #74
nymalt wrote: post #21

Didn't Russia (last month) threaten Finland/Sweden with 'consequences' should they decide joining NATO? Wondering what would those be. Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?

Russia has been threatening Finland/Sweden with consequences for years. As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech with Boris Johnson a few days ago, Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free.

> Russia has shown with Ukraine that complying with Russia's threats is not a guarantee that the future will be consequence-free.

When did Ukraine actually comply with any threat from Russia since at least the Maidan Revolution??

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#306

Post by aiilns »

RandomLensman wrote: post #110
aiilns wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Talk about missiles within range of Moscow and so on. Obviously these comments make no sense. Why doesn't it make sense? I'm not for Russia nor for NATO, but what is the purpose of the alliance if not against Russia as a remnant of the cold war? Wasn't the same kind of reasoning used by the USA for Cuba resulting in its ~blockade~ "quarantine" and almost war/invasion? It seems to me there's a certain rhetoric meant…

1) NATO has no territorial desires on Russia. Eastern members do have bad historic experiences with Russia so they joined a defensive alliance 2) Cuba was "allowed" to stay in the Eastern block (but not to host nuclear weapons). Ukraine was not "allowed" to join NATO, by comparison 3) Russia has nuclear/nuclear capable weapons inside NATO (Kaliningrad), not the other way around. EDIT: Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave…

1) Isn't NATO a product of the cold war, meant to stand as an alliance against the USSR? A defense alliance must be, by definition, against someone, be it Russia or China. And isn't it a tool for the US (mainly) to serve their interests & enforce their will around the world? See Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya.

2) "Allowed" yes, disregarding the sanctions/embargo in place these last 60 years.

3) My geography knowledge is a bit spotty, but isn't Kaliningrad part of the Russian Federation (even if an exclave, between Lithuania & Poland)? Also I don't know if indeed there are nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad.

I am not arguing that NATO is worse, my point is that NATO is the West's/USA's tool and regardless of whether you see it as an instrument for justice/good, historically it very much has been against Russia's interests and arguably still is. You may consider NATO a force for good and Putin/Russia evil, thus giving legitimacy to NATO's existence & operations, that does not mean that Putin/Russia perceiving NATO as a threat "makes no sense".

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#307

Post by jacquesm »

oscarfr wrote: post #181

Russia made the best move to get Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Did NATO hire Putin? It almost seems like some sort of reverse psychology thing… Russia saying "We forbid you to join NATO" is one of few things that would get these countries to join NATO. "Don't tell us what to do!" What is Putin's play?

There is no play. Just a long series of miscalculations.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#308

Post by CRConrad »

shimonabi wrote: post #246
M2Ys4U wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. I highly doubt that any of NATO's members will veto an application from Finland (or Sweden).

The Croat president has publicly said he will veto new members if the status of the Croat minority in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not improved legally. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/croat-p...

And almost immediately thereafter the Prime Minister of Croatia said "That's not in the hands of the President, Parliament decides that, and we ain't gonna veto". And presumably he has a majority in Parliament, or he wouldn't have that job. (Sorry, no source -- TV news the same or next day, IIRC.)

I mean, from TFA:

> Croatian President Zoran Milanović on Tuesday said he would block the admission of Sweden and Finland at the NATO summit in Madrid if he is the one representing Croatia

If he is representing Croatia, and the country's decisions are made by Parliament (the President "has a say" in foreign policy), then isn't his job there only to re-present what Parliament has decided?

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#309

Post by yodelshady »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #93
klausjensen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK has also made written guarantees to protect Finland (and Sweden) during the application process. In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members.

> In practical reality, if Russia were to attack Finland or Sweden now, the answer from NATO would be pretty much the same as if they were already members. Really? Why is this true of Finland but not Ukraine?

Ukraine hadn't applied, until recently arguably didn't meet the military requirements, and - even before this year - had a border dispute in Donbas.

The latter is important, NATO is not a hired gun. Finland does have a stable border.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#310

Post by aa-jv »

mrep wrote: post #269
aa-jv wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact is, billions and billions in profits have been made by every single NATO base built, and it has not stopped a single damn war. In fact, NATO bases have been used to commit one heinous atrocity after the other for the last 30 years.

I don't think you understand what profit means.

I sure know what it means to Lockheed Martin (LMT), Northrop Grumman (NOG) and Raytheon (RTN).

So do many, many others - thankfully:

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-soaring-prof...

Post reply on HN