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

Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

nato.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 521 posts

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#371

Post by AnimalMuppet »

twixfel wrote: post #190
khochesh_kushat wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a funny jump of logic a lot of people make. Sometimes people profit off of war, therefore all wars are secretly arranged by a cabal of war profiteers in back room deals. There's lots of variations but there's often a core true statement that is then used to leap to wild theories without any evidence.

I find it most ridiculous because ultimately war is hugely, hugely expensive. It doesn't make much sense.

It is. Hugely expensive, and hugely wasteful.

But a big part of the expense is buying arms. That means that someone is making and selling those arms. And the seller is doing really good business.

I completely disagree with sprash, but you're going too far in the opposite direction. War profits are in fact a thing. It's good business for at least some. Where I disagree with sprash is that I don't believe that those people are the tail that is wagging the dog.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#372

Post by jnsaff2 »

andreygrehov wrote: post #362
jnsaff2 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So russia tried really hard to NOT invade a sovereign country and US made it impossible? Which twisted logic do you have? russia had no chance but go in and bomb maternity wards, genocide away freely, poor-poor russia, they had no chance of just not doing any of that? /s > Russia made the last attempt to stop the expansion you even use the word expansion here

Russia is not targeting civilians, but since this is a war, civilians are obviously affected. What really happens is Russia targets military objects as part of their demilitarization goal. Ukraine shots down a rocket and then debris strikes into civilians buildings. This is happening daily. Example: today's night. My family is in Ukraine right now. Russia was bombing a military base which I used to walk around when I…

What legitimate business russia has being in Ukraine at all? Let alone you just lying about russia only targeting military.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#373

Post by BurningFrog »

lawn wrote: post #257
BurningFrog wrote: post #225

Meanwhile, Sweden's NATO application is blocked by Turkey because former Peshmerga fighter Amineh Kakabaveh happened to become very powerful in the chaotic Swedish parliament a few years ago. The story: https://www.outlookindia.com/international/former-kurdish-re...

That's a simplification, and there are a bunch of other reasons. The dictator Erdogan wanting to pressure Sweden and NATO for instance.

There are other factors for sure, but without Sweden's recent pro kurdish policy swing, my guess is that both Sweden and Finland would have joined today.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#374

Post by mannerheim »

Convolutional wrote: post #313
spookie wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't . It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them. If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.

[flagged]

Russia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#375

Post by IYasha »

go13 wrote: post #60

Great step for the West and civilized nations! Countries with similar civilized values should not be naïve and be ready to stand up to barbarians including being aggressive when needed, and yes, EXPAND! And certainly the West should not be ashamed for standing for its values and what is right, otherwise there is a wide range of ambitious nations who think that their way is unique and the only way to deal with others…

If they expand, I'm afraid, you're not gonna be part of it. :D

You know, that already happened before. When Germany tried to.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#376

Post by petre »

alkonaut wrote: post #324
petre wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hungary and Turkey can do whatever they want, but the effect of sabotaging the alliance is that they get cut off from US arms deals, maybe even French ones. We have seen this when Turkey bought the S400 from Russia - they got kicked out of the F-35 program. Hungary is still leasing planes from Saab. They will ratify Sweden's NATO membership.

Yeah that's completely expected though I imagine. Buying S-400 something as advanced as AA or Fighter jets is basically the same as a long term future military partnership. It's not like buying socks or trucks. And buying such complex equipment from within the alliance comes with the equivalent promise not to share that tech with those who shouldn't have it. I think in terms of arms deals Saab will benefit a lot from…

Don't know what to say about SAAB benefiting from Sweden joining NATO. France got their submarine deal with Australlia cancelled and instead they get to sell less subs and some corvettes to Romania. Unlike the F-16, the Rafale and Grippen programs don't have an upgrade path towards 5th gen fighters like the F-35. You need to re-train the pilots on something else emtirely different. The Gripen is very much built for and suited specifically for Sweden, being smaller and able to land on a motorway.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#377

Post by BurningFrog »

akho wrote: post #275
BurningFrog wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Soviet Union killed between 20-60 million of its own people. Did Tsarist Russia really do anything that competes with that?

Tsarist Russia enslaved most of its population for centuries.

I think we can agree that it's better to be a slave than to be murdered?

The Soviet Union also made extensive use of slave labor, where millions died.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#378

Post by _uoud »

causi wrote: post #348
kypro wrote: post #314

Why have so many comments been flagged here?

Politics at all is already treading the line here, and HN has a very low tolerance for posturing bullshit.

Indeed, it's a thin line and I as the OP am surprised it generated so much (also productive) discussion. I saw this post was hidden from the front page at some point and I guess it's for the better. It's a "so-so".

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#379

Post by veeti »

Stagnant wrote: post #350
foverzar wrote: post #229

So, this is mostly a US-centric forum, but I wonder what is the take on this from the perspective of a Finnish person. Is there any controversy or concerns of becoming a foothold for future conflicts? This whole thing has been dragging on for sometime now, had the opinions shifted over time?

The decision to join NATO has had overwhelming support among the general population throughout the process. Over 80% of the population were in favor of joining when we applied for membership last year and the opinions have stayed around the same. According to a poll conducted in early february this year, 82% were in favor, 10% undecided and 8% against. Parliament votes were 184-7 last month when they approved the mem…

> Parliament votes were 184-7 last month when they approved the membership.

Most of the seven were also not re-elected in Sunday's election.

Re: Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO

#380

Post by mupuff1234 »

ilyt wrote: post #287
The_Colonel wrote: post #4

Finland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggressi…

> if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. I mean, yeah, but the reason is probably just "we need more shit to shoot at civilians in UA" rather than "we don't fear NATO invasion"

Sure, but if they actually feared a NATO invasion they wouldn't have had the liberty to shift those forces.
Post reply on HN