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

Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 613 posts

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#591

Post by thiagoharry »

raducu wrote: post #565
thiagoharry wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern-day NATO is a cooperation platform for joint exercises etc, not some missile club that starts delivering ICBMs every month. Say that to Libya or Yugoslavia that were attacked. NATO is not exactly just a "defensive agreement" as is being currently propagandized.

Ygoslavia deserved every last bomb it received, they were doing ethnic clensing, ffs.

So do not spread that NATO is just a defensive agreement. Say the truth: that it is a military agreement that can act offensively and aggressively without UN support based on geopolitical interests after exaggerating the situation in the news. About this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/aug/18/balkans3

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#592

Post by int_19h »

hef19898 wrote: post #163
pyuser583 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t the British get involved the second Germany invaded Poland?

France as well. Poland was never a intended to stay local by the Nazis, it was the beginning. Not that France and Britain did a lot between the invasions of Poland and the low countries / France so.

Britain and France did declare war, yes. But there's a reason why it was called the "phony war" for several months (until Nazis invaded France).

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#593

Post by sg47 »

thiagoharry wrote: post #590
sg47 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's Ukraine's choice to do whatever they want.

Likewise, it was Cuba's choice to place soviet nukes where they want. However, that led to a crisis here.

Yes, I remember how US tried to bomb Cuba and annex it as a territory.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#594

Post by abandonliberty »

realcertify wrote: post #503
jdrc wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 'm watching RT to try to understand the russian propaganda, and it seems even the reporters are caught by surprise by the scale of the invasion. What you said does not justify launching a full scale attack against the entirety of ukraine. It does seem like a madman doing mad things thinking this is the 1930s again. As if occupying ukraine would solve the problem you re mentioning...

This doesn't look much different from the US attacking Iraq or Yugoslavia. All these attacks have serious reasons behind them (and those reasons are not protecting poor children as mass media would tell you).

Iraq was quite questionable. The motive, oil/currency, was understandable though reprehensible. The terrorists weren't from Iraq, but Afghanistan/SA; GWB's decision to attack, and destabilize both a country and international order (as we're now experiencing) is his legacy.

The difference here is that Ukraine did their best to appease Russia, including promising to never join the EU/Nato for promises of security. It seems like Ukraine was ready to give everything for independence, but their independence was unacceptable.

What does RF have to gain from this? Most publications say very little. What are they missing?

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#595

Post by abandonliberty »

jdrc wrote: post #559
tasuki wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think Putin is going mad? His actions might be immoral, but I don't think they're illogical. I see Putin as a very competent and ruthless leader. As a citizen of a post communist country, I'm somewhat concerned.

> but I don't think they're illogical. Can you elaborate, in material terms, what does russia win by invading and occupying ukraine? What do you imagine the economy of ukrainian people will be after this?

I want the same answer.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#596

Post by Jetrel »

elric wrote: post #115
d3ckard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Otherwise you let Putin have Ukraine and basically show your ass. We’re all afraid of nukes, but that fear can’t make us allow for everything. I am a Pole as well and also very uncomfortable. I also believe Nato should intervene in Ukraine. Otherwise, we just wait until it’s our turn.

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed ~200k people. Any target worth nuking, (say Nato HQ) will result in millions of casualties. Urbanization & increased population density have many benefits, but they make for mind-bogglingly disastrous targets of nukes. If there's a choice between nukes raining down and between Putin ruling the world, I'll happily choose the latter. No matter the cost, there cannot be a nucl…

Unfortunately for people with your worldview, this isn't the way the world works. You're thinking under a framework that one set of actions will certainly prevent it, and the other is more likely to cause it.

At this point, neither intervention nor non-intervention is likely to prevent this. It's entirely likely that if Putin loses this assault, or faces an intractable insurgency, he could launch nukes out of a desperate attempt to save face. He's old — at this point, only the reputation he leaves behind is what matters to him, and it's clear that he wishes to be remembered as a fearful and powerful figure. What better way to do that than nuking someone?

Your attitude is the same entrapment that allows abusive spouses to hold their spouse in thrall. I've actually witnessed that backfire to its ultimate degree; in my hometown, a woman in an abusive relationship called her husband's bluff on his threats to kill her if she left, and he wasn't bluffing. Killed her in broad daylight at a local bank, and then killed himself.

The question you have to ask is whether you think her leaving him was the only thing that precipitated him killing her, or whether his killing her was because he realized she no longer loved him.

Everything in life is a gamble.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#597

Post by cute_boi »

llampx wrote: post #479
cute_boi wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last sentence is an oxymoron. How would there be peace if you go to war?

Current war for future peace.

I don't think so. Middle east war, Afghan war never brought any peace. Instead it backfired. So, I really don't like such platitudes.

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#598

Post by CodeGlitch »

lupire wrote: post #571
CodeGlitch wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Finland has a compulsory conscription system for all males over 18: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/en/finnish-conscription-system Therefore I do not think Finland would be a walk-over for the Russians...not to mention what happened last time Russia fought Finland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

You can't really compare skis and rifles to modern military.

Yes I can. A "modern military" isn't a guaranteed victory if your enemy is fighting in it's own turf in difficult terrain. The best armies in the world have failed to do this in Afghanistan (several times now).

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#599

Post by deepsun »

pmontra wrote: post #469
deepsun wrote: post #365

I've grew up near Russia, and I can describe you their mindset: all "agreements", "sanctions", "borders" etc don't matter. They are just distractions to prepare positions and advance their military. All that matters is force. There's a Russian proverb: "All territories are ours, it's just someone temporary occupied them". They also think in terms of territories (not people or economy) and victories. If they start los…

Estonia is NATO since 2004. If Russia attacks Estonia ICBMs are launched and all wars are over for a long time. I expect that in the next days some member of the US government, maybe the President, will publicly remember that Mutual Assured Destruction is what kept the world mostly at peace since the 50s, except small scale wars by proxy or with only one of the USA and SSSR directly involved. So Russia won't invade,…

What if some small Estonian county says that they are majority Russians and want to do a referendum? Just like Scotland did (but didn't succeed). Just like Transnistria did. Just like South Osetia did. Just like Crimea did. Just like Donetsk did in 2014.

And then Russia wants to help them. Hey, our fellow comrades are under oppression from Estonian government!

There can be many different recipes, but it's never a 1-day process. The current war with Russia is ongoing since 2014. First it's separatists (mostly really residents of those territories, supported by Russia), then it's some unknown bands of criminals. And very strong propaganda, that persuades everyone and their parliaments that those peoples' voices must be heard, etc.

No ICBMs won't fly in that case, because it's always "not such a big deal for ICBMs". Are you going to start World War 3 if some small Estonian territory really wants to secede?

Re: Estonia, allies to trigger NATO Article 4

#600

Post by deepsun »

pmontra wrote: post #552
xdennis wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Russia attacks Estonia ICBMs are launched This is constantly questioned by Americans, including the former president. It commonly goes like this: "I like $balticCountry, but are we really going to send nukes if $balticCountry is invaded?" It might go down like WW2 when countries reacted only when large countries were invaded (Poland).

MAD works because the two parties do their best to convince the other party that they'd launch the missiles as soon as any of their allies or controlled territories are touched. If there is a crack in their resolve the other party can take a bite, then another one and then the alliance crumbles. Or they launch their missiles hoping for no retaliation.

Yes. Americans cannot find Estonia on the map, why starting World War 3 for it? Especially if it's not really clear there was an invasion, maybe there are real citizens that have some demands from their government, or some other shady things not clearly seen from afar?
Post reply on HN