Live data from Hacker News

Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

presidentti.fi

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is what Hungary gains from splitting with the rest of the EU and NATO to help Russia. Doesn't seem beneficial to them.

The very short answer is that Hungary benefits both from membership in the Western block and from being Putin's friend inside it. So they presumably don't want to go as far as leave, but rather use that as a credible threat for leverage.

If hungry tried to veto, Nato could evict them, then they would be facing Putin on their own.

Nobody is Putin's friend. When you join his club he send the military in to make sure it goes his way.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#732
post #299
post #55

Let's hope that Sweden will also follow suit.

I hope not. To me it seems very unnecessary (please hear me out), first of all, it seems to be the common idea that Russia is losing the war, has a weak military, cannot invade another country successfully, but at the same time, we should be afraid of them? I've heard the argument that it's the nukes that we should be afraid of, but does joining NATO really mean that they will surely not use them? I also assume that…

If Russia is currently bogged down in a losing war, now is the ideal time to join NATO since Russia cannot realistically threaten to invade in retaliation. Joining NATO may be unnecessary, but the downside is small and the upside is very large.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How has appeasement worked out in Chechnya, the invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea, Georgia, shooting down a civilian airliner? What shall we give Russia this time? Then when they come for Poland or Romania, who do you suggest we offer to rape and murder?

Given that Russia couldn't even cleanly occupy Ukraine, it's laughable to suggest they could attack NATO countries such as Poland and Romania.

That doesn't follow. Even though Russia has not been able to occupy most of Ukraine, they've still been able to attack the civilian population. Either through medium range missile strikes, or with occupation forces committing war crimes before being pushed back (to put it mildly). I assume the citizens of Poland and Romania much prefer being able to go to a shopping mall without being subject to missile strikes.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#735
post #85
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).

How about Hungary and it's seemingly pro-Russian leader, Orban? They could vote against.

Orban knows he doesn't have the juice to go all pro-Russia in this environment.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Russia could easily start a conventional war and there is no way NATO would escalate that to nuclear without Russia using nuclear weapons first.

What makes you think NATO nations wouldn't do such a thing, if there were a conventional war between them and Russia? War is essentially irrational, and it causes governments and the general population to desire ends that can only be pursued by harmful, immoral means. What makes NATO immune to this?

Because NATO would overwhelmingly defeat Russia in a conventional war. There is no real upside and there is very real downside for NATO to escalating a conventional war with Russia to a nuclear war.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's been convenient to blame Hungary, but the truth is, plenty of countries are unhappy about banning Russian hydrocarbons, with Germany leading the list. They can weather the consequences of their veto, because there isn't much will to make it happen anyway - i.e. there are no consequences. I can imagine Finland/Sweden being very different. Who benefits/loses from Finland/Sweden joining? These countries are…

Quoted post unavailable.

> I'll remind you that Russia is a democracy and Putin is a democratically elected leader, as much as Biden is. And people in the USA have much less trust for the democratic process than Russians at the moment.

Erm... huh? You cannot, not in a million years, compare the democratic processes of US or EU states with what's going on in Russia. I'm not even sure where to start. How about this then: Russia's premier opposition leader, Alexey Navalny, got poisoned with deadly poison known to be used only by Russian secret services, and almost died. Did Biden or Trump or any other US politician try to kill their opponent?

I suspect given that comment, we won't find common ground, but for others' benefit:

> It paid off incredibly well actually. Why do you think Germany is the first industrial power in Europe? Who's selling them all the cheap gas that keeps the industries going?

Germany decided to wean itself off atom and onto gas/renewables. That was a political decision, which drove energy prices up. France instead doubled-down on nuclear and is doing just fine. Affordable energy is achievable without Russian gas, just not overnight. For sure the going was good for Germany for a while, but now they find they are held by the balls.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but trying to become a NATO member has a much higher chance of getting you embroiled in a war than not doing that. This continued escalation can't help but lead to nuclear war, our leaders are playing an extremely dangerous game of chicken. If anything, Russia's botched invasion of Ukraine should show other countries in the region that there isn't so much to fear from them, and that NATO can be counted for h…

Appeasement worked great with Hitler and Mussolini... Finland is a sovereign nation and has the right to join any defensive union it wants. Interesting with all the down votes, wonder if Russian bots have reach even on HN? The fact is that this is happening, and Sweden is joining too, and I'm glad we are. You need some very twisted Russian logic to see sovereign states joining of their own accord, with majority suppo…

Here is how the US responded to the Solomon Islands military treaty with China (emphasis mine):

> If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities, or a military installation, the delegation noted that the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly.

Note that the Solomon Islands is also a sovereign nation, and that it is > 10,000km away from the US border, and >2000km away from the border of the closest US Ally, Australia.

My point is not whataboutism, it is that sovereign nations have an interest in the military alliances of other sovereign nations, and that the security of one state doesn't stop at its borders. Joining hostile military alliances or massing troops at a shared border is logically viewed as a security threat from another nation, and sovereign nations have a right to attempt to prevent such actions.

Of course, doing it by force of arms the way Russia did is entirely illegal and immoral. Even the threat of violence is considered unacceptable by the Geneva convention, though of course that is often ignored. But complaining or seeking diplomatic and even economic ways to prevent such actions is not immoral in my view, and it is certainly not unusual.

Re: Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

#739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Of course, joining NATO is picking a side. 2) But still Cuba was permitted to stay within the Eastern block. Why did Russia not choose to just sanction Ukraine then but allow NATO membership (that would the comparison) 3) Yes, of course, but really surrounded by NATO members. Could you imagine Russia permitting a NATO exclave inside Russia? And Russia certainly makes it sound like they have nuclear weapons there (…

You should drop #3, Poland and Lithuania are former Soviet states and late joiners of NATO '99 and '04 respectively so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia. Arguing that this somehow means that NATO is more tolerant of having Russian forces "within its borders" is absurd since they were the ones that expanded those borders around Kaliningrad.

> so NATO effectively "annexed" former Soviet territory around part of Russia.

1. NATO isn't a country, and can't annexe anything.

2. Former Soviet states are states that are no longer Soviet. NATO didn't ccoerce Poland and Lithuania into joining.

Your notion of what annexation means is at odds with mine.

Post reply on HN