Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO
nato.intFinland 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 aggression).
> 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.
Yes, but… no? If you want to give the appearance of strength, I wouldn’t suggest losing to a country 1/28 your size.
Yeah, but it shows the priorities - conquer more non-NATO land or protect their borders against an apparently existential threat intent on destroying Russia? This is a mask off moment.
I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia.
Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
Reading about what the Soviet Union did in countries like Estonia and Ukraine is pretty harrowing stuff. Wanting to join NATO for protection after is completely understandable and denying them because it would upset their former (and present) abuser is a shameful thought.
Everything that Russia is doing now it has done to countries like Poland in the past. That's why when we see news about Russia shipping Ukrainian kids to Russia to be "integrated" it makes our blood literally boil - it was the fate of many Polish families as well, my own relatives have stories of their loved ones having to walk back from Syberia after being sent there for "integration".
To me, one of the greatest feat of the EU and NATO is the integration of countries like Poland and Romania to the west. These two countries were economically and socially stunted by decades of communist mismanagement, failed socialism and outright theft and genocide from Russia.
It's been truly incredible to see them grow and prosper.
And hopefully soon Ukraine
Ukraine is going to be an incredible opportunity for the west in the coming decades.
Young, educated, motivated population with western values and a strong will for democracy and freedom. An economy that can only grow and prosper. And unlike Syrian and Afghan "refugees", there's a strong desire from Ukrainian refugees to return and rebuild.
Real question: Why did you write Syrian and Afghan refugees with double quotes? In English slang, this is used to imply so-called status -- lesser or fake. Their countries were destroyed by war, and they again have repressive dictatorships. Their need to escape to a safer places seems real to me. Also, if Syria or Afghanistan graduated to democratic, free countries, I am sure many, many refugees would want to return home for cultural reasons.
Yes I agree with the previous comment. I volunteered to teach Finnish to the refugees during the last "refugee-crisis" Finland faced, when Russia opened it borders and "dumped" Central Asian asylum seekers here the year 2015. Obviously some of the young guys from Syria were just taking a fun tour. Most of these folks got the ticket back to their starting point, and accepted it.
But there were many who really wanted to learn the local language, and even if the life at the "asylum seekers centers" was not luxury, they were grateful that they had a place to stay where there was no immediate risk of death.
Some of these people had their families with them, though most of them were young, healthy males, since this segment is most likely to survive the trip. E.g. riding a bicycle in the -30 C/-22 Fahrenheit for 50 kilometres was one common way to entry Finland during this episode.
And regarding Afghanistan, for many, there is not much to be rebuilt. The country was first run over my Soviet army, then the US revenge. The minorities like Hazara have been persecuted during all the previous regimes. These people have no place to go back to.The people I know have instead build careers here, and are vocal against fundamentalist Islam.
I'd like to hope so too, but hope is not enough. How do you see that playing out in reality?
It’s hard to predict what happens in Russia and what the peace deal will be. I can’t imagine Ukraine will accept anything that doesn’t involve something like a article 5
Yes, this was exactly the reason why I, as a Finnish person, changed my view on joining NATO by 180 degrees the day Russia launched its war against Ukraine. Before that, I wanted Finland to be independent from both the West and Russia. I had more friends in and felt closer to Russia than the USA.
But I have been grateful that Finland has been independent. As a child, I visited the Soviet Baltic countries since church choirs were allowed entry. I remember it clearly because I saw for the first time the fear of speaking about certain topics.
Defending the country’s independence took a whole generation, as all men who could be drafted were sent to war and women participated as volunteers. My other grandmother worked behind enemy lines as an underage girl, delivering messages. The other grandmother volunteered to work in prison camps.
When Finland was last attacked by Russia (formerly known as the Soviet Republic), Finland did not receive much help apart from thoughts and prayers and socks knitted by housewives in the UK and US. In the first round, Finland defended its independence but lost a significant portion of its most prosperous areas, including its second-largest and most international city, Viipuri/Vyborg. What happened in the second round of the war was not glorious for Finland, who allied with Nazi Germany since they were the only ones that offered an alliance against Soviet Union aggression.
I have not thought of myself as a nationalist, but I am concerned about the safety of my family and this thing we call Finland. And I don't want us to face again the situation as Ukraine is facing now.
Thank you for sharing this.
Very true.
Though it's good to remember the Soviet Union did even worse things to Russia.
The problem is that as far as I understand Russia claims to be the successor state of the USSR, meaning they want to claim all its glories (and crimes)
Which if true, means that Russian civilian victimization by the Soviet Union is something to hold Russia accountable for rather than a point of mutual past victimization for past Soviet Union states to commiserate together with Russia on.
That's never mind the fact that Russia is committing some of those same crimes now along with waging an expansionist war. The past suffering of an abuser doesn't matter while he's actively abusing someone else.
Current russia is direct descendant of Soviet Union with all the priviledges - security council seat, got all the nuclear arms.
Eh, Moscow always ran the USSR. That’s a bit like lamenting that how messed up an abusers knuckles got after hitting it on folks faces for so long.
Just please flag this if you see this comment as being too political, as in this forum we are mostly spared of these wrangles.
But anyway, I would encourage reading "The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going? Преданная революция: Что такое СССР и куда он идет?" by the exiled Soviet Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky to get perspective whether the peaople (Narodnost народность)were really represented in the Soviet nomenklatura (номенклату́ра). At least almost every Finnish speaking representative from Karelia were "neutralized", leaving the previously most prosperious part of Finland in the state as it is now. Finland would not take it back even it was paid for it.
To be (less) political, and apologies if this comes across as insensitive - all of those discussions (of which I've read many) are post-facto. The terrible things some power structures do to dissidents are indeed terrible.
My point, I guess, is that they happened. And the power structure that did it, did it from Moscow.
Trying to perform something humans do to one another, assigning blame, to a successor state who is very much not human, is the wrong way to look at the thing.
I prefer to see the Russian invasion as the delayed violence from the Soviet Union's breakup. Russian politicians were very much in control of all of Eastern Europe, and the Moscow political class was going to build a political case to try and retake Ukraine by force. That the violence did not happen in 1989 probably prevented nuclear war, and the fact it is happening now and not in 2032 is probably also preventing nuclear war.
I can’t reply to comment under this that claimed that people in Moscow were from all across USSR so I’m replying here.
The Soviet Union was still ruled by Russians [0]… “ From 1919 until 1991, 89 members of the Politburo were Russians (which makes up 68 percent). In distant second were Ukrainians, who had 11 members in the Politburo, making up 8 percent. In third place are both ethnic Jews and Georgians, who had 4 members respectively.”
It was less than the population since by population , 80% are Russian [1], but still shows that the USSR was ruled by Russians.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Par...
Well everyone was "Russian" officially. Khrushov was Ukrainian, same can be said with Gorbachev. Many Armenians. There is a concentrated effort to erase all the contributions of other nations of USSR and make Russians as the only builders and inheritors. And this is different from Tsarist Russia where very few non-Russains were allowed to rise in the ranks. That's why large part of Communist movement was comprised from minorities since they were the ones who suffered more from the brutal Tsarist regime.
The fact that political stars could rise to the top does not negate the point that the main ethnical actor and benefactor of the Soviet Union were the Russians. Those star Ukrainians had to please the Russians first and foremost.
It's the same thing in Communist China. Nobody can displease the Han.
Not sure those numbers matter, since Stalin had the only vote that mattered 1924-1953.
And he happened to be Georgian.
Also, the label Moscovite doesn't require being born there!
And Moscovite is indeed a bad word in many parts of the old Union.
> Eh, Moscow always ran the USSR
The people that were sitting in Moscow however were from all around the Union.
> Eh, Moscow always ran the USSR.
Have you heard about Stalin? Where was he from?
Stalin was born in Georgia of course. But where did he live when he was doing his reign of terror?
Moscow.
Hitler was from Austria, but he still ran things from Berlin. And Berlin is where the power structure was, and still is.
It's always more than one man, even if the man is a dictator. The dictator is just the one who survives the power structures environment in a way to be 'the top'. And that power structure exists in a place.
The vast, vast majority of everything that actually happens under a power structure is done by everyone who ISN'T the dictator. And those folks don't just disappear when the dictator dies.
As to if a countries power structure represents a people or not, meh. It always says it does, and it draws resources, taxes, and conscripts from them. So regardless of any individuals take on if they are 'represented' or how that power is acquired, 'it is the people' near as I can tell.
And many of them are happy to murder anyone who says otherwise to prove it.
Stalin and most other dictators bring their own power structures. The capital city is just that. As an example, some roman dictators/emperors never even went to Rome, but still had strong power structures.
And just because it has to be pointed out, Stalin didn't do his reign of terror from the Kremlin in Moscow, but from his dacha in Kuntsevo.
Hitler also spent most of his reign of terror from Wolfsschanze and Obersalzberg. He definitely had his own power structure, completely independent of the city of Berlin.
Stalin used (and took over) Lenin’s power base, and built up more as time went on. He didn’t ‘bring his own’. Even despite all the purges, for instance, the Red Army was there before and after him. The NKVD, KGB, MDB all had predecessor agencies (some back to the Tsars even, but the NKVD was first formed in 1917).
And Kuntsevo is in Moscow. Literally.
And if you’re asserting that Hitler didn’t need, or use, the Wehrmacht or other organs of state power (including the Gestapo, which was consolidated out of the prior Prussian Secret Police), and didn’t spend most of his time in Berlin, then I don’t know what to say.
> And Kuntsevo is in Moscow. Literally.
Yes it is, but it's not in the Kremlin, where the official seat is.
Both Stalin and Hitler were independent of their capital cities for conducting their rule. Dictators and emperors are not mere symbolic heads of state, and their network of people means much more than where they sit to conduct their business. This network is not necessarily connected to the capital.
I think we're maybe debating semantics, but I strongly disagree with the idea that the capital cities are more influential than the dictators and emperors. As in my example of Roman emperors who hardly even went to Rome.
Politics is much more about abstract human connections, than brick and stone buildings. We are a very mobile species after all.
I have trouble parsing that. However, the important thing would be to accept the facts, try to process them, and move forward. Of course that's not so easy. (It's not like the US did it. Or that Germany did it super well.)
It's true, since the October Revolution the Soviets didn't actually serve their people
And before the Revolution, Tsarist regime did even more horrowing things to its people. Sadly Russia never had a ruling entity that was good. Well there was hope in the 80's with Gorbachev and Krushev with his Thaw period, but these were short lived and the system went back to its stable state of terrorizing its citizens.
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.
nonsense. it's cowardice like this that has left the current world enslaved to whatever is the current fad. there's no disgrace in death but generational disgrace in slavery. learn a little bit of history. you'll learn, for example, how the greeks would rather die on the battlefield than be enslaved. or at least try to figure out why the romans never sued for peace during the second punic war even though they were constantly battered on the battlefield.
You sound nonsensical. Russian government did enslave russian population?? Just remember that "coincidentally" the whole Romanov (that's a stage name) family are germans. And official history is even more coincidentally was (over)written by germans.
Not the same scale, but yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
And yet, Putin says those who don't miss it have no heart.
Thing to remember is the Russian Revolution of 1905 changed the structure of the Russian government to a constitutional Monarchy. That's what the communists overthrew and replaced with something far worse.
russia and soviet union are not too far apart actually. Let's not make victim of poor russians, while so many of them fight now and fought in the past to kill independent nations.
> while so many of them fight now and fought in the past to kill independent nations
Let's not pretend it's surrounding is really any better, especially if we start looking at the past.
Someone might think that Russia is opposing a genocidal culture, that had bourne fascism and nazism, enforced apartheid over the world and now breeds it elsewhere to achieve its geopolitical goals.
It is a voluntary alliance. Countries apply to join. They’re not coerced.
Small countries will and sovereignty also matters.
Russia perceives small countries bordering them having sovereignty as an encroachment on its territory. Don't they realize that they are supposed to be Russian puppet states?
If Russia would play nice, maybe the countries around them wouldn't mind having win-win deals with them.
But somehow Russia thinks master-slave relationships are better.
It is secured through force of arms though.
As a Lithuanian... If we weren't in NATO, we'd either have a very very serious problems now. Or be a vassal state like Belarus.
The question of whether or not it was a mistake misses that NATO expansion was likely inevitable because of the democratic process.
Poland and other CEE countries lobbied aggressively to join NATO in the 90s, and by far their biggest asset was their diaspora communities in the US. The GOP had taken the House in '94 and were pushing for NATO expansion leading up to the '96 election. In order to head off this threat, Clinton promised NATO expansion eventually, to which Dole ended up promising a definite date for CEE's entry. Said Clinton at the time:
'I face a difficult campaign, but I have a reasonable chance. The Republicans are pushing NATO expansion. Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio are key; they represented a big part of my majority last time—states where I won by a narrow margin. The Republicans think they can take away those states by playing on the idea of NATO expansion.'
https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/how-much-did-us-elections...
No-one who has visited the Baltics (specifically Lithuania, my experience in the others is less extensive and less recent) could argue with a straight face that they were better off remaining under a Russian sphere of influence than as part of the European Union and the western world at large.
> Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
Amusingly, that status quo is enforced via the USA’s supposed overwhelming force of arms. Which in turn suggests your analysis is deeply deficient in its consideration of higher order effects.
Ukraine is asking for those guns ... and one of many reason is that being under Russian leadership means becoming poorer and poorer.
Which, apparently, matter.
See also: Georgia, Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Belorussian & Kazakh internal protests and revolts, or Ukraine c. 2014.
Russian arms have been used on or by all of those countries. In the case of Armenia, support meant they kicked he shit out of the Azeris before... and not the case now, where Russian can't or won't help them, but the Turks are backing the Azeris.
Force of arms has made a big difference for all of the states around Russia. And not necessarily in a good way.
> I don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia
It was a mistake for NATO to do it without Russia. It's not a matter of "influence", but a matter of military risks and perceived threats.
If there was a political will towards pushing Russia to NATO any similar to what has been going on with Georgia or Ukraine, we'd be living in a different world.
But now (really far more than a decade already) Russia is alienated from NATO, perceives it as a threat and a bad actor. And people will be making all kinds of moralistic arguments, but point is that all of this is a consequence of geopolitical natural laws. Fact is, politicians and leaders were clearly aware of those laws and all the cause-effects and general outcomes, but nevertheless had stirred the world towards it.
NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships, in practice mostly Russia. Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO.
> NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships
This is a historically inaccurate slogan.
> Unless Russia adopts democracy and human rights it's a bit impractical for it to work with or join NATO.
Are we still talking about 1990s-2000s? Russia was no less democratic and adoptive of human rights than other ex-Soviet states pushed to NATO. Do you actually consider 2004 Georgia to be more in line with western view of human rights and democracy then 2004 Russia, really?
> NATO was formed basically as a club for democratic states to defend themselves from aggressive dictatorships
One of NATO’s founding members was Portugal - under the Salazar dictatorship. Both Greece and Turkey went through periods of military dictatorship while NATO members-did NATO have any problem with that? The idea that NATO was formed to be a “club for democratic states” ignores its own history
Dictators don't like united democracies. Strange.
Should we allow dictatorships because any country should have a sovereignty?
Totally strange given that love to democracies have nothing to do with anything.
Srsly, how do the "United democracies" expect to be taken seriously when their whole attitude to literally everything is "bad guys don't like us for being good boys"?
NATO seems to get taken quite seriously by its opponents for some strange reason.
Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power. We in the western world can be very happy that democracies represent the biggest power.
Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
> Exactly, and in the end that's the only thing that matters: power.
> democracies represent the biggest power.
> Anyone who doesn't agree is free to emigrate or happily live in a dictatorship of course.
Eh, but that's the point: a bunch of countries with a shady history of global power dynamics (genocidal colonialism, fascism, etc) that now declared its current political establishment as a universal virtue, all while invading other countries around the globe.
I just feel like "democratic" don't notice at all how they're slipping into antagonism with almost every other culture except their own, up to labeling the forming west-skeptical alliances as "new axis of evil" or claiming everyone who doesn't politically align to them to be dysfunctional (see Hungary)
What's the coping strategy for the fact that so many diverse regions of the world that share nothing in common assess a very tight (geographically, economically and culturally) circle of countries as a threat?
First up, which countries is Europe invading?
Secondly, here are the values of the european union: respect for human dignity and human rights, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law. Can you tell me which values you don't agree with?
Hungary is part of EU with all benefits and responsibilities. If they don't align with these values then they get penalized, simple as that.
> First up, which countries is Europe invading?
I don't know about right now, but not long ago UK forces were in Syria, that Syria government never asked for. Should we call it invading? If not, what's your definition of invading?
Invading is claiming it as your country and handing out passports. That or installing a non-democratic dictatorship and subdue the local population.
> Invading is claiming it as your country and handing out passports.
That's more or less definition for annexing, not invading.
> That or installing a non-democratic dictatorship and subdue the local population.
That's a regime change or may be a coup.
As some dangerous warmongering entity, sure, it has to be considered: just look at Russia trying to get a better foothold for another confrontation with it.
What I am talking about is how everyone outside Europe starts rolling their eyes as Europeans claim that the mere reason why their super advanced, super civilized society has bad blood with someone else is because Europeans just too advanced and democratic and only bad boys don't like good boys.
> Finland got de-Finlandized at last.
What does this even mean?
I can't take credit for this quote (I think I got it from a War on the Rocks podcast, but I'm not sure), but it's definitely apt here:
Putin may have been hoping to Finlandize NATO. Instead, he NATO-ized Finland.
>> just
Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Like, who's scared of Russia these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats.
EDIT: /s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra...
Russia doesn't have to win in order to be scary to their neighbors—they just have to persuade their neighbors that they're irrational and have no sense of self preservation.
I mean, they can still apparently send neverending waves of convicts to rape and pillage, which is worth avoiding.
Just because Russia is not an existential threat to the vast majority of NATO countries except perhaps the Baltics, doesn't mean there's not a recognition of the amount of damage they could inflict in the process of a "failed" invasion.
Yes, we in Finland are not scared. But it is only rational to ally with forces that can protect our sovereignty. I would not bet my life on it, as I live in a country which has the longest border with Russia after Ukraine.
In my view, to say that Russia’s actions are just empty threats is an undervaluation of the price the Ukrainian people and military are paying now. Whole cities have been wiped out of existence, and both the military and civilian population have faced extensive casualties as Russia has resorted to “brute force” attacks, showering bombs wherever in Ukrainian land.
We in Finland have been building bomb shelters for the population that can withstand even nuclear attacks, and we have universal male conscription and voluntary female drafting. About 80% of Finnish male citizens complete the service, which makes Finland have military resources unlike any other European country. This tradition is more than a hundred years old. If someone wonders why, just search for the term “The Great Wrath.”
> Who's scared of Russia and their threats, these days?
Ukraine?
I’d say less scared than 14 months ago.
Putin and Co. really hasn’t done much for Russia or it’s people lately.
They looked stronger when they were a less aggressive bully and were poisoning people.
I'm in genuine shock that this obvious sarcasm needed an edit to add the /s
Sorry for failing to understand the sarcasm and taking your comment personally. During the Cold War plenty of the "Western" countries were truly afraid of the Communist powers, and we in the between were afraid of being bombed to dust in a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR.
Also,I felt your comment was not nice towards all the minorities and "divergents" in the Russia and elsewhere. Just Google Grozny, Aleppo, or Anna Politkovskaya if you want to know why your comment could have been interpreted as something else than just a joke.
So far it is. All empty threats
As General Adolf Ehrnrooth aptly put it ”Ei enää koskaan yksin”, ”We should never again defend ourselves alone” as the lesson of the Winter War. Glad that we finally acted on that lesson and got allied. Another nail in the coffin of finlandization, albeit with a heavy price the Ukrainians continue to pay every day.
> Glad that we finally acted on that lesson and got allied.
The first ally of Finnland after the winter war was Nazi Germany.
So it is actually the second try to find allies for Finnland against Russia.
This is as much a defense policy decision as it is an economic one. Hard for us to get foreign investment living next to a dictatorial warstate unless there's some risk mitigation in place.
Not that I don't trust the FDF, pound-for-pound one of the better military organizations out there. (and a happy member of it myself.)
It’s interesting how those same reasons, depending on the time line, would encourage joining, or not joining…. depending on when you consider them.
This is not just great news for a Finland, but also for my own Norway, and the rest of Scandinavia. Even before this was finalized there was already work on closer cooperation and integration between our air forces. Give it some time and we will see all of us getting more out of defense spending, by not having to duplicate everything and combine buying contracts. When Sweden finally joins later is going to get even better. Attacking any state in Scandinavia just got a lot harder, and was imo. the whole point of this.
As a Polish guy, this is the best international policy news I got in a while. Finland is a great ally and definitely will up the security in the region.
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 is power, while despising fundamental human values.
While power may beat everything in some cases, but for some reason citizens of those barbarian countries want to move to the West rather than enjoy their countries' glory in a concentration camp.
I'm saying this as Ukrainian.
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.
You speak of civilized nations, but very generally. I'll ask my friend from Donetsk for the list.
I have a friend from Donetsk too who grew up there, don't worry. He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv.
Why would I be worried?
> He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv.
Oh please don't pose.
People don't make fancy distinguished name awful reeking dangerous incendiary so far from the frontline. Their whole memorability comes from their immediate production efficiency, when you don't care about anything else and need a weapon like RIGHT now. People who don't joke around are occupied with a completely different set of things.
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.
And appear like a strong and mighty leader in the May elections. Distract from tanking the economy and encouraging corruption. I could be arrested for saying such things, if I was in Turkey.
The most important reasons IMHO are (1) domestic election and (2) wanting to get a hold of some F-16s for their air force.
Which the US would have been willing to give... if they didn't cozy up to the Russians for S-300 and S-400s.
They also wanted F-35s, not just F-16s. That's not one to sell unless you're 100% confident they won't copy it for their own domestic production, or sell it to, say, the Russians. And modern Turkey is looking a little shaky in that regard (no, not an earthquake joke).
So you are telling Turkey bought s-400 out of nowhere? US never become true ally of Turkey. And your F-35s reasoning is not right as well. From the beginning Turkey is a part of alliance. But now they afraid Turkey to sell f-35 to Russia?
> So you are telling Turkey bought s-400 out of nowhere?
No, from Russia.
> But now they afraid Turkey to sell f-35 to Russia?
No, they're afraid of what Russia's S-400 that Turkey bought might covertly reveal to Russia about the F-35.
Turkey had the choice between the F-35 and the S-400. It chose the S-400 instead of the F-35. It has no one to blame for that decision but Turkey.
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.
As a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 nations behind them, but also because we're now surrounded by NATO countries. So no need for us to join, right? Right?!
Let's remain neutral and a free haven for political dissidents and potential refugees of the future, right?!!
As a Swede I disgree on the strongest. What do you want to be neutral about? That time is past us. We belong in the company of European democracies that stand together against authoritarian aggressions.
> Let's remain neutral
Thankfully that opinion represent a minority here in Sweden nowadays. Good riddance.
The opinion on NATO vs "neutrality" after the Ukraine invasion was, to borrow a phrase from another comment in this thread, a mask off event.
Also: If NATO can't ratify Sweden we need to look at other ways to develop a nuclear deterrence strategy.
The old joke goes that swedens ground forces are Finland and that’s why they only have an Air Force and a navy
Sweden also has a hilarious(ly large) amount of armored vehicles for the size of their army.
Is that how NATO is spoken about in Europe, that it is the might of 30 nations and not just the US?
The US is obviously the global Big Dog, but NATO's got three other top-ten-by-expenditure militaries in it, plus two more of the very-small count of global nuclear powers (Britain, France), and three of maybe a half-dozen countries with notable navies that aren't the US (Britain, France, Italy). Expanding to look at the top-20 by expenditure, you pick up another five entries that are NATO members.
The rest of NATO gives you basically another China's worth of military (they're #2 by spending), so it's not nothing, to put it mildly.
The geography controlled by and the economic power of the bloc is also important, for logistical reasons. Having not just open trade and maybe some donations in wartime but outright military support for your supply lines is huge, plus intel sharing and such.
Like all things such as this, it's controversial and there is no such thing as a unified vision.
For some people, yes... In fact US involvement is largely a controversial topic because joining NATO, to some people and politicians, is tantamount to putting US military bases in your country.
The reality is, when people talk about the benefits of NATO they will strongly lean on the fact that it's many countries in a pact together. Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
> Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
Too bad their funding didn't match that rhetoric until after Russia was already invading Ukraine. It'll be years yet before Germany's military will be up to snuff, and outside of France, the UK, and Poland, most of the NATO armies would struggle if they encountered any resistance on-par with what the Russians are putting out.
Nor are their logistics and production capable of keeping up w/ the high-intensity peer/near-peer fight that we're seeing in UKR.
2% of GDP is the recommended amount, Ukraine managed to hold them back before financial aid came to bear with around 3%.
UK spends 2.2% (an all time low!), France just under 2%. These are much larger economies so expenditure is definitely greater than Ukraines in absolute terms.
Are you suggesting that they should pay more? Why? Seems like the current amount is effective.
If US backs from NATO expect nukes in every country.
It's already bad for us in Poland to not have nukes and capability to nuke Moscov at will. We were developing nukes in 80s but guy got assasinated (either RU or US).
> We were developing nukes in 80s but guy got assasinated (either RU or US).
Link? I’d love to read that story.
Found this, you'd need to translate: https://www.focus.pl/artykul/cala-prawda-o-programie-jadrowy...
Considering most of the US's military might is an ocean or two away, having partners in the immediate area is still considered a major boon
Genuinely curious about this as well
Two Things Can Be True:
NATO is a military alliance of 30 nations.
The US armed forces are 75% of NATO's military power.
Not really. Those who are pro-NATO don't really care about such details.
Me personally I totally acknowledge the largest military in the world.
The US may be the bulk of the military might backing NATO, but it’s the collectiveness of the alliance is a pretty important piece IMO. If the US were to some way be compromised, say, through a debilitating first strike (unlikely), or Trump-esque domestic factors making them unreliable, you still have a huge, powerful coalition.
Nobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!
It would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
The only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.
Yeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.
It's not game over for the world if e.g. Russia nukes some remote part of Sweden/Gotland with a low yield bomb tomorrow.
Realistically, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons, they would completely lose Indian and Chinese support, the last two nuclear powers currently playing nice with them. So long as something debilitating is the consequence of nuclear weapons, Russia will abstain.
So which propaganda should we believe? The Gotland story that all pro-NATO people use today, or the MAD story from the cold war?
Perhaps not the one that the Russians and Swedish extreme leftists are peddling.
Of course, I was just kidding, the buildup would be easily spotted and it would be an, uh, unpleasant environment their boats I think.
It would be trivial to send an Iskander missile to Gotland to derail the NATO application.
You are unfortunately right. But most people don't realize that.
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 membership.
Joining NATO is widely regarded as the safe and rational choice. Russia already saw Finland as part of "the west" and Russia's attack on Ukraine meant that our international relations with them were pretty much destroyed. Staying out of NATO made no sense from that point onward. Why try to stay "neutral" with no formal defense pact, when Russia viewed us as hostile anyway?
So yeah, I would say that the vast majority of Finns feel safer now, and becoming a NATO member has been seen as a positive thing overall.
> 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.
> Russia already saw Finland as part of "the west"
> Why try to stay "neutral" with no formal defense pact, when Russia viewed us as hostile anyway?
Good point, thanks for that perspective. Was there hypothetically any way Russia could signal if it was not the case though?
I was born when the Soviet Union fell. All my childhood I watched media like James Bond and played games like Command & Conquer about Russian invasion, saw my extended family suffer the generational trauma of war, and being male, am forced by threat of imprisonment to personally accept social responsibility for sacrificing my life defending our country from Russian invasion,
I'm pretty fucking relieved the nightmare is over.
Just hoping we can prevent WW3, or at the very least win it together.
I think you forgot the only Bond movies who dealt with direct Soviet threats were :
- From Russia With Love (Rosa Klebb secretly works for SPECTRE but is a KGB operative so let's count it)
- Octopussy (vilain's a defector)
- The Living Daylights (defector also)
It's in Goldeneye that is created the idea that James Bond constantly fought the Soviets. I don't fault you for thinking that it's an easy thing to illustrate your point, but I like my James Bond and I like him because he's always fighting weirdo rich assholes, not the Soviets.
I didn't forget anything. The Command & Conquer series has other themes too. Doesn't invalidate my point.
> I'm pretty fucking relieved the nightmare is over.
Ouch. Genuinely hate to be the bearer of bad news, but everything I know about politics (especially from Russian perspective) tells me that this is only the beginning and uncorking of a potential conflict.
I assume, you do not expect that NATO membership would put Finland into a direct hot confrontation with Russia, thus turning into a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
> WW3, or at the very least win it together.
Eh, there will be no winner in WWIII - only how much everyone loses before they decide to strike some kind of eventual deal. And IMO the WWIII had already started by the modern military standards of multi-domain operations.
> I assume, you do not expect that NATO membership would put Finland into a direct hot confrontation with Russia, thus turning into a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Neutrality is no protection against aggression. Vienna was famously one of the first targets for Soviet nuclear strike.
> Vienna was famously one of the first targets for Soviet nuclear strike.
According to your link in the other thread, that is assuming it was "ruthlessly" occupied by NATO.
In any case, the "end the game for everyone button" example seems like a poor choice. How did Austria actually fare during the Cold War? I honestly don't know too much about Austrian-Soviet relationships except for a few trade deals.
Is there a list somewhere?
No list, but some details are here: https://www.independent.ie/world-news/vienna-top-of-soviet-n...
>I assume, you do not expect that NATO membership would put Finland into a direct hot confrontation with Russia, thus turning into a kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Moldova, invaded (1990) and occupied. Georgia, invaded (2008) and occupied. Ukraine, invaded (2014, 2022) and occupied.
Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland: Not invaded, not occupied.
> Moldova, invaded (1990) and occupied
> Moldova, independence from the Soviet Union (27 August 1991), constitution adopted (29 July 1994)
I genuinely wonder what is the source of that list. I assume "invasion" of 1990 is the Transnistria War?
Yes.
do you know that Moldova was "invaded" by Russians and Ukrainians together?
According to articles I've read polling indicates 80% support amongst the Finnish population
Well the PM who nursed this just lost the election. But I suspect most Fins agree with the decision.
Lost the election (while gaining seats) to a party which has been pro-NATO for longer.
... so she lost the elections, but most Fins support the ascension.
She has not gained as much additional popularity as other parties did.
That is true, but her Party received a higher percentage of votes in this election compared to the last one. If anything, her popularity increased.
Finns always agree with government decisions. If government policy is to stay out of NATO, finns will think that's the sound and rational way. If the government policy is to get into NATO, they will ask the media to support the idea and finns will change their opinion and think it's a splendid idea. Finns think as they are told to, like their neighbours in Russia.
For people not very well versed into the background of this, the pop-geopolitics personality-phenomena Peter Zeihan did a recap on it today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vt3CxtQsuQ&ab_channel=Zeiha...
It is not background but U.S. centric perspective, that results in tunnel world view and bubble info diet, and man in question is analyst for Stratfor from 2000. Zeihan spent 12 years at Stratfor, eventually rising to vice-president.
For anyone hailing from russia to be taken seriously, can you please answer these basic questions first: 1) Is Ukraine a sovereign country that belongs to the free people of Ukraine?, 2) Who does Crimea belong to?, 3) is russian army committing war crimes in Ukraine, and 4) are you personally supporting the russians war of genocide on Ukraine?
It is worrying that in a supposedly informed forum the simple, and factual, matter of there being distinct perspectives on the geopolitical order post USSR's collapse requires any further elaboration. Wow. Are you actually denying that others, quite a few billion of them not Russians btw (they go by "Global South" these days), view US behavior post Soviet collapse as aggressive and motivated by a desire for lasting hegemony? That clearly is not a view that would be addressed by the content in question, so GP's point stands.
Ah yes, a litmus test of au courant conformity before granting someone the right of speech. That's definitely Western values on display.
They didn't say they had to answer any which way. They just needed answers to take them seriously.
The way of a western democracy is not anything goes. We all have to agree to certain truths.
Congratulations to dictator Vladimir Vladimirowich Putin for being the Chief NATO Evangelist!
Really gotta give it to their foreign policy for pushing something through that has been nearly 80 years in the making
5D chess!
Why have so many comments been flagged here?
Since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there have been a significant number of commenters here who have, for whatever reasons, advanced opinions that align very closely with Russian propaganda.
Some of these seem very reasonable—things like "shouldn't we try to push for peace?" "Should we really be arming the people of another country?"—and others might seem reasonable if you don't know a lot about the recent history and politics of the region—like "the main reason Russia invaded was because they were scared of Ukraine joining NATO".
I would not seek to impute specific intent to any particular commenters here; while it's entirely possible that a forum like this has some genuine Russian propagandists on it, I would say it's just as possible that they either don't know or don't care about HackerNews. Either way, it's clear that a lot of this propaganda has made it into the general conversation, and some people believe it and spread it for various reasons of their own.
> and others might seem reasonable if you don't know a lot about the recent history and politics of the region—like "the main reason Russia invaded was because they were scared of Ukraine joining NATO".
Eh, I live in the region and feel like this is a (somewhat) fair point, though somewhat misquoted and misrepresented (not in the least that there is no really ever a single specific reason for war, but rather a cascade of them). Not implying that war isn't a disaster or whatever.
Anyhoo...
> there have been a significant number of commenters here who have, for whatever reasons, advanced opinions that align very closely with Russian propaganda.
"Russian propaganda" is merely aligned to the perspective of a huge-enough chunk of the it & engineering world, just as well as "Western propaganda" is.
I think a lot of people are just very bad at articulating their points so that they don't sound like shallow slogans or whatever, but I don't suppose it's fair to label them as propagandists. Most are just sharing their perspectives, however they may be. Pity that forums like that aren't really suitable for people sharing different and opposing views, which should be pretty natural state of things in times like these.
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".
>"HN has a very low tolerance for posturing bullshit"
Can I please disagree?
the st petersburg troll factories have been tasked to do their trollin.
Both sides have their troll factories, none are good.
Score a win for the US, NATO, and the west. Putin is a weak fraud who has been exposed…can’t wait for his regime to collapse, all without the west lifting a finger.
When you meet a mad paranoid dog like Putin, the best thing is to bait them and let them eat themselves just like Putin has done.
I might be talking to deaf ears here, but have you considered reading something written by Putin, Biden, Trump or Obama? Or the rulers of other large nations? They are all highly intelligent people even if they are responsible for horrible things. Thinking that Putin is a "mad paranoid dog", speaks to me that you have become the victim of propagandized media made for very simple minded people, and I doubt anybody frequenting this forum belong to that class. You won't be rewarded by your government or anybody else for blindly hating the enemy, so why not try to understand deeper what is happening in the world?
I've read enough from Trump to come to the conclusion that he is not highly intelligent. At least not in the way intelligence is usually thought of. He is a very talented leader though.
70 billion of US taxpayer money isn't even lifting a finger?
$70bn worth of expiring munitions that we were going to let rot in a field after Afghanistan. I imagine the actual outlay is much less.
It's 0.3% of GDP, so I would say no.
It's not their money, so why would it matter to them?
It's not just putler, it's whole system that supported him.
A pyramid of lies and corruption 100 years in making finally falls apart
>"can’t wait for his regime to collapse, all without the west lifting a finger"
I believe and hope that Putin's regime will collapse. After that the West will be very busy "lifting fingers" figuring out what to do with the huge country in disarray and full of nukes.
** russia.
I sure hope for Sweeden's sake that NATO member count is not a five bit integer type.
The comments are pretty hard to read here given that any comment not cheering this on is immediately downvoted to death. Many are legitimate comments - I see why some might disagree with them but it’s not even possible to learn from them if they are silenced.
>Many are legitimate comments
No they are not. Almost all[0] are the classic Russo-apologist talking points.
I disagree. Here’s some examples.
The first one is especially offensive towards East-European countries.
I’m from an Eastern European country and I’m not offended by questions.
The first one does not even mean anything.
As for second one, I would much rather be in western block then in the BRICS block. Better living standards, less violence, better everything.
... they are both not downvoted. I have comments under both of them, and there is a lively discussion.
You can't see downvotes on a direct link. But on the main comments page I can see the first one heavily downvoted.
And now they're both [flagged] [dead]
I'd normally agree with you, but we're in a situation right now where Russia is waging a brutal war of aggression that has already killed more people than the US did in Afghanistan over 20 years (which, to be clear, is a war we never should have started). That same Russia has a well-developed propaganda arm that has been very active since long before the war in trying to draw favorable comparisons between their behavior and the US's. In this context, I'll take the potentially-unearned downvotes over letting Russian propaganda have its say.