Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

https://www.presidentti.fi/tiedote/tasavallan-presidentin-ja-paaministerin-yhteislausunto-suomen-nato-jasenyydesta/

by fsloth • 4 years ago

840 897 4 years ago

fsloth17• 4 years ago

There was some discussion on plausible NATO membership of Finland and Sweden. At that point the disucssion was based on guestimates from media.

But now it's official. This is not the NATO membership application, but a statement from the political leadership in Finland that they support and suggest parliament proceeds with the application process with maximum urgency.

The President and Prime Minister of Finland have published their position on NATO membership. This more or less seals Finland joining NATO.

In Finnish system, the Prime Minister has most political power but president is the head of foreign policy. Their common statement was the required signal for the parliament to proceed with the process.

Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership. Time has been needed for domestic position formation both in Parliament and in society as a whole. Time has been needed for close international contacts with both NATO and its member countries, as well as with Sweden. We have wanted to give the debate the space it needs.

Now that the time for decision-making is approaching, we also state our own common positions for the information of parliamentary groups and parties. NATO membership would strengthen Finland's security. As a member of NATO, Finland would strengthen the entire defense alliance. Finland must apply for NATO membership as a matter of urgency. We hope that the national steps still needed to reach this solution will be taken swiftly in the coming days.

Sauli Niinistö The president of the Republic

Sanna Marin Prime minister

golergka4• 4 years ago

Putin's pan to not let NATO on Russian borders worked out great.

kqr• 4 years ago

I mean there's that joke that the Apollo missions were the greatest scientific accomplishment by the Soviet Union.

skrebbel• 4 years ago

NATO has been on Russian borders for almost 2 decades (and way longer if you include Norway, but that border is arguably too remote to really count). So what plan, exactly?

refurb13• 4 years ago

If anyone looks back at wars like WW1, Korea War, even the US escalation of the Vietnam War and wonders how the hell it got to that point - wonder no more.

The oneupmanship rarely works out well between major powers.

thematrixturtle4• 4 years ago

This more or less seals Finland applying for NATO membership. However, adding new members requires unanimous consent from all existing members, so it's not guaranteed to be smooth sailing. Russia is also obviously deeply unhappy about this and will do its best to disrupt the process via direct and indirect pressure.

NicoJuicy4• 4 years ago

I think Germany said they will be under protection from NATO as soon as they start the procedure.

sph4• 4 years ago

How can Russia pressure and disrupt the process when NATO members are the ones most afraid of Putin? Finland's doing this only because of Russia's actions.

I can't imagine anybody vetoing Finland's membership. In fact, the more the merrier^Hstronger.

M2Ys4U2• 4 years ago

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).

Maakuth• 4 years ago

The process has been going on in unofficial sense since the start of Putler's war, but to minimize risks, the official process is only kicked off now. It was only started after it was verified that there are no internal or external blockers and that Sweden is in lockstep.

2000UltraDeluxe3• 4 years ago

Oh, there was little doubt a Finnish application was on the way. From what I can tell from Swedish media, it's more or less decided there aswell.

Both Finland and Sweden signed a defence agreement with the UK yesterday. Norwegian newspapers has claimed Denmark, Iceland and Norway are also going to offer Finland and Sweden military aid in case of Russian shenanigans during the application process. That leaves both Finland and Sweden fairly safe, and the only noteworthy risks would be cyber warfare and Russian psy-ops used to turn public opinion against a NATO membership.

As for the application process itself, Stoltenberg pretty much promised a swift handling in the NATO end of things, but as you mention, it has to be unanimous and there is always a chance someone with power might be in Putin's pocket, or oppose the idea for other reasons.

shaky-carrousel• 4 years ago

That distinction is pretty moot, as no applying country has ever been rejected by NATO.

bartread• 4 years ago

Russia is also obviously deeply unhappy about this

So what? They only have themselves, or rather Putin, to blame. He's forfeited the right for them to have any meaningful input into the decision.

piokoch• 4 years ago

The ship has sailed for Russia already. USA will not tolerate obstruction by Germany, France or Hungary. Recent meeting about Ukraine support was hold in Ramstein and this place was chosen intentionally - to show who is the master of the show and who should sit and listen.

By attacking Ukraine Russia wanted to "push" NATO away from its borders, but it all went backwards - now they will have a new, 1300 km long border with NATO member countries.

Russian fleet in Petersburg can be decommissioned now, as there is no merit to maintain it while Gulf of Finland can be easily blocked and is under traditional artillery control from Estonia and Finland side (it is just 80-100 km wide).

In fact in case of military conflict Petersburg is lost, can be attacked from the West and the North by land and covered by long range rocket artillery like Himmars (it is just 200 km away from Finnish and Estonian borders).

Same story with Murmansk harbor, it will be very difficult for Russia to defend it against attack from Norway and Finland given the very long and fragile supply line - a single E105 route, 1000 km long or train connection that goes along that route. Imagine famous Kiev 60 km convoy multiplied by 10 and attacked not by post-soviet era weapon that Ukraine had but by state of the art equipment.

Russia will have to put a lot of forces over there to be able to protect new attack line that they have opened by themselves. Build hell a lot of new infrastructure, provide logistic support, etc. The costs will be exorbitant.

When countries like Poland, Romania or Baltic countries became NATO members it was clear that they will need to be protected by western armies (although Poland is quickly catching up with its military potential, other countries is developing too). Right now situation is different: two very strong, well equipped, well trained armies are joining the Pact.

Another 300 modern tanks, Sweden by itself has more than 400 modern combat aircrafts of various types, Finland has just contracted 60 F-35 (with loyal wingman option that doubles the potential in future), plus artillery and other best of class equipment.

Indeed, Putin, Gerasimov and Shoygu are master strategists.

ngcc_hk2• 4 years ago

Think and re-imagination needed.

That is a problem like eu that need to be handled, especially now that turkey is in the way. I think one has to rethink. The key is what are these military alliance is for. For democracy then we can have an alternative one.

A new alliance covering South Korea, japan, Taiwan, Australia, eu, Sweden, Finland, Canada …. Soviet Union is gone.

Turkey is a liability as it is not a democracy. And it is a problem.

cycomanic11• 4 years ago

Adding to this, this also means that it is highly likely that Sweden will apply to join NATO as well, although I would say public opinion is more split in Sweden compared to Finland. However, the political view was always that if one of Finland/Sweden joins NATO it would put the other into an awkward, undesirable position as the only non-NATO Scandinavian country.

londons_explore• 4 years ago

Does the NATO membership process have negotiable elements? For example, do different members have different terms, or pay different contributions to costs?

Announcing your firm intention to join before negotiating those parts seems like a good way to be paying over the odds forever...

miohtama• 4 years ago

Yes. Finland has a conscription army, up to ~800 000 people. It is unlikely mums are willing to send their sons to faraway places, or even practical.

Likely must of the activity Finland can do will be around Baltics. Like sharing air space control with Estonia.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

As I understand it, NATO is not a cost-sharing arrangement. Everyone pays for their own defense forces.

Sure, that means if some country were to pay nothing for theirs -- i.e. don't have any -- then the others would have to do all the defending of that country, and so "pay indirectly"... If that country were attacked. That's why NATO agreed that members should spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, and it is many of them not having got up to that level yet that the USA (especially under Trump) has been complaining about.

But still, that's all within each country's own budget. There are no monetary transfers to and from countries such as "membership fees" or "subsidies" within NATO. (At least not any significant ones that I know of. Maybe some smaller stuff like, Idunno, base rentals or port fees?)

weberer4• 4 years ago

Every country has a requirement to pay 2% of their GDP on defense. However not all countries actually comply. Germany was repeatedly criticized for skimping on their payments. They didn't start contributing 2% until after Russia invaded.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/02/27/german...

antris4• 4 years ago

Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership

This is a very generous description of what happened.

There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media. People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that there needs to be thorough analysis before making a decision.

Media hasn't covered Nato's history as an aggressive force, or the war profiteering. The "risks of Nato membership" have been reduced to a framing of "what will Russia do during the application process", which implies that Finland is going to join Nato anyway.

There have been a few critical voices interviewed in the media, mainly Anna Kontula. The response to this has been between "I see your points, but I don't agree with your conclusions" to "you are playing into Putin's hands" to nitpicking and taking her statements out of context in order to get a "gotcha" on her. Not any real engagement or discussion on the arguments.

Whether you agree with Finland joining Nato or not, I think there are good arguments to be made on either side. But to say that there has been any real discussion is a stretch at best. This process was rushed.

fsloth17• 4 years ago

The process was quite fast mainly because most Finns are very pragmatic, clearheaded people and intuitively understood how the rules of the game had changed. You can't game a 76% support for any cause in a few months in a liberal democracy.

The root of the matter is that without NATO membership conscription would have become morally untenable. And hence the backbone of Finnish defence would have collapsed leading to need to kowtow to Moscow for all eternity.

Before invasion of Ukraine the economic costs on top of Finnish defence forces were considered to be sufficient deterrent to Russian agression, on top of the material and personnel costs such an invasion would cause.

Ukraine demonstrated that with political impetus, Russia does not care about either economic costs, nor about materiel or personnel costs in it's mad imperialist fantasies.

IMO The cost of NOT joining NATO would have been de facto loss of sovereignty.

Furthermore, due to the closeness of the Russian border, without NATO membership Finland would likely have been perceived as a not very good target for capital investments, killing the economy. While Finland has advanced technology, it is very capital poor - hence needs healthy injections of capital from the global market.

nextlevelwizard• 4 years ago

You can never please everyone. I grant you that this might have been rushed a bit, but it is silly to say that Finland hasn't considered the pros and cons of joining NATO for a long time and has obviously seen benefits considering all the join military exercises.

People who are against joining NATO won't change their opinion until Russia actually invades and by then it is too late. These people also like to make Finland's neutrality to be some noble stance as if it wasn't imposed on Finland by Russia after the Second World War.

jabl2• 4 years ago

Discussion about the "NATO option" has been part of the Finnish foreign policy discourse for close to three decades already. How much more discussion do you think would have been needed? And what kind of change in circumstances would have been needed to switch from talking to doing if the current invasion of Ukraine isn't enough?

ericmay3• 4 years ago

Whether you agree with Finland joining Nato or not, I think there are good arguments to be made on either side. But to say that there has been any real discussion is a stretch at best. This process was rushed.

Saying that this process was rushed ignores the 75 years leading up to that decision. Finland has been very careful even during the Cold War to keep the US and the Soviets happy and present themselves as a truly neutral nation between those two powers. Finland already spent all this time “arguing the other side” by not joining and keeping everyone at arms-distance. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and hostile rhetoric toward Finland and other countries are markedly different from the last 75 years in the post-WW2 era. So no, it’s not really rushed. Finland had the debate you are talking about already and has had this debate for 75 years. You just didn’t know that they already had the debate.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

>Translation: During the spring, there has been an important discussion about Finland's possible NATO membership
This is a very generous description of what happened.
There has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media.

I think it's pretty much exactly the other way around: For the last three decades, since the fall of Communism and the end of "Finlandization", there has been air of forced consensus in the "discussion" between media, politicians and people on social media around the holy cow of "Neutrality", perhaps (at least to begin with) out of lingering deference to the memory of Kekkonen. In reality, Finland has always been a "Western" country; the invasion of Ukraine was just the impetus to finally realise it / admit it to themselves / openly admit it.

People have been branded as "putinist" or "playing into Putin's hand" for merely suggesting that the decision shouldn't be rushed, and that there needs to be thorough analysis before making a decision.

Everybody has been thinking about it for thirty years (in Sweden, for seventy); you wanna take another thirty years, or what? If they aren't done thinking now, they never will be.

[Edit: Added forgotten quote markers. And fixed typpo.]

pastacacioepepe5• 4 years ago

There is no "application process". NATO is invite only. Best a nation can do is to "start a discussion" with NATO to get invited.

ceejayoz4• 4 years ago

That seems like silly semantics. The "application process" is to express interest and ask for an invite.

eru11• 4 years ago

What part of your comment is the quote? (Or is it the whole comment?)

koshergweilo• 4 years ago

I'm not surprised that it's happening but I am surprised that it's taken less than three months for this to turn from a rumor to reality

clarionbell• 4 years ago

It is my experience that wars tend to add a sense of urgency.

Borrible3• 4 years ago

Yes, but just because everybody knows, they're over by Christmas.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

Answered a similar comment by someone else here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31354470

thinkingemote• 4 years ago

Has Finland significant pro-Russian politicians? Or at least pro before February 2022?

I visited there a while ago and there was a feel of Russian friendliness at the least with significant independence on the streets. But that's just my feelings and I wasn't paying attention back then.

nine_zeros• 4 years ago

Maybe it was just friendliness towards Russian people? This war is entirely political. Most Russians don't seem to want to invade other countries.

emteycz3• 4 years ago

Even the studies that assume a lot of people are lying to stay safe are saying at least 60% of Russians support the war and Putin.

golergka4• 4 years ago

Most Russians don't seem to want to invade other countries.

Most Russians that a typical HN user would encounter — English-speaking, educated, probably with skills in demand inside and outside Russia — don't.

Typical Russians, on the other hand, are quite openly fascist at this point.

michaelmrose2• 4 years ago

Most Russians don't seem to want to invade other countries.

What are you basing this on?

https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/

This seems to show strong support for the Russian government and this analysis seems to suggest that few Russians are concerned about Russians crimes and as many as half are very supportive of horrific violence against people they see as nonhuman.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2022.2...

formerly_proven4• 4 years ago

1420

pmontra2• 4 years ago

Most Russians don't seem to want to invade other countries.

This is true for basically every people every time in history. People care about food, family, a house, medical care. All is well until some government starts pushing them into a warring state of mind.

Examples from the previous generation of European wars, when Italy invented fascism, Germany followed suit ten years later and both countries started to think about land grabs in Europe and Africa. We got WW2 first but only 12 years after the end of it France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux started the process [1] that led to the current EU. All friends again.

My bet: without the current leadership and their propaganda very few Russians would think about invading other countries so be ready to reach out to them when it will be all over. What we don't have to do is to start a process like the one that led Germany from the defeat in WW1 to desires of revenge and WW2, or Russia from the defeat in the Cold War to the current attempt to create its empire again.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community

fsloth17• 4 years ago

The Finnish political system was infiltrated by Russian assets (willing or just useful fools) for decades [0]. Luckily this has abated in the last decades. The people have deep suspicion of the Russian state but no particular animosity towards russian people in general.

Most finns, especially the young generations, feel most affinity towards west in every sense.

The Finnish language is Finno-Ugric and unrelated to slavic tongues hence there is a huge language gap. Finns don't as a rule undertand russian.

The political and judicial system is based on western principles.

So Russia in general is a very alien entity not only linguistically but culturally as well.

The signal that drove to this was two-fold - first Russia at the end of last year forbade Sweden and Finland joining NATO, clearly signaling it considers these states as "it's property".

Then the war in Ukraine - Bucha and Mariupol - turned the perception of Russia into complete Mordor in a single stroke. It was very easy to replace Bucha and Mariupol with Finnish cities in ones imagination - and we still have people who remember the sound of Russian bombers striking our cities from '40s.

Finns in general do not exacerbate political tensions one way or another and are used to a mostly consensus-seeking political process. So not sure what signals you interpreted as "friendly" and what was just "common politeness".

The relationship with Russia is a bit conflicted - Finland rose from a dirt poor agrarian state to a fledling industrial state when it was a grand dutchy under a personal union with the Russian czar (so "part of Russia" but also "not part of Russia"). Most of the historical goodwill - if any - was destroyed by the russification attempts starting in late 19th century and were more or less eradicated during the second world war as Stalin tried to conquer Finland.

The war in Ukraine has made the Russian state appear twisted, dark, deranged and unpredictable for decades to come.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

rzmmm2• 4 years ago

Most finns, especially the young generations, feel most affinity towards west in every sense.

It's true that most finns feel affinity towards the west, but same can't be said about the USA. Especially the younger generation sees both Russia and US with somewhat strong dislike.

pelario• 4 years ago

The Finnish political system was infiltrated by Russian assets (willing or just useful fools) for decades [0]

I just read the whole [0] reference, and I could not find anything related to your claim. Can you give specific examples ? Or can you explain how the article supports your claim ?

jarek832• 4 years ago

I hope my country, Poland, could find a way to abate russian fools, that seemingly have their prime time now here. I see similar to russian type of rhetoric in TV and social media and some people support them because they seem to provide easy solutions to big problems. I wished it was more plain to see that it's all russia-driven.

And yes - I write russia with small letter because I don't see their _state_ representing the country anymore, but it is more like criminal organization now.

gerikson• 4 years ago

This article (in Finnish) shows which Finnish MPs are against joining NATO.

That's not implying they are pro- current Russian government.

https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008684257.html

thematrixturtle4• 4 years ago

For readers not versed in Finnish politics, the only party with a majority opposed is Vasemmistoliitto (Left Alliance), the rebranded former Finnish Communist/Socialist party.

Gravityloss• 4 years ago

There is this one person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ano_Turtiainen

Not a lot of material about him written in English though. But he is a member of parliament and has been openly pro Russia recently. He was expelled from his party already earlier and now runs his own party. I don't think people take him seriously.

doikor8• 4 years ago

He is basically anti everything mainstream including Russia, US, EU (yes all 3), vaccines, any covid measures, etc while being pro almost any conspiracy theory you have ever heard of. And all of this changes week by week. Basically your standard populist politician turned conspiracy nut.

weberer4• 4 years ago

There are some MPs in the far-left party (and the single MP party VKK) who are against NATO but they're in the minority.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

Has Finland significant pro-Russian politicians?

Nowadays, only Erkki Tuomioja...

[Edit: Fortunately he's old enough to soon be significant only historically.]

jitter_• 4 years ago

In English https://www.presidentti.fi/en/press-release/joint-statement-...

zinekeller• 4 years ago

Can we change the link to the official English translation? https://www.presidentti.fi/en/press-release/joint-statement-...

thematrixturtle4• 4 years ago

@dang ^

sanketpatrikar• 4 years ago

@ mentions don't work here. You have to email him at hn@ycombinator.com

fsloth17• 4 years ago

Agree, that would have been the better link.

Borrible3• 4 years ago

"When we look across the border now, we see a Finn on the other side. If Finland joins NATO, we will see an enemy."

Putin to a Finnish journalist in 2016 according to Finnish President Sauli Niinistö in an interview with the German magazine 'Der Spiegel'

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/finnish-president...

I guess, the russians are finnished.

Hamuko2• 4 years ago

I think all countries bordering Russia at the moment see an enemy on the other side. And not being in NATO is clearly not a guarantee of not being seen as an enemy by Russia, so might as well join NATO.

baq5• 4 years ago

[insert 'select all squares with finnish snipers' meme]

Anyway, Putin says a lot of things. He doesn't see a friend in anyone, never has, never will. An enemy is just a small downgrade from status quo.

I guess, the russians are finnished.

Da.

Borrible3• 4 years ago

Just so the audience knows what we're talking 'bout, when we're talking 'bout Finnish soldiers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimo_Koivunen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unknown_Soldier_(2017_film...

I'm starting to feel sorry for russia. But it earned it.

And I couldn't care less what Putin and his cronies fantasize.

“We cannot negotiate with people who say what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

John F. Kennedy, 25 July 1961

supergirl4• 4 years ago

is he wrong? the sole purpose of NATO is to counter Russia. that's why it was formed in the first place (against the Soviet Union, at that time).

stackedinserter• 4 years ago

The sole purpose of NATO is to defend from Russia. Nations join NATO because they afraid of Russia, not because they want to conquer Smolensk.

libertine2• 4 years ago

He looked across the Ukraine border and saw Nazis on the other side, so at this point his sight chooses to see what ever he wants to see.

Putin burned all bridges unfortunately, he can't seat at any table and be believable since he stomped on a bunch of international laws and treaties.

noselasd• 4 years ago

Title is not quite right, this seems to be the President and Prime Minister recommending to the parliament that Finland should join NATO. The final decision is not made.

fsloth17• 4 years ago

This is basically THE signal to start of the process. Given the majority popular support (76% !!!) and this statement from the political leadership it would be extremely unlikely parliament would not follow through.

Before this was made public there might have very well been some secret discussions, and the President and Prime minister might have very well used this statement to signal "please wait". This is as green light as green gets.

jka• 4 years ago

Very likely, although it still makes the decision to upvote a little more difficult than it should be; the current title ("Finland will seek NATO membership immediately") isn't really true (yet).

From the English-language translation: "We hope that the national steps still needed to make this decision will be taken rapidly within the next few days."

H8crilA• 4 years ago

It is so obviously going to happen ...

Not to mention that Sweden, with it's pretty impressive capabilities for such a small country (the Grippen, for example), has long ago figured out that they really cannot do this on their own. There has been a good amount of technology transfer in their military technology for a few decades.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

"Gripen", only one p. (Pronounced ~"Greepen" in English, and means "Griff[i|o]n". "Grippen", OTOH, is German for "flus", the plural of an illness.)

nymalt• 4 years ago

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'?

kreeben• 4 years ago

Worse! The enemy list. But what are they going to do, is what I want to know. Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them and they sure could start WW3 over that but would they? They don't seem to have that in them.

rendall3• 4 years ago

Baltic sea will soon be pretty much closed for them

Why would the Baltic Sea be closed to Russia? How would this be enforced?

qayxc2• 4 years ago

Putting both countries in a new list of 'very unfriendly countries'?

My best guess would be exactly that. The last thing Putin wants is a repeat of the Finno-Russian wars of 1917 and 1941, which resulted in catastrophic losses on the Soviet side.

tovej4• 4 years ago

You mean the war of the winter 1939-1940 and the 1941-1944 war.

1917-1922 was the Russian civil war and 1918 the Finnish civil war. IIRC, some of the White Finnish raiding parties ventured into Russia, and the Bolsheviks supported the Finnish Reds, but you can't really speak of Soviet losses, the Russian Soviet Republic was founded in 1917 and only gained power due to the civil war.

vegai_• 4 years ago

Year ago, 6 months ago, 3 months ago, started a war, 1 month ago, last week, yesterday. At one very specific point it stopped meaning anything.

tyleo5• 4 years ago

Agreed. “You are now on the unfriendly list,” says Russia. Except Ukraine was on the friendly list and look at where that got them.

noir_lord• 4 years ago

Double secret probation probably.

All Russia can do is bark, continue the "we aren't doing" cyber/disinformation attack or start lobbing nukes.

#1 and #2 are business as usual, #3 is the end of civilisation.

tremon3• 4 years ago

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.

jgrahamc• 4 years ago

As the Finnish PM mentioned in his speech

I am pretty sure Sanna Marin is a woman.

brabel5• 4 years ago

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??

mcv22• 4 years ago

If somebody tells you: "I'm going to beat you up if you ask for help", you should probably ask for help. It's not an effective kind of threat, because he's probably going to beat you up at some point anyway.

gnulinux• 4 years ago

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

Exactly this. By attacking Ukraine, Russia proved to the world that there is no point complying with Russian geopolitical demands. If Ukraine somehow became a NATO member years ago (not saying that that would have happened, but talking hypothetically) Ukraine would never have been attacked. So, the only rational thing for Finland and Sweden to do is to ignore Russia and join NATO.

dhdjjd• 4 years ago

Setting them as targets for nukes in the quite likely nuclear war. Russia doesn't have many arguments left.

password54321• 4 years ago

They have made a threat for just about everything now.

JacobiX• 4 years ago

Many military analysts predict that Russia will come out of the conflict as a much weaker country especially with the recent flood of heavy weapons that are being sent to Ukraine. In comparison NATO expenses are at least 70% of Russia's GDP and we can see from the past that NATO has already coordinated military operations (in Operation Allied Force, NATO deployed 1031+ aircraft and 30 warships & submarines, and in 2011 it performed an operation that lasted 222 days with virtually no impact on the coalition members). With that said, one can expect that there will be no possible 'consequences' if Finland/Sweden join NATO.

alkonaut3• 4 years ago

This makes the formal application next week a foregone conclusion. But, it already was.

Perhaps more interesting is that it makes the swedish application almost inevitable as well, and it might happen at the same time.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

Why is Sweden always supposed to be "more interesting" than Finland?

I mean, I'm a Swede and all (I only live in Finland), but this seems a bit unfair.

kyberias• 4 years ago

I guess it can be argued that Finland joining Nato is not very surprising (has been discussed in Finland for years) and therefore not very interesting. But Sweden joining Nato this quickly would be more of a surprise and therefore much more interesting.

alkonaut3• 4 years ago

Because its less of a foregone conclusion than Finland is. Nothing else (I’d say Finland is now at 100% certainty to join and Sweden at 99%)

durnygbur• 4 years ago

Look at the map, the NATO doesn't have much land borders with Russia. With Finland joining... the length of land border will multiply. This will surely pose a challenge.

formerly_proven4• 4 years ago

Only in a technical sense obviously, not in any way that actually matters.

csomar• 4 years ago

St Petersburg is less than 100 miles away. But yeah most of the rest of the border is useless, given its nature.

rightbyte6• 4 years ago

There is much talk about Russia not wanting Finland in NATO but why would NATO want Finland in NATO with yet another expensive border to patrol. "Buffer states" work both ways.

andybak3• 4 years ago

I would argue that NATO already has to care about that border. Finland joining NATO just makes that reality easier to handle.

Deukhoofd• 4 years ago

With Finland being part of the EU, an invasion of Finland by Russia would already pull in 90% of NATO (per Article 42 of the EU). With most of NATO already needing to care about the border, this should not pose too much of a challenge.

GolDDranks7• 4 years ago

The current Baltic NATO states and Norway are much easier to defend having control over the Baltic Sea, plus Finland has a considerably strong military that now joins to strengthen NATO, so it should be a win-win for the both sides.

aa-jv20• 4 years ago

Finland joining NATO benefits the military-industrial complex immensely. There are HUGE profits to be made in the effort required to get NATO and Finnish military standards aligned.

burmanm• 4 years ago

Why would it cause NATO more expenses? Finland takes care of patrolling the border, just like before. There's no intention to get foreign troops to guard our borders (or even foreign troops at all in Finland beyond exercises).

klausjensen9• 4 years ago

Finland knows all about Russian/Soviet aggression and have had to build and maintain a strong military force for that reason.

Plus, speaking as a fellow Nordic... The Finns are our brothers and sisters. Of course they are welcome.

enaaem• 4 years ago

The Baltics are very vulnerable and with Finland nearby they can easily be supported.

Looking at Russias performance against Ukraine Finland and Sweden alone would easily hold them off. Nato won’t need to spend much resources to protect Finland.

Ukraines terrain is as easy as as it gets for Russia. Finland is full of lakes, forests and mountains. Logistics is 100 times harder.

MandieD• 4 years ago

Finland and Sweden both have strong militaries (for their population size) that have been using NATO-compatible hardware for years, along with taking part in exercises with other NATO militaries.

They’ll be self-sufficient assets to the alliance, and being in NATO makes their status unambiguous should Putin or whoever follows get any more bad ideas.

docdeek• 4 years ago

It essentially doubles the length of the border with Russia for NATO. Currently it is 1,215km long [1] and the Finland/Russia border is 1,340km long [2].

1: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/10/p... 2: https://finland.fi/life-society/a-border-that-once-divided-n...

formerly_proven4• 4 years ago

Finish president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhLNBxpo8zY

Russia, you caused this.

ckastner• 4 years ago

One has to appreciate the irony that Putin's attempt to reduce the size of a hypothetical¹ border between NATO and Russia will probably result in actually doubling it.

¹Hypothetical because there was no realistic chance that Ukraine would have been allowed to join.

ssl2326• 4 years ago

Usual caveats that I'm not a diplomat, don't have all the facts, etc etc., but this doesn't seem like a rational move for Finland or NATO. The UK just yesterday agreed to protect Finland in the event of an attack, and the UK's involvement would likely bring in many other NATO powers anyway, so arguably they're getting protection they'd otherwise have to pay for for free. And actually, officially joining NATO will have consequences, as Putin has lined out. We can't just go on ignoring that Putin exists and has demonstrated he is willing to follow through with his threats, especially when it comes to NATO expansion. I'm no fan of him nor his regime, but thinking he'll back down if we just escalate the situation a little more is fantasy.

It's a fact that Russia feels threatened by having NATO on their border. It's a fact that Ukraine and Finland also share borders with Russia. It's a fact that Putin is not going to allow himself to be removed from power by the West without a fight (at this point it's a case of stay in power or get killed). Can the West not have a bit more nuance in its collective foreign policy, recognising these facts and that we're far from living in a perfect world with flowers and rainbows? The former USSR states in Eastern Europe have until now (or until the early 2000s NATO expansion at least) served as a half-decent buffer zone between the West and Russia, and it's served as a relatively stable diplomatic saddle point in keeping the peace.

EDIT: sigh, are we really just reddit these days, using downvotes to express disagreement? I'm not going to change my mind based on downvotes. Comment to tell me how I'm wrong.

phoe-krk• 4 years ago

The former USSR states in Eastern Europe have until now (or until the early 2000s NATO expansion at least) served as a half-decent buffer zone between the West and Russia, and we've had peace.

I think you should go and tell Ukrainian people that their country is a buffer zone meant to act as a burnt ground, and they are not allowed to work towards joining the alliances and economic systems that they want to join in order to better their livelihoods and stop facing the former-USSR-level of poverty. Same stuff with regards to the Finnish and Swedish people and their current will to join NATO in order to defend against an unpredictable old man with a grandiose idea of reviving the old USSR.

Believe me, going there and speaking directly will work better than commenting on HN.

EDIT: yes, I downvoted, and here's my share of a comment.

ssl2326• 4 years ago

I think you should go and tell Ukrainian people that their country is a buffer zone meant to act as a burnt ground, and they are not allowed to work towards joining the alliances and economic systems that they want to join in order to better their livelihoods and stop facing the former-USSR-level of poverty.

I didn't say we should dictate policy to Ukraine - they're a sovereign state like the rest of us. That doesn't mean we have to let them join if they want to, just like we don't have to let Russia invade a sovereign state without sanctions. I noted in my comment that there was actually peace in Eastern Europe before NATO expansion. NATO could easily have used that as a reason to disallow the membership application from Ukraine, but I think we were too determined to quell Russia's and Putin's global influence so we let it happen. Was it even necessary? If Russia had attacked Ukraine in the 90s, would the West not have responded in a similar way to how it is doing now? Not sure what NATO has gained here. In my opinion diplomacy is all about recognising the world isn't perfect, and, when there is a need to, holding your nose and letting bad people run their countries as an alternative to something worse. Yes it's a tragedy what's happening in Ukraine right now, and yes Putin is a tyrant who would ideally not be in charge (weird that I now feel the need to have to say that, because it should be self-evident to all rational people).

EDIT: yes, I downvoted, and here's my share of a comment.

Was my post low effort or malicious?

exar0815• 4 years ago

It's quite simple - the last time the world woved without a binding contract to protect Finland from Russia, Finland had to cede large parts of their country in the end. And this is still very present in the minds of most finns, despite it being in the 1940s

blibble5• 4 years ago

The UK just yesterday agreed to protect Finland in the event of an attack, and the UK's involvement would likely bring in many other NATO powers anyway, so arguably they're getting protection they'd otherwise have to pay for for free

this was likely done to fix the race condition of starting the application process vs being under the alliance umbrella

emteycz3• 4 years ago

It was explicitly done for that reason. US does the same for Sweden.

benjymo2• 4 years ago

Maybe the UK only agreed to protect Finland as part of a greater plan to join NATO.

In any case joining NATO would allow them to trigger Article 5. This is a much better deterrent than some vague "would likely bring in many other NATO powers".

M2Ys4U2• 4 years ago

Usual caveats that I'm not a diplomat, don't have all the facts, etc etc., but this doesn't seem like a rational move for Finland or NATO. The UK just yesterday agreed to protect Finland in the event of an attack

This pact is designed to protect Sweden and Finland between (deciding to) apply for NATO membership and actually becoming a NATO member.

rightbyte6• 4 years ago

Finland should have applied for NATO 10 years ago or in 10 years, not now with the tense situation.

They are essentially stating that Russian gov. is aggressive enough to be a threat to them in the future but not agressive enough right now to create a "border dispute" to prevent NATO membership.

My take is that they should just have stayed out of the Russia US power game completely.

thraxil2• 4 years ago

Finland should have applied for NATO 10 years ago or in 10 years, not now with the tense situation.

10 years ago, it was reasonable to believe that Russia would never invade a neighboring country, so joining NATO wasn't seen as necessary or preferable to maintaining neutrality.

10 years in the future, based on what we're seeing now, Russia may have already invaded/attacked Finland and it would be too late to join NATO.

ssl2326• 4 years ago

My take is that they should just have stayed out of the Russia US power game completely.

I think so too. The West would tolerate invasion by Russia of Finland even less than it is doing for Ukraine, with or without NATO membership (notably, Ukraine is not part of NATO either). All this seems to be doing is escalating the situation with a man who is perhaps more interested in holding onto power and his own life than killing a few hundred thousand in a conflict. I really think we've dropped the ball diplomatically on this one. There are surely better ways of ridding Russia of Putin than this, if that's the end game for the West.

baq5• 4 years ago

absolutely the best time to join is now. russia can't do jack shit about it. in 10 years, a preemptive strike would be probable.

jusssi2• 4 years ago

From the Finnish point of view the case for NATO has become quite clear. There were a number of reasons why we used to believe Russia won't be invading us any time soon.

1. The invader would suffer a massive penalty for their reputation: didn't stop them from invading Ukraine.

2. The invader would be hit with massive economic sanctions: see 1.

3. Even unassisted, we would be able to mount a defense that can cause major losses to the invading force: see 1.

4. Even though there's no formal defense pact, surely the west would come to our aid: Putin says "serious consequences, remember we got nukes", west backs down.

And as a bonus:

5. If, against all odds, they decide they still want to invade and we get no help from the west, there's no point to actually fight back because they'll crush us like a fly in the end, so we should just surrender immediately: looking at Ukraine, this is no longer obvious.

Usual caveats apply, but I believe the main benefit for NATO is to prevent point 5 from happening.

ssl2326• 4 years ago

Those are good points to that I hadn't considered. As a Finn (?), what are your feelings with regards to your historical neutrality being broken by joining NATO? Surely many Finnish politicians past and present will have fought hard for that to remain the case and this will be breaking that precedent.

efxhoy• 4 years ago

We can't just go on ignoring that Putin exists and has demonstrated he is willing to follow through with his threats, especially when it comes to NATO expansion. I'm no fan of him nor his regime, but thinking he'll back down if we just escalate the situation a little more is fantasy.

I'm Swedish and support joining NATO. We are not ignoring anything, we are hoping for peace by preparing for war. Protecting ourselves is not an escalation, even if Putin sees it that way. I think he is much less likely to escalate against us if we are in NATO.

I'm saying this also has someeone who will have to fight if it comes to that. Sweden has conscripted military service and if Puting brings us war I will have to fight it.

The former USSR states in Eastern Europe have until now (or until the early 2000s NATO expansion at least) served as a half-decent buffer zone between the West and Russia, and it's served as a relatively stable diplomatic saddle point in keeping the peace.

The "buffer zone" countries are free, sovereign and independent states. Millions of people there vote in democratic elections to decide on their countries leadership. They are free to apply for NATO membership to protect them from Russian aggression and they are free to apply for membership in the EU. Denying them these rights, in the hope that Russia will just leave them alone if they aren't "threatening", is both morally wrong and naive. If the Baltic states had not been granted NATO membership when they were we could very well be looking at Russian tanks in Tallinn, Riga or Vilnius now. They were right to join when they did.

In 2014 Ukraine chose its path of aligning with democracy and the west and reject Russian coercion. When Ukranians rejected Russian dominance Putin made a choice, and he chose violence.

I think I understand your viewpoint though. It would be better if no-one had or needed military strength, mutually assured destruction through nuclear weapons and alliances. It would be better if an omnipotent force could just plan stuff out so we didn't need war. But the key fact is that people are willing to kill and die for their right to self determination and Russia is willing to send its young men to kill and die for historical claims to territory and conquest.

I saw this in another comment of yours:

I noted in my comment that there was actually peace in Eastern Europe before NATO expansion.

I think that peace had more to do with Russia not yet being capable enough to invade anyone. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has been scrambling to rebuild it's military, and they are unfortunately making progress. Luckily they seem to have made less progress than they hoped.

Kiro2• 4 years ago

I'm not here to change your mind. I'm here to show other people that I and many others disagree with your opinion. Downvoting for disagreement is fine, as stated by pg himself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

Kim_Bruning2• 4 years ago

There are also people on that page who disagree with pg. Downmodding tends to make people disengage. That may be undesirable if you want a healthy debate.

ahoka• 4 years ago

My main problem with these "buffer zone" arguments is that I'm from one of those countries, and I don't want my people be some kind of sacrificial second class citizens of Europe, just so other countries can have it easy.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

I am very sorry that I had only one upvote to give you.

baq5• 4 years ago

It's a fact that Russia feels threatened by having NATO on their border.

Yes, but not in the sense they want you to think. Russia feels threatened that it won't be able to invade freely wherever and whenever it wishes. Since they can't do diplomacy without holding a gun somewhere close by, it makes them weaker.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

so arguably they're getting protection they'd otherwise have to pay for for free.

"Pay for..." To whom? Do you think NATO works like the EU, redistributing money from "membership fees" to "subsidy recipients"? All the NATO countries pay for their own militaries out of their own budgets.

I'm no fan of him nor his regime, but thinking he'll back down if we just escalate the situation a little more is fantasy.

Whoa, resurrection! Hallelujah! But why you, of all people?!? We'd all hoped you'd stay dead, Mr Chamberlain.

EDIT: sigh, are we really just reddit these days, using downvotes to express disagreement?

No, this is HN. According to a comment I got from dang some time ago -- or was it just a link to the guidelines, so it's there? -- downvotes are a legitimate expression of disagreement.

I'm not going to change my mind based on downvotes. Comment to tell me how I'm wrong.

Done. Keep whining, and you can have a downvote on top.

omega33• 4 years ago

Let's hope that Sweden will also follow suit.

occz• 4 years ago

News reports claim insiders are saying they will as well: https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/planen-skicka-in-en-ansokan...

jacquesm9• 4 years ago

They more or less have to, the chances of Sweden becoming the next target for Putins belligerence have just gone up by 50%. It's the only country left that he can attack without immediate repercussions from NATO, though I suspect that even without NATO membership the EU would react very strongly to any attempt to make a mess in Sweden.

justin66• 4 years ago

It's the only country left that he can attack without immediate repercussions from NATO

Moldova?

hugg3• 4 years ago

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 they did use the nukes, they would target NATO countries anyway.

Don't get me wrong I do not support the war started by Russia AT ALL

omega33• 4 years ago

we should be afraid of them?

If all the war crimes, targeting of infrastructure, civilians, hospitals, forced deportation, looting, torture, setting up of artificial breakaway states hasn't so far convinced you then I'm afraid nothing ever will.

wolverine8762• 4 years ago

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?

No matter the outcome, it is a very bad result for Ukraine. Look at all the destruction, loss of life, and loss of money.

foolfoolz• 4 years ago

i agree. the information war is being won by ukraine. i don’t think russia is in as bad of place as the news suggests, mostly because i don’t think i can trust the news. also i’d rather see an EU defense force than using america (nato) as security. ukraine has showed you don’t need eu or nato to get american help

JumpCrisscross6• 4 years ago

we should be afraid of them?

Putin behaved irrationally and his people loved him for it.

It was stupid for Russia to invade Ukraine. It did it anyway. It’s stupid for them to keep prosecuting a war they’re losing. He keeps pressing. It would be stupid for Putin to attack remaining non-NATO European countries. He’s threatening Moldova and Finland and Sweden anyway. He would lose a war against Finland. That says nothing about whether he’s try it. The only thing he seems to understand is overwhelming strength, and that’s NATO.

dodobirdlord3• 4 years ago

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.

Ciantic4• 4 years ago

For some background, in 1990s Russian president Boris Yeltsin said to Finns, you never need to fear again. That fear came back when war started, but it became also political before the war. On December 2021 Putin stated that Finland & Sweden should not join NATO. Finnish President talked to him and noticed a change in Putin, that he was serious.

Invasion of Ukraine had not started in December 2021 yet, but it became urgent issue for Finnish President as it was seen that Finnish & Swedish NATO membership was being tied to Putin's war rhetoric at the time. Then came Finnish president's New Years remarks which was seen as a serious even in neighboring Sweden.

It's notable though that in Finland politicians have used wording "Nato-option" for decades, this conditioned the public to know what to expect if things turn sour. In Sweden NATO membership is a bit more difficult, because they didn't have such wording.

In Finland decision to joining NATO was mostly driven by sudden opinion change when war started. This opinion change was so radical that government didn't need to campaign for NATO, leadership could just focus on getting support from NATO members. Finnish and Swedish government have already negotiated with most of the NATO members so the application phase shouldn't be too hard.

Before war only ~20% favor, ~50-60% against

25.2. 53% in favor, 28% against

11.3. 62% in favor, 16% against

6.5. 76% in favor 12% against

See polling data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland%E2%80%93NATO_relations

gpderetta• 4 years ago

I thought that Sweden and, primarily, Finland joining NATO was a foregone conclusion the moment Russia invaded.

tpmx2• 4 years ago

Timeline (from Swedish press yesterday - Omni):

Today, May 12: Finnish president Niinistö presents his view on the NATO issue.

Friday, May 13: A new Swedish security policy analysis is presented in parliament. All 8 parties represented there have collaborated on this.

Saturday, May 14: Heads of the Finnish Social Democratic Party meet and decide on the NATO issue. Swedish and Finnish FMs join a NATO meeting in Berlin.

Sunday, May 15: Heads of the Swedish Social Democratic Party meet and decide on the NATO issue.

Tuesday/Wednesday, May 17/18: Finnish President Niinistö visits Stockholm.

wolverine8762• 4 years ago

All 8 parties represented there have collaborated on this.

Imagine a country where one major party doesn't sell itself by obstructing everything.

toxik• 4 years ago

To be fair, there is no partisan issues in the US over helping Ukraine either. People unite against a common enemy -- it's like that old wisdom, the worst thing to happen to the US was winning the cold war.

tpmx2• 4 years ago

Added:

Monday May 16: The Swedish government meets, formally decides and then submits the application the same day.

(Source: Expressen, today)

throwaway4good• 4 years ago

Kaliningrad is going to be squeezed ...

ur-whale• 4 years ago

Kaliningrad is going to be squeezed ...

I assume you mean Königsberg?

serpix• 4 years ago

As a Finnish citizen, reservist this has been a very emotional spring. Both of my grandfathers were in the war with Russia. Both of my grandmothers had to leave and burn their homes in the areas annexed by Russia. Twice. I am 100% for Nato.

dmos62• 4 years ago

Why did your family burn its homes as they were leaving? To deny it to Russian (or collaborator) settlers?

jacquesm9• 4 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

mynameishere• 4 years ago

Yeah too bad the continuation war didn't work out for you.

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

Yeah too bad the continuation war didn't work out for you.

Oh, it pretty much did. Sure, there was a Carelia Oblast or something up in the Northwest of the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic -- but never a Finnish Socialist Soviet Republic.

ParksNet• 4 years ago

Because Finland wasn't willing to push all the way to Murmansk to cut off Lend Lease supplies.

nevermindiguess4• 4 years ago

This is great. You will enjoy fighting Russia then. Although they never had any intention to fight you country just until you government was about to give it a reason now. But I respect your right to self determine your future - no matter how foolish.

dieortin2• 4 years ago

They never have any intention to fight any country, right until the moment they invade it and reduce entire cities to rubble.

havkom• 4 years ago

Probably together with Sweden, possibly on monday.

john567• 4 years ago

According to Swedish newspaper Expressen, this is happening on Monday.

I guess it's for the best. I've not really held a position on NATO but the whole point of the alliance is to not allow for the kind of war that is taking place in Ukraine. I hope this leads to the best possible outcome for all.

867-5309• 4 years ago

politics tramples intellectual curiosity

cycomanic11• 4 years ago

I'm generally quite critical of NATO, but I would argue that once Putin threatened consequences if Finland or Sweden join NATO he pretty much forced their hands. Despite the skepticism towards NATO in both countries and "pride of neutrality" (for lack of a better term) in Sweden in particular, there is an even stronger wariness toward Russia, and you really don't want to yield to the bullying, because were does it end?

olodus• 4 years ago

Yeah as a Swede I am somewhat sceptical to NATO as well. I am particularly sceptical of Turkey being a member (because of how undemocratic that country has become). I would probably have preferred a deeper military collaboration between Finland and Sweden (and the rest of the nordic countries) but since that to some degree already is the case today I can see why people would argue that isn't enough.

With that said I do understand NATO as a stability-bringing and mostly peace creating org so I am not 100% against joining. As long as we are not brought into any pro-active wars and NATO keeps being the effective "keep Russia from militaily f---ing with you"-prevention it currently is I would be OK with being a member.

cycomanic11• 4 years ago

I pretty much feel exactly the same as you about NATO membership.

oscarfr• 4 years ago

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?

soyyo• 4 years ago

>What is Putin's play?

Why it has to be Putin's play? A lot of people seem to take for granted that Putin knows what he is doing and has a long play with an eventual win.

History is full of leaders making terrible mistakes that eventually put the last nail in their coffins, I don't understand why some think that the only possible option is that there must be something that we are missing because Putin is so smart and has so much control that this can't simply be a huge fail on his part

jacquesm9• 4 years ago

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

rodgerd3• 4 years ago

What is Putin's play?

He's been very clear: before the second Ukraine invasion he criticised Lenin for allowing the SSRs to exist and for accepting the loss of Imperial Russia by e.g. accepting Finnish independence. His ambition is to restore Russia to (at least) its pre World War I borders, which would involve the obliteration of nations such as Ukraine and Finland.

Up until now he has zero push back on the butcheries in Chechnya, little pushback on previous atrocities in Ukraine or Syria or shooting down civilian airliners, and he no doubt expected the same this time around.

refurb13• 4 years ago

Anyone see any resemblance to the defense treaties of WW1?

tyleo5• 4 years ago

Not quite. My understanding of WW1 is that the defense treaties were like multiple nets that all made enemies of each other come wartime. Today it seems that NATO is one big net and Russia is more or less an isolated node with no seriously powerful country to call to for help.

im3w1l• 4 years ago

Wouldn't surprise me if Russia had a secret treaty with China.

doikor8• 4 years ago

Not really as there basically is only one big defense treaty in the form of NATO. For it to be similar there would have to be 2 or 3 defense treaties of roughly the same size/strength which Russia does not come anywhere close to.

refurb13• 4 years ago

parenthesis• 4 years ago

The stronger Russia tries to blow the cloak of NATO away from its borders, the tighter its neighbours will seek wrap themselves in NATO.

(Aesop's fable of The North Wind and the Sun.)

ta123456789• 4 years ago

The polls in Finland showing > 50% support at the start of the war, and now even > 70% support for NATO. So this has seemed inevitable for almost two months. Any other choice would have been political suicide for the leading party SDP, and probably would have resulted in a new election. Whether it is the right choice I am not yet convinced, but basically it is now or never if Finland wants to join. Later it would be impossible to join.

Cloudef• 4 years ago

Here hoping I won't be called to war now ...

Grustaf• 4 years ago

Putin invades Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO, so Finland decides to apply to joining NATO. That doesn't seem to improve their national security.

user3939382• 4 years ago

They should have a referendum and ask the Finish people if this is what they want. It makes the country a target in the event of a broad conflict.

libertine2• 4 years ago

Are these type of decisions to be decided by the people?

No one wants conflict, no one wants war, but sometimes people can't grasp the consequences of some decisions.

Look at Brexit...

originalvichy• 4 years ago

Gallup data shows a strong upward trend. Finns are rarely partisan about matters of national defense, and we trust our elected officials that have access to classified information.

kseistrup• 4 years ago

In English: https://www.presidentti.fi/en/press-release/joint-statement-...

In Swedish: https://www.presidentti.fi/sv/pressmeddelande/gemensamt-utta...

supergirl4• 4 years ago

seems like the absolute worst time to join NATO. Russia is as close to war with NATO as ever and now they decide it's a good time to join? they may find themselves at war the day after joining. Russia is way more closer to war with NATO than it was with Finland.

on the other hand, they don't have much choice. Finland was not neutral, just not formally in NATO. they were anti-Russia independents. but now things got serious so they run for shelter. basically they waited until the last moment to formally join NATO, but they were always kind of aligned with NATO. same for Sweden. for example, they both sent military aid to Ukraine I believe, so it's clear they are aligned with NATO. might as well sign the paper.

tyleo5• 4 years ago

To personify the problem a bit, I feel like Finland's hand is forced:

Russia points guns at Ukraine and Finland and says, "Don't call for help or I will shoot you." Russia proceeds to shoot Ukraine anyways.

Perhaps this is an oversimplification, countries aren't people after all, but what is Finland to do in this situation? In my opinion, Russia has deteriorated trust so completely that folks assume that the punishment for a threat will happen _even if_ a line isn't crossed.

evo_9• 4 years ago

The invasion of the Ukraine has done more to strengthen NATO than anything the West could have ever done on its own.

freddealmeida• 4 years ago

I guess we are going to ww3 stupid policies will destroy Europe

whb07• 4 years ago

Hurray for US citizens footing the security bill for more of the EU.

If the US goes bankrupt (it already is), makes one wonder if the other countries will come to our aid and supply us with money, weapons, personnel when the time comes.

dekerta• 4 years ago

That's not how NATO works. This will not affect US taxpayers

CRConrad36• 4 years ago

Hurray for US citizens footing the security bill for more of the EU.

Sigh... Here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31355478

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31355371

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31352661

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31352202

maratc14• 4 years ago

Warning: hot take.

While it is unlikely that Putin would care a bit about Sweden, this is a huge gamble on Finland's side. HUGE.

This can go in one of the two directions: either Putin dislikes but somehow swallows it (the way he did with Baltic states in 2004), or he can go about preemptively wrecking Finland (the way he did with Georgia and Ukraine in 2008 and 2014 respectively).

Considering Russia was very negative on a prospect of having NATO some 450 km from Moscow, the prospect of having them 150 km from St. Petersburg might aggravate Putin even more. And St. Petersburg is not just another Russian city — it's Putin's home city.

Starting with Mannerheim, Finland had a wise policy for the last 70 years, where they largely refrained from taking sides on the USSR/West thingy, and the Soviets let them be. Joining NATO is a complete reversal of that policy, and it is an extremely dangerous gamble at an extremely dangerous time.

tyleo5• 4 years ago

I think folks wanted to maintain that wise policy. Even in the days leading up to the war Ukraine dismissed the fact that Russia would attack as fear mongering. The problem is that Russia has now proven themselves an untrustable party. "Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways.

What do you do if you are Finland? You want to make peace, you want to maintain nonaggression and neutrality but another neutral party doing the same meets devastation before your very eyes. Seems better in this situation to get whatever protection you can.

maratc14• 4 years ago

"Keep the status quo and we won't attack," they say but now they are attacking Ukraine anyways.

This does not fit my understanding. In my understanding, Ukraine doubles down on NATO membership, and Russia attacks. Am I missing something? Somewhere between 2014 and 2022 Ukraine denounced its NATO aspirations?

In no way I condone the Russian attack, but I also can't see how they're "untrustable".

Ciantic4• 4 years ago

It's not seen as a gamble here anymore, few months ago it seemed so. Finnish government have been busy building the support for Finnish application in NATO members for few months now. Even NATO's Jens Stoltenberg has already said we are not alone even during the application process and they welcome Finnish and Swedish application.

Finnish military is built against Russia. We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000 which is second biggest army reserve in EU [1]. Current war time effort of 240 000 that can be rapidly assembled in few days.

It's also built to operate without air superiority, and is more suitable to ground war against Russia than any EU nation. With biggest artillery force in western Europe, Finland is an asset to NATO rather than burden.

You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military? After what Russia did to Ukraine, the foreigners will never understand how Finland could be seen as independent if it's not backed by west militarily. NATO membership is seen as among other things an economic benefit. When Russia eventually stages exercises near our borders, the investors know we are NATO country.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...

maratc14• 4 years ago

We rely on huge conscription army of 900 000

This is about what the Soviets lost in the first two months of WW2.

Considering Russian population of 144 million, half of which are women and half of the rest either too old or too young to fight, the Russian army reserve can be (conservatively) estimated at about 30 million men.

With that in mind, in the possible conflict Finland would need to continuously maintain a loss ratio of 30:1 or more.

In the Winter war, the loss ratio was about 5:1, which is a "good" news tactically, but not "good enough" news strategically. It meant that Finland moved to the point of not being able to fight faster than the Soviets did.

Another discrepancy — the one that did not exist in either the Winter war or the Continuation war — is that the Russian nuclear arsenal is somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 nuclear weapons, while the Finnish nuclear arsenal is none.

Finally, Russia won't fear any sanctions for its conflict with Finland, because the sanctions weapon is already used against them.

You may ask why would we need NATO if we have such a military?

I may ask why you think that seeking NATO membership is putting Finland in a less dangerous position and not in a more dangerous one. After all, getting in an alliance with Germany in the past proved as a costly mistake.

After what Russia did to Ukraine

Russia is in a process of wrecking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They seem to have achieved at least the goal of keeping Ukraine out of NATO, because NATO will not admit Ukraine while it fights the Russians.

I fail to see how doing exactly the same thing that Ukraine did is not a very dangerous gamble.

mrits3• 4 years ago

I don't see it as a gamble at all. It would be a huge gamble for Russia to react to this though. The only possible negative outcome for Finland would also result in the removal of Russia from the planet.

mordnis• 4 years ago

I wonder what do you think would happen if Russia, for example, nuked Helsinki? You think USA would nuke Russia and risk getting San Francisco burned to the ground? I personally find it rather unlikely. I'm not trying to be pro-Russian here, but I just don't see how provoking the second largest nuclear force is a good idea.

maratc14• 4 years ago

the removal of Russia from the planet

The smartest people on the planet, since the 60's, have worked on this problem, and that's how we got to the concept of "mutually assured destruction" (triad and all that). That means that this "removal" would likely also mean a symmetrical "removal" of the West.

I have a privilege to live in neither a NATO country nor Russia, nor anywhere near, so for me it still looks like a chess game, but the stakes are unbearably high.

Bud2• 4 years ago

As part of its application, Finland will agree to donate 5.7 billion umlauts to other NATO nations each year, excluding Germany, which already has enough.

jl27182• 4 years ago

Regimes change. I expect soon. Then what? Are we still locked into opposition with the Russian people? Given a blank slate, what relationship do we want between NATO/EU countries and Russia?

GolDDranks7• 4 years ago

As a Finn, I sincerely wish we could come along with our Russian neighbors, but Russia need to change for that to happen. Democracy, human rights and the concepts freedom of speech, freedom of press and a concept of transparent, rule-based society with little corruption are the keywords, but they haven't truly taken root in the Russian culture and system of thought.

jl27182• 4 years ago

Assuming the regime falls and leaves a power vacuum, what do you think the best way to help the people toward that is?

My greatest concern is what comes next. The current regime is a kleptocracy, which is awful for the people, but easy to predict and control and siphon cheap natural resources from. They stay in power partly by fear of EU/NATO, but it’s questionable support. Once the kleptocracy is gone, EU/NATO can either embrace Russia or maintain the current stance against them. Embracing Russia will diminish EU/NATO power and purpose. Maintaining the current stance will strengthen the alliance against them, while pushing the country toward extreme nationalism in a new regime with nothing to lose and a lot to prove. There will not be a clear decision point to switch course; it will either be gradual de-escalation on both sides, or gradual strengthening.

Hroble• 4 years ago

Look into the the other political parties in Russia and their views towards the west and you'll get your answer

AndrewDucker• 4 years ago

NATO is opposed to Russia insofar as it has a mutual defence pact against any Invader.

If Russia isn't invading any NATO country then there's no opposition.

0x7373682• 4 years ago

Wow, some real hot takes in here. It's particularly funny that commenters here mention what happened in Georgia and Ukraine as reasons for Finland joining NATO, when it's exactly those countries cosying up to NATO/the West at Russia's security what lead to the conflicts.

Goes to show how people will happily swallow the media narrative without thinking about the big picture.

GolDDranks7• 4 years ago

As a Finn (so I happen to know _my_ reasons for why I support joining NATO perfectly well), I'm curious: how do you perceive the media narrative to be biased or wrong?

0x7373682• 4 years ago

It's a vague question but an appropriately vague answer to that is media narrative is not to inform you of what's happening but to make you think the way the people who control those media channels want you to think - you can only form your opinions from what you see.

But in this case the media narrative is very much "this why we need everyone to join NATO/be West-aligned" whereas it's exactly the expansion of NATO that has lead to these conflicts. As much as we'd all like for everyone to do what they want, in reality you need to consider the position of your neighbours especially if they have power. For an alternative example - see how USA reacted to Cuba becoming communist aligned, very much pot calling the kettle black, no? ;)

maratc14• 4 years ago

As a Finn, do you think it was smart of Mannerheim to join Nazi Germany against Russia?

[EDIT] Appreciate the downvoting, but would appreciate an answer even more.

alangibson2• 4 years ago

The actions of a Russian leader directly resulting in their border with NATO growing by 1500 km has got to go down as one of the all time great strategic eff-ups.

If this whole fiasco does result in WWIII, it'll be because of Finland joining NATO.

vkoskiv• 4 years ago

If this whole fiasco does result in WWIII, it'll be because of Finland joining NATO.

No. It will have been because fascist Russia invaded Ukraine.

alangibson2• 4 years ago

You don't need to virtue signal. It's obvious that Russian aggression started all this.

ochoseis2• 4 years ago

To appreciate this may require some understanding of the historical context. I’d heard of the Winter War between Finland and the USSR prior to WWII, but had no idea that:

- Finland was formerly part of the Russian Empire

- Finland held out, but conceded a significant chunk of land to the USSR (Karelian Isthmus, now part of Russia…sounds kind of like eastern Ukraine)

- The Soviet forces were generally inept

- The West essentially abandoned Finland to avoid confronting the USSR

- Ever since WWII, Finland has been careful to remain neutral

The “World War Two” channel on YouTube has a series of entertaining videos detailing the history starting around here: https://youtu.be/HZunUjmHTeA

supergirl4• 4 years ago

you “accidentally” left out some events: Finland fought alongside Nazi Germany against USSR, for example in the infamous siege of Leningrad

ochoseis2• 4 years ago

Please do not [inaccurately] insinuate my intent.

Pretty sure that’s obviously implied by: “The West essentially abandoned Finland to avoid confronting the USSR”

diedyesterday• 4 years ago

It's about time these lazy Euro countries contributed to their own security instead of just taking it for granted as always, assuming the rest of NATO members (specially the active ones) would be there for them, without themselves bearing any cost or even paying it any active attention.

Similar to how those who have not vaccinated themselves enjoy the collective immunity that others (who have taken the trouble/time/cost/etc. to get vaccinated) have provided for them.

99_00• 4 years ago

I wonder how the Finnish people will feel the next time something like the 2011 military intervention in Libya, or the invasion of Afghanistan, or the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia takes place.

On the other hand, it's clear that the Russian military is a complete joke. It's being ripped apart by militias.

One has to wonder what developed nation, even a small one, with nation with trained and disciplined armed forces would do to it.

To me the Ukraine situation shows the pointlessness of NATAO more than anything else.

Russia is too weak to be a threat.

kkfx• 4 years ago

My fellow HN-ers that's simple: Finnish and Scandinavians have historical reasons to be anti-Russians and to have a more or less deep inferiority sense due to demography and resources, they have choose neutrality in the past because that was their best option to remain in peace and prosper as much as possible, being tied mostly to UK.

No UK and USA have demanded local neoliberal rulers to join or being considered not much friend anymore, and then their government, as for instance Italian Gov. choose to betray their Citizens interest for their own economical ones, choosing to apply, of course without any public debate and vote.

IF their Citizens decide that's time to remember what Democracy means they'll organize a quick massive general strike ordering immediate resignation of their own government to go to vote and after with a new government starting the debate, if not they'll get the consequences and we from the EU as well since so far not so many Citizens start acting to going out of NATO...

Oh, no, I'm not pro-Putin, I'm a Citizen who came from a WWII Partisans family and so I recognize and can't support nor original nazis nor new one, no dictators included so while I can't support Putin being a dictator who also choose religion as a way to stay in power, I can't support as well and more (since they are here, not in another country) anglo-neoliberals and their subjects, local neoliberals traitors of their own people and countries for the sake of someone else.

I understand that neoliberals need a war to remain in power and committing a mass murder crime to make their new dream society, a copy of actual Chines one with minor variations (choosing suite&tie + black color instead of uniform and red color) but us the people need the exact opposite and seeing actual effect of propaganda... Well... I understand that due to the extreme vulnerability of many I can't live myself in a democracy, a thing that behind anger push me toward not really nice sentiments and considerations about old-classic government model with a deeply divided population and the historic outcome of such division.

Finland will seek NATO membership immediately

Related Stories