6 ms·

Finnish political parties believe in a policy of "Nato-option", where major parties have kept saying to population it's option we can choose. Almost on instant

Finnish political parties believe in a policy of "Nato-option", where major parties have kept saying to population it's option we can choose. Almost on instant anytime we want. With war in Ukraine, it doesn't look a credible policy, because they can't anymore say it's an option Finland can choose in case hot conflict is ongoing. Currently as things stand, Finland most likely joins in few years. Next parliamentary election is most likely won by center-right who favors it, and president is from same faction. It's a bit situationally dependent, if threats from Russia is seen as violent, it could change their calculus. However even center-left figures already agrees it's necessity, just not now. It could be seen as provocative. I have always thought that Finland would be in NATO already if it was not seen meddling in middle east. It has really burned it's view among leftists.

oblak 5y ago
"meddling" in the middle east? The US-UK straight up invaded two countries under the flimsiest pretexts. I don't remember the world condemning the aggressors in any serious way. No sanctions, nothing. Bush and Blair should've gone the way of Milošević - mysterious death while awaiting trial. Wishful thinking, I know. This hypocrisy is prevalent and disgusting.
- InsaneOstrich 5y ago
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were repugnant, but comparing the invasion of countries with brutal authoritarian regimes with the invasion of a functional liberal democracy seems disingenuous.
  - oblak 5y ago
    Why can't I? Are you implying the Afghani wanted their torn up country invaded by yet another superpower? They haven't seen anything resembling normal life in generations. Or that Iraqis deserved to get their well developed country almost completely destroyed? What are you saying?
    - InsaneOstrich 5y ago
      You seem to be completely ignoring the lack of legitimacy and popular support that the authoritarian regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan had, as well as the human rights violations that were commonplace while they were in power. The war in Afghanistan was obviously a complete and total failure given that the Taliban are now back in charge, but it's hard to argue that after all this time that the Iraqis aren't better off living in an (albeit flawed) democracy than under the rule of Saddam Hussain.
      - mercutio2 5y ago
        I don’t think it’s hard to argue that at all. A different clique is on top in Iraq now, but Iraqi standard of living does not appear to be an improvement over the Saddam years. If you’re Shi’ite there’s no doubt it’s better now, though.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    The people who live in those countries don't view it any differently when their relatives get murdered. 99.9% of the population of any country mostly just want to live their lives and politically all they do is talk and maybe fill in a circle on a ballot once in a awhile. There's a useful fiction that they're all collectively responsible which is used for various illegitimate justifications. Just like soldiers fight for the person next to them, insurgencies are born because your family members got killed by foreign solders who parked tanks in your cities. Once you leave the rationalizations of the political theater behind and get down to the reality of where the individual acts of homicide are happening in the war, it is all the same thing.
LaMarseillaise 5y ago
> It could be seen as provocative. The invasion of Ukraine has invalidated this line of reasoning. NATO is the only definitive way to prevent a Russian invasion now, and every moment of delay puts Finland in greater danger. If Putin is crazy enough to invade a NATO Finland, then he is definitely crazy enough to invade a non-NATO Finland.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  This completely ignores giving Russia a reason to invade Finland. Russia has had no strategic need or desire to invade Finland and lived as neighbors for 70 years. Joining NATO and giving it leverage over the Russian navy would vastly increase the chance of Finland being pulled into a hot conflict with Russia
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    Russia has always had a reason to invade Finland. Like they want Ukraine back, as it belonged to the Russian Empire, they also want back Finland, as it belonged to the Russian Empire. In the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, written immediately before WWII, Russia stated once more their wish to incorporate Finland. Nothing has ever changed in their intentions since then until now. They have waited until the time when they believed they are strong enough to regain control over Ukraine. They will also wait a time when they will believe that they can successfully attack Finland. They will not give up on this idea until a completely different kind of government will replace Putin and those like him, which does not seem likely, unless he would suffer a shameful defeat in Ukraine.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Russia can't hold Ukraine and they know it. This is a punitive invasion and they will be out after crippling the military and getting the NATO neutrality concessions they want. Russias power is waning, and at the same time Ukraine-NATO integration is approaching the point of irreversibility. From the Russian perspective the window to stop Ukraine is closing. Finland has no such window right now unless they create one

oblak 5y ago

"meddling" in the middle east? The US-UK straight up invaded two countries under the flimsiest pretexts. I don't remember the world condemning the aggressors in any serious way. No sanctions, nothing. Bush and Blair should've gone the way of Milošević - mysterious death while awaiting trial. Wishful thinking, I know. This hypocrisy is prevalent and disgusting.

InsaneOstrich 5y ago
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were repugnant, but comparing the invasion of countries with brutal authoritarian regimes with the invasion of a functional liberal democracy seems disingenuous.
- oblak 5y ago
  Why can't I? Are you implying the Afghani wanted their torn up country invaded by yet another superpower? They haven't seen anything resembling normal life in generations. Or that Iraqis deserved to get their well developed country almost completely destroyed? What are you saying?
  - InsaneOstrich 5y ago
    You seem to be completely ignoring the lack of legitimacy and popular support that the authoritarian regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan had, as well as the human rights violations that were commonplace while they were in power. The war in Afghanistan was obviously a complete and total failure given that the Taliban are now back in charge, but it's hard to argue that after all this time that the Iraqis aren't better off living in an (albeit flawed) democracy than under the rule of Saddam Hussain.
    - mercutio2 5y ago
      I don’t think it’s hard to argue that at all. A different clique is on top in Iraq now, but Iraqi standard of living does not appear to be an improvement over the Saddam years. If you’re Shi’ite there’s no doubt it’s better now, though.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  The people who live in those countries don't view it any differently when their relatives get murdered. 99.9% of the population of any country mostly just want to live their lives and politically all they do is talk and maybe fill in a circle on a ballot once in a awhile. There's a useful fiction that they're all collectively responsible which is used for various illegitimate justifications. Just like soldiers fight for the person next to them, insurgencies are born because your family members got killed by foreign solders who parked tanks in your cities. Once you leave the rationalizations of the political theater behind and get down to the reality of where the individual acts of homicide are happening in the war, it is all the same thing.

LaMarseillaise 5y ago

> It could be seen as provocative. The invasion of Ukraine has invalidated this line of reasoning. NATO is the only definitive way to prevent a Russian invasion now, and every moment of delay puts Finland in greater danger. If Putin is crazy enough to invade a NATO Finland, then he is definitely crazy enough to invade a non-NATO Finland.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
This completely ignores giving Russia a reason to invade Finland. Russia has had no strategic need or desire to invade Finland and lived as neighbors for 70 years. Joining NATO and giving it leverage over the Russian navy would vastly increase the chance of Finland being pulled into a hot conflict with Russia
- adrian_b 5y ago
  Russia has always had a reason to invade Finland. Like they want Ukraine back, as it belonged to the Russian Empire, they also want back Finland, as it belonged to the Russian Empire. In the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, written immediately before WWII, Russia stated once more their wish to incorporate Finland. Nothing has ever changed in their intentions since then until now. They have waited until the time when they believed they are strong enough to regain control over Ukraine. They will also wait a time when they will believe that they can successfully attack Finland. They will not give up on this idea until a completely different kind of government will replace Putin and those like him, which does not seem likely, unless he would suffer a shameful defeat in Ukraine.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Russia can't hold Ukraine and they know it. This is a punitive invasion and they will be out after crippling the military and getting the NATO neutrality concessions they want. Russias power is waning, and at the same time Ukraine-NATO integration is approaching the point of irreversibility. From the Russian perspective the window to stop Ukraine is closing. Finland has no such window right now unless they create one