4 ms·

> If I were living in Finland, I'd feel safer (against external aggression) if the country was in NATO than if it wasn't Finland might feel safer once they're

> If I were living in Finland, I'd feel safer (against external aggression) if the country was in NATO than if it wasn't Finland might feel safer once they're in NATO. The rest of NATO (and non-NATO states in Western Europe), perhaps not quite so much. Surely the risk of NATO being involved in any conflict only increases as NATO grows?

fsloth 4y ago
"Surely the risk of NATO being involved in any conflict only increases as NATO grows?" No, it diminishes. NATO is a defensive alliance. The more members it has with credible military spending (which Finland has) the higher the cost for Russia to invade.
- mach1ne 4y ago
  I should add that Russia desires the Baltics, which are in an awkward position to defend by NATO. Finland has a strong military and its proximity to those countries makes an incursion somewhat less likely.
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    That was the leading thought before we were shown how ineffective Russian conventional military is.
    - mach1ne 4y ago
      Indeed they demonstrated that, but don't underestimate the effect an existential crisis like this has. We will almost certainly see heavy changes coming to the Russian military. It could be that in five to ten years their military is actually capable, after both structural and strategical upgrades. And the lines we now draw between NATO, Russia and China could well be the lines of a WW3 within a decade. Hopefully not though.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        The more NATO expands, the higher the risk of that war. Russia joining China wasn't even a foregone conclusion, but our leaders are doing everything they can to push it in that direction.
      - volkl48 4y ago
        They've claimed to be doing those heavy changes for the last ten years and this is what they have to show for it. Being cut off from nearly all advanced technology and with a terrible economy doesn't sound like a recipe for improving much in that sense either.
- logifail 4y ago
  > No, it diminishes. NATO is a defensive alliance. The more members it has [..] A similar line of argument about alliances and treaties preventing war was used before the First World War. We all know how that ended.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > similar line of argument about alliances and treaties preventing war was used before the First World War NATO was formed with that in mind. A single treaty document publicly ratified. No secret pacts. No back-alley alliances.
  - calf 4y ago
    It's also a bad concept. Defensive alliance is a loaded term, but people use it in arguments as if it was a well defined mathematical object.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > Defensive alliance is a loaded term It also doesn't appear to be a very accurate description of the things NATO has been getting up to since the end of the Cold War. "[NATO] has been involved in military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa"[0] You don't have to be a spin doctor to realise that what seems like "defence" to one person is another's war of aggression. German defence minister Peter Struck memorably said in 2004 that "Germany was also [being] defended on the Hindu Kush".[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO [1] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/bulletin/rede-des-bundesministers-der-verteidigung-dr-peter-struck--784328 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/bulletin/rede...
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > Defensive alliance is a loaded term, but people use it in arguments as if it was a well defined mathematical object. Almost like "defensive weapons". Almost, because that's even worse.
croon 4y ago
Only if you assume the risk of conflict in any member country being the same as when they weren't a member.
- logifail 4y ago
  > Only if you assume the risk of conflict in any member country being the same as when they weren't a member Let's imagine we're France. What's the actual risk of us being directly attacked by an enemy country, starting a conflict? Now imagine we're France, obliged to join in a conflict by NATO's "collective defence" Article 5. This conflict was already started by an enemy attacking any one of the other 29 NATO members. Particularly murky that now NATO claims cyberattacks count for article 5, and since 2001 we know terrorism can count too. What's the risk of the latter compared to the former? I don't see Article 5 as the providor of peace that so many appear to assume it is. Now that the Cold War is long-gone, and it's no longer as simple as "NATO vs Warsaw Pact" in which is was fairly easy to see which side you'd want to be on, I also don't think Article 5 is worth the paper it's written on. For instance, would your country's citizens be happy to join a war over Taiwan?
  - blibble 4y ago
    if everyone followed that logic France would still be under nazi rule
rodgerd 4y ago
How has appeasement worked out in Chechnya, the invasion of Ukraine and seizure of Crimea, Georgia, shooting down a civilian airliner? What shall we give Russia this time? Then when they come for Poland or Romania, who do you suggest we offer to rape and murder?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Given that Russia couldn't even cleanly occupy Ukraine, it's laughable to suggest they could attack NATO countries such as Poland and Romania.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    That doesn't follow. Even though Russia has not been able to occupy most of Ukraine, they've still been able to attack the civilian population. Either through medium range missile strikes, or with occupation forces committing war crimes before being pushed back (to put it mildly). I assume the citizens of Poland and Romania much prefer being able to go to a shopping mall without being subject to missile strikes.
    - trasz 4y ago
      Russia wouldn’t be able to hurt Ukrainian population if the latter had proper Air Force.
      - agapon 4y ago
        Very few countries in the world have "proper" air force.

fsloth 4y ago

"Surely the risk of NATO being involved in any conflict only increases as NATO grows?" No, it diminishes. NATO is a defensive alliance. The more members it has with credible military spending (which Finland has) the higher the cost for Russia to invade.

mach1ne 4y ago
I should add that Russia desires the Baltics, which are in an awkward position to defend by NATO. Finland has a strong military and its proximity to those countries makes an incursion somewhat less likely.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  That was the leading thought before we were shown how ineffective Russian conventional military is.
  - mach1ne 4y ago
    Indeed they demonstrated that, but don't underestimate the effect an existential crisis like this has. We will almost certainly see heavy changes coming to the Russian military. It could be that in five to ten years their military is actually capable, after both structural and strategical upgrades. And the lines we now draw between NATO, Russia and China could well be the lines of a WW3 within a decade. Hopefully not though.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The more NATO expands, the higher the risk of that war. Russia joining China wasn't even a foregone conclusion, but our leaders are doing everything they can to push it in that direction.
    - volkl48 4y ago
      They've claimed to be doing those heavy changes for the last ten years and this is what they have to show for it. Being cut off from nearly all advanced technology and with a terrible economy doesn't sound like a recipe for improving much in that sense either.
logifail 4y ago
> No, it diminishes. NATO is a defensive alliance. The more members it has [..] A similar line of argument about alliances and treaties preventing war was used before the First World War. We all know how that ended.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > similar line of argument about alliances and treaties preventing war was used before the First World War NATO was formed with that in mind. A single treaty document publicly ratified. No secret pacts. No back-alley alliances.
- calf 4y ago
  It's also a bad concept. Defensive alliance is a loaded term, but people use it in arguments as if it was a well defined mathematical object.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > Defensive alliance is a loaded term It also doesn't appear to be a very accurate description of the things NATO has been getting up to since the end of the Cold War. "[NATO] has been involved in military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa"[0] You don't have to be a spin doctor to realise that what seems like "defence" to one person is another's war of aggression. German defence minister Peter Struck memorably said in 2004 that "Germany was also [being] defended on the Hindu Kush".[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO [1] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/bulletin/rede-des-bundesministers-der-verteidigung-dr-peter-struck--784328 https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/bulletin/rede...
  - CRConrad 4y ago
    > Defensive alliance is a loaded term, but people use it in arguments as if it was a well defined mathematical object. Almost like "defensive weapons". Almost, because that's even worse.

croon 4y ago

Only if you assume the risk of conflict in any member country being the same as when they weren't a member.

logifail 4y ago
> Only if you assume the risk of conflict in any member country being the same as when they weren't a member Let's imagine we're France. What's the actual risk of us being directly attacked by an enemy country, starting a conflict? Now imagine we're France, obliged to join in a conflict by NATO's "collective defence" Article 5. This conflict was already started by an enemy attacking any one of the other 29 NATO members. Particularly murky that now NATO claims cyberattacks count for article 5, and since 2001 we know terrorism can count too. What's the risk of the latter compared to the former? I don't see Article 5 as the providor of peace that so many appear to assume it is. Now that the Cold War is long-gone, and it's no longer as simple as "NATO vs Warsaw Pact" in which is was fairly easy to see which side you'd want to be on, I also don't think Article 5 is worth the paper it's written on. For instance, would your country's citizens be happy to join a war over Taiwan?
- blibble 4y ago
  if everyone followed that logic France would still be under nazi rule

rodgerd 4y ago

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

tsimionescu 4y ago
Given that Russia couldn't even cleanly occupy Ukraine, it's laughable to suggest they could attack NATO countries such as Poland and Romania.
- mindslight 4y ago
  That doesn't follow. Even though Russia has not been able to occupy most of Ukraine, they've still been able to attack the civilian population. Either through medium range missile strikes, or with occupation forces committing war crimes before being pushed back (to put it mildly). I assume the citizens of Poland and Romania much prefer being able to go to a shopping mall without being subject to missile strikes.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Russia wouldn’t be able to hurt Ukrainian population if the latter had proper Air Force.
    - agapon 4y ago
      Very few countries in the world have "proper" air force.