28 ms·
Finland becomes the 31st member of NATO
- meghan_rain 4y agoCongratulations to dictator Vladimir Vladimirowich Putin for being the Chief NATO Evangelist!
- baal80spam 4y ago5D chess!
- asynchronous 4y agoReally gotta give it to their foreign policy for pushing something through that has been nearly 80 years in the making
- The_Colonel 4y agoFinland got de-Finlandized at last. Which is what the expansion of NATO was always about. NATO isn't a threat to Russia itself - if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. NATO expansion just neutralizes Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors through threat of aggression (or in case like Ukraine through the use of aggression).
- chinathrow 4y ago> Finland got de-Finlandized at last. What does this even mean?
- dantyti 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- tcard 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- diimdeep 4y ago[flagged]
- Convolutional 4y ago[flagged]
- spookie 4y agoRussia didn't take over Finland because it couldn't. It wasn't for a lack of will. They committed 450k to 750k of their man and lost 300k of them. If that isn't defeat, I don't know what is.
- Convolutional 4y ago[flagged]
- mannerheim 4y agoRussia never wanted to take over Finland, that's why they created a puppet government in Terijoki that claimed Helsinki as its capital.
- leereeves 4y ago[flagged]
- GalenErso 4y agoI don't buy the idea that it was a mistake for NATO to allow former Soviet bloc countries to join, because it would supposedly encroach on Russia's sphere of influence or increase tensions with Russia. Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms.
- User23 4y ago> Spheres of influence are gained through economic muscle and cultural power now, not force of arms. Amusingly, that status quo is enforced via the USA’s supposed overwhelming force of arms. Which in turn suggests your analysis is deeply deficient in its consideration of higher order effects.
- watwut 4y agoUkraine is asking for those guns ... and one of many reason is that being under Russian leadership means becoming poorer and poorer.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoWhich, apparently, matter. See also: Georgia, Armenia vs. Azerbaijan, Belorussian & Kazakh internal protests and revolts, or Ukraine c. 2014. Russian arms have been used on or by all of those countries. In the case of Armenia, support meant they kicked he shit out of the Azeris before... and not the case now, where Russian can't or won't help them, but the Turks are backing the Azeris. Force of arms has made a big difference for all of the states around Russia. And not necessarily in a good way.
- morkalork 4y agoReading about what the Soviet Union did in countries like Estonia and Ukraine is pretty harrowing stuff. Wanting to join NATO for protection after is completely understandable and denying them because it would upset their former (and present) abuser is a shameful thought.
- gambiting 4y ago
- kreeben 4y ago>> just Hah, yeah, that's not a big deal at all, neutralizing Russian ability to force its will upon its neighbors, through threats of aggression. Like, who's scared of Russia these days? They're just empty threats. I'd like totally bet my life on it, just empty threats. EDIT: /s
- kgwxd 4y ago> Who's scared of Russia and their threats, these days? Ukraine?
- duxup 4y agoI’d say less scared than 14 months ago. Putin and Co. really hasn’t done much for Russia or it’s people lately. They looked stronger when they were a less aggressive bully and were poisoning people.
- lolinder 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukra... Russia doesn't have to win in order to be scary to their neighbors—they just have to persuade their neighbors that they're irrational and have no sense of self preservation.
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoI mean, they can still apparently send neverending waves of convicts to rape and pillage, which is worth avoiding.
- dralley 4y agoJust because Russia is not an existential threat to the vast majority of NATO countries except perhaps the Baltics, doesn't mean there's not a recognition of the amount of damage they could inflict in the process of a "failed" invasion.
- sensanaty 4y agoI'm in genuine shock that this obvious sarcasm needed an edit to add the /s
- torbica 4y ago[flagged]
- mantas 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y ago[flagged]
- tokai 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y agoWhy is that problem?
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoNobody in NATO wants to invade Russia and have a nuclear war. 20% of homes there don't even have indoor plumbing. Nobody wants anything from Russia except to not be attacked by them.
- torbica 4y agoNobody in my country wanted to be bombed by NATO and it still happened.
- selectodude 4y ago[flagged]
- torbica 4y agoI think that even one single human loss is disaster and hate to go along this road but please inform yourself more on "evidence" of those claims and heavy exaggeration of victim numbers.
- xkcd1963 4y ago[flagged]
- alkonaut 4y agoI know this is the worst kind of whataboutism and shouldn't be awarded a response but I'll bite. Finland joining means it becomes part of a defense pact. It's not like suddenly the "US sphere of influence" expands, or that there are somehow US military bases in Eastern Finland.
- lolinder 4y agoIf the US invaded Canada and Mexico looked to Russia for support in case they're next, I certainly wouldn't blame them.
- bee_rider 4y agoRussia should try and use diplomatic means and soft power to hang on to their sphere of influence. If they tried to put uncomfortably positioned bases in Mexico, the US has lots of diplomatic and economic leverage to get Mexico to reconsider. We wouldn’t have a war over it.
- mopsi 4y agoThere is no need for hypotheticals. Russia already has military bases in the middle of Europe and hosts nuclear missiles there. Map: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
- andreygrehov 4y ago[flagged]
- sgjohnson 4y ago> Wouldn't it be smarter to actually listen to what Russia is trying to say? No. Nobody should care what Russia has to say about another country voluntarily wanting to (and joining) NATO > the irony is that the expansion of NATO gives the US ability to force its will upon NATO members and its neighbors All NATO members joined voluntarily. None of your business. > the ambitions are not different from the ambitions of Russia. I won’t even attempt to refute this.
- andreygrehov 4y ago> No. Nobody should care what Russia has to say about another country voluntarily wanting to (and joining) NATO I'm sorry, but Russia's concern is not out of thin air - you can only join NATO if your membership is not a threat to your border countries. This is one of the rules of NATO itself.
- sgjohnson 4y ago> This is one of the rules of NATO itself. It would be odd to have such a rule, because NATO is a defensive alliance that is of no threat to any of the bordering countries. Russia’s concern is out of the thin air, because if NATO really wanted it to, with how incompetent the russian army is, I estimate it’s 3 days to take Moscow. The only people afraid of the Russian army are Russian men of military age.
- andreygrehov 4y ago> It would be odd to have such a rule I mean, read their rules.
- sgjohnson 4y agoYou made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
- itsoktocry 4y ago[flagged]
- nirav72 4y agoNATO in Afghanistan was because of article 5 after 9/11. Also NATO was not in Iraq. There were some NATO member countries in Iraq as part of a coalition the Bush administration put together. But Iraq was not a NATO operation.
- staringback 4y agoWhat about Yugoslavia in 1999?
- nirav72 4y agoIn Yugoslavia , there was literally a civil war happening along ethnic lines on the European continent. Not to mention genocide.
- piva00 4y agoThey did, and that started a much larger discussion about what was the role of NATO in the 21st century. Before Russia's aggression NATO was heading towards irrelevance, Iraq and Afghanistan were a major point on opposition to NATO in Europe. Putin's decision lit a fire on that, now NATO has a purpose again.
- _djo_ 4y agoNo. NATO deployed some forces in Afghanistan as a result of the triggering of Article 5 in response to the 9/11 attacks, though it wasn't an all-out action and wasn't carried out through NATO's command structures. NATO did not deploy offensive forces into Iraq as an organisation. Some NATO members did on their own accord outside of NATO, but the organisation itself only ever had a non-combat training and advisory mission.
- staringback 4y ago
- ilyt 4y ago> if Russia seriously feared NATO aggression, it wouldn't voluntarily demilitarize its NATO borders during the past 13 months. I mean, yeah, but the reason is probably just "we need more shit to shoot at civilians in UA" rather than "we don't fear NATO invasion"
- mupuff1234 4y agoSure, but if they actually feared a NATO invasion they wouldn't have had the liberty to shift those forces.
- tnel77 3y agoYes, but… no? If you want to give the appearance of strength, I wouldn’t suggest losing to a country 1/28 your size.
- The_Colonel 4y agoYeah, but it shows the priorities - conquer more non-NATO land or protect their borders against an apparently existential threat intent on destroying Russia? This is a mask off moment.
- jcranmer 4y agoI can't take credit for this quote (I think I got it from a War on the Rocks podcast, but I'm not sure), but it's definitely apt here: Putin may have been hoping to Finlandize NATO. Instead, he NATO-ized Finland.
- rainworld 4y ago[flagged]
- watwut 4y agoYes. Because Finland joining NATO is direct response to Russia attacking Ukraine. The snub makes sense for two reasons: - Russia invaded under pretext of "we are afraid of NATO". - It prevents Russia from attacking Finland. They are less likely to attack NATO members and more likely to attack countries outside of the aliance.
- rainworld 4y agoRussia invaded under pretext of "we are afraid of NATO". NATO in Ukraine wasn’t a pretext it was (part of) the text. People in the West really seem to think Russia invaded to satisfy some vague desire for evil and villainy. People in the West really seem to think NATO and the EU being in a (proxy) war now with Russia over Ukraine disproves Russian concerns. It prevents Russia from attacking Finland Which was never going to happen. Zero reason. Impossible to sell to Russia’s allies on which it so depends, if we believe Western media. (Except now, of course, Finland has gained some nuclear targets on its map, in the event of. That’s the real 5D chess.) So there must be some other punitive quality to a country on the border of Russia becoming part of NATO.
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoThis is what all the smart people said about Ukraine prior to the invasion, that it was impossible and would never happen.
- rainworld 4y ago[flagged]
- khochesh_kushat 4y agoMore just that he wouldn't be so stupid. People just listed all the reasons it was a dumb, short-sighted idea. Which, turns out they were right, except about how stupid Russian leadership was. They seem to have honestly believed it would be a three day war, that Ukrainians were going to welcome them as liberators, and that they actually had all the equipment that they did on paper.
- motohagiography 4y ago[flagged]
- watwut 4y agoWas this comment automatically generated? What is it supposed to mean?
- khuey 4y agoThe smart view of that is that regardless of whatever ridiculous arguments for Russian imperialism people want to engage in Russia is not physically capable of conquering the Baltic states.
- Auracle 4y ago*Without using their nukes
- khuey 4y agoNuclear weapons can't take and hold territory.
- anonymousab 4y agoTurning it into a barren wasteland makes it easier to take or hold with disposable conscripts.
- mcphage 4y agoIs Russia low on land? Are they running out, that depopulating several nations and holding their territory with conscripts makes strategic sense?
- anonymousab 4y agoIn the hypothetical of them using nukes, we'd probably be past the point of there being any reason other than to wipe out the other side and show force to the rest of the world. That they control/own it by might sheerly for the sake of doing so and not by any other rationale.
- sprash 4y ago[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- madspindel 4y agoRussia would never attack Ukraine if it was part of Nato.
- sprash 4y ago[flagged]
- tokai 4y agoIs this comment a joke? Do you really believe that?
- wffurr 4y agoWhile the GP is obviously wrong now, that was the common take among analysts prior to the invasion. The underperformance of the Russian military has been stunning to say the least.
- sebzim4500 4y agoWouldn't it be much more effective theater if they actually succeeded? Why pretend to be incompetent?
- sprash 4y ago[flagged]
- khochesh_kushat 4y ago[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- medose 4y ago** russia.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago[flagged]
- tokai 4y ago>BRICS surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP Maybe. Its hard to be sure when autocratic countries lie about their economic data. edit: for those two with their "everybody lies and are awful" argument (one of the oldest and most beloved Russian tactics whataboutism). You will properly not get it if you don't already understand it - but issues with accuracy has nothing to with doctoring all your numbers to keep the gravy train going. Transparent liberal countries can have issues too, but compared to authoritarian ones the issues a trivial.
- majkinetor 4y agoWhat makes you so sure G7 countries are 100% honest?
- giantrobot 4y agoFire the whataboutism canons!
- The_Colonel 4y agoInstitutions in democratic countries are much more independent of political pressure. It might still happen, but there's a high chance that it will come to light sooner rather than later. Whistle-blowers don't have to fear the same repercussions as in autocratic states.
- majkinetor 4y ago> Whistle-blowers don't have to fear the same repercussions as in autocratic states. Its amazing that you parot that nonsence while Assange rots in prison and Snowden is hiding for a full decade. Those that fire "whataboutism cannon" arguments etc. are equally bad. Nobody is honest (or rational) here, lets not pretend otherwise, even little kids understand better. It is what it is, its human nature I guess. I don't have a solution, except that you have to accept and adapt to that sort of game, nothing more or less, especially not thinking you have some sort of moral higher ground.
- Mutjake 4y agoAs General Adolf Ehrnrooth aptly put it ”Ei enää koskaan yksin”, ”We should never again defend ourselves alone” as the lesson of the Winter War. Glad that we finally acted on that lesson and got allied. Another nail in the coffin of finlandization, albeit with a heavy price the Ukrainians continue to pay every day.
- amai 4y ago> Glad that we finally acted on that lesson and got allied. The first ally of Finnland after the winter war was Nazi Germany. So it is actually the second try to find allies for Finnland against Russia.
- go13 4y agoGreat step for the West and civilized nations! Countries with similar civilized values should not be naïve and be ready to stand up to barbarians including being aggressive when needed, and yes, EXPAND! And certainly the West should not be ashamed for standing for its values and what is right, otherwise there is a wide range of ambitious nations who think that their way is unique and the only way to deal with others is power, while despising fundamental human values. While power may beat everything in some cases, but for some reason citizens of those barbarian countries want to move to the West rather than enjoy their countries' glory in a concentration camp. I'm saying this as Ukrainian.
- sbaiddn 4y agoYou speak of civilized nations, but very generally. I'll ask my friend from Donetsk for the list.
- go13 4y agoI have a friend from Donetsk too who grew up there, don't worry. He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv.
- sbaiddn 4y agoWhy would I be worried?
- foverzar 3y ago> He was making molotov's cocktail when there was a threat that russia would capture Kyiv. Oh please don't pose. People don't make fancy distinguished name awful reeking dangerous incendiary so far from the frontline. Their whole memorability comes from their immediate production efficiency, when you don't care about anything else and need a weapon like RIGHT now. People who don't joke around are occupied with a completely different set of things.
- IYasha 4y agoIf they expand, I'm afraid, you're not gonna be part of it. :D You know, that already happened before. When Germany tried to.
- ghiculescu 4y agoThe comments are pretty hard to read here given that any comment not cheering this on is immediately downvoted to death. Many are legitimate comments - I see why some might disagree with them but it’s not even possible to learn from them if they are silenced.
- tokai 4y ago>Many are legitimate comments No they are not. Almost all[0] are the classic Russo-apologist talking points. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all
- ghiculescu 4y agoI disagree. Here’s some examples. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35439104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35439104 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35439349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35439349
- timeon 4y agoThe first one is especially offensive towards East-European countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westsplaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westsplaining
- ghiculescu 4y agoI’m from an Eastern European country and I’m not offended by questions.
- tokai 4y ago... they are both not downvoted. I have comments under both of them, and there is a lively discussion.
- andrewflnr 4y agoYou can't see downvotes on a direct link. But on the main comments page I can see the first one heavily downvoted.
- INTPenis 4y agoAs a Swede this makes me happy, partially because Finland shares a lot of their border with Russia and can now feel safe knowing they have the might of 30 nations behind them, but also because we're now surrounded by NATO countries. So no need for us to join, right? Right?! Let's remain neutral and a free haven for political dissidents and potential refugees of the future, right?!!
- mongol 4y agoAs a Swede I disgree on the strongest. What do you want to be neutral about? That time is past us. We belong in the company of European democracies that stand together against authoritarian aggressions.
- bee_rider 4y agoNobody expects the attack from Kaliningrad!
- INTPenis 4y agoIt would be very hard to pull off tho. Seeing as our neighbors would supply intel and equipment, while they have to cross the baltic sea in plain view. I mean they can barely take southern Ukraine.
- red-iron-pine 4y agoThe only thing that really matters about Kaliningrad is the (very probable) nukes that are there.
- INTPenis 4y agoYeah but then it's game over. I used to worry about nukes, especially with all the suicidal people in the world, but then I realized that it's not worth worrying about because there's no way out. Anyone launches a nuke and it's game over, MAD.
- waihtis 4y agoThis is as much a defense policy decision as it is an economic one. Hard for us to get foreign investment living next to a dictatorial warstate unless there's some risk mitigation in place. Not that I don't trust the FDF, pound-for-pound one of the better military organizations out there. (and a happy member of it myself.)
- Convolutional 4y ago[flagged]
- pjc50 4y agoThe Winter War overlapped the 1940s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War > Russia could have rolled into Finland in 1945 Unlikely.
- jcranmer 4y agoThe Continuation War ran from 1941 through 1944. Soviet offensives in 1944 had essentially fully exhausted Finnish reserves; although Finland had managed to withstand the final one, they judged that they couldn't withstand one more. At that point, the Finns sued for peace (the peace terms being a slightly upgraded (for the Soviets) version of the treaty at the end of the Winter War). So Russia almost certainly could have rolled into Finland in 1945.
- Convolutional 4y agoThe war hawks here think Russia fully mobilized, Russia which pushed the Wehrmacht back to Berlin in 1945 would have had more than minor difficulty taking over Finland in 1945. Perhaps they should read some history books, even US history books. The present may be cloudy, but the 1940s are less so - listen to their hawkish views, then consider how clear their view of history is.
- jnsaff2 4y agoThat's some mental gymnastics. In one sentence you say: muscovy has no interest in Finland and in the next: now Finland is threatened because they are in NATO. Because now muscovy is interested in them? Because something else?
- d3ckard 4y agoAs a Polish guy, this is the best international policy news I got in a while. Finland is a great ally and definitely will up the security in the region.
- _uoud 4y agoFor people not very well versed into the background of this, the pop-geopolitics personality-phenomena Peter Zeihan did a recap on it today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vt3CxtQsuQ&ab_channel=ZeihanonGeopolitics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vt3CxtQsuQ&ab_channel=Zeiha...
- diimdeep 4y agoIt is not background but U.S. centric perspective, that results in tunnel world view and bubble info diet, and man in question is analyst for Stratfor from 2000. Zeihan spent 12 years at Stratfor, eventually rising to vice-president.
- rixrax 4y agoFor anyone hailing from russia to be taken seriously, can you please answer these basic questions first: 1) Is Ukraine a sovereign country that belongs to the free people of Ukraine?, 2) Who does Crimea belong to?, 3) is russian army committing war crimes in Ukraine, and 4) are you personally supporting the russians war of genocide on Ukraine?
- halJordan 4y agoAh yes, a litmus test of au courant conformity before granting someone the right of speech. That's definitely Western values on display.
- philistine 4y agoThey didn't say they had to answer any which way. They just needed answers to take them seriously. The way of a western democracy is not anything goes. We all have to agree to certain truths.
- eternalban 4y agoIt is worrying that in a supposedly informed forum the simple, and factual, matter of there being distinct perspectives on the geopolitical order post USSR's collapse requires any further elaboration. Wow. Are you actually denying that others, quite a few billion of them not Russians btw (they go by "Global South" these days), view US behavior post Soviet collapse as aggressive and motivated by a desire for lasting hegemony? That clearly is not a view that would be addressed by the content in question, so GP's point stands.
- BurningFrog 4y agoMeanwhile, Sweden's NATO application is blocked by Turkey because former Peshmerga fighter Amineh Kakabaveh happened to become very powerful in the chaotic Swedish parliament a few years ago. The story: https://www.outlookindia.com/international/former-kurdish-rebel-turned-lawmaker-has-key-role-in-sweden-s-nato-bid-news-202347 https://www.outlookindia.com/international/former-kurdish-re...
- lawn 4y agoThat's a simplification, and there are a bunch of other reasons. The dictator Erdogan wanting to pressure Sweden and NATO for instance.
- tephra 4y agoThe most important reasons IMHO are (1) domestic election and (2) wanting to get a hold of some F-16s for their air force.
- red-iron-pine 4y agoWhich the US would have been willing to give... if they didn't cozy up to the Russians for S-300 and S-400s. They also wanted F-35s, not just F-16s. That's not one to sell unless you're 100% confident they won't copy it for their own domestic production, or sell it to, say, the Russians. And modern Turkey is looking a little shaky in that regard (no, not an earthquake joke).
- sahinyanlik 3y agoSo you are telling Turkey bought s-400 out of nowhere? US never become true ally of Turkey. And your F-35s reasoning is not right as well. From the beginning Turkey is a part of alliance. But now they afraid Turkey to sell f-35 to Russia?
- Tommstein 3y ago> So you are telling Turkey bought s-400 out of nowhere? No, from Russia. > But now they afraid Turkey to sell f-35 to Russia? No, they're afraid of what Russia's S-400 that Turkey bought might covertly reveal to Russia about the F-35. Turkey had the choice between the F-35 and the S-400. It chose the S-400 instead of the F-35. It has no one to blame for that decision but Turkey.
- foverzar 4y agoSo, this is mostly a US-centric forum, but I wonder what is the take on this from the perspective of a Finnish person. Is there any controversy or concerns of becoming a foothold for future conflicts? This whole thing has been dragging on for sometime now, had the opinions shifted over time?
- sbaiddn 4y agoWell the PM who nursed this just lost the election. But I suspect most Fins agree with the decision.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mastax 4y agoLost the election (while gaining seats) to a party which has been pro-NATO for longer.
- sbaiddn 4y ago... so she lost the elections, but most Fins support the ascension.
- Paradigma11 4y agoShe has not gained as much additional popularity as other parties did.
- Cenk 4y agoThat is true, but her Party received a higher percentage of votes in this election compared to the last one. If anything, her popularity increased.
- carlosjobim 4y agoFinns always agree with government decisions. If government policy is to stay out of NATO, finns will think that's the sound and rational way. If the government policy is to get into NATO, they will ask the media to support the idea and finns will change their opinion and think it's a splendid idea. Finns think as they are told to, like their neighbours in Russia.
- boeingUH60 4y agoScore a win for the US, NATO, and the west. Putin is a weak fraud who has been exposed…can’t wait for his regime to collapse, all without the west lifting a finger. When you meet a mad paranoid dog like Putin, the best thing is to bait them and let them eat themselves just like Putin has done.
- staringback 4y ago70 billion of US taxpayer money isn't even lifting a finger?
- seanw444 4y agoIt's not their money, so why would it matter to them?
- schnebbau 4y agoIt's 0.3% of GDP, so I would say no.
- selectodude 4y ago$70bn worth of expiring munitions that we were going to let rot in a field after Afghanistan. I imagine the actual outlay is much less.
- ilyt 4y agoIt's not just putler, it's whole system that supported him. A pyramid of lies and corruption 100 years in making finally falls apart
- carlosjobim 4y agoI might be talking to deaf ears here, but have you considered reading something written by Putin, Biden, Trump or Obama? Or the rulers of other large nations? They are all highly intelligent people even if they are responsible for horrible things. Thinking that Putin is a "mad paranoid dog", speaks to me that you have become the victim of propagandized media made for very simple minded people, and I doubt anybody frequenting this forum belong to that class. You won't be rewarded by your government or anybody else for blindly hating the enemy, so why not try to understand deeper what is happening in the world?
- einarfd 4y agoThis is not just great news for a Finland, but also for my own Norway, and the rest of Scandinavia. Even before this was finalized there was already work on closer cooperation and integration between our air forces. Give it some time and we will see all of us getting more out of defense spending, by not having to duplicate everything and combine buying contracts. When Sweden finally joins later is going to get even better. Attacking any state in Scandinavia just got a lot harder, and was imo. the whole point of this.
- kypro 4y agoWhy have so many comments been flagged here?
- jnsaff2 4y agothe st petersburg troll factories have been tasked to do their trollin.
- stiltzkin 4y agoBoth sides have their troll factories, none are good.
- causi 4y agoPolitics at all is already treading the line here, and HN has a very low tolerance for posturing bullshit.
- _uoud 4y agoIndeed, it's a thin line and I as the OP am surprised it generated so much (also productive) discussion. I saw this post was hidden from the front page at some point and I guess it's for the better. It's a "so-so".
- FpUser 4y ago>"HN has a very low tolerance for posturing bullshit" Can I please disagree?
- danaris 4y agoSince the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, there have been a significant number of commenters here who have, for whatever reasons, advanced opinions that align very closely with Russian propaganda. Some of these seem very reasonable—things like "shouldn't we try to push for peace?" "Should we really be arming the people of another country?"—and others might seem reasonable if you don't know a lot about the recent history and politics of the region—like "the main reason Russia invaded was because they were scared of Ukraine joining NATO". I would not seek to impute specific intent to any particular commenters here; while it's entirely possible that a forum like this has some genuine Russian propagandists on it, I would say it's just as possible that they either don't know or don't care about HackerNews. Either way, it's clear that a lot of this propaganda has made it into the general conversation, and some people believe it and spread it for various reasons of their own.
- IYasha 4y ago[flagged]
- athrowaw 4y ago[flagged]
- ssk169 4y agoI sure hope for Sweeden's sake that NATO member count is not a five bit integer type.