4 ms·

What do you imply with "atleast its a nato country"? Its not like finland have ever been anti-west, if this was your point. Nato alone does not imply pro-west (

What do you imply with "atleast its a nato country"? Its not like finland have ever been anti-west, if this was your point. Nato alone does not imply pro-west (the US/trump leadership being the prime example)

decimalenough 1y ago
During the Cold War, Finland was officially neutral, but for pragmatic reasons leaned heavily towards the Soviets in foreign policy. There's even a word for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
- vga42 1y ago
  That's not the whole story. Excluding the pro-Soviet fringes, Finland always wanted to be free of Russia. When Soviet Union fell, Finland moved significantly to the west and also started inching towards NATO. But only the real NATO membership significantly diminished the country risk that foreign investors correctly perceived in Finland.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
vga42 1y ago
It's of course obvious to everyone now that there has been no reason to trust Russia. US investors have been resourceful enough to realize that investing in Finland carried a significant country risk due to Russia, even in times of relative peace. That risk is lesser now thanks to NATO.
Strom 1y ago
It's not about being anti-west, it's about the likelyhood of being invaded.
mft_ 1y ago
I think the context is clear from what was written: > As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now. i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other options come from Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and China, Finland is probably the best option. I didn't read any implied criticism of Finland.
- 0dayz 1y ago
  How is Sweden worse than Finland? Considering they both are neighbors and have been a neutral country? (technically Sweden has been for longer).
  - originalvichy 1y ago
    >How is Sweden worse than Finland? As a Finn, rather than bore you with a 2846 bullet point list, I'd say that technologically not a lot, but we do have a lot more to lose, so it is easier to bargain with our industry compared to Sweden's. Our population is not always big enough to compete head-to-head with some sectors Sweden is also a part of.

decimalenough 1y ago

During the Cold War, Finland was officially neutral, but for pragmatic reasons leaned heavily towards the Soviets in foreign policy. There's even a word for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

vga42 1y ago
That's not the whole story. Excluding the pro-Soviet fringes, Finland always wanted to be free of Russia. When Soviet Union fell, Finland moved significantly to the west and also started inching towards NATO. But only the real NATO membership significantly diminished the country risk that foreign investors correctly perceived in Finland.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

vga42 1y ago

It's of course obvious to everyone now that there has been no reason to trust Russia. US investors have been resourceful enough to realize that investing in Finland carried a significant country risk due to Russia, even in times of relative peace. That risk is lesser now thanks to NATO.

Strom 1y ago

It's not about being anti-west, it's about the likelyhood of being invaded.

mft_ 1y ago

I think the context is clear from what was written: > As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now. i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other options come from Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and China, Finland is probably the best option. I didn't read any implied criticism of Finland.

0dayz 1y ago
How is Sweden worse than Finland? Considering they both are neighbors and have been a neutral country? (technically Sweden has been for longer).
- originalvichy 1y ago
  >How is Sweden worse than Finland? As a Finn, rather than bore you with a 2846 bullet point list, I'd say that technologically not a lot, but we do have a lot more to lose, so it is easier to bargain with our industry compared to Sweden's. Our population is not always big enough to compete head-to-head with some sectors Sweden is also a part of.