Hacker News Reader

Comment by perihelions | Hacker News Reader

There's a petition that just passed that I understand is a significant step towards a national referendum:

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12043017/64-3-56998 (Finnish-language)

- "The citizens' initiative, which calls for a referendum on Finland's NATO membership, has collected more than 50,000 statements of support."

- "This means that the citizens' initiative is being considered by Parliament. The initiative was launched on Monday of this week."

- "The citizens' initiative states that a consultative referendum will be held in Finland on Finland's NATO membership."

View on HN

Support for NATO membership has improved significantly in 2022, or rather, outright opposition towards joining NATO has decreased. At the end of 2019, 20% were for and 56% were against membership. And now, in January, 28% were for and 42% were against. So the majority were either for, or unsure.

https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008515424.html

Another interesting sign of people warming up to joining NATO is a gallup that suggested 63% either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" to "accepting Finland joining NATO if it was recommended by the president and the government".

https://www.iltalehti.fi/politiikka/a/057dcd1a-dbca-403b-af1...

Meanwhile Russia is threatening military action if Finland joins NATO: https://ria.ru/20220225/nato-1775114040.html

They're going to open a second front in Northern Europe with 1/3-1/2 of their army locked up in Ukraine?

And possibly immediately cause NATO action. Russia is really not in a powerful position right now.

They have nukes. They’ve indicated they will use them.

"Give us Poland, or we'll nuke you."

"Now Czechia, or we'll nuke you."

There comes a point where that bluff has to be called, and we're approaching it.

Who are they going to nuke? Finland and Sweden in exchange for Moscow and St Petersburg? Doesn't seem like a win.

No, definitely not to me at least, as I’m in Sweden…

If Putin really wants to go down in history as the man who wiped out the Russian population (and a large chunk of the rest), so be it. I think he's bullshitting.

Stalin already did that, but not with nukes. He did not seem to mind.

Stalin killed large swaths of his own population to keep himself alive and in power. Unless he's running this war from a submarine, Putin cannot have any illusion that he will survive an all-out nuclear war. Or that there will be anything left to be in charge of.

The leaders of world powers have stocked underground bunkers for emergencies like nuclear war. I would bet he could stay underground 5 years comfortably.

The US has ground penetrating bunker busting nukes (B61 mod 11). I don't think Putin can expect to personally survive nuclear war.

> They have nukes. They’ve indicated they will use them.

Then tell them they can do whatever they want with little response. Has the EU drawn up a surrender treaty yet?

I’m not advocating for surrender, I’m simply pointing out the reason why it’s complicated.

> They're going to open a second front in Northern Europe with 1/3-1/2 of their army locked up in Ukraine?

According to reports, only a third of the force deployed around Ukraine are actually in Ukraine.[1] So, about 50-60,000. So, there are as many Russian troops currently deployed in Ukraine as US troops currently stationed in Japan, give or take a few thousand.[2]

[1] Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Is Just Beginning (https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/25/russia-invasion-ukraine...)

[2] United States Forces Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan)

The Russian Army is about 1,000,000 men. ~150,000 or 15% are deployed to the Ukraine theater, and about 50,000 were sent in.

5-15% of their Army is locked up, and by all accounts, they did not deploy their newer and more expensive tanks, airforce, and equipment.

1,000,000 is the rough count of their total armed forces. It includes air, naval, and logistic personnel. Actual ground troops is about 280,000 plus maybe 50-100,000 special ops and missile forces. 150,000 of those are said to be stationed around or inside Ukraine. Even if not all 150,000 are committed, they can't be removed in their entirety without leaving supply chains and what not exposed to irregular warfare; the troops on the front lines, whether in advance or occupying the territories gained, will also need reinforcement and relief. I think my numbers are correct!

Yet another bluff that the west needs to call.

You are seeing the result of calling his "bluff" on Ukraine.

No, we are seeing the results of not calling the bluff and not admitting Ukraine to NATO and EU. Same with Georgia too.

What do you mean, he’s been saying this for years. The west are the ones that keep bluffing and Putin called their bluff.

Clearly we’ll let you into NATO es the bluff.

Ukraine didn't get into NATO, got invaded anyways.

"We'll leave you alone if you promise never to join NATO" is the bluff, and it's been proven to be a lie this month.

> Ukraine didn't get into NATO, got invaded anyways. > > "We'll leave you alone if you promise never to join NATO" is the bluff, and it's been proven to be a lie this month.

It didn’t, but it intended to: "In June 2017, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective. In 2019, a corresponding amendment to Ukraine’s Constitution entered into force." [1]

[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm

It's hard not to see that as an obvious consequence to the Crimea annexation several years earlier.

Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has every right to desire entry into NATO.

Russia, on the other hand, is in clear and direct violation of their own agreements, where Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for permanent security guarantees against exactly what's happening now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

>It's hard not to see that as an obvious consequence to the Crimea annexation several years earlier.

This is a very short range view of history. Ukraine tried to get into NATO in 2008, but was put on the back burner. Anti-NATO government came to power in 2010, and overthrown in 2014 by Pro-NATO Poroshenko, directly leading to the annexation. Since then Ukraine has steadily drawn closer to joining NATO up until the current situation.

Setting aside for a moment the idea that "we should join NATO" in 2017 is unrelated to "Russia took part of our country" in 2014...

Ukraine has every right to do that. They're a sovereign nation, not a Russian province. Russia has no more standing to demand they stay out of NATO than they have the right to dictate the speed limit in Kiyv.

>Ukraine has every right to do that. They're a sovereign nation, not a Russian province.

Sure, I totally agree. They are free to make their own decisions. NATO countries are also free to make their own decisions, and I wish that they would close the NATO door to Ukraine. I have no interest in the US and NATO being the world police.

The following shall not be construed as defending Putin’s point of view, so don’t even.

Suppose my neighbor is a thug. A gang member. And he doesn’t like me. I have every right to date his little sister. We’re all free adults. My intentions are constitutional! What could go wrong? If he threatens me, I’ll just tell the police, because he has no right. What could go wrong?

There’s the way you wish things were, and the way things are. I understand the desire to make things how they ought to be. But in the meantime, there is sometimes a gulf between theory and practice.

As the Finnish saying goes, "a ruskie is a ruskie even if you fried him in butter" ("ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistais"), where "ryssä" is a common slur against Russians

Hats the phonetic spelling of that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com