NATO Holds Little Appeal for Finns

[The Ripper]

The majority of Finns view the idea of Nato membership with disapproval, reports the tabloid Ilta-Sanomat. Only a fourth of the population supports joining the Alliance, according to a survey published by the newspaper.

Nearly 60 percent of those asked opposed Nato membership. Even so, more people support joining Nato at the moment than was the case in the last few years. At its lowest, support for Nato membership was only found among a fifth of the population.

Approval for the idea of joining varies depending on political party affiliation. Of those who voted for the conservative National Coalition Party, over half would bring Finland into Nato. Meanwhile, only one in four of Centre Party supporters and one in eight of those voting for the Social Democrats would endorse the move.

The research was conducted for Ilta-Sanomat by pollster Taloustutkimus in December. A thousand Finns participated in the survey. The margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.

Ilta-Sanomat, YLE



http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2011/01/nato_holds_little_appeal_for_finns_2262864.html

It must drive the Stubbs, Ahtisaaris and Lipponens of Finland absolutely crazy that this windbreaker nation just won't budge in its opinion. Of course, they have already "integrated" Finland into the "defense structure" of the "international community" in all but name. Finnish non-alignment is in the same category as "Swedish neutrality". :rolleyes2:

[Joe McCarthy]

Good news. It makes no sense from a US national security perspective to risk nuclear war over an obligation to defend Finland.

[Loki]

The Cold War is over. Or should be, in any case. There is no point to NATO in this sense anymore, unless it incorporates Russia to form a bulwark against possible future Chinese aggression.

[The Ripper]

Good news. It makes no sense from a US national security perspective to risk nuclear war over an obligation to defend Finland.

But it does make sense to defend Latvia?

Sour grapes. :coffee:

[Joe McCarthy]

The Cold War is over. Or should be, in any case. There is no point to NATO in this sense anymore, unless it incorporates Russia to form a bulwark against possible future Chinese aggression.

Russia will be brought into such Western institutions if and when it decides to join the civilized world. NATO itself though has the benefit of reinforcing Western unity, and the integrated command structure helps prevent Europeans from retrogressing back into fratricidal warfare.

[Joe McCarthy]

But it does make sense to defend Latvia?


No, actually, it doesn't. It is an example of idealism triumphing over realism.


Sour grapes.

Apparently you really think sober minded Americans are anxious to send their sons to die for Finland. I like Finns alright, but not that much.

[Eldritch]

But it does make sense to defend Latvia?


Or Norway or Estonia.

But clearly Finland could not just waltz into NATO no matter what, simply if we happened to feel like it, despite it being bad news for the US national security.


Apparently you really think sober minded Americans are anxious to send their sons to die for Finland. I like Finns alright, but not that much.

Um, first you talk about "sober minded Americans" not wanting to send their sons to foreign wars (undoubtedly true), then switch to talking about yourself in the next sentence. But is it really either of those two parties that decides who gets sent where to die?

[Joe McCarthy]

Um, first you talk about "sober minded Americans" not wanting to send their sons to foreign wars (undoubtedly true), then switch to talking about yourself in the next sentence. But is it really either of those two parties that decides who gets sent where to die?

As your countryman initiated the process of personalizing this by mentioning 'sour grapes', it isn't untoward to defend myself in a like manner.

Now, are you going to turn this into another flame war?

Count me out.

[Loki]

Russia will be brought into such Western institutions if and when it decides to join the civilized world.

Please define civilized world as opposed to Russia.

[Eldritch]

As your countryman initiated the process of personalizing this by mentioning 'sour grapes', it isn't untoward to defend myself in a like manner.


Weren't you the one who appointed himself the chairman of the NATO and an expert on US national security first, in order to come up with rationalizations why it's a good thing that most Finns do not want to join the NATO?

Besides, in some other thread you said that Finland and Sweden should have joined long ago. I don't see how the risk of nuclear war with Russia is any greater now that the Cold War is over.

And no, I'm neither interested in flame wars with you nor aware of ever having had one.

[Joe McCarthy]

Please define civilized world as opposed to Russia.

There are a number of real differences between the West and Russia in terms of standards.

- Democracy
- Human rights
- Corruption
- Russia's foreign policy - it goes so far as to sell advanced weaponry to China, some of which is specifically designed to sink American aircraft carriers.

There are also more pragmatic concerns, such as economics, though they apply more to institutions like the EU. All EU candidates must meet certain budgetary and monetary standards. Russia is nowhere near qualifying. In fact, the prospects for Russia joining the EU are similar to Mexico joining a prospective North American Union. It just isn't up to par, and if anything it is even less up to par than Mexico.

On the other hand, Turkey is a member of NATO. They were allowed in as a counter to the USSR. I personally think they should be kicked out, and ironically, much of the argument used to keep Russia out could be used to kick Turkey out.

[Joe McCarthy]

Weren't you the one who appointed himself the chairman of the NATO and an expert on US national security first, in order to come up with rationalizations why it's a good thing that most Finns do not want to join the NATO?


Erm, offering an opinion is appointing myself NATO head?


Besides, in some other thread you said that Finland and Sweden should have joined long ago. I don't see how the risk of nuclear war with Russia is any greater now that the Cold War is over.


Apples and oranges. That was then, this is now. And I was speaking from the perspective of the national security of Finland and Sweden. It was in their interests to have protection from an expansionist USSR. Ironically, now that Finland has less need to join, it is mulling over the idea of joining.

[Loki]

There are a number of real differences between the West and Russia in terms of standards.

- Democracy
- Human rights
- Corruption
- Russia's foreign policy - it goes so far as to sell advanced weaponry to China, some of which is specifically designed to sink American aircraft carriers.


Oh Joe ... you're tempting me. ;) I don't have time to indulge in this discussion, but surely America cannot these days claim to champion democracy, human rights and corruption? Ever heard of a place called Guantanamo Bay? Detention without trial? etc etc ...

As for the foreign policy, a lot more can be said of America arming Russia's foes to the teeth. Georgia comes to mind, but also Eastern Europe (needless Cold War-style provocation).

Russia has been a better player on the diplomatic arena than the USA, and also less arrogant. In fact I challenge you to read about Russia's governmental involvement on the President of Russia's website (http://eng.kremlin.ru/). You will get a clearer view than by simply lapping up what the anti-Russian media tells you.



There are also more pragmatic concerns, such as economics, ...


Russia, with its vast natural resources, is of great economic importance to the world in the next century - especially if global warming is a reality. Did you also notice that Russia has recently overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer? And China has overtaken the US to be the largest consumer ... the economic balance (and flow of money) is slowly but surely shifting to the East. I also find it funny when these Skadites and Stormfronters still complain about Jewish monetary power - it is certainly giving way to Mongoloid monetary power! ;)

[Eldritch]

Erm, offering an opinion is appointing myself NATO head?

It's personalizing the discussion, which you accused Riip of doing. Discussions on a forum like this are inevitably and by definition personal, because each person represents only him/herself here. I'm not trying to deny you your right to voice your opinion. Just remember that others will inevitably have theirs too.


Apples and oranges. That was then, this is now. And I was speaking from the perspective of the national security of Finland and Sweden. It was in their interests to have protection from an expansionist USSR. Ironically, now that Finland has less need to join, it is mulling over the idea of joining.

So at the time (during the Cold War) Finland and Sweden joining would have served our national interests (debatable), but represented an even greater risk to US national security, than it would do now. OK.

Finland's NATO membership is a topic that keeps coming up regularly. Personally I think that ship has sailed already and there's no point in rehashing this every few years, but then again my opinion is of no consequence to Stubido (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Stubb) and the gang.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Loki
Oh Joe ... you're tempting me. I don't have time to indulge in this discussion, but surely America cannot these days claim to champion democracy, human rights and corruption?

I'm speaking of the West generally. It isn't just the United States that is critical of Russia, after all. But yes, compared to Russia, America simply doesn't compare in terms of authoritarianism, corruption, and human rights.


Russia has been a better player on the diplomatic arena than the USA, and also less arrogant.

I certainly disagree there. America is allies with Britain and the West. Russia is very friendly with all of the worst regimes - China, Venezuela, Iran. Even in moving away from a more strict realist perspective, it's hard to see how arming and giving support to the worst anti-Western regimes is good for preservationists. Russia's arming of Venezuela is also in our backyard, and has done much to destabilize the region, with Chavez threatening to invade Colombia. So, in sum, our diplomacy is geared toward Canadians and Britons. Russia's diplomacy is geared toward Chinese, Iranians, and Hugo Chavez. I'll gladly take our record over theirs.


In fact I challenge you to read about Russia's governmental involvement on the President of Russia's website. You will get a clearer view than by simply lapping up what the anti-Russian media tells you.


No offense, but I'm far from believing the US has been innocent in all of this. If anything you appear to take a rather reflexive pro-Russia position.


Russia, with its vast natural resources, is of great economic importance to the world in the next century - especially if global warming is a reality. Did you also notice that Russia has recently overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer? And China has overtaken the US to be the largest consumer ... the economic balance (and flow of money) is slowly but surely shifting to the East.

I agree with all of this. But then China also has immense resources. It won't be joining the EU at any point in the near future just on that basis. My point is that financial and budgetary standards have to be met for a country to be eased into the EU trade bloc and common currency.


I also find it funny when these Skadites and Stormfronters still complain about Jewish monetary power - it is certainly giving way to Mongoloid monetary power!

Agreed. In speaking of monetary power exclusively, the Jews are a huge boon, and historically have helped Holland, Britain, and America become superpowers. The great danger facing us in this century will be the rise of Asia generally, and China specifically.

[Eldritch]

The Cold War is over. Or should be, in any case. There is no point to NATO in this sense anymore, unless it incorporates Russia to form a bulwark against possible future Chinese aggression.

Btw I recall some rock-bottom Russian wannabe-imperialists (as opposed to real Russian patriots/nationalists, people who define themselves by loving their own country rather than hating those of others) bragging on Stormfront and other similar fora about how they'll join forces with China and take over Europe (the US apparently goes to China).

I've no idea how widespread these fantasies are in Russia, and obviously these people have no real influence, but this kind of ... undercurrent does seem to exist.

[Joe McCarthy]

Btw I recall some rock-bottom Russian wannabe-imperialists (as opposed to real Russian patriots/nationalists, people who define themselves by loving their own country rather than hating those of others) bragging on Stormfront and other similar fora about how they'll join forces with China and take over Europe (the US apparently goes to China).

I've no idea how widespread these fantasies are in Russia, and obviously these people have no real influence, but this kind of ... undercurrent does seem to exist.

The average Russian is very anti-Western and anti-American. Much of the intelligentsia wants to move toward the West, but they're a minority. At the moment Russia is moving toward China, but they aren't natural allies, either. In many ways Russia has no natural allies except for some of the other Orthodox states.

Personally, I think a lot of the desire to see the West and Russia 'make up' so to speak is a product of the romantic longings of preservationists that ignore historical and political realities.

[Eldritch]

Personally, I think a lot of the desire to see the West and Russia 'make up' so to speak is a product of the romantic longings of preservationists that ignore historical and political realities.

This is unfortunately true. And I am one of the preservationists you mention here. Yes, I do want to see it happen. However it's not a very realistic thing to hope for in the foreseeable future.

[Joe McCarthy]

Btw, Loki, on the issue of Guantanamo - you might want to look into the conditions of Russian prisons. Russia treats its own citizens the way we treat a gaggle of mangy terrorists on a routine basis.

I think perhaps the problem here is that America gets non-stop coverage (for obvious reasons) from what is becoming an increasingly obsessively anti-American European media. Meanwhile, Russia gets far less coverage, hence its extreme excesses are far less known than our comparatively mild ones.

[The Ripper]

I like Finns alright, but not that much.

No, just Latvians. :thumbs up


It is an example of idealism triumphing over realism.

:rotfl:

Idealism.. You want to defend Latvia from.... Ermm... The communists? Because they hate Latvia's freedom? Or from Russia, who is a geopolitical rival you've been "containing" for your own benefit?


It was in their interests to have protection from an expansionist USSR. Ironically, now that Finland has less need to join, it is mulling over the idea of joining.

Yeah. If I recall, USSR expansionism occurred when they had the green light from America, pre-Cold War. During the Cold War, we could not even be part of the Marshall Plan thanks to Soviet pressure, much less join an anti-USSR military alliance. The idea is being discussed now because now it is possible.

Doesn't it feel stupid not to know what you're talking about? I couldn't keep a straight face.

[Vasconcelos]

On the other hand, Turkey is a member of NATO. They were allowed in as a counter to the USSR. I personally think they should be kicked out, and ironically, much of the argument used to keep Russia out could be used to kick Turkey out.

Can you even kick a member out without them actually enganging in a war with another NATO member? It could have been done when Cyprus was invaded, not now.
Even if they were kicked out, it could result in Turkey finding other friends and/or alliances, notable other islamic states, Russia or even China.

Better to keep them in NATO, even if just for them to be under the illusion that we actually like them.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Riippumatto
No, just Latvians.

Er, if you go back a couple of pages you'll see that I don't want Latvia in NATO either.


Idealism.. You want to defend Latvia from.... Ermm... The communists? Because they hate Latvia's freedom?

You obviously grossly underestimate the power of liberal democracy as an ideal in the US. A prerequisite for NATO membership is that prospective states pass an anal exam in terms of democratic normalcy. Historically military alliances have been brokered based on Realpolitik and national security, which is the proper methodology, but we've added the twist - much to my chagrin - that a state has to have proper electoral standards. The one good thing that can be said about this liberal idealism is that it tends to inhibit non-Western states from entering NATO, but that's due to mere happenstance.


Or from Russia, who is a geopolitical rival you've been "containing" for your own benefit?


LOL. You and the Kremlin may think we need Latvia to 'contain' Russia, but as a matter of interest, it'd be interesting to see you explain how Latvia contains Russia, and just what 'containment' means in this context? Do we need Latvia in NATO to defend California? Do we need Latvia to defend Germany? What?


Yeah. If I recall, USSR expansionism occurred when they had the green light from America, pre-Cold War

It seems you're missing a bit of the history here. That expansion occurred after a certain Austrian nitwit launched a certain invasion, aided by a certain country you happen to be in.


During the Cold War, we could not even be part of the Marshall Plan thanks to Soviet pressure

You've misrepresented this. Finland was invited to the talks to dispense aid for the Marshall Plan. The Finnish government was split, and ultimately opted not to attend out of fear of offending the USSR.


much less join an anti-USSR military alliance.

We went over this before, remember? The only agreement that prohibited Finland from joining an anti-Soviet alliance was the YYA Treaty, which Finland signed agreeing to effectively be the USSR's satellite throughout the Cold War. The term 'Finlandization' wasn't coined for nothing you know.

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos
Can you even kick a member out without them actually enganging in a war with another NATO member? It could have been done when Cyprus was invaded, not now.


Turkey would have to agree to leave as every member of NATO has a national veto of major NATO decisions. In practice though if the other members expressed their desire for Turkey to leave, they'd leave.


Even if they were kicked out, it could result in Turkey finding other friends and/or alliances, notable other islamic states, Russia or even China.

Better to keep them in NATO, even if just for them to be under the illusion that we actually like them.

Your argument has merit, but I think it is overshadowed by the danger of keeping them in.

1. Turkey being in NATO greatly adds to the argument of them being in the EU.

2. Kicking Turkey out of NATO would do much to improve US-Russia relations.

3. Turkey is increasingly becoming a hostile entity within Western gates. This is due to its increasing turn toward Islamism. It threatened to block Denmark's ex-PM from becoming NATO head over the Danish cartoon incident, and recently it just did this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/turkey-s-insistence-nato-will-not-name-i


(CNSNews.com) – Ahead of a key summit this week, NATO’s secretary-general has confirmed that the alliance will not identify Iran as a threat requiring the deployment of a NATO-wide missile defense umbrella in Europe.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s comment indicates that Turkey, a NATO member, will get its way on the matter. Turkey’s Islamist-leaning government has deepening political and economic ties with Tehran, and it has insisted that Iran not be singled out in NATO documents.

[The Ripper]

Hopeless. :rolleyes:

[Eldritch]

Thread split.