• Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well we in Finland joined NATO because of Russia. Same for most of Eastern Europe.

    I’m quite glad US spends a shitload on defence tbqh. Way too much, but it’s not out of my pocket…

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      Finland joined NATO because of fearmongering. I am yet to see a real threat. Now can you answer my question? If not, then it says enough.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Once a country is involved in a conflict, they cannot join NATO. You are proposing a logical catch 22 in which countries that join NATO only do so out of fear mongering (in your opinion), and countries that actually are involved in conflicts cannot join NATO, and thus will not be protected by the US. Finally, NATO countries aren’t being attacked, so unless you recognize the value of deterrence, there will never really be a chance to provide examples that fit into the framework you’ve set up.

        I hope you do recognize the value of deterrence, and I also hope you recognize someone can’t provide examples of things that were prevented due to deterrence, since they never happened.

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          The threat of Russian involvement in Ukraine was known wayyyy ahead of the invasion actually occurring. Ukraine tried hard to join NATO to “deter” it but they never allowed it. So yeah, they don’t deter shit.

          If Russia had plans to invade Finland like they did Ukraine, we don’t know if that would have gotten them into NATO.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Which attempt to join NATO are you talking about? IIRC one was retracted by the president of Ukraine and the other was already after crimea.

            What’s your reasoning behind Finland being a bad example again, beyond a “fear mongering” label that you’ve applied without explaining?

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        We joined because Russia attacked Ukraine. We neighbor Russia. Seemed real enough to us.

        Eastern Europe obviously knows more about this than even us.

        • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine, instead of fueling the profits of the military industrial complex? Why do they keep letting hostilities and murder happen? Sounds like they aren’t deterring threats very well.

          Ukraine war proves you wrong. When the threat is real, they do not deter it.

          This isn’t to mention that Finland has not faced the same circumstances of Ukraine that led up to the war there, which goes back to my feafmongering claim.

          But again, if you think Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine (it’s not), the US has failed to protect it. But they have successfully made a lot of profit for military corporations.

            • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them. There was a real threat and they chose not to deter it.

              Finland wasn’t under any threat and was allowed to join, around the same time. The country that actually had a known threat wasn’t allowed to join. So they clearly haven’t deterred anything.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                They tried to join NATO and they didn’t let them.

                When was that? I don’t see when they were denied membership. They wanted into a partnership program that would’ve made them a member, Russian minded president shelved that idea, it was raised again when Russia annexed Crimea and it’s still ongoing.

                “At the 2008 Bucharest Summit, the Allies agreed that Georgia and Ukraine will become members of NATO in future.”

                “At NATO’s 2023 Vilnius summit it was decided that Ukraine would no longer be required to participate in a Membership Action Plan before joining the alliance.”

                Though IIRC you can’t join during an active conflict. That’s sorta the thing, you need to be a member beforehand to reap the benefits. When it happens, then it’s too late. That’s why after Russian attack into Ukraine, Finland and Sweden got such a hurry about it.

                Finland wasn’t under any threat

                I guess we felt differently.

                • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  When was that?

                  Ukraine has wanted NATO membership for many years. It has been literally part of their Constitution since 2019.

                  Here is one early example:

                  https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_46249.htm?mode=pressrelease

                  For more info:

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine–NATO_relations

                  I guess we felt differently.

                  Maybe so. However I am not attached to my feelings and definitely open to changing my mind. I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I’m not sure if you meant that it was denied or just that it hasn’t become a member (yet). First one isn’t true but second one is. The process is ongoing and they’ll fairly likely become a member at some point, like mentioned.

                    I just do not see sufficient evidence that Finland was under a threat that was only deterred by US military spending.

                    We were close to NATO for a long time but felt that actual war in Europe and Russia attacking was too unlikely for us to actually join. Russia had to come and dispel that fantasy.

                    NATO isn’t supposed to be the only thing preventing it but it sure does bring us security that it won’t happen and if it in some unthinkable scenario did, we wouldn’t be left alone to fight it.

                    Looking at Russia and how they’ve generally treated their neighbors, saying that NATO has saved Eastern Europeans from trouble is a fairly believable argument IMO. Just look at those who didn’t join and what has happened with them. But of course it’s what ifs.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            If they are so good at protecting Europe, why don’t they protect Ukraine

            Goalposts moved - initial claim was that the US defense budget protects european countries, not all European countries. If that was the case, even Russia would be included as needing American protection.

            • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I agree, the other commenters moved goalposts. My initial question asked for proof of a threat averted by US military spending. You (not you specifically, whoever is up the comment chain I didn’t check) said Finland. I said that is not a valid example, as there’s no threat. Then you said well there’s a threat, because Ukraine.

              The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine? Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.

              In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                The logic doesn’t follow, because if Finland is under the same threat as Ukraine, then why is it that only Finland was protected and not Ukraine?

                Are you implying that two different countries facing the same threat should be treated exactly the same?

                Both wanted to join NATO, but only one actually did. Conveniently the one that isn’t under the threat… But the one that is was not protected.

                Again. You have proposed a catch-22. You are only accepting a valid joining of NATO if a country is undergoing conflict, however NATO does not accept nations that are currently undergoing conflict. Surely you understand that is essentially a declaration of war for all members against the other party.

                In the end, we go back to my initial question: can any of you show me a threat to Europe that was averted by the US military spending? I am yet to see it. Your example of Ukraine proves it even more wrong.

                I am still waiting for you to provide some historical examples that show how feasible it is for you to require examples of things that were prevented by deterrence. By definition deterrence inhibits behavior. You will not see inhibited behavior, because it is…inhibited.