Hacker News Reader

Comment by keketi | Hacker News Reader

Very true. A similar incident, also from Finland, was the downing of the passenger plane Kaleva. It was shot down by Soviet warplanes during peacetime.

The vague publicly stated reason for the crash was that there was an explosion of foreign origin. The Finnish government knew that the plane was shot down by the Soviets, but chose to withhold this information for foreign policy reasons.

The airline's CEO confided the truth to the pilots' widows, who were sworn to secrecy. The true story was kept secret for almost 50 years until a Finnish aviation historian happened to find a copy of a Soviet air force officer's memoirs which describe the incident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleva_(airplane)

https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2018/04/24/matkustajakone-kale... (in Finnish)

View on HN

So that begets the question, why do the Fins allow the Russian to use their planes as target practice by keeping silent?

Maybe there is some truth to the West German term 'Finlandisation'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

Finn here. Finlandization is absolutely a thing, it's even mentioned OP's Fine Article on Finnair Flight 915 ;)

National-level Finnish politicians still weigh their statements on matters such as the imperialist endeavors of our beloved eastern neighbor. Other institutions are gradually becoming less self-censored.

Someone better informed, or just older than my 30-or-so years can probably be more precise and offer more and better examples.

But I have the sense that internationally renowned journalist Jessikka Aro's reporting on Russian disinfo ops wouldn't have been encouraged, yet translated to English and Russian by Finnish state-owned broadcaster Yle before, say, 2005 https://kioski.yle.fi/omat/jessikka-aros-prize-winning-stori...

When you're a small country living next to a very powerful one, you learn to mind your manners.

Are you Finnish? I'm not convinced many Fins would love that characterisation.

Probably not, but that doesn’t make it wrong. There’s even a special term for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization

I'm Canadian and agree that having a Great Power for a neighbor has a profound impact on federal policy, both foreign and domestic.

Meh... Canadians love to define themselves as "not Americans".

is that supposed to refute in any way that the parent said ? I'm canadian and he's right... we are not sovereign at all.

That's a distinct but related social artifact of living next to a cultural hegemon. What I'm talking about is domestic and foreign government policy.

I’m sure most Finns would agree with that characterization.

It’s certainly not a nation of very thin-skinned people.

Not Finnish. But Finland has fought two wars with the Russians in the last century, and without a protective alliance, really is at Russia's mercy. Look at what happened to Georgia.

I'm a realpolitik guy, so I don't often mince my words.

Or join NATO, which the Baltic states did at the first opportunity. Finland has always refused, although apparently they did think about it in 2007. Ukraine also had the opportunity, didn’t take it, and it didn’t work out so well for them.

When in your opinion did Ukraine have the opportunity to join NATO? Can you reference a short passage somewhere that says as much?

The MAP in 2008? It’s pretty common knowledge.

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

It is common knowledge that Ukraine applied to join NATO. I'm interested in your implication that they were ever offered membership. I doubt they ever were because I think the United States (and probably other members) considered an offer too likely to risk a war with Russia.

Right, Ukraine applied and NATO responded with a Membership Action Plan, it clearly would not have done that if it didn’t want Ukraine as a member.

Really Ukraine should have made NATO membership a condition of giving up its nukes when the USSR collapsed.

Nato writes on their web site that "Participation in the MAP does not prejudge any decision by the Alliance on future membership"

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37356.htm

--in other words their being invited into a MAP does not mean they would have been invited to become a member.

When the USSR collapsed, George Bush the elder was President, and he was one of the US's best Presidents on foreign policy, and no way he would've gone along with offering NATO membership to Ukraine. If the Obama adminstration was willing to do it, I find that depressing because NATO does not have the conventional military strength to defend Ukraine from a Russian invasion, and of course would be unwilling to launch a nuclear attack on Russia over the fate of Ukraine. It would be a mistake for NATO to make any public commitment it is not willing and able to keep. Credibility is essential for avoiding war.

Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons. The USSR collapsed in 89/90, and Ukraine gave up its nukes in 1994. NATO didn't have the capability of defending Ukraine (had it joined) until 2004 when Poland and Slovakia joined. Without a border adjacent to a NATO member, it's hard to defend.

Do you actually believe that the Soviets used Finnish airplanes as target practice?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com