Hacker News Reader

Comment by lnxg33k1 | Hacker News Reader

Wait, about the first reply, because trainings are objective, differently from who is a threat to whom

Sept 2021: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-h... https://www.army.mil/article/250444/us_nato_ukraine_enhance_...

But one training can still be seen as a threat on the border of a superpower? IS Army.mil news credible enough for US people outside the reach of russian propaganda? Does it reply your question when was US training on the border of Russia? Can we accept US as a enemy of europe? Or better, can we accept the fact that US is only giving important to ITS own interests without care of the safety of anyone else? (makes sense, it should be european leaders representing europeans interests), but someone should be able to say, european leaders currently suck, damaging their people in order to represent US interests in ukraine

View on HN

September 2021 was 7 years into the war that started with the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

It does not count as a time when Russia was not a threat.

Yes, NATO conducted trainings with Ukraine during the ongoing war started by Russia.

Yes but you asked me when was the time when NATO trained on the border with Russia, now you move the goalpost? I think Russian invading Crimea is despiseful and the referendum is fake because there was no campaign or anything, but I also understand that superpowers earn different treatments due to the fact that they can cause nuclear blasts and end the world in minutes. Russia invaded Crimea when the political sentiment in Ukraine started considering the sentiment of joining NATO/EU, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#United_S...

I think the issue is that US has been involved in the political environment of a EU bordering country, without any opposition from European leaders.

> Yes but you asked me when was the time when NATO trained on the border with Russia

No, I asked, and I will quote directly, “When was this time that Russia wasn't a threat and Ukraine was having trainings with NATO?”

That was the claim: that NATO conducted multiple trainings with Ukraine when Russia was not a threat, and that this was the casus belli for Russian aggression. Leaving aside that this would not be legitimate casus belli in any case, it is simply factually false: all the NATO trainings occurred during the war, after Russian aggression against Ukraine began. There cannot retroactively justify the aggression.

> all the NATO trainings occurred during the war, after Russian aggression against Ukraine began.

Wrong. NATO had at least one Partnership for Peace exercise in Ukraine in October 2002, a few hours drive from L'Viv.[1]

And just to be specific; this doesn't justify any aggression on Russia's behalf, sovereign nations are free to decide who to ally with.

[1] - https://www.nato.int/ims/2002/p021007e.htm

"Can we accept US as a enemy of europe?"

This is absurd. US has been the guarantor of European peace and indenpendence after the second world war.

European union basically started as a Washington think tank project.

Yes, US wants to advance it's own interests. No, it does not make US enemy of "Europe". Which is a silly way to put it. "Europe" is not a single polity or a state (not yet at least). It is still a collection of independent nation states. Most of which want to be aligned with US.

Nobody is forcing them to be aligned with US.

China or Russia would be happy to welcome them into their fold of corrupt autocracy.

Europe and US are strongly aligned economically, culturally and politically, while the world around them turns authoritarian.

Sure, they sometimes play against each other.

But, US and the nations of Europe are first and foremost allies.

>Nobody is forcing them to be aligned with US.

Nor would they get denazified™ if they decide to align closer to another power.

The fact that you think that a union of european states is a product of US think thank is straight bullshit, like that even if you don't know that there were italian politicians saying that union of european states would be the best way to have stability in europe in 1800s (Like Giacomo Matteotti in Italy, but I'm sure others in other nations had the same idea), you would still have to ignore the fact that in 1920 we had already a league of nations

Of course EU needs to have the actual countries it is constituted of engaged in it.Ideologically the projecthas many predecessors.

But the current EU started after the second world war.

The entity considered the progenitor of EU is the European Coal and Steel community

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

This was peak cold war and US influence in Europe was non-neglible to say the least.

While the reporting around the subject is a bit hyperbolical, strong Washington backing was always a cornerstone of the project

https://web.archive.org/web/20220130132451/https://www.teleg...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com