World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Wrong. There's no requirement for spending as a part of NATO. There's also no requirement for the US to do anything. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the "restore the former borders of the Soviet union" reason is reason enough, ignoring the resources or anything else. Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter? It doesn't have to be smart to happen.
I don't know what you people who keep bringing up nukes think they're for. You can't use them. Using them will only ensure you lose, because everyone turns against you. They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes, and also to deter nations from creating a last stand situation where you have already lost so there's nothing to lose in using nukes. You can't win a war with nukes.
Forget or dispute? You're implying your logic is faultless. Anyway, sure. They can. They don't though. I advocate that they do. I'd love to see the EU with its own defensive force. I don't want them to be reliant on the US, like they currently are. However, that necessarily requires most EU nations to increase their military spending, which you're apparently against. You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs. Sorry. That can't happen.
Article 42
And
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Support_and_Enabling_Command
Not a strict requirement, but pressure to do so. Whose idea was it to raise to 5% again? The only president who rejected the idea, Pedro Sanchez from Spain, got threatened with tariffs if Spain doesn't conform.
Russia has been pushing for closer political and economic ties with Europe for the past 30 years. Russia was promised that if they dismantled the communist project NATO would cease to expand eastward, and NATO kept expanding eastward regardless. Turns out NATO was never about defending Europe (because it never has), it was always about creating tensions between Russia and Europe because a continuous political alliance of industrialized nations that spans from Gibraltar to Bering would be too powerful for the US to control.
The justification is the invasion of Ukraine. But as a European, the number of times our military has been used to defend Europe has been 0 since WW2, it's only ever used to support US imperial ambitions, to bomb brown children, or to keep control over colonies in Africa. Europe deals so much fucking damage with its imperialism, that's one of the biggest reasons I don't want military expenditure. They tell us it's to defend from "le evil Ruzzians" but 5 years later Europe will be bombing brown children with that money, mark my words. For fuck's sake Europe can't even stop supporting the genocide of Palestinians. How can you want Europe to spend more money in military instead of engaging in diplomacy and not antagonising Russia?
It does matter. If Europe already has the military strength to repel Russia, why do you want the extra expenditure in weapons?
Why wasn't the Soviet Union or any of its satellite states invaded by the west since they got the nukes, then? The cold war was raging, and yet there was no incident of overt military conflict between eastern and western block. How so?
If love to see the EU pushing for diplomacy and not antagonising the largest country in the world which happens to be right beyond its borders. I would line to see a European military alliance independent from the US but I wouldn't like it spending 5% of the yearly budget at the cost of already starving healthcare, education and pensions. Denmark already approved to raise retirement to 70 fucking years old in order to pay for this, Finland is pushing to remove holidays from the calendar, and England already said that raising this budget will have effects on expenditure in social services. This is absolute bullshit.
We have the far right getting stronger and stronger due to the worsening living conditions of Europeans because of austerity policy and lack of intervention of things like salaries or rent prices. Cool, let's increase military expenditure to 5% right before fucking LePen, AfD, Vox and their equivalents get to the governments, what could possibly go wrong? Remember my words: in 5 years time, the European money will be spent not in conflict against Russia, but in middle east / Africa. Supporting military expenditure of the west is absolutely crazy.
No, I dont want the benefits of military power because I'm not a warmongering European chauvinist like you, I want the benefits of diplomacy, of social spending, and of good relations with neighbouring counteies. I don't want my fucking healthcare money to end up in the pockets of Rheinmetall in order to lobby my politicians to go to war. I'm an able-bodied male and I don't want my country to send me to be cannon fodder in the name of European imperialism.
Alright, you're just being a Russian mouthpiece.
Oh, Russia was promised NATO wouldn't expand? Not so much.
The entire rest of your comment is similar Russian drivel. I'm not going to spend any more time with this because your opinion is not founded in logic. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." You have a chip on your shoulder and it's hindering your understanding.
As I think it was a professor of mine said, international politics is about power, not good. States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful. None of them are good. Some of them are just temporarily doing more evil to gain power than others. Once you look at the world with this point of view, it makes much more sense (though some leaders are just stupid, crazy, or self-obsessed).
"You disagree with my point of view, so I'm not gonna respond to any of your arguments because my state propaganda told me your point of view is forbidden and ontologically evil and I can automatically discard any discussion about it. Yes, I'm the one whose opinion is founded on logic"
Please explain me how my concerns about the far right rising (arguably pro-russian) and the worries about the welfare state in Europe and my support for a EU-wide military alliance are Russian talking points.
That's not even remotely close to what I said. Try again, and don't straw man. I engaged with you, and you repeat easily disprovable nonsense straight from Russian media without any reason to believe it. No proof or logic for why it makes sense.
Again: what part of my second paragraph of the previous comment is a Russian talking point. If it's so obvious you can definitely explain?
In the Tucker interview Putin references the meeting where he asked for membership. The minutes of that meeting could have been published to proof him wrong. In other words Russia was kept out and as an opponent by the choice of Nato.
Besides the wording is that there was no agreement and not that there were no promises. That suggests that Russia's point of view is not entirely wrong.
In that light, aren't Nato's actions forcing Russia's hands?
Forcing? No. They're choosing what they're doing. There's plenty of other options for them. In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?
If you're going to make the "buffer zone" argument, see how that's decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid. Who would suspect invading a sovereign nation would make other nations less likely to join an alliance against you?
Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe. They are their largest trade partner after all. However, Putin wanted to leave a legacy of "restoring the former boarders of the USSR" so he's destroying the nation he's supposed to protect to have his legacy that he won't get anyway.
That's what you were taught in school what the US does.
This book explains how Ukraine is used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
Catch 22. But Finland and Sweden were essentially part of Nato by being part of the EU so Russia loses not much and would be much more threatened by Nato in Ukraine.
That's what Russia did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
"In particular, he writes that no Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence."
The Ukraine war creates the hate between the EU and Russia that prevents that emergence. Russia would win so much more if it were part of the EU.
Cui bono?
I never said the US doesn't benefit from the war, though they wouldn't if Russia's invasion went to plan. Russia thought they could walk in and take over. They clearly thought they could take it all and would gain a lot from owning it; a port in the black sea and the breadbasket of Europe.
Cui bono? That's more complicated than just "who's benefitting now."
Also, again, Putin wanted to cement a legacy. He benefits most if they were successful.
However, now basically everyone except Russia gains from it. China, North Korea, and Iran get to have Russia owe them a lot (We'll see how that debt is repaid, though I know there's some particular land China at least wants, but also they love their soft power). Europe gets a significantly weaker Russia threatening them. The US gets to further extend its power. A whole lot of nations get to test weapons (and secretly gain experience) with a new type of warfare.
We can't look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.
Russia loses second most, with not much to win. 30% more wheat production is not a reason for war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wheat_production
Of course, Ukraine loses most. Indepted, lost territory and huge amount of death.
China owes Russia a lot because China is the ultimate objective. Russia could fold, have new elections and join Nato.
North Korea wins big, mostly for Russia stopping participation in sanctions. An advantage for Russia.
'Europe', or rather Germany loses third most because all profits from industrial products and benefits from cheap energy moves to China. Russia wasn't threatening, an economic union suggested by Putin was possible.
US wins the most, by far. The US feels threatened by the Eurasian Union even though the EU is deeply linked with the US. Many major advisers argued against Nato expansion and they still did it. What's their offer to Germany so that Germany accepted the Nato and EU expansion to Ukraine?
They told their soldiers about the easy victory.
Do you think they didn't know about the Ukraine fortifications built since 2014? Have you seen their faces when they announced the 'operation'? They had to take Grozny. Why should Kyiv fall in 3 days?
Have you looked at the book? This conflict is in the making for a long time. Putin tried to win over Germany with cheap gas to become part of the West and avoid the conflict but Merkel betrayed him and just took the gas without changing the original goals.
You don't send your best troops into a position they can't get out of if you don't expect results. Sure, after the collapse of the government there's still going to be some fighting, but they thought they could take out the government in one swift blow.
Yes, it's been coming for a long time. Obviously. If it wasn't Ukraine it'd be something else. Russia was always going to push something to the point where other nations wouldn't let them anymore. It's not like Ukraine is the first sovereign nation they've invaded. It also wouldn't have been the last. Germany has not "taken" their gas though. They are still purchasing it, which is dumb because it increases they amount the need to spend in Ukraine, but it is what it is. If only they hadn't shut down those nuclear reactors a few years ago...
They sent like 3 helicopters of their best looking soldiers. Why wouldn't they try, at least it binds Ukrainian attention? But it's muddy. To me it doesn't look like a serious attack. They were also retreating at the same time as there was the peace treaty and the claim is that the retreat was part of the deal. I will judge that when the cloak of war is gone.
The joined military exercises, the advisers, the defence lines and the time it took to take Grozny. That requires a level of ignorance by the Russians that is very unlikely.
But even if they expected an easy victory, does that change that Ukraine is used to undermine and ultimately conquer Russia?
No. They used conflicts to prevent Nato expansions at their borders. Which souvereign nation do you have in mind?
Iraq, Libya, Syria. How can the West throw stones? I can understand and accept why we fight those wars. But without discussing the true motives we have essentially given up on our democracy while spreading democracy.
They are not purchasing it directly. Germany is paying for a war that is against their strategic advantage while handing over profits to other countries.
Russia won't go broke. If Russia loses, China is next. China will always send enough money.
Gas is a liquid commodity. Russia could export to Algeria and Libya and they export their own gas to the EU. The more complicated the more costs. Russia will always sell gas and the EU will always import gas.
I think 2027 capacity will be there and Russia will be out. How much money was that for Russia? I don't think that changed the war but immensely helped the EU.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2023/20230105_RueckblickGas2022.html
20% from Russia are 300 TWh. At 30 Euro per MWh that's 9 billion Euro.
This only increases costs for the EU and moves industries to other countries.
That's dumb, especially since Germany could still use North Stream. Cui bono again.