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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
There is unfortunately a lot of nuance here.
A Gripen does not do the same things that an F35 does.
Europe simply does not have an answer to 5th or 6th generation fighters and I feel like wanting to be supporting of peoples respective countries and acknowledging the US being pretty awful right now is making people unwilling to acknowledge this glaring and incredibly important fault in western arms manufacturing outside of the US.
Humans benefit greatly when people, groups etc, specialize as less resources need to be wasted reinventing the wheel, but when it comes to defence, the current situations shows how flat footed CANZUK+EU* has been left by allowing the US to basically become the single source for some of the most crucial defence items.
Projects like FCAS need to cut the bureaucratic bullshit and speed up development as its increasingly obvious that the US is not a stable partner. CANZUK+EU* despite years of warning about these facts remained unwilling to spend, viewing it as inefficient, and with every individual state that has the capabilities holding recalcitrant attitudes, fighting over who gets to build what.
Basically, what I am saying, is that I would love to have non US weaponry, but if that weaponry can't compete with US weaponry, there isn't much of a point.
I mean, quite frankly, for us, Canada, the most important thing we could possibly do this decade, is to internally create our own ultimate strategic deterrents. Anything short of that would leave us completely defenceless to our greatest military threat, and largest neighbour. There is literally no chance we win any conventional war, so in a way, not even this fighter deal matters.
A lot of the nuance is also one of threat assessment, and risk tolerance.
We can prepare for a situation where we're attacked by the US, but given all probabilities is that worth it compared to preparing for a situation where we get attacked by China or Russia, or is that even worth considering vs preparing for a situation where we can ramp up industrial military production as fast as possible and become a resource rich manufacturing powerhouse?
There's no way of knowing which path the world will go down, and preparing for everything simply isn't possible, so every decision is going to be a matter of what risks to take for what potential benefits.
Very much so. Russia is not that big a threat as they are an easy sell to alliances. China and the US would steamroll us regardless, hence, given that we have no one resembling near peers, ultimate strategic deterrents are literally the only things that can defend us should the worst come.
This is not happening when we don't even have our own jets and every country with fancy jets (etc) wants to build them in house.
A strategic deterrent program is the least expensive and most all encompassing. We generally stay out of the business of other countries so the bipolar fascist next door is the biggest threat to physical safety/sovereignty. We're also uniquely well equipped to start one. We need to have a Can du attitude.
Defense production is the key to all of these scenarios. Russia is off the board for about a decade, and most likely they'd go after Ukraine again in a decade, and if not Ukraine it would be the Baltics. If you have defense production we can produce more weapons and munitions before they lose any conflict in Europe.
With China they're bottled up inside a line of islands... Philippines, Taiwan, Japan. They can't get to Canada unless they can take Taiwan first. Again, with defense production we can supply Taiwan with what they need to repel an invasion.
Everyone looks at army size but seemingly forgets to look at a map. Army size doesn't matter if you can't get that army across an ocean. So it's all about navy, and Russia isn't all that good at navies, never has been. China is building a large navy, but they don't have a lot of experience, and amphibious assaults are ridiculously difficult, and it's not likely they would succeed in taking Taiwan. China is building Aircraft carriers (which they don't need for Taiwan since it's within range of airfields in mainland China) but they aren't building a lot of dedicated landing ships (though it's supposed the could appropriate civilian RORO ships), so it seems they're doing the typical authoritarian military that's designed for intimidation more than actually being effective. But in any case we should be more concerned with defending Taiwan than direct conflict with China, because that has to happen first... and even that looks unlikely to anyone that hasn't been influenced by Lockheed Martin's propaganda.
But the bottom line is no one is going to attack the Western Hemisphere without permission from the US. So really the only real threat is the US or a US proxy. To prevent that we don't need to straight up win, we need to first make a war too expensive for the US to attempt. Secondly if they do make the foolish decision to invade Canada, we need to have the capability of killing a few thousand American soldiers over the course of an occupation and they will become war weary and leave.
So we need strong alliances in terms of defense production so we'll supply other countries if they're attacked and they will supply us if we're attacked.
Submarines are great for both an invasion of Taiwan and for making a US invasion of Canada expensive. Not that we could destroy the US navy with a few submarines, but having the capability of taking out a few ships and hitting some targets on the US coast makes an invasion expensive for them. Sure they could eventually track them all down, but they are going to take some damage before they do.
The Gripen is actually a great option too. They're relatively low maintenance (it's a fighter jet so still pretty high maintenance, but way less than the F-35) and they're designed for a conflict where they'd need to potentially use regular roads as airstrips. Again it's not about destroying the US Air Force, but just inflicting some expensive damage.
The goal would be to have a Pentagon assessment of the cost of a war with Canada to have the highest dollar amount as possible, since that's all that matters to the psychopaths in power down there right now.
Get real. If US, China or Russia attacks us, there is nothing we can do with 100X the military spending.