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
That's not really how NATO works, but I can understand the sentiment of imagining the USA refusing to enact the articles upon a member being attacked.
I didn't think it was the sort of thing that could be refused? Aren't things like Article 5 basically a ride-or-die pact that obligates member nations to come to eachother's defense? At least in my understanding, being a part of NATO at all legally requires each nation to consider an attack against any one of them as an attack on all of them. It specifically isn't a "if you feel like it" rule, because that doesn't have the scary MAD implications of Article 5.
If the US fails to honor NATO's Article 5 then the rest of the world will worry the US won't honor their defence packs.
Japan Taiwan Philippines South Korea
Nuclear proliferation will follow
Are client states under the occupation of the US military. They aren't worried the US might fall to act. They're worried the US might act to remove their leaders and replace them with more pliant ones.
Why would an occupied territory hosting US nuclear weapons build their own nuclear arsenal?
Why would the US allow them to do so?
By that logic Germany and UK are too so the whole article is garbage
Germany, definitely. We've had that country inundated with bases for nearly a century
Many of them already do have nuclear weapons of their own. Also the US wouldn't have any say in whether or not they produce nuclear weapons they could announce their preference but they have no ability to enforce it.
This is such a bizarre outlook on reality. You watch Russian TV a lot?
Brother, this isn't Pravda
Again, very bizzare take. There are people in literally every country that wants foreign influence or bases out, that proves nothing and that number of people is very minimal compared to people who want them. The locals in Okinawa are one such example as the military presence is disturbing and soldiers are not known for ethics. I'm in one of your so claimed "occupied states", and everyone's thankful for the alliance (literally no one calls it occupation except Russian people living here who hate everyone who tries to defend themselves from the next invasion).
Random, but did you know an alternate name for Russians where I live is "occupiers"? If you say "occupiers", literally everyone knows that means Russians.
You don't think an enormous population of foreign military resulting in high rates of unprosecuted sexual violence and organized crime demonstrates anything about the state of politics in the host country?
So you believe people in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines at the highest levels of power just... want this for their people? Or do you think they're so beaten down they don't believe in their own capacity for self-defense?
I mean, you keep coming back to Russians, as though you think they're a different species.
I guess you'd call them, what? Orks?
Is the violent occupation of conquered territory only a problem for you when the occupying army is Slavic?
Please read the article you yourself sent me and give me source for your "high rates". I'm not denying the issue exists, but officials have been fighting this issue with good results. If you think few bad apples are worse than risking entire country and millions of people then.. I can't even argue that, I'd just call you extremely dumb and move on.
The irony here is that I'm Slavic. I also clearly signalized against Chinese aggression. I'm not anti-Russian, I'm anti-whoever-can't-stay-in-their-borders-and/or-do-colonialism
EDIT: Random, but who do you think is responsible for more Slav deaths - Nazi Germany or Russia?
Buddy, you can try reading past the first paragraph. There's an extended back and forth in the interview discussing the violence around these bases and their broad unpopularity.
You can just say "alright, the statistics really do look better, the issue is being fixed, officials are talking about it and I was wrong for saying that country should be defenceless because of few bad apples"
Shame that's not true
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-0132-1_1
Do you have a source for your claims? Because I do for mine. Also, look up land used by US in Japan. It has reduced by nearly 50% since they entered Japan.
Trump doesn't seem like a 'respect the law' sort of guy.
Well I know this is getting well away from the point here, but Congress declares war, not the President.
Congress has already authorized the President to deploy military units at the president's discretion, per the AUMF which renews biannually under the NDAA
For sure, what I'm saying is that, if Article 5 gets invoked, Congress at least has the theoretical option to make a declaration of war. They've done it 11 times in US history so far, and I'd have to imagine that Article 5 being invoked would be about the strongest possible reason to make it 12.
I think I didn't really articulate it correctly, I am saying I sympathize with the French and other EU Generals for planning like this.
And how exactly would they force the United States to do anything?
“Join Us or we’ll start a two front war to make you join us” is hardly a convincing argument.
Hey if there's one thing I know, it's that you can't force the US to respect a treaty it's signed, ever. It's kinda our thing since the very beginning.
Why would Europe engage in a two front war with the United States when it could instead just ignore the United States?
The US military is highly distributed throughout the world. Other countries can stop allowing us to have bases on their soil and it will significantly weaken our military posture. They dont need to invade the US to do this.
They aren't self enforcing. Someone at the Pentagon actually has to give the order to mobilize
It would be better if the U.S. just waits a minute sees shat happens, and then congress votes to declare war and the executive branch would have to act based upon their vote or would be directly disobeying the legislature again. Congress declares war. Not the executive branch. And in the end we are the only country to enact article 5 in history, when 9/11 happened and NATO countries answered the call even though many probably did not wish too.
The thing here would be that unless Russis initiates the attack, it wouldn't trigger article 5 and congress could just ignore it.
And a lot of people would like to ignore it even with the long term pitfalls, because all they care about is themselves and right this very second
Congress authorized enormous discretion to the president under the NDAA and AUMF. There's no actual need to declare war in the modern era.
Other than the part about it forcing the executive branch to act and holding all of them responsible for not upholding the laws written by the legislature. But congress wouldn't likely do it.