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
I'm sorry, but even with the U.S. out of NATO, Russia would get their ass kicked. Putin must know that.
All depends on if NATO as a whole isn't just a bluff. Are the UK, Germany and France, the three remaining major economies after the US leaves, actually going to go to war with Russia over Lithuania (no offense at all toward Lithuanians), for example? That's what he's testing, and that's why he wants the US out.
NATO could crumble and Germany and France would still come to Lithuania's aid, they're an EU member. With NATO gone UK might technically not be on the hook any more but they'd still get into the fray, despite their faults and their insistence that they're not they're still Europeans.
The actually difficult part would be stopping Poland from bee-lining for Moscow, nukes be damned. They don't spend 4.7% of GDP because they plan on sitting back.
That's a lot of faith to have in treaties. Historically Nations tear up treaties of the drop of a hat. They're only as valuable as the vested interest of those involved.
The EU is way more than just a treaty.
Everything's just a treaty at the end.
Nations, towns, families, your left hand agreeing with the right, all just treaties, got you. Maybe go a bit easier on the reductionism.
Right back at you with the Absurd hyperbole.
We have common elections, we have a common citizenship, we have a common identity, in many areas it's even common to identify as European over the nation state. That is, regional identity first, then European, then whatever nation state the region ended up in.
All just a treaty.
None of which has been tested. It's very easy to claim all that in times of peacetime. When it comes time to go fight for someone else is when the real rubber hits the pavement.
What about it not being about "someone else" did you not understand. Also, sounds like Russian copium.
I understood your contention, I just don't believe it.
NATO is required to come to the defence of any member nation if it is attacked.
On paper, yes. Will they, though?
I don't think it would matter because if Lithuania is invaded, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Finland are joining the fight and that's already a huge war in Europe. Sweden seems ready to defend and if Sweden goes it's pretty safe to assume Denmark and Norway are going as well.
Then, if Denmark is fighting, the Netherlands are probably going to help and if the Netherlands are at war so it's Belgium, you see the pattern. So while I don't think Spain would want to defend Lithuania, they would defend France.
NATO was specifically created to counter a Russian invasion, so it would be kinda weird if it didn't do the exact thing it was built for.
No they won't. They'll yell and saber rattle. Won't do anything till it reflects them as history has shown.
Yes.
I'm not sure if people know the history of trilateral defense agreements.
Iirc it was the French and English who put their war on hold to fight the Spanish specifically because of a weird defense pact.
This is actually not true.
Article Five states that an attack on one becomes an attack on all. This wording is very specific, and they wrote it with this wording intentionally, to get people to be willing to agree to join.
It does not require counterattacks or declarations of war, merely that you consider an attack on a member an attack on you.
How do people respond to different sorts of attacks? How can they theoretically respond if they so choose? These are the kinds of games being played in Putin's head.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
As far as mutual defence treaties go Article 5 is worded very strongly and any nation failing to provide assistance to a member nation would find itself a pariah.
The chances that an article 5 event involving Russia doesn’t trigger full scale war are slim to none.
That's a key phrase.
Pariah, possibly, but I don't think a party like the AfD would particularly care about pariah status. I'll also remind you that Article 5 has been triggered once, by George W Bush after 9/11. He then wanted to invade Iraq, and did not receive the full support of NATO members.
It's just not that simple, unfortunately.
Yes because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You can't make up an attack on a NATO member and then ask for the article 5 to be invoked.
Surely you see that?
Of course. But the principle remains that if your allies do not want to participate in your military action, they are not required to.
It's the people in charge of that country that make the decision of how they want to respond to your Article Five invocation, based on their own values and priorities. That freedom of choice is fundamental to NATO.
I think the plan is to be ready for WWIII, when China, Russia, Iran, and… haha…. North Korea, team up.
Add the US to that list. Just watch.
Nah. What’s the end game there. Greenland?
So are those the good guys or bad guys? I don't know anymore. It would be funny America trying to take over a bunch of countries and China coming to European aid. What a screwed up world we live in.
That’s what’s fun, geopolitically there are no “good” guys
Only bad guys and innocent civilians who suffer because of a few dumb “leaders”
Not if the US gives them troops and arms.