Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added tothe title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- !legalnews@lemmy.zip - International and local legal news.
- !technology@lemmy.zip - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- !interestingshare@lemmy.zip - Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
- !europe@feddit.org - News and information about Europe.
Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
that is because zelensky and europe don't want peace.
Ukraine already made peace when they gave up their nuclear weapons in exchange for Russia's promise that they would respect Ukraine's sovereignty in the Belarus Memorandum in 1994. A promise which Russia broke repeatedly.
Russia has demonstrated over and over again that it will not abide by its own peace agreements. Russia cannot be trusted to honor any treaty. There can be no peace so long as Russia is a duplicitous kleptocracy.
"In 2014, after a well-prepared[3] US-sponsored anti-Russian coup in Kyiv, Ukrainian ultranationalists banned the official use of Russian and other minority languages in their country and, at the same time, affirmed Ukraine’s intention to become part of NATO. Among other consequences, Ukrainian membership in NATO would place Russia’s 250-year-old naval base in the Crimean city of Sebastopol under NATO and hence U.S. control. Crimea was Russian-speaking and had several times voted not to be part of Ukraine. So, citing the precedent of NATO’S violent intervention to separate Kosovo from Serbia, Russia organized a referendum in Crimea that endorsed its reincorporation in the Russian Federation. The results were consistent with previous votes on the issue.
Meanwhile, in response to Ukraine’s banning of the use of Russian in government offices and education, predominantly Russian-speaking areas in the country’s Donbas region attempted to secede. Kyiv sent forces to suppress the rebellion. Moscow responded by backing Ukrainian Russian speakers’ demands for the minority rights guaranteed to them by both the pre-coup Ukrainian constitution and the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). NATO backed Kyiv against Moscow. An escalating civil war among Ukrainians ensued. This soon evolved into an intensifying proxy war in Ukraine between the United States, NATO, and Russia."
from former ambassador chas freeman. you know what came after this ? a brokered peace agreement by osce france and germany in which various terms were settled which neither france, nor germany, nor ukraine were intending to uphold. this is the minsk agreement.
there's a lot you like to leave out, and i'm sure you'll deign to forget this history, too.
edit: to the one user who upvoted me: i see you, bless your heart and open mind- more than makes up for the dozens upon dozens of salty idealogues
What the fuck source are you even quoting from?
NATO aggression is one of Putin's favorite talking points. If you're just going to parrot his propaganda then no one rational should listen to anything you have to say.
Where "backing" means "sending Russian military across the Ukrainian border illegally in order to conduct an invasion based on a flimsy pretext", yeah, Russia backed them.
isn't it possible russia has just cause to fear nato build-up on their borders?
OK so now you're admitting that Russia broke the peace intentionally because of 'fear', and moving the goalpost you set earlier about Ukraine not wanting peace.
Classic bad-faith argument practice.
yes russia broke international law, but everyone and their mother knew about putin's position and pressed it until it was determined from russian perspective that there was no alternative. by the way, international law-- why is it that the USA/israel can ignore it with impunity?
You're moving the goalposts again. Stay on your original point or shut up.
i concede a point to you but i guess i'm just moving goalposts.
I could believe that of any major country directly profiting from this. But what's your reliable source for all that, especially Zelenskyy?
i consider chas freeman to be my most reliable western source, but i'm sure there are others.
I meant something more substantial like a link that expands on this instead of some name drop.
https://chasfreeman.net/category/ukraine/ here are 5 speeches on ukraine.
"NATO expansion was legal but predictably provocative. Russia’s response was entirely predictable, if illegal, and has proven very costly to it. Ukraine’s de facto military integration into NATO has resulted in its devastation."
From your suggested reading, this stood out to me. The crux of any argument in Russia's favour seems to be that they were unhappy at the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO, and thus felt justified acting preemptively. But ultimately, that was never a demand Russia was in a position to make, so any aggression on their part is not defensible on those grounds, in my opinion.
Literally what are you smoking. Look at reality. Tell me they weren't in a position to make that demand now that they've asserted themselves.
It's fucking amazing the shit people from your instance will say.
Firstly, basing your opinion of someone on the instance they signed up with is...interesting.
Secondly, I didn't mean that in the sense of they literally couldn't make the demand, but that Russia demanded Ukraine not join NATO, despite having no standing to make such a demand. Ukraine is a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, they didn't need permission from Russia. Even the quoted article acknowledges that Russia had no grounds for an invasion, and it's generally in support of Russia's position.
Russia doesn't want peace. Russia wants Ukraine