this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

48934 readers
2446 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nato members have pledged their support for an "irreversible path" to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance's 32 members said they had "unwavering" support for Ukraine's war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine's military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: "Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest."

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

...it is in our own security interest.

No one's security interests are served by a new era of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. No country has more nuclear weapons than Russia. All efforts should be taken to prevent Russia from becoming desperate enough to use their nuclear weapons. By further isolating and encircling Russia, I think the chances of them using their nuclear weapons increases.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok, I give up. I've been down voted to hell and told repeatedly by multiple people that I'm an idiot or a coward or a Russian bot for wanting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I'm going to defer to the expertise of all these people and concede the point. It's not like my opinion was going to change anything anyway.

[–] gcheliotis@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good on you for trying. I gave up a while ago. A consensus has formed, at least on here and on most of the English-speaking internet and lines have been drawn. Contrary opinions are rarely tolerated. Thankfully the rest of the world isn’t as gung-ho on isolating Russia and is actually helping restore some balance, because at the end of the day whether Ukraine is a NATO country or a Russian protectorate in ten years time matters little in the grand scheme of things.

What matters more is that the global pecking order between great powers is disturbed and this will likely lead to frequent local and perhaps generalized conflict in the future. It would be helpful for more countries to remain neutral, so as to help maintain balance and independence, while limiting the reach of great powers, but under such intense competition for global dominance most countries have to pick a sponsor for better or worse. And Ukraine’s leadership has chosen NATO, naturally. Whether they could have remained neutral or not is for historians to debate. Right now, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Do the US, Russia, and China have to be enemies? Yes, unfortunately they do. They have competing interests and the decline of the US is leaving space open for others. Hence also the focus on getting Europe more heavily militarized again. So that it can hold its own in the uncertain times to come. That is my understanding.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Starting to notice a lot of Tankies jumping to .world because they let .ml slide enough that enough of us ban .ml users on sight

edit: Site to Sight.

[–] SolNine@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Please don't ban me... I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused! I had no idea about the ancillary political focus now associated with it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

I joined .ml because it was privacy, security and FOSS focused!

Sort of the joke in all this. The .ml users are "raiding" the sub because they like the advanced feature set.

[–] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tankies are never in shambles. If Ukraine doesn't join NATO they'll say "See, NATO was just using Ukraine" and if Ukraine joins NATO they'll say "See, NATO is expanding east again". Tankies are never wrong when it comes to believing their own delusions.

[–] paholg@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, I've seen tankies spin anything to fit their narrative, I'm sure they'll continue to do so. Remember, anything resembling support of Ukraine is an act of aggression against Russia, and tantamount to unilaterally starting WWIII.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I just have to wonder what the state of the NATO coalition is going to be if Trump takes office a second time.

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably dented for quite a while but Europe is already in the process of re-arming and there are no existential threats that could prevent it buffalo buffalo buffalo from doing so. Russia can't take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once and Chinas military and navy aren't set up with long distance power projection in mind. The only exception would be the US itself if they really went off the deep end on a second Trump term.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Europe is already in the process of re-arming

They're in the process of shoveling fortunes into a ravenous private sector arms industry.

Russia can’t take all of the EU or European NATO countries at once

None of these countries want a repeat of WW2. Quite a few have large right wing nationalist blocks sympathetic to Putin's United Russia white nationalist model.

This won't be a fight between Russia and the EU. It will be a war of economic attrition that favors the international arms industry and cripples the domestic service sector, to the outrage of domestic people.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

My God, it's like the 80s took a shit

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's amazing to see how down voted a contrary opinion can be in this subject.

It's a little easier to understand if you reversed the situation.

How would the US react if the Russians supported Mexico in joining a military pact against the US, so that the Russians could build military bases and install short range nuclear weapons in Mexico and point then at the US? What would the reaction be if Russian then spent billions of dollars financing the Mexicans from any kind of military aggression from the US?

You can't threaten someone with a gun and not expect them to eventually shoot you.

It doesn't matter how anyone feels about my opinion but the more we posture with violence, lies on all sides, anger and an unwillingness to step back and find sensible solutions .... the closer we get to nuclear war and the end of civilization.

Cuba (country right next to the US) aligned itself with the USSR after Castro's revolution, and the US has attempted to coup them, invade them, murder their leaders, then sink them in isolation and starvation. I've always defended that Cuba had the right of self-determination for their own foreign and domestic policy, and that the US was in the wrong for retaliating against them.

It would be extremely hypocritical of me to defend that Ukraine has no right to self-determine whether they want to be in a defensive pact or not, and whether they want to join the EU or not, just because a third country would like them not to do so - just as it's extremely hypocritical of tankies and campists to say that Cuba had the right to choose their own future but Ukraine doesn't.