this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
34 points (77.4% liked)

World News

32351 readers
318 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 18 hours ago

It is always someone retired

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 25 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Does it really matter if anyone has the ‘right’ to do anything? What is this Crusader Kings?

[–] finderscult@lemmy.ml 6 points 14 hours ago

In practice, no. Countries and militaries and other such groups of psychos will always push every boundary they can unless they think the cost is too high.

In theory? Yes. If the rules as written actually mattered, countries would only respond to those that broke rules. In this case Russia would be responding to NATO breaking international law multiple times.

[–] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

So, Russia will stop attacking Ukraine since it has "no right".

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 15 hours ago

Russia attacked Ukraine because of threats to Russian national security. The "legal framework" or "rules based order" that allowed NATO countries to create those threats to Russia created the conditions under which Russia had two choices - follow the rules exactly and let their belligerent opponents (the North Atlantic empire) continue to build up the threat level, or break the rules and protect itself.

This is why for years the conversation around Russia has been a debate between people who say a security framework must guarantee security for all, on the one side, and on the other side, people who said we only need to guarantee our security and we can threaten the security of others and they can't do anything about it.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 6 points 14 hours ago

If we are talking about "the rules" then UA, and as a proxy for the West, failing to implement Minsk II is the primary precursor to Russia invading.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 13 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

It's more that we won't be reading about full scale unprovoked attack on the US soil going forward.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We should really include "full scale colonial invasion" before every mention about USA getting their current territory.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 20 hours ago
[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Do I have a surprise for you

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 21 hours ago

lol yeah what am I saying here, of course we will

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

"The DoD has no comment on remarks supposedly made by a private citizen to a Russian news outlet."

A retired colonel? Who gives a shit what a has-been nobody from a 20 year old administration has to say? What, are they going to do, interview me next for expert testimony on Canada because I carry a hockey stick?

It's not like Russia needs permission to attack NATO anyway, Putin just needs to decide if he wants it or not and can figure out whatever justification he desires.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

A lamed duck president taking the US into a war against the biggest nuclear superpower in the last weeks of his admin without congressional approval is pretty noteworthy.

[–] erin@social.sidh.bzh 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

so if India use their bought Rafale to attack Pakistan or China that bring France at war with those countries? Of course not... And for Ukraine it's the same...

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

These weapons are being operated directly by NATO from the territory of Ukraine to attack Russia. Nobody is denying this, and the fact that you can't understand it is frankly wild.

[–] erin@social.sidh.bzh -1 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda... Sorry to bother... But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision... If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 8 points 15 hours ago

The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

That's quite the tantrum. Are you ever going to acknowledge how ATACMs works?

[–] erin@social.sidh.bzh -3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

not what I say, what I say is NATO soldiers are not on the frontline fighting Russia and unlike what Putin says, he really not want to start that war with NATO...

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 5 points 12 hours ago

So that's a no lol

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn't have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don't have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.

This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that you felt the need to write an essay about how offended you are to step out of your bubble is hilarious.

[–] erin@social.sidh.bzh -5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

As a c/NonCredibleDefense member I'm not offended by your message, I laughed a lot while writing that "essay"... but the fact that you are diverting from the question on why NATO country lives in peace without consequence while Russia spend 3 years saying they are at war with NATO and threatening of nuclear retaliation while doing nothing (not even a non nuclear missile or a bomb on NATO territory) tells a lot about the fact that you can't answer...

The mismatch between what Putin says and what Putin does is so big that instead of using his IRBM on NATO soil to proof that he has to be taken seriously, Putin used it on non NATO soil which lead to more NATO help to Ukraine next Tuesday... And Putin will continue to threaten but will do nothing against NATO countries... I can bet a lot on that... So much for the not so strong leader that is Putin... XD

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 13 hours ago
[–] tO0l@lemmy.ml -4 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

NATO is at war with Russia and using Ukraine as the proxy. This is as true as the idea that the Chinese/NK, Indians and Iranians are all allies of Russia in this war due to the trade of weapons, oil, drones, troops, etc. I also count every US-based MNC that is still doing business in Russia as collaborators.

I'd vastly prefer that we cut the Russians off from the world and anyone else who helps them vs sending billions of dollars of weapons, technology and intelligence that will never be enough to actually defeat them. All doing this has done is led to more Ukranian lives being lost for the same end. Russia was always going to take the land back.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 15 hours ago

Ukraine is free to determine that NK, China, and Iran are all parties to the war due to their material support of the Russian operation. Ukraine can decide to declare war against those countries. They can go and prosecute that war, if they so choose.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 4 points 14 hours ago

Decoupling immediately would be the best possible outcome for anti-imperialism so yes please do this Trumpist logic.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 13 points 18 hours ago

This is obviously becoming a bloc conflict between G7 and BRICS. The problem that G7 has is that it's a smaller economic bloc that doesn't produce much anything useful at this point. Western economies have become largely financialized with all the meaningful production having moved out to countries aligned with Russia.