this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
39 points (97.6% liked)

World News

49601 readers
1929 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
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

I don't think the BBC does a good enough job of connecting the dots here. This position only makes sense if you believe either:

  1. that Europe is going to use this as a jumping-off point to invade Russia or her allies; or
  2. that Ukraine is not a sovereign country.

1 is not credible given that Europe has been a pretty peaceful neighbour for 80 years, whereas Russia has invaded a bunch of countries.

So this really demonstrates Putin's belief that Ukraine should not have control over her own territory, that Ukraine can have some autonomy but at the end of the day needs to submit to Russia's will. Russia doesn't want to admit this to the West because it harms Russia's credibility, so this little argument really deserves to be made clearer.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, Vlad, go do it. Shoot at Western troops. See how that goes for you.

[–] nico198X@piefed.europe.pub 19 points 1 day ago

you're not supposed to be there in the first place! it's NOT your country!

[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Ok and?

No country should give up their nukes. Ever.

The US should not have a monopoly on nukes nor the Russians.

[–] realitista@piefed.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How about we make you a target, Vladdy? See how you like it?

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’d love it, if we decided to test some kind of ICCBM missile with a “tactical kinetic warhead” (like a small rods from god type situation here,) and then we’re just, like, “ooops sorry for dropping that giant murican dick on your kremlin. There was a guidance error and it reverted back to its original computer. So sorry.”

If we’re lucky he’d even be home, but the asshole is probably somewhere in hiding. Wouldn’t want the drones to find them.

The problem of course is that it’s impossible for the target country to tell what flavor (kinetic, conventional, tactical nuke, strategic nuke) the warhead is until it impacts. And thus standard strategic ICBM doctrine for anyone who has ICBMs and/or SLBMs is “assume it’s the biggest nuke”, which of course triggers second-strike doctrine (“you launched on me, so I’m going to fucking glass your whole country”).

[–] fluxion@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Try it motherfucker