this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
302 points (99.3% liked)

World News

49757 readers
2182 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 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gressen@lemmy.zip 48 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There were a total of 19 airspace violations. It was no accident, it's an act of war.

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

I can't imagine how sternly worded our letter to Russia is going to be! Scary stuff.

[–] threshold_dweller@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

Eh. An "act of war" is anything the nation (populace and/or government) in question decides it is. Poland is definitely not invoking article 5, here.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 50 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Officials have cited the physical danger that such actions could cause and a desire to avoid an escalation in tensions between Russia and NATO.

Russia clearly does not share these concerns. This wasn’t an “act of aggression,” it was an act of war. Maybe rethink your attitude, NATO.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 59 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Hey, remember when Turkey unflinchingly smoked an Su-24 that entered their airspace, and then Russian shit flying into Turkish airspace was no longer a problem that Turkey had to deal with?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

The solution is easy. You just need to have the stones to react to the situation as the Russians themselves would. That’s the geopolitical calculus they respond to. This pussy-footing around “avoiding escalation” encourages them to engage in encroaching brinksmanship. If NATO were to collectively say “here’s the line, don’t fucking cross it”, and then frag anything that crossed the line, Russia would very quickly stop crossing the line.

[–] Blade9732@lemmy.world 21 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Hey, listen here, appeasement will work THIS time, I am sure of it. Maybe the EU needs to send send back some Russian dissidents and asylum seekers, that'll do it. Or buy some more oil.

On a more serious note, NATO does not seem to understand that "fuck around,find out" doesn't work when the "find out" phase is just a strongly worded letter.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a direct result of relying almost entirely on the US Military as the “find out” part. That was a fine policy when there wasn’t much to do, but turns out that it’s not a great idea when US domestic politics become incredibly polarized and unpredictable, and whiplash wildly depending on which party gains power. The fact that this wasn’t used as rationale to improve European defense over the last decade or so - specifically, after the 2016 election - is utterly insane to me. Now, everyone’s scrambling around and panicking about how to defend stuff without the US - that is, assuming they’ve even admitted that US isolationism is a thing that’s not going away, which is its own unique flavor of insane myopicism.

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

All 100% true. EU and rest of NATO giving Trump valid ammunition by not meeting spend targets and essentially giving up the defense game is one of the greatest self-cuckings of all time. Obama and Merkel sold out Crimea for cheap LNG, and EU kept doing business as usual and now the world is hyperdependent on US.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

Yes, it’s the Chuck Schumer school of international relations, unfortunately.

[–] gressen@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Turns out Russia DOES understand violence.

One might even go so far as to say that it’s their geopolitical mother tongue.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Remember when Russia shot down a passenger jet and over 200 people died and the worst that happened to them was finger pointing? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Yep. Pretty fucking insane that they’ve effectively gotten away with that whole episode scott-free

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, for me the troops releasing drones from Belarus are a legitimate target now. Sadly I'm not in charge of NATO.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

No - this is about credible defense policy. As such, all that needs to be done is to adhere to the lines, and then actually and promptly follow through. Have a clear and credible path of escalation:

  • notify Russia that any aircraft, drones, or missiles that cross from Russian or Belarusian airspace into any NATO airspace will be shot down, without warning
  • shoot down, without warning, any aircraft, drones, or missiles that cross from Russian or Belarusian airspace into any NATO airspace
  • notify Russia that any additional intrusions will be viewed as attacks, and that any subsequent intrusions will have their launch points or airbases rendered mission-ineffective
  • render any airbases or launch points that are the origin of subsequent intrusions mission-ineffective

This is a level of realpolitik that the Russians will absolutely understand.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Totally agree but the first point should have been done 3 years ago and we should have been on point 3 since the first rockets fell in Poland which was like 2 years ago. Now we should be on point 4, not starting to think about the first one.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I agree completely. Biden’s lead-in to the invasion was, to be frank, a brilliantly adept usage and dissemination of intelligence.

And then he, on the advice of the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned, unforgivably Kissinger-esque, and idiotically geopolitically myopic Jake Sullivan, slow walked fucking everything after that point, because they were too busy pissing their pants at the ghost of USSR past to realize that Russia is a shadow of its former self, and relies on blustering and sword-rattling as primary geopolitical tactics, but doesn’t actually have the capacity to back any of it up.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

NATO and Russia have been in a state of war for a long time now. it could have been as early as 2014, but defintley since 2022.

the difference is the war isn't directley Kinetic, but we're getting there, this is a small step up the escalatory ladder. We aren't quite at the level Turkey was though, shooting down VKS jets and Killing Pilots

They just give him a free pass to invade UE. Good Job! So it's every country for itself or at what point does NATO start defending itself?

I mean after Poland, Germany? Will they do anything or still not

Once they arrived here in France we'll just start learning Russian I guess

[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 18 points 3 days ago

I think everyone should be shooting down drones. Their existence watching us or worse is in itself an act of violence. End surveillance and hunt down the drones that are weapons of war.

[–] TRock@feddit.dk 22 points 4 days ago
[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

According to the latest that I've read, these "Gerbera" type drones ("Shahed imitators" but dangerous enough to do damage) carried an extra fuel tank that isn't found in Gerberas that fly in Ukraine.

Seems like a deliberate test of response.

I think the response of shooting them down was correct. I hope that a minimum of information about operating procedures leaked during work. I hope the shootdown was cheap (e.g. planes or helicopters using autocannon instead of missiles) because Gerberas are cheap, dirt cheap.

Some additional message needs to be figured out by NATO countries and communicated (more likely via practical action, since talk is cheap) from which a conclusion of "let's not do it again" would be read out in Moscow. Preventing a few oil tankers from reaching St. Petersburg to load Russian oil might be one option.

Also, the question of "what's on our menu for countering dirt cheap weapons" needs to be asked in many countries, and likely has been being asked for a while now. My bet: air-dropped unpowered glide vehicles that intercept a drone. No motor, just enough velocity and altitude from the fighter (or farmer) which brought them.

[–] Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 days ago

Putin has a history of doing exactly that. I think you're right

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

I had a feeling that was why the NOTAMs were issued. I suspected they were going to finally shoot shit down.