World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Does anyone else have the feeling that Ukraine is safer with no deal?
Yeah, and the EU should immediately step up, and triplicate support for Ukraine.
We (Europe) already did most of the heavy lifting for Ukraine. The US mostly gave old stockpiles of weapons that they would've needed to destroy anyway. We are the ones actually paying cash to keep them afloat.
The problem is, in the post-WW2 order, our defense and our defense industry was made dependent on the USA by design. And even up until last November, Europe didn't want to challenge this arrangement and just went full steam ahead with this arrangement, ordering US made weapons. I think Europe was in denial that Biden could lose or that NATO could ever end.
Only France, and to a limited extent, Sweden and Turkey, have independent defense industries.
In the future, we will have it again. And Ukraine will actually be a key player.
But in the short term, there is no magical button to press that can produce the arms.
Undoing decades of integration isn't going to be easy.
Indeed, especially during the first Cold War, the US Military Industrial Complex was everywhere. Germany and Japan were forced to buy out dated shit from the Americans. The magical button, tell the US military to shutdown all their European military installations and leave. What would the US MIC do then? I highly doubt they want to lose business.
Putin is going to make a hard move into the baltics during Trump’s first 2 years, including NATO countries. And Europe won’t be able to do shit about it. They need defenses now and European leadership needs to fast track it.
you talk as if Europe doesn't have agency, or a military.
they do. they have gaps in their capability that have been created by the departure of US. and they no longer have the overwhelming advantage against Russia, but the thing is Russia will still get absolutely smoked.
the only thing that has changed, is it will be a far bloodier fight. Europe and America are both casualty averse. the prospect of things like Bucha Mariupol and Irpin happening in their cities, the population isnt ready for that.
(And to be clear, what happened in those towns and cities were a crime against humanity, after what Russia did there the Ukrainians understood very well this is a genocidal total war, its kill or be killed, and I dont think Europe has understood thats what its going to be.)
Maybe,just maybe, look up your world politics again.
So while the Baltics are in a shitty situation it's not like Russia could attack a "non NATO" Baltic nation - as your "including" make it seem.
And currently there are 40.000 Soldiers of the ARF either deployed in the Baltics or ready to deployed within short notice - while the EU battlegroup is also available and gaining speed. The former is - for the first time - not sustained by US troops mainly,the later one of course never was. And as the ARF is a very British corps the UK has made it very clear that the ARF also operates under the British nuclear deterrence - so did France with both battlegroups.
Will that be enough to deter Putin? Who knows. Is it nothing? Definitely not - at the moment it would be, even without US support, enough to cause either the Ukrainian front or the "new front" (wherever that would be) to collapse fast.
Your narrative is either influenced by Russian misinformation or you are Russian misinformation - it is known that Russia tries to "it's not worth it to even fight" narrative heavily into Europe and it has done so in Ukraine before.
Making a dumbass geography mistake proves I’m American, not Russian 😅
Anyway, I don’t think 40,000 is enough if the USA is aligned or even allied with Russia. Which you know, seems entirely possible given current events.
40.000 is what is currently part of the reaction force - not the total force strength.
Active service/Reserve forces of the nations with direct borders to either Belarus or Russia:
Norway: 33.000/60.000
Finnland: 18.000/ 180.000-280.000 (And we all know how this turned out the last time)/18.000
Lithuania: 23.000/104.000
Estonia: 7.700/80.000(but almost half in rapid response readiness)
Latvia: 17.000/38.000
Poland: 216.000/670.000
That does not include the countries that are currently heavily investing in the Baltics. Germany plans to have 4.000 soldiers stationed there permanently with 30.000 active personal rotating in and out. Canada has also a brigade stationed there, the UK does the same and hosts the command in the UK.
If you count the other Baltic sea nations that mostly have a very high interest in keeping the Russiand at bay you also have Sweden (24.000+22.000 Homeguard/32.000), Denmark (16.000/12.000+51.000 HomeGuard) and Germany (180.000/930.000) you have even higher numbers.
These are roughly twice as many soldiers as Putin currently can access at the moment - and he is heavily based on conscripts and semi general mobilization which is not part of the equations for most countries here, neither are other key players (e.g. UK 135.000/32.000), France (270.000/63.000), Spain(133.000/264.000), Italy (165.000/35.000), Romania (81.000/55.000) and the smaller but often highly motivated nations, e.g. the Czech Republic (34.000/4000). Even though there are some countries who's motivation may be shaky (Italy, to some extend Germany and some smaller players like Hungary) Europe very likely would be united against a common cause in a situation like that. The most interesting point would be how Erdogan in Türkiye would respond - he has one of the largest armies on this side of the pond (481.000/380.000) and there are quite a lot of people who believe that Erdogan would actually stick with "European NATO" in this case simply he would be too afraid that Putin could either reconsider his "future" border (post Georgia invasion which is far more likely) with Türkiye or simply because he would be afraid of his old military guard.
Would that guarantee victory against a joint Putin-Trump full on attack against Europe? No. Not at all. All sides would loose. Terribly.
In total soldier numbers Europe does actually surpass both the current Russian and all US armed forces combined (narrowly). Of course the US have a huge material advantage,but this is partially based on logistics from Europe (and often stored here). All this facilities would be lost then and Russia would be unable to easily supply similar logistical capacities - they simply don't have them and transport via eastern polar routes(as the western routes are within Norwegian and Finnish reach) or the eastern ports of Russia is bothersome.
While the US navy is mighty,it would be operating very far from home - further away than it has operated from any allied base ever and in very very hostile waters. (Actually the British navy is the last modern navy to have operated that far away from an allied base during a combat mission) So the US would be limited to high flying stealth bombers (don't do that much damage and can absolutely be detected by modern western radar), stuff they drag all the way through Russia, whatever they can ferry through the pond which would be infested by various submarines that, while mainly non nuclear, are still a major treat to their navy (ask the Swedes).It would certainly not be enough for a D-Day like operation.
So the other option is: Well... intercontinental ballistic missiles. While I am absolutely sure that the fascist orange wouldn't hesitate a minute to use this option if someone tells him it makes his golf course worth more as all of Scotland's course are now burned to crisps it would also mean that Putin and Trump himself would be fucked. Because the very next minute he presses the button someone else will press a button - either in London or Paris. France is already offering to place nuclear capabilities in eastern and central Europe for this very reason. In the end Washington would be nuked the same way Moscow, London, Paris and Berlin would be. And while the Orange acts irrational his buddy Putler does not - the mediocre KGB officer understands what happens to him if his puppet in Washington overreacts.
You just made all of the points that I was thinking about.
Triple*
Any deal with Trump is no deal at all. He's the kind of guy that, if you give an inch, starts waving his hands around about how you stole 16 inches from him, and how you must be thrown in a hole somewhere.
Granting him anything is telling him that you are weak and ripe to be exploited.
Just like with any dictator deals are worthless. Putin broke the ceasefire and Trump is breaking trade deals.
This guy does (he was there too, sitting next to vance, btw)
A man who, by the way, was fully supported by every single democratic senator.
He was supposed to be the "adult" in the room. They all fear Trump... For some reason, I don't get it.
trump is a good punishment for power-hungry politician types, too bad that it is at everyone else's expense.
I'm certain Dr Birx can recommend him a therapist who specializes in sold souls...
Yes. USA already knows what its going to do. A hypothetical trade agreement isn't going to change the decision, so Ukraine should make exactly zero concessions in pursuit of influencing a decision which has already been made.
Exactly, Trump already decided he was going to surrender. Zelensky knew he wasn't going to get anything, but it was worth a shot I guess
They're safer if they develop nuclear weapons on their own.
Libya and Ukraine convey the same warning to non NATO states. Have nukes or perish.
I'd suspect they're safer with a deal... but they absolutely shouldn't honor that deal.
They're safer with a deal with guarantees, but Trump doesn't want to give any, only take the profit. Otherwise it's a choice between soldiers dying and soldiers dying with profit sharing.
All to play for . Join EU. Agree no NATO Putin fucks off.
America frozen.
Not sure how the US would react. Probably war.
They can sign a 50 year deal and stop payment 10 years from now, hopefully thing change for better then.