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
I'm sorry, but even with the U.S. out of NATO, Russia would get their ass kicked. Putin must know that.
Not if the US gives them troops and arms.
All depends on if NATO as a whole isn't just a bluff. Are the UK, Germany and France, the three remaining major economies after the US leaves, actually going to go to war with Russia over Lithuania (no offense at all toward Lithuanians), for example? That's what he's testing, and that's why he wants the US out.
NATO could crumble and Germany and France would still come to Lithuania's aid, they're an EU member. With NATO gone UK might technically not be on the hook any more but they'd still get into the fray, despite their faults and their insistence that they're not they're still Europeans.
The actually difficult part would be stopping Poland from bee-lining for Moscow, nukes be damned. They don't spend 4.7% of GDP because they plan on sitting back.
NATO is required to come to the defence of any member nation if it is attacked.
This is actually not true.
Article Five states that an attack on one becomes an attack on all. This wording is very specific, and they wrote it with this wording intentionally, to get people to be willing to agree to join.
It does not require counterattacks or declarations of war, merely that you consider an attack on a member an attack on you.
How do people respond to different sorts of attacks? How can they theoretically respond if they so choose? These are the kinds of games being played in Putin's head.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
As far as mutual defence treaties go Article 5 is worded very strongly and any nation failing to provide assistance to a member nation would find itself a pariah.
The chances that an article 5 event involving Russia doesn’t trigger full scale war are slim to none.
That's a key phrase.
Pariah, possibly, but I don't think a party like the AfD would particularly care about pariah status. I'll also remind you that Article 5 has been triggered once, by George W Bush after 9/11. He then wanted to invade Iraq, and did not receive the full support of NATO members.
It's just not that simple, unfortunately.
Yes because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You can't make up an attack on a NATO member and then ask for the article 5 to be invoked.
Surely you see that?
Of course. But the principle remains that if your allies do not want to participate in your military action, they are not required to.
It's the people in charge of that country that make the decision of how they want to respond to your Article Five invocation, based on their own values and priorities. That freedom of choice is fundamental to NATO.
On paper, yes. Will they, though?
I don't think it would matter because if Lithuania is invaded, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Finland are joining the fight and that's already a huge war in Europe. Sweden seems ready to defend and if Sweden goes it's pretty safe to assume Denmark and Norway are going as well.
Then, if Denmark is fighting, the Netherlands are probably going to help and if the Netherlands are at war so it's Belgium, you see the pattern. So while I don't think Spain would want to defend Lithuania, they would defend France.
No they won't. They'll yell and saber rattle. Won't do anything till it reflects them as history has shown.
NATO was specifically created to counter a Russian invasion, so it would be kinda weird if it didn't do the exact thing it was built for.
Yes.
I'm not sure if people know the history of trilateral defense agreements.
Iirc it was the French and English who put their war on hold to fight the Spanish specifically because of a weird defense pact.
Do you mind if I borrow your crystal ball? You seem unusually certain of things most leading experts would call "very likely."
It would be weird if experts called it very unlikely, very likely is itself a claim of near certainty.
Good to see you back down from your assertion of certainty.
That's specifically not what I said, try again.
"Will they?"
"Yes."
Those are words, yes. They do mean what they say, I'm not sure exactly how that's confusing to you.
There's no common ground between someone who thinks "likely" is a synonym for "certain" and someone who doesn't. The latter isn't confused.
Does it just say likely? No. It says very likely, like It's very likely you haven't actually looked up the word likely in a thesaurus or for that matter a dictionary.
Add a very and that's very very probable.
Now onto "sure"
I don't know what to tell you. When asked if something was going to happen in the future if something else happened first, you responded with "Yes."
You either have a crystal ball or you're loosely interpreting English.
Best of luck to you either way.
No it means I'm confident of it's certainty, you just read the fuckin definition. What exactly is confusing you.
That's not what "Yes" means. Why are you so confused about such a basic English word?
Correct, I am certain NATO would respond. You're confused bud, I couldn't be more clear.
Yeah, again, please lend me your crystal ball.
I'll start with a dictionary while you try for a clue.
Yeah that's very likely to help you figure out where you went wrong.
See how I didn't say it was definitely going to help? Because even though most people are capable of figuring out such a mistake, I can't see into the future?
At least be original if you can't be right.
I think the plan is to be ready for WWIII, when China, Russia, Iran, and… haha…. North Korea, team up.
So are those the good guys or bad guys? I don't know anymore. It would be funny America trying to take over a bunch of countries and China coming to European aid. What a screwed up world we live in.
That’s what’s fun, geopolitically there are no “good” guys
Only bad guys and innocent civilians who suffer because of a few dumb “leaders”
Add the US to that list. Just watch.
Nah. What’s the end game there. Greenland?