this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
370 points (97.4% liked)

World News

46672 readers
2576 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 [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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But Ukraine is not part of nato, so although nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The point of nato is that Russia risks it by doing the opposite. And it only works if they aren’t bluffing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But Ukraine is not part of nato

They had security guaranties from the US and UK after giving up their nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union.

nato members were not happy, they risked a larger scale war by attacking directly. The

They did and do not risk anything.

It became very clear early on, that Russia was all bark and no bite. Russia couldn't have escalated to an all out European war if they wanted to, while their main psuh was being shredded on a highway towards Kiv. The only option to do so would have been the nuclear one but Putin wants to be Tsar, not dead.

Also even by standards of international law (as if that would account to anything anymore) supplying all sorts of weapons to Ukraine is legal. Any so called red line Moscow drew in the sand has been crossed so far and nothing has happened.

Do you really expect Putin to pull the trigger if European troops enter the battle with the clear communication that they would restore Ukraine to its borders before 2014?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago

I don't disagree that they should have responded when Crimea was invaded, a decade ago, or Georgia 15 or 20 years ago.

I think Ukraine deserved protection based on those agreements, which were made with world interest at heart.

The crux of the matter is that the USA can't be trusted to uphold any agreement with Trump at the helm. The UK is providing assistance but insufficient on their own.

Ukraine is not part of NATO, so there was not the same clear line of action and response.

Whether Russia was bark or bite is irrelevant when you send your own citizens to die in a war, protecting a different country. You need the political will and popular will to do that.

Those red lines Moscow made have incrementally dropped, without escalation outside ukrainez which sucks for Ukraine but is what the other allies would want, short of peace.

Putin is a violent demagogue and the only response is to destabilise him, which means being the war and sanctions to all Russians so that he doesn't have the political will not support to continue.

Appeasing him by allowing Crimea to be annexed will only mean he tries again there, or somewhere else in the future.