Going to be blocked by multiple countries.
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
709 points (98.4% liked)
World News
41341 readers
2821 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So um... what happens if a EU country who is not in NATO gets invaded? 🤔
The EU defense clause gets triggered, which is basically a weak obligation to provide "assistance". It's not an automatic call to arms like NATO's A5.
I think it's generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
EU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
"an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power"
vs
NATO: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
"as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" means direct military support isn't a guarantee.
I think it's generally agreed upon that Art. 42 (7) of the EU-Treaty is stronger than Art. 5.
That's absolutely not the consensus. This is what the EU themselves say about article 42:
Substantial uncertainty remains over the interpretation of Article 42(7). Following its first and only invocation in 2015, after the November terrorist attacks in Paris, debate intensified on how it works in practice, its scope, the definitions of 'armed aggression' and 'territory', and which forms of aggression it applies to (e.g. whether those include hybrid threats). Experts note that Article 42(7) 'leaves more room for interpretation than one might expect from a clause in a legally binding text'. Many experts hoped that the Strategic Compass would deliver clarification, however that did not occur.
The problem is that through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid. With A42, you at best get "aid and assistance", which the EU notes is super vague. The "by all means in their power" is also very vague legally speaking. Suppose Russia invades Estonia, and Latvia says "intervening militarily would invite a Russian invasion of Latvia, so intervening is outside of our power". This consistent vagueness at every level of A42 makes it so it's generally assumed that A42 could very well be weaker than A5, even if the wording appears stronger. It's a political choice how to interpret A42, but with A5 the scopes are defined a bit more clearly, and there's far less wiggle room due to the collective action, rather than the individual actions EU member states would take.
through precedent we know that A5 invocations can (and almost certainly will) trigger military aid.
I don't see why this is 'almost certain'. You rightfully point out that the EU clause leaves wiggle room, but I don't see why you think that room is not there with NATO. I don't know if the current US president cares much about any precedents. If he can wiggle he will wiggle. I don't think Europe trusts US to honor A5 any more.
There is of course wiggle room in the NATO clause, but there's less of it. Additionally, the fact that the collective decides if military action is needed then individual members don't get an opt-out of that.
Of course, ultimately nothing is ironclad, but given the established precedent for A5 and the excessive amount of individual wiggle room in A42, as far as I know A5 is considered to be more likely to be successfully invoked than A42 is.
I think you're putting too much weight on established precedent. The precedent you're citing were attacks made by non-state actors, and fighting back was easy since they didn't have air superiority. Precedent is going out the window if a more serious threat attacks a member state.
The mark of Ukraine Rada looks so cool
I think you mean the Ukrainian coat of arms. Or the tryzub in general, very common in Ukrainian heraldry and branding.
oh, thanks for the correction!
That's just messaging from leadership on future direction.
Unfortunately, Orban has not magically stopped being Putin's toadie.
I think Ukraine should definitely join, but right now we desperately need to reform the veto system before taking any more members
Less talking and more acting.
It might actually happen more now after the results of the recent German election. They formed a two-way coalition which makes it much easier to do anything.
No coalition has been formed as of today. Germany was supportive of a Ukrainian EU membership before the elections as well. Nothing has changed on a European level after Germany's elections.
You're right that it's not formed yet, however it would be pretty ignorant not to see the pieces on the board. To say that CDU and SPD are being handed an opportunity on a golden platter is an understatement. Not only that, but they both very aware of the direness of their situation. There is simply no world where this coalition isn't formed, mark my words. Plus, you're so, so, so wrong about nothing changing in Europe. To not understand the power a two party coalition has versus a three party coalition is like intentionally burying your head in the sand.
Plus, you’re so, so, so wrong about nothing changing in Europe. To not understand the power a two party coalition has versus a three party coalition is like intentionally burying your head in the sand.
The makeup and coalitions in the parliament of the European Union are completely unaffected by the German election.
Not true. Germany and France have the more influence over the other members of the European Union than any other country. To say they have an equal say is like saying the US has an equal say in UN resolution voting. Sure, they have one vote, but many other members will lockstep vote in line with that country for multiple reasons. It's called soft power... I'm sorry but how is anyone this dense?
I’m sorry but how is anyone this dense?
Yeah... asking myself the same question here.
The position of the German state on EU topics has not changed significantly through this election. The Ampel-Coalition, CDU, and SPD each have roughly the same position on Ukraine. The fact that Germany will most likely have a 2-party coalition going forward does not change ANYTHING in the European Parliament. Those elections took place in June 2024, and will not be held again until 2029.
That's like saying "Oh, Oregon just had elections for their state government and the makeup of dems vs reps slightly shifted; this is huge for US foreign policy!"
Sure, it can be a mood indicator, but as stated above, the actual positions are more or less the same, and the German state being a bit more swift to act thanks to a 2-party coalition is irrelevant for the day-to-day business and direction of the EU, which is governed by supra-national institutions unaffected by Germany's elections.
view more: next ›