A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
It’s nice to see this war proving that nuclear disarmament is unwise both for peaceful nations wishing to maintain stable borders and for aggressor nations seeking to invade the neighbors who gave up their nukes.
Like, given Ukrainian history it’s kinda shocking they gave them up, even with all the assurances they were given.
They were barely given any assurances. They were given a pinky promise to be independent, pinky promise to not get nuked and UNSC provided assistance ONLY IF nuclear weapons are used against them.
This is not true. Most NATO countries want to avoid fighting on their own soil.
Don't say things that encourage nuclear proliferation
Thank goodness an expert is here to swat down the drivel a top NATO Admiral is spewing.
No NATO country has expressed concern about being nuked. This is a question of geopolitics, not military strategy.
Poland? Germany?
How is Ukraine "their own soil"?
My expectation, and something I think shared by most NATO countries, is that the Russian regime would interpret western troops on the front line as a ground invasion of Russia by those countries. Something that would win over the Russian people into supporting an invasion of the bordering countries of Finland, Norway, Poland, and the Baltics.
Not to say that any no-fly-zone or a tripwire force in Ukraine would lead to Russians running into Narva, but there is still these sorts of non-nuclear escalations that western troops in "annexed" oblasts would likely cause.
Who knows where the red line is, but a lot of people in the west think it's located before the point of troops in Donetsk.
Some game theory about red lines in the Russia-Ukraine war: https://youtu.be/tM0ZTEz7Bzc
lead to Russians running into Narva
I have bad news for you
I mean Putin's soldiers, not Russian speakers.
All this shows is that other countries (China, etc.) will have carte blanche if they have nukes. If they don't, they'll get them. Imagine a nuclear armed Venezuela going after their neighbours because conventional intervention is too risky suddenly. Blah.
If not for nukes, Poland probably would have rolled Russia by themselves. The rest of NATO could just be emotional support.
I'm out of the loop. Is Poland considered to have a strong army?
Poland's military is about half again larger than Ukraine prior to the war, large portions of it are very well trained, and their equipment is significantly better. If they decided to march to Moscow, nothing Russia has, short of nukes, would slow them down. And Poland would really like to discuss with them, some of the things that happened in WW2, in an up front and personal way.
If it was just Poland they wouldn't mind getting nuked if it means getting rid of Moscow. Ironically it's being in NATO that's holding them back.
Very true, and if the nuclear threat goes away, it'll look like a pack of junk yard dogs let loose on a kitten.
Fuck it. If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers. Put boots on the ground, or accept nuclear proliferation as a fact of life once countries realize that Ukraine proves that giving up nukes does not result in international support for sovereignty against revanchist states.
Yeah this is such a losing strategy. All it does is authorize crimes in the short term and drive up nuclear proliferation in the long term.
Of course, the alternative is a game of chicken with nuclear powers to test the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
Still, better to do that now than years from now with the smaller, more radical parties who will by then control nukes, thanks to the nuclear proliferation the current strategy drives.
If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers
That is the assumption Russia is operating under.
The only thing that surprises me in geopolitics right now is that Iran is not mass producing nukes yet.
They've been clear that they don't do it because they don't think they'd make Iran more secure.
The moment they would try to make the last dash to nukes, is the moment the US would be bombing the everlasting shit out of Iran to prevent it.
Like they did in North Korea?
North Korea was under Chinese protection. This is what Iran likely is trying to do with Russia.
It's a delicate process, not easy to simply produce a bunch of nuclear weapons. Iran is at the point where they could have a few inside of a year anytime they actually want to trigger that particular international crisis.
If nukes are an excuse to prevent all conventional intervention, then nukes are a free pass to commit any crimes one wishes against non-nuclear powers.
Well... yeah.
The easy solution is to show that nukes are not protection against all conventional intervention. We should have given Zelenskyy a no-fly zone back when he asked for one.
But they are. Its been settled decades ago.
"Easy." 👌
Easy as in simple, not easy as in likely or without cost.
Step 1: Put boots on Russian territory
Step 2: (nuclear) Winter is coming
Step 3: 💥 ~~profit~~ 💥
Put up proof that you know this would happen, or stop fear-mongering.
Nobody’s saying NATO should invade Russia.
We’re saying NATO could EASILY establish IADS over the vast majority of Ukraine to defend their civilian population and infrastructure.