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.
-
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 !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
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
And I should at that point. I’m strongly opposed to US troops in Ukraine to fight the war.
That said, attacking the power plant is a red line for me. That is an attack on the world.
I figure NATO will declare a humanitarian mission and send troops in. And since it's a war zone...
Do they even bother with that shit anymore?
We've got half a dozen humanitarian disasters the world over, from Haiti to Sudan to Myanmar, and NATO seems completely asleep at the switch.
Cause for action. NATO countries surround Ukraine and will get radiation from a melt down. Thier presence gives Russia a political problem. Controlling a nuclear disaster and creating a safe zone is justifcation.
They're already eating shit from the refugee crisis, the impact on waterways caused by that dam explosion, and the flood of food exports that have cratered European agricultural markets.
How will NATO soldiers create more of a safe zone than their Ukrainian peers?
Ukrainians had NATO weapons, under the guidance of NATO military specialists, with NATO surveillance, and NATO special forces augmenting their troop base. What secret sauce does a 19-year-old French grunt enjoy that a 26-year-old Ukrainian grunt lacks?
Air support.
What secret sauce? Numbers. NATO has a half million troops. Thelargest air and Navy. Russia don't want none of that.
Ukrainian Defense Ministry statistics say the country's military had nearly 800,000 troops in October. That doesn't include National Guard or other units. In total, 1 million Ukrainians are in uniform, including about 300,000 who are serving on front lines.
This, after over two years of continuous conflict.
A new influx of NATO soliders would still be operating under the same failed military strategy. They'd be faced with the same stacked up Russian defense - layer after layer of land mines and bunkers and artillery support - that will eviscerate those 500,000 NATO troops unless they can figure out how to dance between shards of shrapnel.
If NATO states committed their full allotment of troops to the Ukrainian front, that would mean pulling soldiers out of the African and Middle Eastern and East Asia conflict zones. That would mean more Revolutionary Governments joining Niger and Mali and Burkina Faso, more uncontested rocket strikes in the Gulf of Adan, and more opportunities for Chinese naval vessels to encircle Taiwan.
All so Zelensky can... what? Retake Bakhmut? The city that didn't matter?
Half a million is only combat ready troops, NATO has 3.5 million military and personnel total.
They've still got far more ground to cover than just Ukraine.
I'm unsure where you think NATO troops are currently active. The US has 11 carrier battle groups, only one of them is in the Red Sea, etc.
One in the Red Sea, three more in the Mediterranean, and one in the Persian Gulf. All focused on the batch of crises spilling out of the region.
Not sure you understand the tactics of the United States. That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1. How did that work out for them? Maneuver warfare beats that everyday.
The US had air superiority in Gulf War 1. Modern Russian air defense is far superior to anything Saddam was able to buy from Donald Rumsfeld back in the 80s.
Iraq had Russian air defenses.
We quickly gain air superiority. Russia can’t even get it in Ukraine.
They had some dated Soviet tech at the end of its lifecycle and a bunch of AA guns without reliable radar targeting support.
By attacking through Saudi Arabia, which was an Iraqi blind spot.
Despite a wealth of NATO arms flowing into Ukraine, they can't get it either. And Russia's air force still exists.
Source for what? That attacking a nuclear power plant impacts the world? A meltdown of the rector spreads radioactive material into the atmosphere.
It’s in the article. Read it.
Are you suggesting that NATO joins Russia in fighting Ukraine due to Ukraine doing "an attack on the world"? I don't see this happening..
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant was seized and is controlled by Russia for more than 2 years now. So the attacks are coming from Ukrainian side. You do understand that, do you?
It wouldn't be the first time Russia did false flag attacks on itself to garnish support.
There is a possibility that this a false flag, sure!
But to claim that something is a false flag you need to back it up with something better than "they did that in the past so this surely must be it", don't you think?
When countries A and B are at war, and there's an attack happening on the territory of country B, is your first thought "this must be a false flag" or "this must be an attack by country A"?
I think you read that the wrong way 'round. It makes sense to me, in the context of being against the stupid Russians.
What exactly did I read the wrong way 'round?
Because Russia deliberately attack the power plant, that is an attack on the world. It seems to me that you read it as if Ukraine did this attack?
I did not read that "Ukraine did this attack", as a matter of fact article does not say who attacked it, because they "lack evidence".
It's just the only way I see how one can believe that the attack was done by Russia, is a conspiracy theory that Russia attacks its own territory.
On the other one, Ukraine attacking it is perfectly logical because they are attacking a territory of their enemy that they do not control.
Do you understand that Ukraine does not see the south of its own country as "enemy territory"?
So, are you saying that Ukraine is not bombing the territories occupied by Russia?
And how do you define an "enemy territory"? Because from my definition of "enemy territory", any territory occupied by your enemy, territory on which it resides and controls is "enemy territory"...
No, I'm saying they are very unlikely to want a second nuclear disaster on the land they want to control.
Your definition is your own and not a very useful one, because by your definition any territory lost is immediately your enemies' territory now and you become the aggressor for trying to regain your own land. Do you think Ukraine are the aggressors?
And Russia does? They also want to (and in fact do, and are more likely to keep it so) control that land.
Indeed. You can share yours and we can discuss it as well.
Well, yes, this is how it works. Territory belongs to whoever controls it. Ukraine can claim it owns Crimea, Donbas and even Moscow itself, but what does it matter if Russia controls it? It's Russia's territory now regardless of what Ukraine and/or international law say. And to take it back they will need to conduct military actions on that territory (which belongs to enemy now, and therefore is "enemy territory"), including bombing it, conducting drone strikes (wherever they deem necessary, including nuclear power plants), etc.
Whose territory is Falkand Islands, Argentina or UK? Whose territory is mainland China, ROC or PRC? Whose territory is Taiwan, PRC or ROC? Whose territory is Northern Cyprus, Republic of Cyprus or Turkey? Depending on your political views you may have different answers to those questions, but in the reality they are controlled by the latter countries, so it is their territory, regardless of what you think. The same situation with south of Ukraine. It of course works the other way around as well, Russia claims that all of the Zaporizhzhia Oblast is theirs, which is not true because they do not control all of it.
No.
And anyway, "whose territory it is" is a bikeshedding that does not matter.
What matters are facts - and the facts are that Russia controls the territory that the strike was conducted on. Are you disputing that?
And saying that Russia attacked a territory that it controls, without backing up those claims is a conspiracy theory, don't you think?
It's simple. Ukraine is fighting to get their home land back. They are smart and will not destroy the power plant. This is undeniable fact.
On the other hand, Russia is driven by a power hungry maniac, and they have shelled the plant before. They also had their troops dig trenches in the irradiated soil - poor sods will all die from cancer, if not from acute lead poisoning. This is also undeniable fact.
If we agree on this, let's have a discussion. If not, I will consider you an unusually eloquent but still Russian troll and block you for wasting my time.
This is not a fact, this is an opinion.
Feel free to block me now :)
Did you read the article?
Yes, I did. What part of my comment makes you think otherwise?
The fact you said it was Ukraine when the article says otherwise.
The article does not say otherwise.
The article says
So you would rather believe a conspiracy theory (or what else would you call that?) that Russia is repeatedly (!) attacking itself, it's own territory that it controls for more than 2 years, than that Ukraine is attacking the territory of its enemy?
It isn’t Russian territory. It’s occupied Ukraine.
This is correct from the viewpoint of Ukraine (and its allies)!
But according to Russia and Russian laws - it is Russian territory now.
According to the facts, it is fully controlled by Russia for 2 years now (are you arguing with that?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts_of_Ukraine
Note that we are not talking about whether it is legal by international law, whether it's recognized by the rest of the world, etc. The fact is according to Russia it is Russian territory, and the fact is that it has full control over it. And so we are getting back to my question
According to international law. It’s Ukraine.
so what do you want to say? That Russia doesn‘t control the power station?
But I did address that in my comment, didn't I?
What does it matter if the international law says so, if in fact the territory is fully controlled by Russia? International law can say that Russia does not exist at all, it would not change the fact that it does exist, would it?