this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
177 points (98.9% liked)

World News

38979 readers
2181 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 !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/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"We're getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said following multiple attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said attacks against Europe’s largest nuclear power plant have put the world “dangerously close to a nuclear accident”.

Without attributing blame, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said his agency has been able to confirm three attacks against the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant since 7 April.

“These reckless attacks must cease immediately,” he told the Security Council on Monday. “Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk … where nuclear safety is already compromised.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

NATO will declare a humanitarian mission and send troops in

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.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

NATO countries surround Ukraine and will get radiation from a melt down.

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.

Controlling a nuclear disaster and creating a safe zone is justifcation.

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?

[–] brianorca@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What secret sauce? Numbers. NATO has a half million troops. Thelargest air and Navy. Russia don't want none of that.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

NATO has a half million troops.

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.

Russia don’t want none of that.

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?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Half a million is only combat ready troops, NATO has 3.5 million military and personnel total.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They've still got far more ground to cover than just Ukraine.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

The US has 11 carrier battle groups, only one of them is in the Red Sea

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.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

That’s exactly what Iraq did in gulf war 1

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.

[–] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Iraq had Russian air defenses.

We quickly gain air superiority. Russia can’t even get it in Ukraine.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Iraq had Russian air defenses.

They had some dated Soviet tech at the end of its lifecycle and a bunch of AA guns without reliable radar targeting support.

We quickly gain air superiority.

By attacking through Saudi Arabia, which was an Iraqi blind spot.

Russia can’t even get it in Ukraine.

Despite a wealth of NATO arms flowing into Ukraine, they can't get it either. And Russia's air force still exists.