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
"China's final warning"
I'd take it more seriously if the West actually became involved, but regardless of Frenchmen "shooting their mouth off" nobody's sending troops to fight a nuclear power.
Maybe double check to see if they actually still are one. All these decades of sabre rattling and corruption in the defense industry, wouldn't it just take the cake if hardly any of their nuclear capabilities still worked?
Yeah but how do you check?
Same way they're planning to test article 5 ig 🤷
Prod them with a stick?
A 99% failure rate would still leave them capable of MAD. That they don't have that capability is a dangerous pipe dream, which I see nowhere except Lemmy and Reddit comment sections.
I would say no-one is sending troops yet. I really dislike any country ruling it out entirely, better to just say nothing. If the conditions change, we (NATO/Europe) will need to act. Otherwise, our leaders may well be judged by the same yardstick as the leaders keen to appease a certain country in the late 30s.
Russia has already been "appeased" multiple times.
I would tend to agree. But I think we definitely need to define a line in the sand now, not declare there is no line. Which seems to me to be what such statements say about us.
The point is "the line in the sand" has been crossed multiple times without any reaction.
My point is, someone has to say where the line is (or indeed was). I don't think any western government wants to be on record saying where it is (or should have been). Some are saying there isn't a line regardless of what happens, and that's the problem I'm talking about. It's worse than not defining the line.
The LINE is attacking a NATO country, then Article 5 get enacted and we are all screwed
What good is it to define "a line" with no consequences or a symbolic gesture for crossing it?
Allow me to rephrase: We're not going to involve our troops first. NATO territory is a total red line that would lead to direct conflict, and there's been specific, limited consequences set for their use of various non-conventional weapons. All conventional weapons are now being given to Ukraine, to match the ones Russia is bringing to bear.
Because of that, I don't worry too much about appeasement of Russia specifically at this point. I do worry about appeasement policies in general, though. Specifically towards various factions within the West.
Salami tactics https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
If that's an argument against what I just said, it doesn't really apply here. There's a consequence for every Russian action (now, anyway) that exceeds any benefit it could get them.
A few years ago, taking salami slices is exactly what they were doing, but they got greedy and now the West is somewhat awake.
British special forces are suspected to have been in Ukraine from day one.
They probably haven't shot anyone but they are far more useful doing other things.
I was wondering if that would get brought up. It's sure ballsy on the UK's part. The deniability is the thing that makes it different, though. Russia doesn't have to respond to a few spies the same way as they would to an open confrontation. The reports also suggest it's very small numbers of people.