this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
452 points (97.3% liked)

World News

38583 readers
2060 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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
 

Russia on Monday threatened to strike British military facilities and said it would hold drills simulating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons amid sharply rising tensions over comments by senior Western officials about possibly deeper involvement in the war in Ukraine.

After summoning the British ambassador to the Foreign Ministry, Moscow warned that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory with U.K.-supplied weapons could bring retaliatory strikes against British military facilities and equipment on Ukrainian soil or elsewhere.

The remarks came on the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inauguration to a fifth term in office and in a week when Moscow on Thursday will celebrate Victory Day, its most important secular holiday, marking its defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Russia has already been "appeased" multiple times.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The point is "the line in the sand" has been crossed multiple times without any reaction.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

The LINE is attacking a NATO country, then Article 5 get enacted and we are all screwed

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

What good is it to define "a line" with no consequences or a symbolic gesture for crossing it?