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 [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
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
As opposed to letting an authoritarian state gain more power and influence? Methinks people in other parts of the world must have thought it is a sunk cost fallacy as well to support Britain when they were left standing alone when France fell to the Nazis. But I have to admit as to why some would be reluctant to provide more support for Ukraine considering much of the world is experiencing cost of living crisis. Although many countries, including the US, at the start of World War II were just reeling from the Great Depression either and yet still provided support for Britain.
Ukraine today and Britain then received billions of dollars of support, which is a lot for the common folks, but the truth is that they're chump change relative to entire budget of the US government back then and now. Though again, I recognise that these are chump change in billions of dollars could make a massive difference to the lives of people on the domestic front. However, I would like to remind others that a lot more billions of dollars will be lost if Russia is allowed to win and if the Nazis back then had won. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a direct violation of UN Charter to respect national sovereignty and borders. What we have built in the past 70 years or so to maintain peace will be for nothing and we'd be back to the more Wild West-style international relations that led to the Second World War. Letting Russia could collapse the UN and lead to World War III.
That's one weird argument. Are you implying that meddling with other state's affairs is justified if it's to keep it from gaining power and influence?
That's one weird argument. Are you implying morality stops at borders?
And it's not even meddling, they are asking for help.
Kind of, yeah. A moral cause in one country can be an evil wrongdoing in other. Case in point - Al-Qaeda was formed because US troops were deployed in some country in the middle east to defend someone.
I'm okay with helping Ukraine. I'm not okay if it's helping only to fuck with Russia.
Uhm, where did you get that from?
Anyway, I get your point, but your example only shows that morality doesn't really stop at borders for most people.
If it's to stop an authoritarian state from taking over a democratic state it's good for me. If it's because of other less ulterior motives (and let's not kid ourselves, it's at least partly because of that), I don't mind. Is it bad when a doctor only saves lives because it pays well?
Actually, I messed up. I thought al-Quaeda was created in response to US's invasion of Iraq, but it was actually formed a couple years earlier in response to Soviet-Afghan war. Still, the point stands as the guys got very offended by western forces presence on what they considered holy land
It would be very bad if the doctor is some kind of pervert who is only treating patients as a cover up for his obsession
The point is, morality doesn't stop, but can be different across (abeit, blurry) cultural, religious, political or ideological lines. The US and allies cross a little more of those than Russia in this conflict, but that's a topic I'd rather not dive into. What I'm arguing here is against Putin's rhetoric which tells that "The only thing the collective west wants is to destroy Russia", so...
I'd advise at least pretending that it's not and it's just being "the good guys". Fuckers like RT, Z-bots and other scum often take such comments and blow them into loudhailers to rally the support for the war. Trust me, "these guys just want to fuck you over" is quite a convincing argument. Besides, there's plenty of other reasons to support Ukraine
Because Russians are highly nationalistic and have an exceptional sense of...exceptionalism. They have a siege mentality that any outsiders are out to get them (they have been invaded multiple times after all), and that a firm hand ruling them is the only one who could save them from external threats. This leads to the ruling class by easily manipulating the public to support them by stoking nationalism. This stoking of nationalism leads to them craving to carve their own sphere of influence, both avoiding and scapegoating the West.
There are couple of comprehensive and well detailed video explanation of the Russian mindset, which I think is a blindspot for Westerners in understanding their worldview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ZqBLcIvw0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFtqa54TuM
To summarise the videos in two words, basically say the Russians believe their country is "eternal" and "innocent". This idea stems all the way back from the 19th century with many prominent Russians holding the belief including Leo Tolstoy. This in turn influenced the post-Soviet Russian mindset that is fascistic. Many people cite Dugin as being Putin's influence, as a matter of fact, it was Ivan Ilyich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin?wprov=sfla1
Is that the Kraut I think it is? If so, I don't think I have enough salt to take with those.
Anyway, what's your point?
Kraut is a leftist YouTuber, not a politically incorrect username.
You could just, you know, read? Point being, the pro-Russian propaganda sounds "convincing" because the Russians are very nationalistic (and also many are too politically apathetic to protest) bunch to be dissuaded from supporting the war. Additionally, many ordinary Russians benefited from the war financially. Here's another video also putting the war into perspective for many: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebS9h_QSrbI
I mean whether that's the "Kraut & Tea" guy. Just looked up - it is. You might want to google on that, too.
Did you? I'm saying "don't give food to propaganda" and you go on rambling about Russian mindset and how nationalistic they are. Even if true (not really), what does it have to do with the argument? The reason "they are out to get ya" is convincing has absolutely nothing to do with nationality or mindset. If someone comes to you with a recording of your neighbor planning on killing you, you will trust that person more than the neighbor, simple as that.
You're on about why the pro-Russian camp sounds "convincing". It is not for others, it's for the Russians.
Except there is no recording of the neighbour wanting to kill me, you or the Russians. It is mere fabrication that the West wants to destroy Russia and paranoia on the latter's part. And what Russia has done is invading your neighbours' home out of paranoia believing it will secure you. The West had made many overtures and concessions to assure Russian insecurity. Putin accused the West of expanding NATO to include Ukraine. And yet, despite what happened, Ukraine was not promised that they will be allowed to join. The West knows Ukraine is the thin line for Russia and do not want to further escalate than it already has. Declassified British government files from 2000s revealed the Blair government is fully aware of this and they're reluctant to promote Ukraine's membership to the EU; believing the country is in the realm of Russia. The West was also friendly with Putin at the time which added to it.
Like the last video I linked, not understanding the Russian mindset is the blindspot for outsiders and we would do better to do otherwise. Russian imperialism is basically stemming feeling insecure. It's nationalism at the heart of it. Aside from that, nationalism is a tool to control the population. It is not a coincidence that Putin's main rival, Alexey Navalny, was convicted on the day after the Russian invasion of Ukraine while the public is distracted from the news of the conflict.
Russian's current behaviour and national exceptionalism is combination of all these.
Well the comments above say otherwise. The top comment was talking about "not letting authoritarian state gain more power and influence", with which I took issue with, and a few comments down the line that state that it's okay to fuck with Russia. By that same argument, Russia (and quite a few other countries) are completely justified in fucking with you, too. What I'm saying all along is to drop this argument, because the only thing it does is it enables this exact justification and fuels the war.
Russia is authoritarian and imperialistic, because they think history and the outside world have wronged them, and centuries of top down rule ingrained to them that an iron fisted rule will save them and bring glory. They don't need to justify their behaviour to others, they only need to justify it to themselves by fabricating fake outside threats that others are out to get them. Nothing about what I said is contradictory.
That's one weird argument to say that supporting a defender, unprovoked, from an aggressor is "meddling". It's meddling for your side, amirite?
The reason I'm said this because it sounds like "preventing Russia from prospering is a good cause", as if we're still at cold war or something. Probably not what you've meant, just pointing at possible confusion in interpretation. Helping a little guy, sure, but helping only to fuck the big guy is what Putin was rambling about in his justifications about war.
Lol, nowhere between the lines does my comment alludes to "preventing Russia to prosper". Russia is already prosperous if they want to without having to invade Ukraine. Corruption prevents them from being so.
Helping other democracies defeat authoritarian invaders is absolutely worth fucking all of the invaders "affairs"
Try with different X and Y. See where it gets you.
You don't know what the sunk cost fallacy is.
You seem to have this idea that Ukraine can win the war if the US gives enough support.
Do you think it's possible for Ukraine to lose even if they got all the information and equipment the US was able to give?
Did people back then think Britain would lose to Nazis?
Well, Ukraine proved more than capable and Russia proved to be less so despite the huge manpower and military advantages. Even if Russia win, it will be a Pyrrhic one as they already have significantly reduced international image and have become reliant on China to keep them going due to sanctions. After the war, Russia might even be beholden to China. Future generations of Russians will be paying for the cost of war, both financially and on personal level, just as now the Russians have paid then and still today for the cost of Afghan war in the 1970s. The Russian/Soviet intervention in Afghanistan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and arguably life in the Soviet Union might even be better than the current kleptocratic regime of Putin. More people have emigrated post-Soviet Russia than they did during the Soviet Union. As a consequence of this, even before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia is facing a demographic crisis. Russia have had to mobilise just for the current war, taking people away from work. Many Russian factories have also complained of staff shortages. Hundreds of thousands of Russians fled the draft. And more importantly, more Russians died in the war in Ukraine than during the Afghan war. So, even if Russia win, or get some concessions, or the war led to a stalemate they have already lost a great deal too. After the war, Russia will be facing an economic hardship from financial and human cost. Somehow, you did not think that sunk cost fallacy applies to Russia too.
Paragraphs, motherfucker.
Use them.
Cope.
Lol, easy block.
A one week old account with 320 comments who act like a brat. You must have zero life.
And you don't use paragraphs if there is just one line.