A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
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.
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Sounds like South Korea may be willing to give them a good chunk of that money. If not just the weaponry themselves.
Still a tough line to toe.
South Korea can undoubtedly roll North Korea. But North Korea + China + Ruzzia is much harder to contend with.
NK is benefitting from actively trading with first world economies in a meaningful way and will likely be heavily updating their military and spycraft capabilities.
More reason for SK to want Russia to lose.
South Korea is highly unlikely to provide weapons for deep strikes into Russia.
For that matter, the only countries that would likely provide that weaponry would be the USA, UK, and maybe France.
But probably just the USA, as both the UK and France have significantly less secure and defensively sound positions relative to the United States, both physically and militarily.
But you could see capital flow from any number of countries purposed, or repurposed, for what Ukraine is requesting.
They want to counter NK sending troops. I would think medium-range ballistic missiles would be a pretty good counter.
I never said they wouldn't provide weapons to be used inside Ukraine, but that is different than providing weapons to strike deep inside of Russia.
South Korea is not the United States.
Medium-range ballistic missiles would be able to strike deep inside of Russia from Ukraine. South Korea has plenty of them in reserve.
This has nothing to do with South Korean capabilities. I'm well aware that they are a premium first world arms exporter, and high tech weapons manufacturer.
As Americans we like to joke about Russian threats of retaliation, and how we aren't worried about it. There is truth to that, at least enough truth that I think restrictions on our weapons platforms should be lifted, or at least eased.
That's what I mean when I say South Korea is not America. They do have to consider the ramifications and implications about how they approach something like enabling deep strikes into Russia. For that reason, I am skeptical they would provide weapons for use inside Russia.
I'm pretty sure they are considering the ramifications of North Korea and Russia working together in military operations.
Of course, I never said otherwise. But there is a big difference, politically speaking, between providing K2 tanks and anti-personnel drones, then ballistic missiles intended for strikes deep inside of Russia.