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/
I am personally surprised that the US did that without even consulting Ukraine. That's fucking sick.
The next four years would be difficult. I am so sick of people behaving like bullies.
There is no benefit to Ukraine to agree to this. Any treaty signed in which Ukraine gives up territory and is prevented from seeking out defensive treaties will result in Russia rearming and attacking again.
This happened in 2014 with Crimea. Everyone said to let Russia have it and they'll be happy. They weren't. They attacked again. Now people are saying to let Russia have it and they'll be happy. They won't be.
We also tried appeasement with Hitler and it didn’t work. Do people just not read history books anymore? It’s wild how ignorant these fools are
Well both Russia and the United States have shown that treaties and other agreements with them are only worth anything until they unilaterally change their mind, so something like blocking Ukraine from NATO could easily be ignored if the United States (or Russia) ever sees an election again.
US and Russia duopoly again: it's like going backwards to end of WW2 era, soon ready for "cold war part 2"
As an American, I want nothing more at this point than for the world to rise up and gain power. We are broken. We are failing. We need democracy on the world stage.
Pro global democracy means empowerment of our allies.
But how will we have a Cold War when our president has his tongue up Putin’s ass?
It’s basically a tripolar world of three main authoritarian empires (US, China, Russia) who have transactional relationships, almost à la 1984.
Explanation of Geopolitics in 1984
Each state is self-supporting so they do not war over natural resources, nor is the destruction of the opponent the primary objective; for, even when two states ally against the third, no combination is powerful enough to do so.[23][24]Each state recognises that science is responsible for its over-production,[25] so science must be carefully controlled lest the proles or Outer Party expect an increased standard of living.[26] From this analysis stems the policy of permanent warfare: by focusing production on arms and materiel (rather than consumer goods) each state can keep its population impoverished and willing to sacrifice personal liberties for the greater good.[7] The peoples of these states—subject to shortages, queues, poor infrastructure and food—"are no longer domesticated or even able to be domesticated", says Carr.[27][28]
These states all are similar monolithic regimes.[8]Historian Mark Connelly notes that "the beliefs may differ, but their purpose is the same, to justify and maintain the unquestioned leadership of a totalitarian elite".[7] Due to the sheer size of the protagonists, there are, says Connelly, no "massive invasions claiming hundreds of thousands of lives",[23] but instead small-scale, local encounters and conflicts which are then exaggerated for the purposes of domestic propaganda.[8] Connelly describes the fighting between the states as "highly technical, involving small units of highly trained individuals waging battles in remote contested regions".[23] All sides once possessed nuclear weapons, but, following a short-lived resort to them in the 1950s (in which Colchester was hit)[29] they were recognised as too dangerous for any of them to use. As a result, says Connelly, although London could have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon in 1984, it was never hit by anything worse—albeit "20 or 30 times a week"—than "rocketbombs", themselves no more powerful than the V-1s or V-2s of World War Two.[23]
At any moment, however, an alliance could shift and the two states that had previously been at war with each other may suddenly ally against the other. When this happened, the past immediately had to be re-written—newspapers retyped, new photos glued over old—to provide continuity. In many cases that which contradicted the state was simply destroyed.[30] This occurs during Oceania's Hate Week, when it is announced that the state is at war with Eastasia and allied to Eurasia, despite the assembled crowd—including Winston and Julia—having just witnessed the executions of Eurasian prisoners of war. Winston describes how, when the announcer spoke, "nothing altered in his voice or manner or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different".[31] Orwell describes the war as one of "limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference".[21] These wars, suggests the writer Roberta Kalechofsky, "stimulate the news or 'the truth'".[32]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_geography_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four
I don't consider Presidents anymore. What do us people think about Russia and viceversa?
Hegseth said Trump was “the best negotiator on the planet”.
If that's the case, why are they starting from the position that they'll yield Ukraine's territory and will not allow them in NATO? That's kindergarten levels of negotiating here.
It makes more sense when you realize he's negotiating not on behalf of the best interests of Ukraine or the USA but on behalf of Putin.
Character speculation:
Trump - doesn't properly understand, has praised Putin multiple times, carries a grudge against Ukraine due to Zelensky not yielding to blackmail to investigate Biden's son
Hegseth - understands decently, but puts his career first (you dont' argue with the god-emperor)
Possible outcomes:
While the US could easily veto them joining NATO, there's nothing making Ukraine accept any deal struck between Russia and the US, who, last I checked, was not an active participant in this war. I don't know why Ukrainians would just throw in the towel after losing so much. I don't know if Europe can sustain things at the level of support Ukraine has been getting with US aid, but all the talk I hear makes it sound like the EU will do what it can.
Especially if Trump expects mineral rights or whatever he is going on about. I don't know why Ukraine would give up such tremendous value to a party that just volunteers them to surrender. Losing more territory to Russia is a possibility if they can't maintain troop/supply levels, but it hardly seems worth it for them to give up at this moment. It's been my understanding keeping the pressure on Russia constantly and not letting them recover has been crucial to Ukraine's success.
It just feels like Trump trying to put himself at the center of attention when he really has nothing to do with this anymore if he's choosing to stop US aid to Ukraine.
It's not just about aid from the US, but also maintaining sanctions (and expanding compliance checks) w.r.t. russia.
Good point. I tend to forget about sanctions because they're not something really visible. I'd say dropping those would be very bad optics for both the government and whichever businesses start selling to Russia again, but that seems to be a very low concern given what we're doing to our own country at the moment. It just would look like blatantly stabbing Ukraine in the back though. The US seems to be hell bent on making enemies out of everyone and I hate it so much.
I've lived in the US before (I am Ukrainian, living in Kyiv) and the impression I get is Americans are taking their current position for granted.
I have met so few actually interested in our own politics, let alone what is going on half a world away. It is very disappointing.
I'm not one to promote fighting, but Russia coming into Ukraine and being 100% in the wrong was a chance for us to do right and actually support the right side of a conflict and really strengthen relations with our allies and deal a blow to a long-time antagonist. It seemed like a thing we could do with no way of coming out of it badly. I wasn't keen on sending things like cluster munitions that have bad downstream effects, but otherwise it seemed we were sending you things we had but no longer needed, but you all were in crucial need of. The media framed it in dollar figures of aid being sent, which I feel did a disservice with people's lack of understanding here. It was money that had been spent decades ago, but people felt like it was coming out of their pockets now instead of it being bad economic policy in the present.
Now though, we seem to be taking shots at our allies and preparing to buddy up to our longtime rival so the president can finally get his Moscow apartments built and twist resources out of a beaten up ally for what his fans we feel that you guys "owe" for us helping you out and ignoring you to make peace with your invader. I don't think we could have made a better new friend than a restored Ukraine, and it would have put us in a good light with the rest of Europe, as if Ukraine compromises in this whole affair, I think that extends more danger to most of Europe, especially other former Soviet states.
If we end up screwing you guys over, I think this will go down as a huge blunder in history, and I don't think it will take long for the US to feel repercussions, as I don't see us getting much useful from an unofficial alliance with Russia, and it will ruin our trust with every nation, especially throughout Europe, unless they keep going hard to the right as well, in which case, I don't look forward to those alliances either. This all seems negative for us now here, and I feel terrible that your country is being treated like this by our government. I felt our nations were really on a great path until the election.
I and everyone I associate with still want you all to succeed. I think what is going on between you and Russia is going to have a huge influence on the whole world in the near future, and I'd rather you get back what was taken from you and end this war successfully than for my country to reap any benefit from the aid we lent you. It should have all been to do the right thing for our friends. If it wasn't, we deserve the treatment we get from the rest of the world. It will be bad for us, but there has to be a price for stranding an ally.
Thanks for the kind words! We have to collectively makes the most out of a bad situation.
If the US really pull out then Poland is going to say "fuck it" and deliver materiel and ordnance using their own personnel. The latter directly to Russia. And there's nothing that would be able to stop them, so the rest of Europe will take part, in more active or passive roles.
Much of Europe's positioning around the issue right now hinges on not wanting to stoke the Russia/US rivalry bee's nest, with that ceasing to be a concern the Russians are going to get bitch-slapped. And Putin is going to claim victory, having successfully "driven a wedge into the west, broken it apart, having created a multipolar world order". And then Russian history books will say "and then butter became even more expensive, among other things which got worse".
not wanting to stoke the Russia/US rivalry bee’s nest
This has been one of the strangest things to me as an American looking at this conflict. I'm not particularly anti-American, but I don't look at us as anything special either. I attribute much of our success as a nation to being industrially ready for WW2 while not really taking any direct attacks from the war. We profited and were able to pocket all that money while almost everyone else had to spend money rebuilding is my simplified understanding.
We seem to have no real skin in the game other than this was a chance to help someone else beat up a rival for us while keeping our hands clean. Why the US seemed to be calling so many of the shots seemed absolutely ridiculous other than we like throwing weaponry wherever we can get away with it. I can understand us not putting troops in Ukraine, but why it felt we limited what anyone else could do when we would be the least directly affected by the outcome was very confusing.
It seems impossible other European countries would not get involved if we walked away, but it did seem like the option that would limit the overall violence the most with us just helping Ukraine. I don't want to see more countries get pulled in, especially since America is usually all about inserting our military in places. Trump bumping off Putin seems more on brand for what his fans usually go for anyway. They already sound in a bad position, and giving them the final nudge off the edge seems like an easy way to look like a real world hero. I dont't know what would come with the collapse of Putin's control, but at least initially I think most people would be in favor of that. Pulling out and leaving it to everyone else or doing things to help Russia now just seems a negative to us and most of you with no benefit to all but probably a single digit number of people.
“and then butter became even more expensive, among other things which got worse”.
This made me laugh. I love how some people cope with things.
Why the US seemed to be calling so many of the shots seemed absolutely ridiculous other than we like throwing weaponry wherever we can get away with it.
You're always in the fray, because you want to be seen to be in the fray, because you cannot comprehend yourself to be not in the fray. Most hilariously obvious was Libya: The intervention was 110% France's initiative and Americans somehow managed to attribute it to Hillary. It's an American universal, one portion of you thinks you're responsible for all the peace in the world, the other that you're responsible for every war, the one common theme is that you're the biggest and greatest and all-powerful. Cultural jingoism. The two sides might be at each other's throats but they're still swimming in the same unrecognised water.
I can understand us not putting troops in Ukraine, but why it felt we limited what anyone else could do when we would be the least directly affected by the outcome was very confusing.
Russia vs. EU is way less existential to Russia than Russia vs. US. The stakes are lower because Russia perceives them to be lower. Russia knows the EU won't go out and actually invade Russia, just throw them out of Ukraine and shitcan them into oblivion in trade. With the US, it's the cold war all over again.
You’re always in the fray, because you want to be seen to be in the fray, because you cannot comprehend yourself to be not in the fray.
This does feel accurate. I wouldn't know how else to explain it at least.
I don't really know much about Libya, as that took place a little before I started to get actively interested in politics. Looking it up now seems there is much more to the situation than I could pick up in 5 minutes and understand anything. I couldn't tell you why we went there, or to Somolia, or most of the places we go. Most of the things America gets involved in, I don't see what the benefit is to the actual American people. I'd much rather we go around giving aid instead of swinging a sword if we want to show others how "great" we are.
I also don't understand the idea that anyone would want to "take over" Russia as it seems their defense for most of their actions seems to be. Does anyone actually want to do that? I feel the world just wants to see them stop having crappy leaders and that's the extent of it. As deep as the US/Russia feud is, I've never heard talk of actually trying to get rid of Russia as a country in any realistic manner.
According to Moscow, Russia is a great power. And, I mean, sure, it's an empire, has been since Ivan the Terrible, it peaked with the Soviet Union and is now trying to re-establish its rightful place in the world.
According to the rest of Russia, where the fuck is our indoor plumbing. It would be right-out trivial to break Russia apart, with its various people and identities scattered over vast areas of territory, given how brittle it is politically and economically. It might still collapse on its own, but a proper invasion would right-out force the issue, also, something something nukes. So even if the US doesn't intend to, an actual face-off with Russia would mean the end of Russia as we know it.
How them Taurus missiles doing?
That’s what I’m saying man. I’m sick of Russia and their interference. I hope someone fights back against Russia/Putin cause it’s clear that our President won’t.
You remember how many times President Carter had to look behind his back while nailing plywood on a construction site? 0
At least logically that's what I would assume. Now imagine if Carter had put himself in between a tyrant and an innocent nation full of war hardened heroes on the Ukrainian side and evil crazy war hardened criminals on the ruzzian side. 4 years of Bliss.
Unpopular opinion: any peace treaty with Russia is going to require Ukraine giving up land. Russia is already occupying it and the Ukraine can't retake it, especially if US aid goes away. There needs to be a material change in the war to get Russia to agree to fuck off, it's not going to be the US getting involved, and I doubt the EU is willing either.
Remember the west giving hitler czechoslovakia before ww2? No? Then go fucking read about it.
Allowing russia to win and then go back to their shithole to breed more cannon fodder is a recipe for another war in a couple of years.
You don't need to go back that far. It literally happened when they let Russia take Crimea in 2014. You let them take Luhansk and Kherson now, and they'll be taking Odesa and Dnipro by 2034.
It's going to take someone to stop them though, which there doesn't appear to be anyone willing at the moment.
Yes, but talk to your allies first and don't make unnecessary concessions.
How can trump take all the credit if he asks others first?
'The art of the deal'
Pretty sure Zelensky said he would never give up territory, so you sorta need to go around him at that point.
the Ukraine