this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
153 points (99.4% liked)

World News

54624 readers
2957 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The MoD said the preparedness of HMS Prince of Wales is being increased, reducing the time it would take for it be deployed

The UK is preparing an aircraft carrier for possible deployment to the Middle East, reducing the time it would take to be readied.

This does not mean that Portsmouth-based HMS Prince of Wales, which is used to carry fighter jets and helicopters, will be sent into the Gulf as conflict escalates in the region, but the preparedness of the Royal Navy’s flagship is being increased, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said.

The Independent understands no decisions to deploy the Prince of Wales have been taken.

An MoD spokesperson told The Independent: “We have been bolstering our UK military presence in the Middle East since January, and we have already deployed capabilities to protect British people and our allies in the region, including Typhoons, F-35 jets, air defence systems and an extra 400 personnel into Cyprus.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aequitas@feddit.org 60 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Why would they get involved? What's in it for the UK? The whole war is just bad for Europeans.

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Because Epstein and Maxwell operated extensively in the UK and anyone who thinks it was only Andrew and a diplomat are woefully naive

[–] Geobloke@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, but in the civilised world these people are facing consequences, not enough, but a long way ahead of anything the US can muster

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 6 points 3 days ago

Not really. The two I mentioned were only arrested because of the classified documents they were publicly caught leaking.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago

Still not enough I suppose.

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 11 points 4 days ago

Everyone trying to get a lil combat experience under their belt.

[–] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Maybe secure the trade routes. 

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

A British aircraft carrier won't be enough to do that.

[–] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Not applicable here. NATO is a defensive pact, but America is the aggressor in this case. They can't invoke Article 5 for this.

[–] GuyIncognito@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

There is no such thing as NATO in the sense that it's popularly understood, i.e. as a defensive alliance against outside threats. There are no outside threats to any NATO members, and there never really were. It's closer to a crime family or a protection racket. Like a crime family, the lower-ranking members "kick up" earnings to the higher ranking member in the form of defense contracts with american companies. Of course the other NATO members have their own defense companies, but they work closely with the American ones, and the overall flow of capital in general is towards America from the junior members.

At the same time, the junior members act as auxiliaries to America - Canada is an excellent example of this as our military is highly specialized towards to the provision of good quality light infantry and mechanized units to enhance American force projection in colonial policing missions, but we're severely lacking in most other departments, in particular air defence - the Canadian Army had absolutely zero anti-aircraft weapons until 2024, and the ones we got in 2024 are all short-range systems with very limited utility against anything but helicopters and drones. This ensures we are useful to America while still being dependent on and subservient to America.

There has been a lot of talk recently about NATO members growing more independent of and less subservient to the US, but so far it's only talk. The extent to which it's true will be determined in part by their commitment to this war against Iran. You have to remember that NATO members benefit economically from US imperialism. Our companies operate freely in the third world without fear of unionization of their workforce, nationalization, the burden of increasing worker protections or wages, burdensome environmental laws, etc., so we're bought-in to the project. We cannot abide the formation of an opposing pole that could interfere with our economic domination of the world, and aside from that broader concern, Iran also has a large public sector ripe for privatization and looting.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nato is not only Article 5

Ability to contribute to the organization's defense and missions

Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is not a NATO mission. This is not defense. The commitments of membership do not in any way require that NATO members have to lift a finger to help other NATO members prosecute unprovoked wars of aggression.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Correct, but they can do it voluntarily.

The wording of the admission requirements for the members after the end of the cold war suggests that Nato is not only a defence pact.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Of course they could do it voluntarily. Anyone can decide to declare war on whomever. What would that have to do with being in NATO though?

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If all the members participate would it matter whether they call it Nato or not?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago

It's already a bit of a fairy tale to assume that one other NATO member is going to join the United States in this train wreck of a war. Most I would expect is some defensive help for Turkey if it gets caught in the splash zone.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

Uh, because the UK has always been the USA's bitch at every war they start?

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Iran fired missiles at a British base in Cyprus. They also fund the Houthi terrorists, who attacked a British warship last year.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago

By the UK's own admission, the attack did not come from Iran. They "think" it's hezballah, but my money is on Israel false flag.

Sooooo Iran needs a closer target and a higher density of human casualties?