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.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
The sanctions have not stopped Russia from fighting the war. It is clearly not enough to just sanction a country. Especially with the world splitting into different blocks right now and China and somewhat the US liking countries like Russia. So strong sanctions are no longer a viable option for everything. Similar story with Iran btw.
Also arms races have ended peacefully. The Cold War certainly did. The trick here is to still have the credibility to be able to defend yourself. Having a strong military is part of that.
The sanctions didn't stop Russia, and the Maginot Line didn't stop Germany. No system is perfect, but I prefer not to have countries invest in weapons if possible.
You could argue that nuclear weapons managed to deter a third world war, but they also created a very tangible risk of wiping out humanity. I'm not sure I like that trade-off.
Finally, keep in mind that the full effect of the sanctions hasn't manifested yet. It'll be a long, long time before Russia recovers from this war, and it'll be a reminder for all wannabe warmongers of the consequences of invading another countries for quite a while.
France declared war on Germany, after Germany invaded Poland. In that sense the Maginot line actually worked to deter Germany from invading France.
This is not true. The maginot line was easily avoided by the German and any war historian will tell you that it was a stupid and stupidly expensive idea. In no way it was a threat to the German invasion.
So what's the end goal? Start a war to stop a war? Arms race have very often ended with war. The cold war ended because the Soviet Union disintegrated from the inside, using it as an example of a "succesful" rearming race feels intellectually dishonest, especially when we have countless of examples of arms race ending in war.
The goal is to show the other side that you are willing to fight and at best a war is impossible to win for them. The issue here is that just saying it does not work, you have to pay for it, so the other sides believes it.
In this case Russia has proven they willing to go to war. They also have a fairly large military and have repeatedly threatened other European countries. So they need to show that they are willing to fight Russia. The big issue is that the US, who has a stronger military than Russia and has made claims they would not protect European allies. So they need to show that they have both the means and will to defend themself. Hence more military spending, moving soldiers closer to Russia and so forth.
The ideal outcome would be Russia collapsing again or a deal, where both sides agree to reduce their military. However it has to be both sides.
And so forth, right. You are proving my point. What's the "so forth"? Russia feels more threatened and feel forced to rearm themselves. Europe sees russia rearm themselves and say "they are getting stronger, we need to rearm even more". Does anybody expect Russia or anybody else to say "Hey our enemies are rearming themselves, better stop producing weapons and start diplomatic relations instead!" Did this ever happen? Does anyone expect it to happen? No, but we have countless proofs of the opposite happening. This is WWI all over again. I wish people would study history to see that the things they are saying are not new, they were said in past and the results were always disastrous.
Is any of the people who praise the rearming have an idea of what happens in case of war with Russia? Did people forget that they are in a military alliance with China, Iran and N. Korea? How do you think a war in this situation will look like? Do you think the world will survive it?
The EU has three times the population of Russia and an even larger economy. Russia can not hope to win an arms race and they know that. If they go for it, they end up bankrupting the country. So the smart option is for Russia to not try to keep up with Europe and make some sort of deal to limit the threat. The Soviets did that with the US btw and there are other examples as well.
We see it in Ukraine and it currently looks like Moscow is burning. So a lot of death and destruction, but no way they win a war against Europe, when they can not even defeat Ukraine. Hence rearming to make sure that Russia does not have any stupid ideas. It is much cheaper then a war.
They have one with North Korea. Afaik Russia is not at war with the US right now, besides the US clearly being at war with Iran. There is no way Iran supports Russia in any meaningful way. They also do not have one with China. Hell China refuses to sell arms to Russia.
I disagree with a lot of your claims that are at the base of the conversation, like the relationship bretween Russia and China (which have an actual military alliance and it's not a hidden thing) or the state of the battlefield in Ukraine, which is not as flowery as you make it and Ukraine finds themselves in a very critical condition, despite western media focusing on their very succesful strikes inside Russia, which i agree make appear as if Ukraine is in a much stronger position than they actually are. Still, I do appreciate that nobody called me "Putin's bot" yet, it's a great improvement over reddit.
Though there was some cooperation between the EU and Russia. Why is Europe considered an enemy when they where highly reliant on Russian gas? Everyone, except for the climate, could've had a good time but a change in the Ukrainian government was enough to annex parts of and later invade Ukraine? Where was the threat exactly? Where were the "enemies"? Does anyone think that Ukraine or the entire EU hat the resources or support to actually threat Russia being dependent on them?
And even if these threats are real, where does the right to invade Ukraine end? And should we not arm against known aggressors saying they won't invade us because they just don't do that, eventhough they do? Should we are victim just lay on their back and "try to enjoy it"?