this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
142 points (98.6% liked)

World News

56986 readers
2157 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump’s declaration at the NATO summit that the U.S. had returned to war with Iran didn’t lead to the usual gasping allies or perplexed officials.

If anything, it cemented Europe’s increasing reliance on itself.

As motorcades sped out of Ankara’s presidential place and down the barricaded streets ringing the Turkish capital on Wednesday, a half-dozen European officials said the ceasefire’s end only stiffened their resolve to be less dependent on the American militarily and stand alone.

“After seeing what’s happening in Iran and Ukraine, we first of all, have to build our own military might, and then everybody will respect us: Americans, Russians, Iranians or Chinese,” said a European official. “The more muscles you have, the less political anger you show.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 24 points 23 hours ago (29 children)

Respect might not be the most suitable word for this. But enemy being afraid to hit you if you have a big enough stick does work. Nuclear weapons have been the best peacekeepers since the invention of those. Being part of NATO is probably the one and only reason why russia attacked Ukraine instead of Baltics.

And when the attack happens, it's good to have a functional military industrial complex at our back supporting us instead of becoming forest brothers again.

[–] LeoDalPozzo@infosec.pub -1 points 21 hours ago (26 children)

This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. This kind of mentality allowed two world wars to happen. Stop looking at geopolitics like if it was a football game. It's not the politicians dragging us into war, it's common people giving for assumed war is inevitable. You all will be the world's distruction once again. It's really insane how humans have the tendency to repeat history despite having knowledge of it.

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 20 hours ago (16 children)

I kind of disagree. Imagine what would happen in WW 2 if the allied forces didn't have the combined strength to fight a war? The appeasement of Germanys demands didn't yield peace nor did it protect jews or other minorities. It takes at least two to start a war, but only one to start an invasion, mass murders, genocide.

While yes, if all militaries where abandoned and no one would be willing to fight, we could have peace. But look at the world today or any other time in history and tell me about a time when there wasn't a single aggressor in the world.

War is inevitable when there is one lunatic in the world which enough followers.

[–] LeoDalPozzo@infosec.pub -5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is a bit naive. War and conflicts are way more complicatee than "one lunatic in the world". Conflicts have always a reason. We can agree with it or not, but believing it's all caused by one monster leader that it's followed blindly by the people is just a very common propaganda point, which has been used for the last >2000 years and in basically every conflict we knoe about. One of the main reason armed conflicts happen is because each side feels the other one is rearming. This becomes a circle and a spiral that it's hard to stop, especially when the arms industry has such ppwerful lobbies.

"If you want peace prepare war" right? Now let's look how many years of peace the romans had in their entire history thanks to this doctrine.

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Well, yeah, one lunatic may be a bit short here, but the principal stands, that it doesn't need rearmment for someone to want what the others have. I think the argument for starting a war is often "the others are a thread to our way of living" which results in violence. This thread m ay or may not be objectively true, depending on the conflict. But was Iran a thread for the US? Or a family in Lebanon a thread to Israel? Some jews to Germany? Some dude liking other dudes a threat to my sexual preference? Someone else identity, religion a threat to mine? Kid slayed in Bucha a threat to a Russian soldier? Objectively, I would say, no. But yet, these subjective threads result in violence and the question stands, would I recommend someone who would otherwise become a victim recommend to prepare? And to that, I'd answer yes. Is the current war on Ukrainian territory just, and Russia in the right? And if so, where does their right to invade Ukraine end exactly? Because often enough the goal post in violent conflicts is moved when the "loosing party" makes concessions. The world wars both ended, not because Germany said "well this is enough for us" but because they where defeated in the battlefield. Do nations generally use their military just for defense? Unfortunately, no.

[–] LeoDalPozzo@infosec.pub 0 points 15 hours ago

it doesn’t need rearmment for someone to want what the others have.

I guess you mean military power here. How do you achieve that without rearming?

who would otherwise become a victim

This is the assumption that i'm challenging. Obviously, to make people accept spending billions in rearming there must be the threat of becoming a victim dangling above our head, hence the constant scaremongering about Russia attacking a NATO country any moment. Before were the Soviets, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea... at moments it's China, sometimes it's Iran. There is constantly an enemy to defend from, which justifies military spending.

And to that, I’d answer yes

And this scared instinctive reaction, which ignores any other factor that isn't pure and irrational fear (pumped and justified by the state apparatus of every single NATO country) is how the weapons industry is laughing their way to the bank, while we leave in fear because of yet another enemy at the doors.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)