this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

World News

55432 readers
3031 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
 

Nato members have pledged their support for an "irreversible path" to future membership for Ukraine, as well as more aid.

While a formal timeline for it to join the military alliance was not agreed at a summit in Washington DC, the military alliance's 32 members said they had "unwavering" support for Ukraine's war effort.

Nato has also announced further integration with Ukraine's military and members have committed €40bn ($43.3bn, £33.7bn) in aid in the next year, including F-16 fighter jets and air defence support.

The bloc's Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said: "Support to Ukraine is not charity - it is in our own security interest."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (9 children)

...it is in our own security interest.

No one's security interests are served by a new era of escalating tensions between Russia and the West. No country has more nuclear weapons than Russia. All efforts should be taken to prevent Russia from becoming desperate enough to use their nuclear weapons. By further isolating and encircling Russia, I think the chances of them using their nuclear weapons increases.

[–] Flexaris@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

By allowing Russia to expand it further provokes the west to use nuclear weapons. Huh, guess we're at a deadlock. I guess Russia could give back what they stole.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

I think it's the other way around: Russia is aggressive but a show of strength would deter it. In other words, Russia isn't desperate to avoid a confrontation with the West. Russia wants a confrontation with the West, and it needs to know that that's a confrontation it won't win. (China also needs to know that, and it's watching the situation in Ukraine closely.)

That's not to say that we should seek out such a confrontation with the goal of intimidating Russia. A high-stakes situation like that does have the risk of escalating out of control. However, the situation in Ukraine is already such a confrontation, initiated by Russia due to its belief that the West is weak. It would have been much better to avoid creating such a belief, but now is too late for that. The best we can do is to avoid reinforcing it and, from a pragmatic perspective, it helps that most of the risk is borne by Ukraine.

In short, the nightmare scenario is Russia invading a NATO country like one of the Baltic states. Then either there is a war between nuclear powers immediately or Western unity collapses and a war between nuclear powers becomes much more likely in the near future. Our best chance of avoiding that is to stop Russia in Ukraine, where we can do so indirectly.

Edit: Also people shouldn't be down-voting you. You're making a valid point that needs to be addressed.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

You may want to look up the Sudeten crisis/Munich agreement and how effective it was at preventing war.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wonder who fucking started the escalations?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago
[–] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ah yes, appeasement. A historically winning strategy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ik5pvx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (39 children)

Ok, you're right, let's give putain all the territories he wants.

load more comments (39 replies)
[–] Psiczar@aussie.zone 1 points 2 years ago

Where do you draw the line? If you are happy to give up Ukraine to avoid a nuclear war, where do you stop? Can he take all of Eastern Europe? What about the whole of Europe? Everywhere except your country?

Putin is a bully, and you stand up to bullies.

Besides, he might have the most nukes, but given the maintenance costs for 5,000+ of them and the corruption in Russia, most of them probably won’t work.

[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's funny because Ukraine gave up their nukes and Russia signed the agreement to defend their territorial integrity. Russia's feelings are irrelevant and if they want to nuke us all so they can get out of a contract they signed, that's their problem.

Another thing is you can appease someone completely in reality and people like Vladimir Putin will just turn around and say it's still not enough.

[–] catch22@startrek.website 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, appease the bully, clearly the best strategy.

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

It worked for Hitler!

…wait.