this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
321 points (99.1% liked)

World News

48099 readers
2217 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's actually interesting! It means that there is a way out: If europe accepts to help keep the US out of Beijings business. I don't actually know how that could be done. And the EU doesn't have that kind of coesion.

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

The US wants to stay the hegemon but China is advancing technology faster than the US. The conflict is about the multipolar world. Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven't explained why they don't want to be part of a multipolar world.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

This sentence makes no sense:

Unfortunately the US, and the EU, haven’t explained why they don’t want to be part of a multipolar world.

Is a multipolar world what russia is doing in Ukraine? If you're going to have a world of trade blocks: NAmerica, SAmerica, EU, Africa, ME, russia?, China, India, Pacific. Europe is perfectly prepared to enter a multilateral or multipolar world order...but not the way russia announced it.

You can't simply invade one of the members whenever they try to leave your block. Otherwise you'll have constant wars in the borders between the blocks. I can tell you already why I would not want to regress to the kind of chaos and constant wars of multipolar unstable alliances of the 17th century, now with nukes and proliferation. Fun! Who wouldn't want that?

A multipolar world can work, but you need stronger international institutions and law, not the mockery that russia, the US and israel turned the UN into.

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

Ukraine seems to be more of a unipolar project than a multipolar project. The important part is the last part of the last sentence.

David C. Hendrickson, in his article in Foreign Affairs on November 1, 1997, saw the core of the book as the ambitious strategy of NATO to move eastward to Ukraine's Russian border and vigorously support the newly independent republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which is an integral part of what Hendrickson said could be called a "tough love" strategy for the Russians. Hendrickson considers "this great project" to be problematic for two reasons: the "excessive expansion of Western institutions" could well introduce centrifugal forces into it; moreover, Brzezinski's "test of what legitimate Russian interests are" seems to be so strict that even a democratic Russia would probably "fail".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

Of course there can also be wars in the multipolar world. But there are enough started by the US that peace seems to be secondary.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Ukraine is as multipolar as it gets: they don't want to be russia's bitch, so they asked everyone else for help, some helped.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Sure. Unfortunately that's not what counts. Also history is more complicated and doesn't start in 2014.

Wang was said to have given Kallas – the former Estonian prime minister who only late last year took up her role as the bloc’s de facto foreign affairs chief – several “history lessons and lectures”.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

What counts is what is convenient to you, apparently. That is why multipolarity is a royal mess without strict rules, everyone thinks they can do whatever they want. Read some history.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 57 minutes ago

Unipolary didn't have strict rules either.

Neither is convenient for me because there will be a very inconvenient war. It's just that people only count when there is an election, and then they only count as a manipulatable resource. Otherwise nobody in power cares about what people want.

You are right about your expectations about future wars. It's time to come up with something to make a better future.