A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The article is dated September 2026 and aligns with pamphlets being delivered here in Ireland too. It’s not preparation for war necessarily but for things like fuel shortages, weak supermarket supplies, etc.
The article is interesting because it’s common sense stuff but also the kinds of things that are easily forgotten.
This type of stuff scares the crap out of my wife. She listens to too many doomer podcasts then talks about how we should move somewhere safe only to name a country that is far more dangerous than France.
What countries has she suggested?
When we first started dating in 2014 she really wanted to go to El Salvador or Colombia or Venezuela. Things have changed quite a bit in 12 years, and I wouldn't call them dangerous compared to France now.
Edit: I really shouldn't listen to my colleagues. I thought perhaps things people used to say about the countries listed above as examples were just stereotypes. My colleagues are misinformed, I was misinformed. They all seem more dangerous than France now that I've looked at some stats.
An I misunderstanding what you're writing? Those all sound more dangerous than France to me.
When the hell was El Salvador or Colombia ever safe?
I work with a lot of internationals. I think those countries are more dangerous, but my colleagues and other contacts have told me that things have improved to the point that they are all similar. I haven't ever looked into it. It could be a feelings thing: they live here and read the sensationalist headlines and assume France is more dangerous than their country of origin.
But like, Venezuela literally got bombed and had their President abducted.
Excellent point. You don't have to convince me. I still think France is safer. But, back to the point of my comment: articles like this make people want to leave Europe, but they are misinformed.
I agree. Yes, countries should always be prepared for crisis, but headlines like this... Man. I stopped reading media a while ago due to this, but I am still exposed to it sometimes via Lemmy.
If you colleagues are Latin American, it is likely that their home countries are safer for them than France. But unless you are dark-skinned, that wouldn't necessarily apply to you.
What in the holy hell am I reading, Colombia?? The country that is famous for gang crimes and such??? And so many upvoters even agree???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
20x homicide rate compared to France in recent years!
Edit: Venezuela "only" 10x, El Salvador is the only one that is somewhat close to France, but that one we all know why... Maybe safe for externals at this moment I guess?
Excellent find. I'm going to bookmark that and bring it up the next time my colleagues from those countries try to tell me to move there.
It's not specifically for war, but for any disruption the society might have. We've had winter storms which cut power for few days, wildfires or floods can leave you stranded for a while, a lot of snow might cut roads and so on. Being generally prepared to be self-sufficient for few days just makes sense. On a bigger scale it also helps rescue workers if everyone isn't in immediate crisis after 24 hours without working infrastructure.
The pamphlet they're showing isn't even new, it was posted years ago.
Threat of war. OK, let’s think this through. The three threats I could think of are
It’s always better to be safe than sorry, but I wouldn’t overstate the risk of all out war or unrest.
A Russian attack is actually far more likely than you realise; There has been numerous signs of Russia prepareing for a direct attack on NATO. Now it won't be an all out invasion the goal will be to keep things murky enough were it's clearly an act of war but be easy enough to justify not getting involved. Their idea is that if once article 5 is invoked and enough big members refuse their obligations NATO will break and they can pick off members as they like.
Now the US under dumb donnie is very likely to ignore their legal obligations to their NATO allies and if the Russians have enough of their hooks into enough NATO members they might be able to engineer enough inaction to pull it off.
You have to understand that they genuinely believe they are fighting a proxy war against NATO in Ukraine and that in order to turn things around they have to beat NATO and that a lot of their internal propaganda is about how they could beat NATO in a fight (like claiming they could destroy England with a tsunami causing nuclear torpedo)
But European leaders know what game is being played here. Which is why the drone attacks haven't resulted in article 5 being invoked. But if Russia overplays their hand they could end in a conventional war with all of Europe. And their cards are hitting the table soon.
Russia doesn’t have the means for conventional war against NATO. If they did, the war in Ukraine would look much different. The current asymmetric attacks will increase, I am sure. But nothing to warrant Article 5. That would play into Putins hands and the Europeans know that.
Please don't insult Donnie Darko (movie character).
It's Donald "Tent Pegged" Rump or Drippy Diaper Don or whatever you can think of.
Greece-Turkey-Cyrpus-Israel, too.
the water wars will start soon
where in the world do three bullet points qualifiy as "thought through"?
In that part of the world where quantity is not quality. But if you do have your own thoughts, then feel free to share them. That’s what we’re here for.
In Germany too, there is an advertisement campaign in my area.
It's interesting it's coming out a bit everywhere at once: are the people in charge assuming a conflict is imminent?
Russia is intensifying its attacks on Europe. Drones at airports and other infrastructure are becoming more and more common. If Ukraine continues to push at their current rate Putin may get desperate to save face and he may try to make it so it doesn't look like he was defeated by Ukraine. He would provoke a NATO response so he could tell Russians that he was right and NATO was always against them.
It makes sense why Europe is on edge right now. Russia has been pushing boundaries and testing limits for decades, using a mix of targeted attacks, plausible deniability, and disruption to keep everyone off balance.
You see it everywhere when you look at the pattern. There are high-profile poisonings on European soil, from Litvinenko in London to the Skripals in Salisbury. Then you have the constant issues in the Baltic and North Seas: severed fiber optic cables, damaged gas pipelines, and "shadow fleet" ships conveniently dragging anchors over critical subsea infrastructure so Moscow can just blame an incompetent captain or bad luck.
Throw in widespread GPS jamming that messes with commercial flights, constant cyberattacks, and targeted disinformation and it is pretty obvious what is going on. It is a deliberate strategy to stir up chaos, test infrastructure, and pressure NATO just enough without actually stepping over the line into direct military conflict. IMO Europe’s anxiety isn't paranoia it's just a realistic response to a long pattern of provocations.
War is unlikely, but a fuel and/or economic crisis is very likely, particularly for Germany. The old fuel source was Russia, which got disrupted due to the Ukraine War and the Nordstream attacks. The alternative was oil from the Middle East, but that's also blocked now. And Germany shut down most of its nuclear plants following Fukushima.
The guideline here has always been to be self-sufficient for three days. I aim for seven.
Having a few water jugs has come handy when water pipes have burst. They usually fix it within 24 hours, and have water trucks out way before that. But it's still nice to be able to boil your potatoes for dinner and have your morning coffee without any additional hassle.
I've got an alcohol camping stove and a couple of liters of fuel for it. It was cheap and doesn't go bad.
Been in a number of natural disasters. Two weeks is a more realistic number than 3 or 7 days.
Probably. I live far up north, so we don't have many natural disasters of that nature. Cold would be the shit factor. The power grid being knocked out (and as a result water pumps) would be the likely scenario.
Me and six neighbours have a shared well with drinkable water (and I have plenty of activated carbon for distilling booze.. I mean, making water drinkable), so seven days is plenty of time to hook up an inverter to that well pump.
Climate change too
Lmao Our great supreme leader called macron did the same move one year or two. Saying everybody will get survive guide and stuff. Still nothing. I know they use the Russian threat as an excuse for all their shitty policies but they can't even shit on ukraine which is small and they want us to believe Russia is a threat Lmao
All across Europe?
Let me spare you a click: Dutch households, December 2025.
Clickbait
and Sweden
And France. I don't know why they're lying like that.
They did their due diligence by clicking even deeper from this article, into this article linked from the post article:
European leaders prepare public for ‘intensified threat’ from Putin
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vladimir-putin-nato-drone-attacks-europe-leaders-warning/
The BBC are pushing similar articles this week......
Wonder if the humans living "paycheck to paycheck" will find a way to stop making bad decisions and save