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
And he is not wrong. European support can be adequately described as Too little too late
US support was too little too late. Biden was a failure across the board.
You're not wrong, but it wasn't just him. It was a group effort.
That is true. Everyone was letting Biden take the lead, somehow thinking he knew what he was doing though.
Europe has a lot of talk.
Europe just loves to shit talk the US at every opportunity, yet consistently underfunds their share of NATO. This is a European conflict yet all European leaders do is talk. Of course their defense spending is woefully small, they just rely on the US military to secure their interests.
Don’t look to the US to lead everything and then also complain about the US leading everything.
You clearly don't understand how hypocritical this is. We coerced Europe into being this way. It's only in the last 10-15 years or so that we started asking them to contribute more militarily.
Our strategy against the Soviets was for Europe to hold them off while the US brought over an expeditionary force that would push the Soviets back. Europe would provide most of the financial support.
Now some Americans are acting like they ripped us off. Just more backstabbing fake grievance bullshit designed to slander democracies because democracy and pluralism are the enemy now.
From a pure realpolitik point if view, alienating Europe while they're beginning their next rearmament era is a pretty fucking stupid move. They have three times our population and it wasn't that long ago that Europe had the strongest militaries in the world. If they reach that point again the US will not be the global hegemon anymore and Americans won't like that because we've benefited from it economically. Though at this point it's very clear the world is better off with saner hegemony under other countries.
We'll be falling behind China in science and engineering soon enough too. China, the EU and various middle powers are all making moves to fill the soft power hole left by the current administration. All because dipshit magas only believe in hard power and bullying people like cavemen.
You are not getting the full picture. NATO by design used to exist to keep Europe small militarily under US supervision, because the US wanted to avoid another Nazi-like regime from taking hold in Europe. That was the deal post WW2. The EU doesn't grow their armies to the point they could reasonably threaten the US, and they provide that necessary protection instead. So the US inherently didn't want the EU to have too much defense spending, and to follow their lead so they could keep control. And with how weak Europe was after WW2, they could not really refuse nor reject that.
In return, EU specialized in trade and manufacturing, something the US wanted. Hence why they are such big trading partners still. It's not like the US was just snoozing at the wheel for more than two decades as defense spending went down. There was always caution (and honestly, the EU shouldn't have ignored this) that more defense was going to be needed, but the status quo was always by mutual consent, as the US also benefited from essentially it's own continent wide production factory while it could do what it does best at home (it's military). And until Russia invaded Ukraine, nobody could even begin to sell the idea of more defense spending to the people, as that would too have increased prices for the US. And the US could have escalated if more defense spending was a dealbreaker to them, but they did not until Trump, because it would have just been a bad change without the hindsight of 2021.
Frankly, this notion that the EU took advantage of the US is really just MAGA propaganda. The same way Trump is now making the despicable claim that EU soldiers didn't die enough for when the US, the single country that ever invoked NATO's article 5, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US under Trump realized they could just not uphold their part of the system in place, as Trump does not understand diplomacy and soft power, that's what he did, and defense spending was just the easy excuse if you ignore all that historical context.
Jeez, who pulled you out of /r/thedonald's casket? Are they reassigning people to haunt Lemmy now?
Tankies are unsurprisingly regurgitating the same talking points as MAGA fascists. They are all on the same team.
They aren’t wrong though - the USSR got somewhere around $100-150B from Lend Lease. Ukraine has gotten something like $300B already.
But it’s certainly not money laundering. Wars cost a lot in the modern age. The real question is why are countries giving so much but only to keep Ukraine from losing.
It’s embarrassing for Russia that this war is now longer than their war against Germany in WWII but it’s also sort of embarrassing for Ukraine’s allies.
EDIT: I was estimating in today’s dollars, from Wikipedia - A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $690 billion in 2024 when accounting for inflation) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[3] In all, $31.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to other Allies.
The USSR also got a second front. Western allies were also fighting Germany, even if they could have easily stayed out of it. The EU knows some of their members are next on the Russian menu, and still they refuse to fight for their survival.
I honestly think the EU can only win by helping Ukraine. Russia and the US see the EU as weak abd indecisive, which is why they think they can take advantage of it. If the EU shows itself to be strong and a major power in its own right, they're likely to back off. Both Putin and Trump only respect strength and force, and Ukraine is the best opportunity for the EU to show that.
On top of that, they'll gain a valuable ally with the most effective and creative army in the world.
There is too much to win for the EU, and nothing to lose. Just end this war by liberating Ukraine.
While I wholeheartedly agree, war is always a loss. And I think Russia is treading carefully knowing exactly what the West will allow. (And manipulating their biggest obstacle.)
You're absolutely right. War costs everybody. That money would be better spent to improve people's lives instead of destroying it. But when someone attacks you, not defending yourself may end up costing more. And helping (and gaining) an ally is better than losing them.
But more than that: the EU showing its strength can discourage further aggression from Russia. And maybe the US.
Your whole framing is suspect, not to mention you're talking finances and you can't even figure out that $150 B (EDIT: as written in the post, when I posted this I didn't check that the nominal figure really was) in 1944 dollars is closer to $2,800 B in 2025 dollars.
$11.3 B in 1944 dollars is equal to $207 B in 2025 dollars.
It was in today’s dollars. See my edit. And I don’t think it is suspect to ask Ukraine’s allies to do more to help them actually win when Zelensky is saying it himself ad nauseam.
What does a win for Ukraine look like to you? Just wondering.
And btw, from an outsider perspective it's funny and cringe to see the attacks on your comment. I'm afraid those commenters don't have wherewithal to be as embarrassed as they should be, but it's a good point, that Ukraine has gotten a lot more outside funding (about $380 bn) than the USSR did to defeat Germany in WWII (about $250 bn in today's $). I hadn't noticed that.
I mean at this point I'm all in on Ukraine and I'm sorry to see my comment interpreted as anything but the hope that Ukraine could get the support they are asking for.
I know peace deals are precarious and complicated, but I dream of nothing less than pre 2014 borders, the end of all Russian hostilities, and a defense pact, if not full inclusion, between Ukraine and the EU.
That would be nice, but what about the Minsk agreements? Just ignore them? Could they even be implemented at this stage?
Not really sure. Not an expert but it seems like Russia already trashed them.
Fair enough. Most people with that opinion don't know about them, or about Ukraine in general or their civil war at all. Just going back to 2013 borders wouldn't solve anything, especially considering the number of Ukrainians that defected to the Russian side. It would just be an even more divided country.
Edit: the commenter above (Skiluros) made up the $2.8tn figure by applying inflation to a commenter above saying that the USSR had received less money through lend-lease than Ukraine has since the invasion by Russia. This figure Is wrong because the original commenter was already discussing inflation-adjusted figures, and they refuse to correct the mistake.
According to Wikipedia's article on lend-lease, the USSR got $11.3bn, which today would roughly be $250bn. It's higher than what Greg said (which I assumed was taking inflation into account, hence me cheking), but still lower than what Ukraine has gotten (assuming the $300bn is correct, didn't fact check that).
I wasn't refusing to correct the mistake, thanks. I just hadn't checked my replies until now. I have made the edits now to clarify.
I meant Skiluros, not you, hence me referencing the $2800bn figure they made up
Ah - respect, cheers friend.
All good, buddy! Clarified who I meant :)
I have no clue around the exact sum provided to the USSR (although I have read about the nature of the support and what it focused on). I am just pointing you can't compare dollars in a nominal manner.
You can compare dollars in a nominal manner if you apply inflation indices, that's what inflation is calculated for. Why did you literally make up the numbers by assuming that it wasn't inflation-adjusted instead of saying "you can't compare dollars"?
How do you think I got the $2800 B figure?
The whole framing is dumb.
So, you CAN compare dollars. You can just delete or edit your previous comment to eliminate the misinformation of $2800bn because you applied inflation twice on the original figure by (for some reason instead of checking it up) assuming Greg hadn't applied it
Ah, you're a tankie who supports russian genocidal imperialism.
No, wonder you're being so holier than thou.
Bye!
This is such a weird response. You are really making yourself look bad here. Why can't you just accept that you inflation adjusted a number that had already been inflation adjusted? It's an easy mistake to make and not a big deal but instead you are coming back with this bizarre non sequitur ad hominem.
Huh? Where have I expressed support for Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'm simply correcting your made-up numbers. Anyone who corrects you is a Russian imperialist?
Also, why genocidal? Using that word lightly isn't a good thing. It's harmful to actual genocide victims like Gazans to call everything a genocide.
money hasn't changed in 80 years!
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!
Tell me you don’t understand how inflation works without telling me you don’t understand how inflation works
Tell me you don’t understand geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works without telling me you don’t understand how geopolitical strategy around an expansionist nuclear state works
Tell me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events without telling me you have a reductive and naive view of history and current events
Though your snippy reply maybe doesn’t deserve it, respectfully- the figures I quoted were in today’s dollars. I guess I shouldn’t have assumed people would know that though.
I don’t think we want to change the mind of someone who is willing to give up the lives of Ukrainians because is it too expensive to help them fight the fascist empire trying to wipe them out.
that would be Ukrainians.
That's just plain wrong. The allies fought the axis on multiple fronts. If that's not support, then I don't know what is.
The allies did try to hurt the ussr every way possible too though. Hitler's rise was only possible because the fear of the commies that hitler hated.
The russians at one point were fighting in 17 fronts with the largest army ever assembled it is said.
They had one front. The 17 fronts were subdivisions of that one front. That's like saying that Hitler fought on 7 fronts because he had 4 Heeresgruppen in the east.
It was not just in ww2 they were at war constantly from their founding. Civil wars with the whites, abbritish invasion half assed though it was at archangel in conjunction with them. Not sure if japanese were still contesting the far east after they wiped out the russian fleet and sent their army packing in the tsar days in the 00's.
The west sponsored a lot of civil strife and helped invasions to prove communism does not work.
The results of which made it more likely the worst sort of military leader would take over, as it did with stalin. It totally worked, for capital. More afraid of reform than absolute rulers, let alone all that seizing the means of production talk.
Anyway when the US got involved, we helped them enough to not collapse, but let them both wear each other out while we leisurely took egypt, sicily, italy, then finally d day.