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
This is absolute bullshit, BTW. NATO leaders have a history of seriously overvaluing the necessity of the US to the alliance.
Yes, obviously, having the world's biggest military power on your side is a really good thing. But, with or without the US, NATO can still be a force for mutual defence. It's a far better thing to have than not have, and defeatist bullshit like this is just kicking the trusses out for no good reason.
The issue is that the US provides a lot of logistics and supply chain support to the rest of NATO countries which makes it very difficult for them to operate without US support. It is made worse as many NATO nations are too small to meaningfully fill specialty units when they can barely provide basic infantry and armor units.
One of the reasons why France keeps pushing for an EU military is so that there is a government entity large enough to fund and pay for these specialty units. Otherwise, France would have to unfairly take on the burden of providing these capabilities itself.
Military satellites are almost entirely US right now, as well. There's a gap in AWACS and similar, but it's closing.
In theory, it should just be a matter of reorganising for the rest of NATO to do their own military logistics. We have the basic equipment and expertise needed.
There are gaps, but those gaps can be fixed. There's a reason Saab are getting so many orders for GlobalEye.
The problem is that it doesn't make sense for one country to bear the cost of developing those specialty items when you don't have a country like the US who would do it on its own anyway. There is likely going to need to be a pooling of resources to fund the construction of these items. If you're going to have to pool resources, what entity is going to be the best in receiving these resources and executing contacts to get these capabilities built?
Maybe you're getting at the one big army concept, but it's not really politically possible, at this point. In practice, it'll be a smattering of the large nations, with cooperation from smaller nations. The French will probably be key for satellites in specific, because of Guyana.
It doesn't have to be one big army, but it can be a big army designed to take care of the stuff that individual countries can't. After all, it is unfair to put the financial burden to build out the expensive and necessary logistics on the large nations.
It's because NATO was never just about mutual defense. It's part of the broader Western Bloc, which absolutely doesn't make sense without America at the helm. In the first place none of NATO's member states have had defensive problems that require anything that massive since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Why do we need vaccines? Everyone vaccinated never got sick.
I mean, who's gonna fuck with Spain? France? Britain? Germany? Italy? Canada? Many countries in NATO are safe from foreign aggression for decades to come, NATO or no NATO. If so many of the major members in the defensive alliance don't need defending, then it's probably not a defensive alliance.
There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.
Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.
The point is to make belligerents back down by raising the cost they'd have to pay by carrying through.
This particular belligerent backs down so often that there's a special acronym for it, so NATO's a perfectly good protective tool here.
I strongly doubt the reason Trump backed down from the 51st state thing was NATO militaries. Again, no member of NATO was ever going to actually fight America for Canada. They (the European side at least; no way Turkey was getting involved) would've retaliated, but those ways, being non-military, have nothing to do with NATO.
Trump hasn't backed down from the 51st state thing permanently, he just gets distracted. Trump is deep into dementia and one of the things that results in is obsessions that simply cannot be let go of. The 51st state thing will keep coming back, just like the Greenland thing.
What stops him is that even though he managed to ensure that there are no adults in the room this time around to rein him in like last time he was in office, even the children in the room that he's surrounded himself with realize that this is a terrible idea.
Maybe not permanently, but definitely for the foreseeable future. If you'll remember, Trump's official line on the 51st state business is that he will not force the issue militarily. This is as opposed to Greenland, where he has said no such thing. In effect he has backed down, because he's ruled out the one thing that could even plausibly make it happen.
Answered in my other reply, link for others https://lemmy.world/post/49055523/24607737
I'd suggest that you try saying this to someone in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia or Poland, but I don't actually want you to get punched out.
I suggest you to say this to Libyan. It was a block created by imperialist to fight the ussr imperialism. I do not believe in dissolving Nato but rather making it a readl defense organization independent of the usa and not being ally with israel
I mean, do you really see Russia beating countries with well armed and trained Western style militaries? Because I sure as hell don't. At worst, an "everyone west of France" alliance would absolutely wipe the floor with Russia if it came down to it. The threat Russia poses to an even somewhat united Eastern and Central Europe is highly exaggerated.
Ukraine was a out what 45mil people vs Russia's 115ish? so roughly 1:2. But in smaller places like Latvia (1.8mil), Estonia (1.3mil), Lithuania (2.9mil). Would generally be overrun way before any western leadership would wake up from their nap.
And even if small places could survive an invasion attempt by Russia, it would still have an immense cost in lives and destruction. Why not prevent that in the first place?
Correct. Even with Operation Reassurance, which stations a sizeable contingent of NATO forces in all three states, the NATO assumption is that the Baltics will be largely overrun by any Russian attack before reinforcements can arrive. The strategic goals of the operation are a) to slow any Russian incursion down, and b) to ensure that an attack on any Baltic state would be a direct engagement with a large portion of NATO militaries, thus ensuring that it would constitute an article 5 trigger. As the name suggests, it's more about reassurance - "We stand with these people and will fight to defend them" - than it is about actually stopping a Russian attack.
Edit: As of very recently this is no longer true. See below.
That WAS (past tense) the assumption. After Russia's showing in Ukraine, both the ineptitude and the atrocities, you can be certain they're planning on defending the Baltics from the start.
So, apparently you are actually correct, although the change in posture is much more recent than you think. As in, within the last few weeks to months.
I will not be saying more on this because I'll get people in trouble if I do.
I have no idea if that is the official policy, in any case official policy lags far after ideas come around. After Russia failed to take Ukraine in 3 days, you can rest assured discussions started pretty quickly about holding on to the Baltics. Nothing top secret about that, you can just think it through.
That's OK. I do.
Like I said, you're right, though the change was recent enough that I hadn't been aware of it until I double checked.
You're wrong about the reasons why the posture changed, but I really can't get into that.
Read: it does not matter. You know you can think about these things before they become official policy.
Sure thing I'm wrong. Just like if you came across my comments saying this years ago you would have said I was wrong. But if you want it's because they studied it and determined that they can hold on to it. You just have to think through it.
Yeah. It's no longer okay to have a plan that says it's okay if Russia takes some territory, we'll just take it back a little later. We've now seen what happens to the people living in territory that happens to.
Sure, but those places would be in some kind of military alliance anyway, the Treaty of Brussels being the most obvious candidate. It's also important to remember that they'd be overrun anyway; what's keeping them safe is the threat of retaliation by the rest of NATO, but even at worst Central and Eastern Europe would be more than enough to provide that threat on their own. My point isn't that a defensive alliance (mostly against Russia) is unnecessary, but that NATO is way, way too big to be only that. Countries like Spain and Britain aren't part of NATO for mutual defense, because there's nothing to defend them from.
You really need to look at WW2 history and the reason for NATO. Before WW2 every small country thought they could declare neutrality and sit out the next war: Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, etc. And how did that turn out? Germany just picked them off one by one. Even the countries that tied to engage like Poland and Czechoslovkia were picked off one by one (or served up on a platter).
Read: This disjointed approach did not work at all. The solution? Get a defence alliance that actually came to everyone's defence. And the earlier the better, countries like Spain and Britain are off fighting the war with functioning allies (yes even the small ones) and with control of the map rather than waiting for Russia to be at their doorstep. Think through WW2, would it have been better or worse for the allies if Norway and Denmark didn't fall? It would have been a fuckton easier. Half the reason for NATO is to get the small countries in, not run over one by one, and contributing.
That's a great example, and it illustrates clearly my point here: Russia aside, the era of intra-European wars of conquest is over. Germany isn't going to declare a thousand years Reich over Poland, and neither will Italy pick more fights with the Balkans, at least for a generation or two. This is a result of European integration and has nothing to do with NATO per se. So really the only military threat to the Pax Americana in Europe is Russia, which as I said don't require anything as big as NATO to stop it, so the question becomes "what's in it for (for example) Britain."
This leads us to my other point: Britain and France didn't declare war in WWII because Germany was coming for them. Not that they shouldn't have intervened, but that what they did was an intervention; they didn't want Germany to have hegemony over continental Europe and so they declared war. The existence of the Allies wasn't defensive. Similarly, any war Britain fights with Russia would be offensive, not defensive, because there's no plausible reality where Russia tries to cross the English Channel. British participation in such a conflict would be to protect a status quo that serves its interests, not to preemptively defend British soil. This means it'd be wrong to say British is in NATO for defensive reasons; its membership in NATO is both unnecessary for its not-quite-stated goal (defending against Russian aggression) and this goal wouldn't be any more defensive than America declaring the Gulf War on Iraq. There's a lot more mutual back scratching to keep states not directly threatened by Russia in the alliance than just mutual defense, even if we assume that NATO's primary goal is defending member states (which is certainly arguable considering NATO hasn't conducted a defensive operation in its entire history).
Lol your mental gymnastics to say "don't need Nato" is really something to behold.
LMAO this was already addressed. Your little soliquay doesn't change what I already said. " countries like Spain and Britain are off fighting the war with functioning allies (yes even the small ones) and with control of the map rather than waiting for Russia to be at their doorstep."
LMAO the existence of Nato is defensive. You're trying to get this notion of "not defensive" in. And lol we see why with what you say next. "Anything Britain does is offensive". LOLOL.
Ok your comment didn't even warrant this amount of response, so ciao.
It is never good. You become dependent on it and countries aliance change all the time
Which is exactly what happened here