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
Ask Historians !askhistorians@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
I think people live in a fairy tale.
Or they understand the only realistic military threat they could face is a second-rate power unable to conquer its much smaller nextdoor neighbor.
That's right Ukraine is just waving that off without a sweat
Okay let me put it like this: Germany is spending more annually on its military than Ukraine ($84 billion vs $114 billion in 2025) despite only the latter being at war. The economic and technological ability to wage war isn't even comparable between those two countries. Now of course war is about more than just money, but in industrial warfare money does matter a lot. So does industrial capacity, which again Germany has much more of. And that's Germany alone, not even the whole EU. In the absence of competing evidence I'm very comfortable assuming that Germany would do much better than Ukraine if attacked.
How many troops does Germany have vs Ukraine?
63 thousand, because Germany doesn't face serious threats to its territory that'd require a bigger force. It'd increase if that was necessary (which would be obvious from a mile away). The money necessary to pay and supply more troops would be much better spent helping Ukraine in any case.
In your two above posts you seemed to suggest that Germany could already take on Russia without any troop increase...
Apparently you now seem to at least agree that it should move along with the threat. Which is great, because that's what they're doing. But also goes against the message from these protestors
Those numbers need to be put into relation. GDP, per capita or such.
Not really, because my point is that Germany (and comparable European states more generally) can already fight Russia or at worst build a military that can fight against Russia if necessary. Military power doesn't work on a per capita basis.
That is the difference between an wartime economy of generally cheaper labor (east Europe) oriented primarily to provide resources for war, greatly (although not sufficiently in my opinion) supported and backed by the European Union and a slow bureaucratic economy known to be inefficient, time wise and monetary wise, economy. We hope that the European Union keeps together. And we certainly dont want to be forced to fight a war the way like Ukraine has to. No question Europe (if it stays united and doesn't slowly bleed states to Russia's control) would win a conventional conflict but the questions are at what cost? I rather win such a war in weeks than months, rather in months than years, and preferably with less missiles landing in my neighborhood.
I won't claim to know the best way to beat a Russian invasion quickly, but in any case such a thing would be obvious from a mile away (like their invasion of Ukraine was), so there'd be ample time to prepare. Meanwhile if you want to prevent a Russian invasion the way to do that is to pump as much money and weapons as humanely possible into Ukraine while cutting off Russia entirely. Resources are limited, so doing one will naturally compromise the other.
It takes years for big military equipment to be delivered. Getting military barracks up to date also takes years (especially in our current slow system). So do structure of commands etc. There are plenty warnings of secret services that attacks on European NATO countries are a possibility already in the coming years (2029 the most commonly mentioned date). We are already seeing plenty attacks that are arguably are already beyond hybrid warfare and just recently have been warned of potential drone attacks on southern European states. Considering it takes at least a few years to get our military into a state where it can operate comfortably against such threats I would argue that there is not ample time, because such attacks are already on the horizon. I do agree that the most efficient way to stop russia with the least possibility of escalation is to support Ukraine at all cost and give them everything they need. That is the way to stop Russia without direct confrontation.
We do not have enough natural resources, especially oil, to keep the mechanized equipment rolling. The Russians are capable of disrupting logistics and damaging production sites. Furthermore, the German mindset, post WWII, is pacifistic and one can thank the Allies for creating it. They wanted to surpress our so-called Prussian military pride.
What I can tell you is that Russia's best chance would still be to face a country one by one.
Even if you don't care or underestimate the capacity of them to wage war, being ready is your best deterrent.
No, that's the third or so best deterrent. The best deterrent is to back Ukraine to the hilt so Russia doesn't get ideas ever again.
what do you mean?
Their life, stability, future prospects, are all based on the assumptions their government is capable to provide them, and a state's stability is at its very core in its ability to provide security internally but also externally.
What gives a country it's authority is it's military.