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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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
2020
So after Russia invaded? Did you forget Crimea?
Not to mention Sweden of all places can’t even get into NATO. You think an Ukraine that was partially occupied was getting in? You think the Russian government doesn’t know that?
Are you ignoring NATO membership for Ukraine was already torpedoed by France and Germany who are only changing their mind now because Russia decided to try and take the whole country? So no NATO has not “consistently postured” any such thing. It was explicitly decided at The 2008 summit to not offer them (or Georgia) membership. The US cannot unilaterally add anyone to NATO. Nor does the general-security of NATO get to decide that. No action plan or invitation was offered. The words have about as much weight as countries claiming they will stop global warming. Without concrete action, meaningless.
I’m not sure when you are citing the Monroe doctrine like that established some kind of precedent when Russia has been invading and neighbors before the United States was even a country.
I don’t care who Latin American decides to back. That’s their sovereign right. You know, that thing that’s being violated by Russia. I never said anything about it.
What I adressed was a comment playing apologetics for Russia with inconsistent application of its standards.
So don’t try and hide behind the some “might makes right””geopolitics” BS now.
After all, if our standards and morals don’t apply to the conversation since these are globe coinquering monsters who will do whatever they can get away then why are you still making excuses for Russia and blaming it in NATO.
Because you have an agenda.
Might makes right is literally the foundation of geopolitics. Claiming otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works.
It literally doesn't matter what you or I think because that's the reality we live in.
Irrelevant. That countries do things forcibly doesn’t mean I have to tolerate bad actions or should be quit about when they do bad or ignore bad arguments that try and justify the bad actions.
But I’m glad we now agree the invasion had nothing to do with a nato base.
Not according to Ukraine's Minister of Defense...
Nice revisionist history you got there.
Most people on these online platforms are American and implicitly endorse the actions taken by the US government by virtue of being American. It's hypocritical. I did assume that you were American, but if you're not then I apologize.
Nobody's trying to justify that what Russia is doing is morally right... But it is exactly what I'd expect a shit country with no sense of morals and a strong sense of "everything I do is righteous and in the name of my country and to protect my country from both real and imagined threats" like Russia or the US to do.
It's funny to watch Americans try and defend US actions in the context of Russian ones and then wonder why other countries don't want to get involved with either side, which, in case you forgot, was the whole point of the original post.
Revisionist history from talks about construction in 2020.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014.
Whose history again?
I’d love to see you quote me on when I ever said the US acted righteously. What I did say was that bad behavior by the IS is not grounds to justify bad behavior from Russia.
And again, the comment that started this chain was definitly trying to do that.
The rest is just white noise to try and expand the argument out of its scope.
Also known as arguing in bad faith.
Might want to look at the article you're posting on for an argument in bad faith...
Might wanna reread what I’ve said and what I’ve adressed since you know, I was responding to a comment on the article, not the article itself and this conversation has little to do with the article at all, mostly due to people like you making it about the US.
You know, the article about EU nations asking for support for a European nation from Latin American countries…..
The article about Latin American countries refusing that support? Hmm...
Which brings up the US how? Hmmmm…..
Because Latin American policy has been dictated by decades of US influence, just like how European policy has been dictated by decades of Soviet influence?
From an article that neither mentions the US or does the joint statement by the Latin Americans countries mention the US.
So yeah, maybe go back and read the article. Bringing the US up is conjecture unsubstantiated by the article. And weren’t you big on o Lu focusing on the article just a few comments ago?
I get you struggle not to tie everything back in the United States but American exceptionalism is a fairly toxic idea.
Which of the countries in Latin America haven't had governments flipped by US intervention? I'll wait for you to count.
Case and point. EU nations (aka Not the US) asking for support for an eu nation (which did not have anything to do with US coups in Latin America) is to you about the US.
You can’t even imagine Latin American countires having issues with Europeans treatment of them, like the article states. The response text but up colonial reparations.
The US is not the center of the world. Countries have motivations that don’t factor the US.
For someone who doesn’t like the US they have gotten deep in your head.
The US is the center of the West's response to Russia's invasion. That's indisputable.
Which doesn’t make make them the center of latin American reasoning. Geopolitics is more complicated than that. NOr is their anything in the article to imply anything of the sort.
Geopolitics is centered around the big superpowers (the US, the ex-USSR, and China). Claiming otherwise is silly.
Big powers like the entire EU? You know. Who the article was about.
The EU has never been considered a power of the same scale as the US or the ex-USSR.
And yet is much more directly impacted by, and involved in, the situation in Ukraine and you know, it was a direct exchange between those two parties and referencing those two parties and not the US.
You’ve got a bad case of American on the brain. You hate the topic but can’t change the subject.
I must be forgetting how NATO gets funded...
You definitely are since the US only pays about 16% of NATOS budget. Which is a smaller percentage than what the US pays to the UN peace keeping forces.
You…..do know that NATOs budget is not the same things as NATO combined military spending right?
And also irrelevant since the EU is not NATO. They share members they do not have identical membership.
Take a look at a map of NATO. Now take a look at a map of EU aid to Ukraine. The only real non-NATO members of the EU are, what? Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, and Serbia (and a few microstates)?
Oh, would you look at that! Guess who hasn't been providing significant military aid to Ukraine. No guns and no ammunition. (In other news, even China has provided Ukraine with humanitarian aid...)
This is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The only significant aid from non-NATO states has been from, what, Pakistan (who oppose anything India supports lol), Australia (who are otherwise aligned with the US through ANZUS/AUKUS), Israel (do I even need to say anything?), and Japan (who are obviously aligned with the US)?
So find a single quote of the Latin American countires opposing the text as written had a thing to do with nato. You can’t.
You do realize the majority of these exact same states (including India, who you listed as supporting the war. What?) have already condemned the war at the UN. So no, it’s not as simple as pro us and anti us. Countires do indeed have interests beyond america or Russia and indeed do have bilateral concerns.
Just because you can’t see the world through anything but the US lense doesn’t mean the rest of the world can’t. And just because you think Latin America should have every action they take be shaped by their relationship with the u tied states doesn’t mean they think that.
So unless you can actually put up some evidence rather than your wild conjecture I’m afraid I’m done here.
Where is India's aid to Ukraine? Words are cheap.
Where’s indias aid to Russia?
And it’s politics. The power of words is immense.
Words aren't going to save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.
India is buying Russian oil and propping up Russia's resource-based economy. But yes, like China, they aren't providing lethal military aid.
Because India needs oil. A lot of it and for cheap. India is also buying US weapons and phasing out Russian ones.
It’s almost like India is a country with its own interests and doesn’t treat the world as one giant chess match between Russia and the US.
You know. Like Latin America.
In the context of the war in Ukraine? Nobody is saying that the world is, but that the war in Ukraine is. Latin America doesn't want to get involved in a chess match between the US and Russia... I'm glad we agree lol.
The only people framing the geopolitical relationship with the EUas part of this so called chess match is you.
You never did present that evidence I asked for by the way. So we are done here.
I mean, we've already established that the members of the EU that are supporting Ukraine is exactly (somehow) the members of NATO... I'm not really sure what you're asking for.
Last I checked, that's not what Ukraine's Minister of Defense claimed.
Most people on these online platforms are American and implicitly endorse the actions taken by the US government by virtue of being American. It's hypocritical. I did assume that you were American, but if you're not then I apologize.
Nobody's trying to justify that what Russia is doing is morally right... But it is exactly what I'd expect a shit country with no sense of morals and a strong sense of "everything I do is righteous and in the name of my country and to protect my country from both real and imagined threats" like Russia or the US to do.
It's funny to watch Americans try and defend US actions in the context of Russian ones and then wonder why other countries don't want to get involved with either side, which, in case you forgot, was the whole point of the original post.
Considering how much Latin American countries have gotten abused by the US government, why are you even debating that they should be supporting the US side in this conflict?