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
I get a little hate for saying so, but I really think Russia's nuclear saber rattling is always so intense because they've never nuked anyone. Nobody believes them.
We nuked Nagasaki for no strategic or tactical reason. It was essentially a "twice for flinching" situation. Not to mention the last president wanted to nuke some bad weather. What a prick.
We Americans have a shitload of problems, but we don't need to threaten nuking anyone. You know we want to. So the Russians have to work hard to catch up in terms of the Madman Theory.
I have a different theory. Russia’s nuclear saber rattling exists because it is basically all they have to feel powerful. Their economy is a joke, they have no real cultural influence in the wider world.
It is like Nth Korea, they both threaten to launch the nukes to feel powerful while no one in the wider world really gives a shit.
Yes, the US launched nukes in WW2 but the big difference is that no one else had them at the time.
Now that half a dozen nations do, all you can do with them is threaten because the implication is that any launch of nukes will be answered with a counter launch. Russia cannot use them as they will be wiped out if they do.
An infinite and higher dimensional Korea
Nth means North
You're right that the game is different now. Where I differ is that I try not to think of nations as having feelings. Nations have interests, not feelings.
What about nations where the last word in decisions is taken by a single person (a.k.a. dictator)? He certainly has feelings and interests
Nations are run by people, who do have feelings.
If Putin was not in charge, getting old, and wanting to leave a legacy, would Russia have invaded Ukraine?
One of the main reasons the China - Taiwan situation is heating up is that Xi wants to cement his legacy alongside Mao and he is also getting very old.
The USA invaded Iraq for no other reason that Bush wanted to finish what his daddy had started. They had nothing to do with 9/11.
The UK launched the defence of the Falkland Islands because Maggie Thatcher wanted it. There was zero economic or military benefit in doing so.
Etc
etc
etc.
Even guys like Putin and Kim Jong are only absolute tyrants in certain senses. Their governments are still rife with factions and competing interests, and they can only wield power in prescribed ways. Thinking of their nations as like Mecha that they get to pilot is not as apropos as it was for, e.g., a Mongol Khan. If a Khan died, the whole empire would grind to a halt until succession was resolved back home, even mid-conquest. Modern states are more akin to a Voltron, and the power dynamic is necessarily less direct.
Edit to add: there is definitely an argument however that, owing to the nature of nuclear weaponry and the tactical necessity of having one leader with that sole power, the power dynamic of modern statehood can more easily be suborned by a nuclear leader. It may well be part of the logic historians of the future use to conveniently explain our slouching towards authoritarianism of late.
Fuck Thatcher, but I'm not sure that one really belongs on that list. Defending territory against a foreign invasion is not generally considered an unreasonable thing to do