Paywall removed. https://archive.ph/BkIad
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
536 points (97.3% liked)
World News
31895 readers
450 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Doesn't it take only 1 of the counties with veto power to shut this down? Why would Russia ever approve?
Edit: Had a brain fart. Thanks for the corrections. Leaving my dumb comment anyway.
NATO. Not the UN. Russia has no say into nato since it was designed to fit Russia.
designed to fit Russia.
Luckily Russia isn't fit.
Down voted for a joke based on someone else's typo... what a world we live in
Edit: that's more like it
I'm doing my part!
Russia isn't in NATO, but they are it's most successful recruiter.
Which is why I'm baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to 'stop nato aggression.'
Like, firstly you're fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.
I'm not sure who would say that it was to 'stop NATO aggression', but it's not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO's continued expansion around them.
NATO hasn't been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.
I think of it a lot in the same way as the US's pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.
I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.
The "Cuban" missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.
yup.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
NATO not the UN, Russia isn’t a member.
That's 20 billion per year. The EU's alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.
Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more "we've committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts". It's probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.
It's unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.
load more comments
(1 replies)
221 days until the next U.S. presidential election
Can Ukraine hold on that long?
If Republicans have a majority in Congress, they'll continue to support Russia.
load more comments
(142 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I know NATO doesn't have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn't $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they're planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.
EDIT: I'm saying that the US can't be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.
load more comments
(8 replies)
The problem NATO has with this proxy war can't be solved by printing money. The issue lies in the lack of industrial production in the west, and you can't just create a huge industry for producing weapons and ammunition out of whole cloth.
This will be a fantastic vehicle for pushing for austerity in Europe though. The oligarchs have been very upset that Europeans enjoy a social safety net and things like pensions. The need for massive military spending will be a perfect justification for stripping these rights away from the workers. Europeans are about to start enjoying American style freedoms.
what too much finance capital does to a mf
load more comments
(16 replies)
view more: next ›