A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
If they do, I'd say it would be okay to strike on NK territory, because with 100k troops they basically entered the war. It's a lot. It's not just a few tanks, an instructor and a repair crew or so.
I don't think anyone wants a hot war in NK, and I'm not sure what good it would do.
Europe needs to (and should have) get off their butts and send every piece of hardware they have to Ukraine though, even cutting edge ones. Maybe even enforce a no-fly zone. As I keep asking, what are they waiting for... Spain to invade France? No, they built all this stuff to deter Soviet aggression, and its just sitting there, rotting instead of doing its job. If Ukraine would have stayed secure, they basically would never have to worry about this again.
Now they have no excuse. Russia clearly has no shame. And it's almost (but not quite) too late.
Bombing a few prominent military installations in NK could teach their leader a valuable lesson and cause dissent among his sheeple. They probably think they can be safe while joining the war and need a wake up call
Nah, their leader don't give a shit for their population, if something killing the leader would be more efficient
And then they bomb SK in retaliation and cause a huge mass casualty event, along with a war in Asia.
Why would they retaliate against SK when the US, Europe or Ukraine bomb them for basically attacking Ukraine. That would be useless.
Because they hold SK hostage with the amount of artillery they have. Same for SK holding NK hostage. It's a mexican standoff that has been in place for decades. Once you start attacking NK, they have nothing to lose. So they make the decision to attack them an even costlier one.
To be fair they never moved their artillery location since forever, SK could steam roll over them faster than desert storm, they aren't afraid of NK winning, they are afraid of them losing and SK fucking their economy for a hell hole full of malnourished and ignorant people with their entire world revolving around their worshiping their leader, bombing Kim Jong-un would be faster tho, but they would have to put a puppet government there for decades
The moment the west strikes NK is the moment Seoul will be bombarded out of existence. Seoul is right across the border and on NK’s side near Seoul there are hills where heavy artillery is stationed. Hidden under the trees and bushes.
Can they even accomplish the logistics of this? I wouldn’t be surprised if only 60,000 make it and they arrive starving.
They could accomplish 100k in Ukraine even if it ment sending 800k walking across Siberia and letting 700k die along the way.
Sure, but Ukraine has neither the means nor the desire to attack North Korea.
Not on North Korean territory, but on North Koreans in Ukraine? Why not.
That supply of cannon fodder should last about a month or so.
the war ends easily in 2025 when elon musk tells him over the phone that he needs to surrender and give russia a third of the country
And hand over Odesa. So Putin can invade Moldova next. Also that would landlock the rest of Ukraine.
Basically. Trump’s election signals the end of robust support for Ukraine (if it can even be called that). So Putin is absolutely charged right now and 1/3 could be the best deal Ukraine is going to get. It’s a travesty, but there it is.
I just hope that Putin takes the cue and ends his ridiculous imperialistic drive. His early bloodless annexation of Crimea clearly encouraged broader action, but this war has been an expensive flop for him and I can’t really see him coming back from it to try for more. Unless there is some other neighbor who’s outlying 1/3 he would like to pay a very dear price for.
More likely his prize is concessions on NATO expansion.
can’t really see him coming back from it to try for more.
Then you clearly haven't studied Russian history and policy vis a vis Ukraine
That’s true, I am not deeply educated there. Any info you would impart on the topic? Does Russia have some perpetual hardon for controlling Ukraine which will never go down?
The modern Russian government is essentially claiming the territory of the Soviet Union. The reason they started their invasion now is because it was the last chance before Ukraine would become a EU and NATO candidate. If Ukraine falls, Russia will rearm and try pull the exact same "little green men" strategy in the Baltic states, Georgia and Moldova next.
The Baltics are NATO members. No matter what they do, it won’t be “the same strategy.”
I specifically mentioned the "little green men" because it was Russia's way to funnel an army into an independent country while claiming that they are just part of a local militia.
It's not a direct attack and worked out pretty much perfectly in 2014. It would absolutely be a way to continue the conflict, even within NATO countries. Though they need to create a rift within the population first to make such an uprising believable.
Moldova is already at this stage and the leaked plans from the start of the war actually had Transnistria next up on their list.
The modern Russian government is essentially claiming the territory of the Soviet Union.
shall i start a list of former members of the Soviet Union where there's no conflict regarding the NATO expansion?
That seemed like a good task for AI so here’s what got back:
The former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) included 15 republics, many of which became independent countries after its dissolution in 1991. Here’s a list of former Soviet states that are not NATO members or actively applying for NATO membership (as of now):
1. Belarus
• A close ally of Russia, with strong political, military, and economic ties to Moscow.
• No indications of pursuing NATO membership.
2. Moldova
• Officially neutral according to its constitution.
• While there is some public debate about closer ties with NATO, it has not formally applied for membership.
3. Armenia
• Member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
• While cooperating with NATO on some levels, it is not pursuing membership.
4. Azerbaijan
• Maintains a policy of balanced diplomacy between Russia, NATO, and other powers.
• No NATO membership aspirations have been officially declared.
5. Uzbekistan
• Pursues a policy of neutrality.
• Not a member or applicant of NATO.
6. Turkmenistan
• Officially neutral (recognized by the UN in 1995).
• No NATO ties or aspirations.
7. Tajikistan
• Member of the CSTO, closely aligned with Russia.
• Not pursuing NATO membership.
8. Kyrgyzstan
• Also a member of the CSTO.
• No active NATO membership aspirations.
These countries generally maintain neutrality or align more closely with Russia and its sphere of influence, either through treaties like the CSTO or their foreign policies. Let me know if you’d like more specific information about any of them!
And while we’re at it, here are the NATO members or aspirants:
Here’s a breakdown of the former USSR states that are now NATO members or are actively considering NATO membership:
Former USSR States That Are NATO Members
These countries joined NATO after gaining independence from the Soviet Union:
1. Estonia
• Joined NATO: 2004
• Strong NATO ally with significant defense investments.
2. Latvia
• Joined NATO: 2004
• Works closely with NATO on Baltic security.
3. Lithuania
• Joined NATO: 2004
• Actively contributes to NATO missions.
4. Poland
• Although not a USSR republic, it was part of the Warsaw Pact (Soviet-aligned).
• Joined NATO: 1999.
Former USSR States Considering or Applying for NATO Membership
1. Ukraine
• Officially applied for NATO membership in 2022.
• Has intensified cooperation with NATO since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
2. Georgia
• Has declared aspirations to join NATO since 2008.
• NATO has an ongoing partnership with Georgia, but membership has been delayed due to territorial disputes (Abkhazia and South Ossetia).
3. Moldova (Debate, but no formal application)
• While officially neutral, there are internal discussions about strengthening ties with NATO due to regional threats.
• No formal application has been made yet.
Key Context
• NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia remains controversial, partly due to ongoing conflicts with Russia and territorial disputes.
• Other former USSR states, like Belarus and the Central Asian countries, are either neutral or aligned with Russia.
Let me know if you’d like a deeper dive into any of these countries!