40
submitted 1 day ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PanArab@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago

It is always someone retired

[-] Lussy@hexbear.net 25 points 1 day ago

Does it really matter if anyone has the ‘right’ to do anything? What is this Crusader Kings?

[-] finderscult@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

In practice, no. Countries and militaries and other such groups of psychos will always push every boundary they can unless they think the cost is too high.

In theory? Yes. If the rules as written actually mattered, countries would only respond to those that broke rules. In this case Russia would be responding to NATO breaking international law multiple times.

[-] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago

So, Russia will stop attacking Ukraine since it has "no right".

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 day ago

Russia attacked Ukraine because of threats to Russian national security. The "legal framework" or "rules based order" that allowed NATO countries to create those threats to Russia created the conditions under which Russia had two choices - follow the rules exactly and let their belligerent opponents (the North Atlantic empire) continue to build up the threat level, or break the rules and protect itself.

This is why for years the conversation around Russia has been a debate between people who say a security framework must guarantee security for all, on the one side, and on the other side, people who said we only need to guarantee our security and we can threaten the security of others and they can't do anything about it.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

If we are talking about "the rules" then UA, and as a proxy for the West, failing to implement Minsk II is the primary precursor to Russia invading.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

It's more that we won't be reading about full scale unprovoked attack on the US soil going forward.

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago

We should really include "full scale colonial invasion" before every mention about USA getting their current territory.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago
[-] Lussy@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Do I have a surprise for you

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

lol yeah what am I saying here, of course we will

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

"The DoD has no comment on remarks supposedly made by a private citizen to a Russian news outlet."

A retired colonel? Who gives a shit what a has-been nobody from a 20 year old administration has to say? What, are they going to do, interview me next for expert testimony on Canada because I carry a hockey stick?

It's not like Russia needs permission to attack NATO anyway, Putin just needs to decide if he wants it or not and can figure out whatever justification he desires.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

A lamed duck president taking the US into a war against the biggest nuclear superpower in the last weeks of his admin without congressional approval is pretty noteworthy.

[-] erin@social.sidh.bzh -1 points 1 day ago

so if India use their bought Rafale to attack Pakistan or China that bring France at war with those countries? Of course not... And for Ukraine it's the same...

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

These weapons are being operated directly by NATO from the territory of Ukraine to attack Russia. Nobody is denying this, and the fact that you can't understand it is frankly wild.

[-] erin@social.sidh.bzh -4 points 1 day ago

oh sorry, I commented on a lemmy.ml post that drink russian propaganda... Sorry to bother... But I have one question. If NATO was really on the frontline, why NATO leader are so eager to not openly enter war with Russia to the point where it took 3 years for them to greenlight the target of Russian territory? That like fighting with an hand in the back, that would be bad strategic decision... If really NATO is in the frontline why no Rafale or F-22 in the sky? If NATO is at war with Russia, why not attacking from Finland or Baltic states to flank the army? If NATO is at war with Russia, why after 3 years there are no Nuke in the sky from both side?

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 1 day ago

ATACMS relies on targeting data that can only be obtained from NATO sources as Ukraine doesn't have its own satellite and airborne recon platform. You could give ATACMS to Ukraine and they could only use it in short ranges because they don't have the data they need to target deep into Russia. That means NATO is literally providing everything except the button pusher - they are providing the missiles, the launchers, the trainings, the satellites, the spy planes, the data infrastructure, the data itself. Ukraine pushes the button.

This is funamdentally different than using a bullet made in one country to kill a person in another country.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago

The most heavily propagandized victims always assume they are immune to propaganda.

[-] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

That's quite the tantrum. Are you ever going to acknowledge how ATACMs works?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

The fact that you felt the need to write an essay about how offended you are to step out of your bubble is hilarious.

this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
40 points (79.4% liked)

World News

32353 readers
248 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS