There should have never been any restrictions to begin with.
this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
156 points (98.1% liked)
World News
46802 readers
2958 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
the reasoning would have been sound with an enemy other than russia and a timeframe of a month or so. 3 fucking years was an act of cruelty that acted as a preview for the indifference to the horrors in Gaza
How exactly is the reasoning sound in another situation?
The reasoning in this case was that NATO backing of Ukraine could very easily have been seen as direct NATO involvement in an attack on Russia, and thus a justification for nukes to come out. By restricting the weapons given to things that could not be used in "an offensive campaign of retaliatory conquest" (i.e. short range weapons) Russia could not reasonably claim that NATO was doing anything other than helping Ukraine defend itself.
There are arguments to be made here that it was the wrong call to make, but the retort boils down to "russia can end the world" and its hard to argue against that. As the war has progressed over such a time frame, global attitudes towards the situation have strongly coalesced against the "NATO set this up to use their puppet to invade russia" line, as well as it becoming clear Russia won't accept any end to this war except a military one. Accordingly, NATO feels comfortable with the point we're at in the frog-boiling process and so the tools given to Ukraine are now ones that expand their options for achieving a military end to this conflict, which include strikes on viable targets in Russia itself.
So all that said, I feel pretty confident in saying the other commentator made that statement without a full appreciation for the situation, and searching for deep insight in their message might be a bit of a fools errand.
There is no legitimate reason to not allow Ukraine to fight a war with the weapons provided using all possible tactical and strategic options available to them. If the logic is "Russia can end the world" then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won't stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
It is not hard to argue against not fighting an enemy because they are dangerous considering that by allowing them to gain more space unimpeded it only emboldens further conquest and increases the risk of nuclear war.
The risk of nuclear war really does exist. It's easy to be an armchair general and call Russia's bluff. I'm glad NATO's leaders think with more nuance.
I do not deny the risk of nuclear war but that risk alone is not enough to justify complacency to tyrants. It's easy to say NATO is making the right call when one is safely behind a computer screen and the front lines. The problem is NATO actively avoiding direct involvement will see those safeties you take for granted disappear sooner or later.
Okay, genuine question: what's your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?
Okay, genuine question: what’s your solution to Russia blowing up the world? Because they can do that. So, what?
Not a very genuine question when the answer to it is in my initial response to you.
No, it's a genuine question because it was unclear. Do you mean "allow Ukraine to use all possible tactical and strategic options available to them" is your solution?
Because if so like... Ukraine has been doing that. The restrictions on direct strikes on russian territory is only for weapons systems provided by NATO member countries, and importantly we haven't been giving them weapons capable of doing that (except arguably HIMARS, it's complicated) for a number of reasons (the desire to not entrust sensitive equipment to a force we necessarily do not have direct control over who then would take it into territory controlled by the nation NATO exists in opposition to is one of the big reasons). Ukraine has and has always had the ability to strike deep into russia proper using their own equipment, and (to an extent) they have been doing that for the entirety of the war.
There are arguments to be made here that it was the wrong call to make, but the retort boils down to “russia can end the world” and its hard to argue against that.
If the logic is “Russia can end the world” then we all might as well surrender to them now because Russia won’t stop, and apparently no one has the courage to actually fight back.
Yeah, I wasn't really sure how to respond to that which is why I tactfully glossed over it instead of saying something unhelpful (like "this is so dumb and wrong that I had to check Trump didn't say it").
Russia being able to end the world is the reality in which these decisions are being made and yet Ukraine has not surrendered, their allies are removing the concessions to russian nuclear deterrence they already implemented and the world is re-arming in response to the invasion instead of kowtowing. Like it is trivially easy to show how this is a stupid, hysteronic take because it is proved wrong every second Ukraine continues to resist the invaders.
Whatever you say bud.
Wait, were you claiming that was the solution you presented before? You... just have no idea what you're talking about. That's why you haven't responded to any of the substantive points anyone has made, except with this baby-tier bait waggling. Good grief are you seriously so insecure you have to resort to this instead of admitting to yourself that you just don't know enough about the topic to be considered an authority with a respectable position? Come on, have some self respect. When you're downvoting replies in a days-old thread... You know nobody except us is going to see this, right? What's the point of doing that except to take what petty victory you can, to cover for the fact you cant find success on the merits of your ideas alone? Please, reflect on your behavior.
You should log off and go for a walk.
... Does it ever worry you that you have to turn once sincere conversations into sad attempts at trolling to save face?
Did you have a good walk?
I'm allergic to the sun :(
(like actually though, it's really annoying to manage esp. at really high/low latitudes)
(ty for asking)
There is a reason. Namely not wanting Ukraine to be able to win.
There is a reason. Namely not wanting Ukraine to be able to win.
Your argument is that NATO wants Ukraine to lose the war?
It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people issue". If a nation gives Ukraine long range weapons, are they responsible if Ukraine uses them on long range targets? Russia would argue yes. Russia wants to use the threat of wider conflict to deter nations from helping Ukraine.
This assumes Russia needs facts to back up their rhetoric. They do not.