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
If the assets remain frozen then they can be used as bargaining chips.
A partial transfer could be useful, but a full transfer of assets to Ukraine would be counterproductive.
Bargaining chips for what? Negotiating peace? A truce? A cease fire? There's been ample time to do that and here we are.
I think their point is that at some point there will have to be some form of peace negotiations
If you get less value from using the money for weapons than for using it as leverage in negotiations, then it's a bad trade-off
Ah yes, because negotiations for peace with Russia worked so well for Ukraine before...
And now the USA are tagging in so they can also get the spoils.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here, are you arguing that we should aim to keep the war going indefinitely? Because the only way a war ends without a negotiated settlement is with the total dissolution of one of the sides in the war. I don't see Ukraine fully annexing Russia any time soon, frankly.
The war does need to end sometime, even if that time isn't now, and creating a peace treaty that's self-enforcing is the only way that works. If using that money as leverage (e.g. the funds are gradually unlocked as the treaty phases progress) makes a lasting peace viable that otherwise wouldn't be, then it's an option worth considering.
Do you know what happened last time Ukraine had an agreement with Russia and USA?
Why would they make the same mistake?
Why are you pressing for that as it is it a valid option? Why are you ignoring what Russia and the USA did not so long ago? Are you of the opinion that trump can bring peace to Ukraine quickly?
Why are you so opposed to giving free money to Ukraine?
Well yes, I am aware that Russia has violated numerous treaties. But I'm not arguing for the treaties to be the same, not even for a peace treaty to happen now. Nor am I saying we shouldn't give some portion of that money to Ukraine.
I feel like I'm being pretty clear that I don't think anything close to this, no? But your questions seem to be on the basis that I do.
The point I am actually making is that at some point in the future there will be some form of peace negotiations to end the war. That's not coming from a Trump-esque "peace now because I say so" angle, but from a "every conflict ends in some form of settlement eventually" angle. The fact that this money would act as significant leverage in that scenario means that this isn't just magic free money, but a tradeoff to be made.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong tradeoff, necessarily, just that to actually decide whether or not that's the case, you do need to consider that it is one.
My point is that history shows it's not really wise to negotiate, or go for treaties or agreements with Russia.
Whilst strategically it would be good to make the war stop it would only be a temporary and remedial solution not really solving the root cause of the problem.
So why do it?
Well because every war ends with a peace treaty. Ignoring that fact now and making it harder to do so in the future just because a peace treaty isn't viable now.
All I'm arguing for is making decisions while aware of all the factors? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with, really
What if there is great value in repelling foreign invaders from your country? Ukraine needs all the funds, especially after a certain shithole country has withdrawn financial aid.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the wrong choice to give the money to Ukraine, just pointing out that there is a tradeoff to be made.