268
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
268 points (100.0% liked)
World News
50573 readers
1484 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.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
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 OCTOBER 19 2025
-
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
Kinda. Both are imperialist actions. Both try to jpstify their imperialism with "defending" someone.
Did NATO not bomb Yugoslavia to stop an ethnic cleansing? The bombing campaign lasted 2.5 months, and as far as I'm aware, Yugoslavia was not occupied during or after this time.
Russia, on the other hand, is attacking and invading Ukraine (again), occupying and looting parts of the country, targeting and murdering civilians. The current "special operation" has gone on for almost 3 years, with no end in sight.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could find those two scenarios comparable.
Russia claims that it's stopping a genocide. Not claiming that they are correct. just that in every invasion in the history of the world the agressor had a justification ready of defending themselves or some weak ally.
I don't see how the length of a war has anything to do with the justifications of the invasion. Russia didn't have the military force to reach their goals against Ukraine which received aide from the west. Yugoslavia was in a significantly worse position against NATO without any allies that could help them significantly. How does that justify the invasion of NATO?
You asked for a comparable scenario and received an answer. Now you're trying to no-true-schotsman yourself out of your premise. Just stop.
It matters if one claim is true and the other isn't though, kinda important. Also, russia is stealing territory and have constantly given different bs reasons for what they are doing. NATO saw a genocide, halted it and left. These are not comparable at all.
Not if you're trying to understand why nation states are doing things and you're not incredibly naive.
Any detail/specifics with these generic vapid assertions?
Donezk and Luhansk were actually attacked by Ukrainian forces since the Euromaidan. So if your justification is that "NATO wanted to stop a genocide", then you'd have to also do some research on the justification Russia claimed.
In the end, this is a hopeless endeavor, though. Nations go to war for strategic reasons, not moral ones. And people continuosly want to ignore the strategic interests of the west, claiming that it only wants to "help Ukraine", while claiming that Russia wants to return to Czardom. Both interpretations ignore the strategic motivations.
I don't think that going into detail would help anything. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that nations or their treaty organisations do anything because of a moral imperative.
You mean when russia invaded Ukraine and fomented a war in those regions?
Russia's claims are weak. It's quite obvious that they've recycled the nazi Sudetenland strategy as they've done multiple times to invade neighbours. Start a war using your "little green men", then use the fighting you started to claim the "genocide of russian-speakers" and ride that excuse into invasion and annexation. That should be obvious, if you're not incredibly naive.
No, I meant after the Euromaidan. Those regions mostly weren't ok with the Euromaidan and have been bombed by Ukrainian forces since then.
I agree that the allegations by Russia have been blown out of proportions. That doesn't make NATO the "good guys".
Since russia invaded the country, yes. Who downed MH17? Are you actually pretending that there was any kind of organic internal conflict without russian influence? lol
You don't have to be "good" to be incomparably better than ruzzia
Why is that so absurd? Donetsk and Luhansk are russian-speaking and were vitally economically dependant on Russia. They were afraid that Kyiv politically focusing on Europe would be disastrous for their economy.
I'm not arguing that Russia didn't have any interests there, that Russia didn't do some weird insurgency crap. I'm also not saying that it payed of for the poor sods who lived there. But believing that Ukraine would have been completely united after Euromaidan (which was allegedly also helped by western forces) if it weren't for Putin is naive.
I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists. I oppose them all. And my (very limited) sphere of influence doesn't reach into Russia. I can't do anything against Putin. I am however living in a NATO member counrty. And Karl Liebknechtput it best:
You're gonna have to point out which territories NATO has annexed. What a load of nonsense.
Agreed, the ruzzian-funded puppets in their own country
🙄
What? Is that absurd? You must've missed the tenet media story, among the pile of other ones.
You would've been the best cannon fodder in WW1.
You first vatnik
Since you obviously didn't get the 'main enemy' bit
Edit: So, apparently condemning both Russian and western imperialism makes you a "vatnik", huh. /s Should I call you a Yankee, then?
I don't care about your meaningless pontificating. You either dodge questions because you have no valid response or just shit out garbage with no substance.
I could accuse you of the same. Why keep replying?
You could accuse, but the evidence suggests you'd be wrong. Still waiting on that list of territories that NATO has annexed. For someone who's so "concerned" about imperialism, you sure do carry a lot of water for what is likely the biggest offender of the past two decades.
If you say so. As I said: I'm not in the business of comparing imperialists and I don't have the power to influence anything in Russia. That's why I'm focusing on the imperialist that I can affect (even if just slightly).
That's just shorthand for "I want to dodge any of the details/nuance because the facts are not on my side".
If you say so...
Disengage
Hey buddy, looks like you’re getting your comments removed, looks like you’re a butt horn
Came to aid your comrade since he's clearly struggling?
A true comrade, nothing of substance to add. lmao
Looks like you said “ mod removed” lol
I was the one who deleted the comment btw. It says "deleted by creator", so not sure why you're chasing me and yapping about mods. Illiterate?
Not really, I'm just still waiting for a comparable example.
Ok, moving the goalposts, then.
No, the whole point of this conversation, and my original comment, was to point out that Russia and NATO are not even in the same league as far as imperialistic tendencies. NATO has intervened to actually protect civilians. Russia just claims to be doing that while in reality murdering innocent men, women, and children by the thousands.
Your point of this conversation is to make a moralistic argument of how evil Russia is. Moralistic arguments don't really work when you're trying to understand politics.
I agree that Russia is committing atrocities. You failed to give a reason why this is happening, other than "they are evil".
You're telling me what my point is now, lol?
That's what you're doing.
If you read the comment that I was originally responding to:
... you'll see that I was addressing the thought that Russia and NATO basically have the same goals, (i.e. imperialism), which any thinking person can see is false.
What do youthink "imperialism" means?
Ok, I'm moving on now. Have a good day.
You too. Hope you learned something. Although I doubt it.