415
submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

A Russian presidential plane from the Kremlin's Rossiya Special Flight Squadron visited New York and Washington, D.C., in late December, sparking speculation amid tense U.S.-Russia relations.

Moscow claimed the flight carried rotating diplomats, but its timing raises questions about Trump’s potential dealings with Vladimir Putin.

Trump has promised to end the Ukraine war in a day, alarming NATO officials who fear a deal that could harm Kyiv and alter NATO’s eastern border dynamics.

The flight highlights ongoing diplomatic maneuvering ahead of Trump’s January 20 inauguration.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 180 points 1 week ago

He's just checking on his investment....

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 week ago

evac flight for agents after the election.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 106 points 1 week ago

Gotta test the beds at the White House to make sure they're soft enough for Big Daddy Vlad.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] skvlp@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago

Daddy Vlad and mommy Elon?

trumps got his knee pads ready

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Biden needs to transfer to Ukraine a nuke right now to provide some M.A.D. insurance. If he doesn't, I worry Trump will look the other way completely should Russia escalate with tactical ones or worse.

Edit: Guys, please educate yourselves on MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Theory. The point is deterrence through mutual destruction, which effectively worked during the Cold War.

EDIT: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.

Because Republicans with Trump gained full control of the US, effectively all geopolitical support is going to drop off for Ukraine over the next 4 years. It is imperative that Ukraine be given leverage ahead of this transition.

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 1 week ago

If nukes start flying we all lose.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Of course. That's why I advise we provide Ukraine with a nuke and warn Russia that if they try to utilize nukes against Ukraine, then Moscow will be targeted by Ukraine themselves.

Again: MAD Theory. Deterrence.

Edit: Russians down-voting? I can only assume given the curious lack of substantive counter-arguments.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

UK has stated that if Russia uses nukes against Ukraine, there will be a symmetrical response.

Edit:
And a promise is basically all the defense Ukraine has, just like they were promised both non aggression from Russia, and protection from USA, when they gave up their nukes 20 years ago.

Promises are worth zilch, just like when Hitler promised Chamberlain peace. Some things never change, especially when dealing with crazy dictators.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

One would hope, but those are mere promises. When the time comes, doing is far different than saying. If we're already committed that far and we already support Ukraine to those ends, then let's cut out the middle man and give Ukraine such missiles themselves where they may be utilized immediately without hesitation. And of course, that's a certainty Putin can be assured of.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’m of Russian Jewish descent but my family has been in America since 1907.

You’re getting downvoted because most of the world thinks increasing nuclear risk is bad. Because it is!

If there were an easy way to end this conflict it would of happened by now. But I’m not interested in nuclear war and MAD only works when both sides are sane. Does anyone look sane right now on either side?!

Also if Russia uses nukes they’ll get a nato nuke response. What’s the point of putting nukes in Ukraine? We can end the whole world in like 30 minutes if we’re fucking dumb enough.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But I’m not interested in nuclear war and MAD only works when both sides are sane. Does anyone look sane right now on either side?!

Herein lies the ill-logic of your belief set. You're not really exploring the Game Theory, here.

IF both sides are not sane (Putin), then it still stands as a credible argument to arm the sane side (Zelenskyy), for like you said, what is stopping insanity from attacking a defenseless victim? After all, through time immemorial the bully targets the defenseless, but second-guesses when they can get smacked back.

Moreover your argument only holds water under the false assumption that the insane doesn't yet have nukes either... But in this instance they of course already do.

What we DO KNOW about authoritarian tyrants like Putin — as exemplified by his extremely long table during COVID — is that they are terrified of death and seek not to be a ruler of rubble. Thus, when Putin sees that Zelenskyy has unilateral power to launch a retaliatory strike against Moscow, then that would indeed cause even the insane psychopath to reconsider. After all, what else is lost? Absolutely nothing.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Wouldn't a NATO membership be a similar protection without the movement and danger of arms? I can't recall what restrictions are left for Ukraine to join. It will of course piss Putin off, but anything does, and his whole fear movement that NATO is trying to take Russian land ignores the very purpose behind NATO, a common defense against attacks and invasions. Which of course Putin doesn't even agree they are doing even though they are actively within agreed borders. I mean, Putin's crazy, he has a fixation on remaking the old Mother Russia.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I am amicable to this as well. I wrongfully thought that Article 5 of NATO prohibited someone engaged in an active war from joining, but that appears to be incorrect and more unwritten / traditional. The nice thing with my proposal is that Biden could, to my knowledge, unilaterally do this without requiring other NATO members to endorse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nougat@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

I’m just downvoting them because they’re bitching about downvoting.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] andyburke@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

How do you think nukes work that one can just be provided to them? And how do you feel they will implement MAD with only a single nuke?

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

How do you think nukes work that one can just be provided to them?

How do you think nukes work that this is obstacle that cannot be overcome by two innovative powers?

Are you familiar with the Sentinel ICBM launched by vertical-erected launchers?

And how do you feel they will implement MAD with only a single nuke?

It's not black-and-white, but rather a gradient: One threatening Moscow is better than none; more is better than one.

Now let me ask you: Why (if this is indeed your belief) do you think such a proposed scenario invites more risk than the current scenario Ukraine is in now while unarmed? Moreover do you believe Russia would have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine did not adhere to the Budapest Memorandum?

[-] andyburke@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

I think putting a US nuclear weapon into another country's hands has the potential to make US defense much weaker. What if the weapon (and more importantly all of the training materials and intelligence regarding the system) fell into Russian hands?

I would not oppose Ukraine having its own nuclear program, but what you are proposing is a non-starter for more reasons than I can count.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago
[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 week ago

MAD requires sane leadership and neither the US nor Russia are to be trusted with that.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Those nations already have nukes. 🤣

And you think Khrushchev was more sane than Putin? The guy who was putting nukes in Cuba?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

We'll all burn together when we burn.

[-] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

Funny you say that, I’m burning one right now 🌳

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are plenty of nuclear weapons close to Ukraine that can very easily and quickly be launched if whatever necessary scenario I can't come up with that would require a nuclear weapon happens.

The UK currently has 120 of their 225 nuclear weapons deployed and France currently has 290 of their 280 deployed and Putin is well aware of that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For the same exact reason that all those surrounding nations aren't committing their own forces to the defense of Ukraine is the exact same reason why providing Ukraine itself with a nuke as a deterrent to Russia's use is essential.

Yes, other nations surrounding Ukraine have nukes. However, the odds are much higher that should Russia use nukes on Ukraine that all the surrounding nations would furrow their eyebrows heavily and condemn the attacks but ultimately do nothing because they want to contain the damage to Ukraine. Chamberlains everywhere would simply reiterate, "This is a tragic day for the world, but we cannot risk a greater conflict." Meanwhile Tump, of course, would look the other way and seek to undermine any substantive NATO response at every turn.

To reemphasize my point that many seem to have missed: This is about giving the actual victim — Ukraine — agency to defend itself directly from a nuclear threat. I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I agree, but many are like:
Oh no 😱, that would be crossing a Russian read line! 🤮
Man I hate this argument, Russia only respect one thing, and that is strength. And Putin is insane, he is gambling with extremely high stakes, and has upped the stakes consistently for years now.
All the pearl clutching people are doing, is only helping Russia.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Exactly. I say fuck Putin's red line and give Ukraine nukes to deter Russia unilaterally.

If surrounding nations are unwilling to commit conventional ground forces or establish a No-Fly-Zone over Ukraine for risk of escalation, can we really count on them to respond effectively should tactical nukes or worse be used by Russia against Ukraine? I think not.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I trust Zelenskyy to utilize it reactely, not proactively.

He will not be in power in perpetuity.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago

Gotta fly in republican bribe money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 42 points 1 week ago

NATO officials who fear a deal that could harm Kyiv and alter NATO’s eastern border dynamics.

And why do they think Ukraine would agree to such a deal?

[-] Skydancer@pawb.social 45 points 1 week ago

Because Trump will cut all funding and equipment if they don't.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No that's not a good enough reason, because Ukraine can't give in, just because USA cuts funding. Everyone with any insight to the situation in Ukraine knows this.

USA will continue to support Ukraine, although maybe not with as much funding, there is a very strong consensus that at the very least USA will continue to share for instance intelligence from satellite surveillance.
Russia is running dry of resources, and Ukraine continues to receive aid from EU and countries all over the world. USA ending funding will only make it take longer before Russia finally collapses, and it will cost more losses for Ukraine. But it doesn't change the fundamentals of the situation.

So the bullshit about Trump ending funding will change everything, is just that. Bullshit. Because he might do that any way. And it's unlikely that NATO officials believe otherwise.
I suspect that someone made that claim up!! That NATO officials "fear" a deal. Because it doesn't make any sense.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Biden and the idiots in the US Congress have been so slow at delivering equipment and money that Ukraine has been overwhelmingly relying on other sources. That dithering has (most likely inadvertently) removed much of Trump's ability to strong-arm Ukraine. Trump's writ doesn't run as far as he imagines it does. There's a strong chance that the Ukrainian and European response will be "LOL no."

[-] irotsoma@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They won't have a choice. That's what he meant by ending it in a day. He'll likely agree to allow Russia to use extreme measures on what the US will then officially consider Russian territory without risking retaliation from the US since it will then be Ukraine who is the aggressor on paper if they don't withdraw and stand down. And the if NATO refuses to acknowledge the new agreement it will just give Trump the excuse to withdraw from it like he keeps threatening.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They won’t have a choice

Of course they will.

He’ll likely agree to allow Russia to use extreme measures

That will end the NATO alliance. And Europe will continue with many independent countries to support Ukraine.

it will just gibe Trump the excuse to withdraw from it like he keeps threatening.

Then the world will dramatically change, and democratic countries can nolonger work with USA, and USA will lose ALL soft power they have.
I seriously doubt the rest of the US administration and the oligarchy will allow that.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

You are vastly underestimating how uniquely stupid and compromised Trump is.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 36 points 1 week ago

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. THE PRESIDENT-ELECT IS A FUCKING RUSSIAN ASSET.

God damn it, I wish the news outlets would take the kid gloves off already.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago

Biden lame ducked himself so hard that this isn't a news story. Literally the entire world has already switched to talking to Trump unless it's something that's happening before January 20th. Yes Putin sucks, but he's also the only person in the world who can call off the war in Ukraine. So without evidence of fuckery I find it hard to care.

thats not even really a biden problem, this is a well established feature of trump existing.

Literally nobody can ever shut the fuck up about him ever, for a second.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Biden also outed himself as aging badly on the national stage. Allies are going to be diplomatic about it, but they definitely noticed.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

This deserves an "we regret there was some kind of malfunction with a SAM system" without any actual apology.

[-] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

what questions? Nobody had any doubt that this was going to happen.

[-] uis@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

Why speculate, it's just Lavrov's batch of cocaine

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2025
415 points (100.0% liked)

News

23774 readers
2852 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS