this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
510 points (98.5% liked)

World News

45588 readers
4744 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/59867996

German media outlets Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR, and NDR also cite the report, noting that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears intent on testing NATO’s Article 5 guarantees. The alliance’s mutual defence clause obliges member states to come to one another’s aid if attacked. The assessment suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] atthecoast@feddit.nl 90 points 1 week ago (6 children)

They burned through their Soviet stockpiles of artillery and tanks in 3 years fighting Ukraine, what makes anyone think they could fight NATO?

[–] Infernal_pizza@lemm.ee 134 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Depends which side the US is on

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Bingo.

And also depends on which side China is on. Their war production dwarfs even the US, and I find it difficult to believe that it will all be spent fighting the US and Taiwan.

There is a very real possibility that these three countries gang up together and divide the world among themselves.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At this point it seems much more likely that the US sides with Russia than China. The EU is their largest trading partner, they'd never risk losing that market.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why would Russia risk alienating China?

In realpolitik, China is the more desirable partner than the USA.

[–] Hubi@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Russia has alienated China already by being an unstable and unpredictable mess of a country.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hairyfeet@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Why would either need to side with Russia? They only have 140m people, a untrustworthy and soon to be unstable government. If you're aim is to carve up territory then you don't give a potential long term adversary access to half a billion people.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Alliances aren't forever. Hitler and Stalin made an agreement not to fight each other, which worked to the benefit of both for a while, and the Trump admin and Putin are more closely aligned ideologically than those two ever were. Alliances can be made for expedience and short-term gain, even with a potential long-term adversary.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 week ago (1 children)

US has a sizeable advantage in terms of sheer firepower but lacks the collective will to side with Russia in a conflict with NATO. To be clear, the Trump administration might try to side with Russia and the initial consequences of that would be very serious. But, long term, I think that would bring a swift end to the US' global dominance. Potentially even bringing us to the point of total collapse.

That's just one American's perspective though.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But is there a downside for the guy running our country?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Their unlimited supplies of Russian delusions of superiority.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 43 points 1 week ago (9 children)

So I just looked into the numbers quickly and am probably off by a bit

NATO has 3.2m active military personnel and 2.2m in reserve

Russia has 1.5m active and 2m reserve

BUT, American forces make up 1.3m of NATOs active and 800k reserve

If I were to randomly combine the American army with Russia rather than NATO for no particular reason,

NATO would have 1.9m active 1.4m reserve and the Axis-sorry I mean Russia and America would have 2.8m active 2.8m reserve...

[–] Tryenjer@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Maybe this is a suicidal plan, Putin is going to die and wants to take the world with him. From what we know about him, he is megalomaniacal and sadistic enough to want something like this.

He must also be counting on the United States being out of NATO by then, maybe Trump will even send some soldiers to help his Russian allies.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It has nothing to do with wanting to actually fight NATO. The idea is to manufacture a carefully crafted situation where Article 5 is triggered, but due to internal disagreement and individual risk, it is not fully honored.

Needless to say, any such move would be very risky.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] KulunkelBoom@lemm.ee 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Take out putin now and set the stage for a world at "peace" with humanity's eye back on a civilized future.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Problem is the people waiting to take over from Putin. They're not at all nice.

[–] KulunkelBoom@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Putin has made his country after his own image; deceptive, criminal, deceitful, isolated, and violent... so you're probably right there are no decent people to take up after he's gone.

[–] GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Take them out first so it looks like Putin is doing it.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None of the candidates are nice and most are much, much worse. Don't recall the name, but one of them basically is ready to drop the h bombs and push us all straight into WWIII because reasons.

If anyone takes out Putin, they'll have to take out the entire military top and government of Russia with it or we're all fucked

[–] Paddzr@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Eh, it's the sword rattling. Common tactic to make himself look strong and to be feared. He could still be spineless or once not under watchful eye of Putin, a drastically different person.

Putin isn't known for keeping people around if they're a threat to him.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Considering that Putin got his ass absolutely beat by a small country using second hand and surplus military hardware he'd have to be an absolute moron to pick a fight with NATO. Literally the only card he has to play is nukes and that's kind of an all or nothing sort of move. If nukes are off the table any concerted push by NATO is going to be mopping up in moscow within a few months.

That's also assuming the US doesn't get serious about it, but considering Putin's puppet in the Whitehouse there's a pretty good chance the US would quit NATO and so wouldn't factor in. Even without the US though Russia has demonstrated the rest of NATO is far more than sufficient to handle Russia.

[–] Sundiata@lemmy.world 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Poland + Ukraine is enough to practically destroy Russia.

Honestly I really hope putin just croaks over and dies at this point, the old fuck has practically killed endless amounts of his own people just for land. He can't use the excuse of "Hur dur NATO is encroaching on my borders via Ukraine" because Finland is in NATO now thanks to his stupidity.

He's gambling with WW3 with a high chance of losing it.

And he can't keep America under his grasp forever, by the end of the decade trump could lose the election or get couped by anyone.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] LuckyPierre@lemm.ee 26 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Elsewhere on Lemmy today;

Russia has depleted its tank stocks: the industry is not covering combat losses

Both of these cannot be true.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well they can both be true, It just depends on Putin's mental state.

There was a rumor going around that he is dying and he is basically just doing this to try and make a name for himself, he will rebuild the USSR and it will stand for a thousand years as him as its founding father, and all that rubbish. Of course it's impossible for that to happen, but if he's dying anyway why not try?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Hmm who do we know that will sell anything that isn't tied down and currently controls the US government and is buddy buddy with Putin? No, not Satan, but you are close!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Taking how successful Russia was on the battlefield of Ukraine, I'm going to go ahead and say "try us"

I know that Europe is a bit behind on military spending but that is rapidly changing and in the meantime Russia lost nearly a million soldiers on the frontline. That alone is enough to cripple the nation for the next two decades.

It's hard to see how Russia is going to do anything of that. The only "strength" it currently has is misinformation which works well for the US right now but that will have its limits soon enough

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

With what? I read yesterday they were not able to keep up with the losses from just fighting the ukraine.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

10yrs? That long? Is Putin really that healthy? He looks like he has Cushing’s.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 week ago

End of the decade is 31-12-2029, which is about 4.7 years away, not 10.

10 years would be "within/in/over a decade".

[–] rrabochiy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

King of the Ash Pile is a cool title

[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Honestly, I believe Europe needs to go on the offensive, we need a single unified offensive against Moscow with the intent of crippling the KGB and arresting Putin. They are both too dangerous to be left to their own devices.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Germany has to pump out these messages because they live so far from the critical border. It's easy to not understand the risk.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Germany is still so uncertain of the risk that they still use Russian gas even 4 years after saying they were going to stop.

load more comments
view more: next ›