this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
539 points (97.4% liked)

World News

36325 readers
1570 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Doesn't it take only 1 of the counties with veto power to shut this down? Why would Russia ever approve?

Edit: Had a brain fart. Thanks for the corrections. Leaving my dumb comment anyway.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Russia isn't in NATO, but they are it's most successful recruiter.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

NATO not the UN, Russia isn’t a member.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Who gave Russia a veto at NATO?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

SO UN FAIR!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's 20 billion per year. The EU's alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The EU has no defense budget, the member countries have.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more "we've committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts". It's probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.

It's unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (9 children)

I know NATO doesn't have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn't $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they're planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

EDIT: I'm saying that the US can't be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

221 days until the next U.S. presidential election

Can Ukraine hold on that long?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (142 children)

If Republicans have a majority in Congress, they'll continue to support Russia.

load more comments (142 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (17 children)

The problem NATO has with this proxy war can't be solved by printing money. The issue lies in the lack of industrial production in the west, and you can't just create a huge industry for producing weapons and ammunition out of whole cloth.

This will be a fantastic vehicle for pushing for austerity in Europe though. The oligarchs have been very upset that Europeans enjoy a social safety net and things like pensions. The need for massive military spending will be a perfect justification for stripping these rights away from the workers. Europeans are about to start enjoying American style freedoms.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

what too much finance capital does to a mf

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›