this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
434 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2727 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 100 points 2 months ago (10 children)

I hope everyone that keeps down voting me for talking about WW3 are right...

But man, it really is starting to look like WW3

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 69 points 2 months ago (3 children)

People forgot how long it took the other world wars to really get rolling. (Presumably because they weren’t alive when it happened.)

I’m also of the opinion that unless something happens to de-escalate this conflict it will inevitably draw Europe, the US, and China in.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Everybody is already in and picked the side...

We just waiting for the other shoe to drop... Is US Marines landing in Crimea or other wild scenario where everyone goes: " well damn and that's how it turned into ww3"

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We are also hoping it doesn't turn into WWIII. It could for sure, but there is the possibility that things can calm down in a few years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Somme, part two: Rasputitsa

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

They also forget about the 4+1 treaty.

If Israel expands to other countries, it would draw Russia in on their side, and the US on Israel's

Which now also brings NK in. And we've got a multi front multi country war with two distinct fronts.

People might not call it WW3, but there's a world war coming straight ahead, and as good of a movie as it was, I dont want to recreate the Titanic

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It didn’t take long at all for WW1 to get rolling.

June 28, 1914 Archduke Francis Ferdinand is assassinated.

July 28, 1914 Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, beginning World War I

WW1 has an insane pace compared to WW2. Battles where a single day has casualty numbers that compare to an entire month past D-day.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

To me it looks like N Korea wanting to acquire some direct combat experience to continue to develop their skills and capabilities.

But yes, personally I was not expecting this.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Skill acquired: cannon fodder

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

They didn't start calling WWII what it is until 1944, but I think we can all agree it didn't start in 1944.
Just like later historians placed the start of WWII on multiple different events depending on which country you're in, the start of World War III will be long before we start calling it that.
I'm in the camp that the start of WW3 will be the Russian invasion of Ukraine if things continue to escalate the way they're going, because that's when you really started seeing lines being drawn between the axis and allies.
Russia, China, Iran, and NK are the most recognizable names that have aligned themselves with the axis so far.
The lines are already drawn and future events will dictate whether or not we're currently living in WW3 today.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, the winners will interprete who gets to be the axis and who gets to be the allies in history books...

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure Iran adopted "Axis of Resistance" already. Least they already know what side they are on.

Really getting sick of people deciding to just like...starting shit instead of focusing on constructive competitions like science or space races to other planets. Why do people feel the need to kill the shit out of each other and subjugate their population whilst climate change is bearing down on us? :p

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I am also sick to the core about this aspect of humanity. I feel that we as a species are just about developed enough to understand how a better world would look like, and how people should act, what's "the right thing to do" - and very much not developed enough to overcome our egoism and narcissism to make it happen, so we do the wrong thing despite knowing better far too often.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And some would argue that WW1 was WW2 and WW2 WAS WW3. The 7 years war/French and Indian (not French vs Indian) war are commonly referred to as the real first world war. And then the Nepoleonic wars are similarly thought of by some to have been a world war of sorts

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

WWI was called the great war, and the war to end all wars until WWII broke out. I sometimes call WWII just the great war part 2 - the treaties that "ended" WWI were clearly setup (on hindsight!) to make the war break out again in the future when Germany got sick of those treaties.

The point is names are added after the fact and often don't make a lot of sense if you know details.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

“This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years!”

Ferdinand Foch, 1921

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

He was right for the wrong reasons. He believed the treaty was too lenient, when in retrospect it seems pretty clear that the punitive nature of the treaty was a significant factor in Hitler rising to power and then WW2 starting.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

For sure, I know allll about that stuff (former history teacher)

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Not really, proxy wars have been fought with multiple nations before.

... practically everyone was in Syria... Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Qatar, The USA, ISIS, Al-queda, and Syrian forces.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Not exactly a proxy war when Russian troops are personally in Ukraine. That’s just a war.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The Korean War had over a million NATO troops and also tens of thousands of Soviet troops and, somehow, remained a proxy war. A particularly bloody one, but there was still no actual open full-scale warfare between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Even China and America remained officially at peace, despite making up the majority of the forces on each side

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Korean War was led by the UN. NATO wasn’t involved.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 3 points 2 months ago

Apologies, I was using "NATO troops" as a shorthand for the large number of countries involved rather than the specific command structure. You are right to bring that up

[–] Mechanize@feddit.it 8 points 2 months ago

Russia is actively in Syria from the end of 2015 as an official belligerent, it's not something new for Russia to fight directly while others use only proxies.

But I can see your point; still - officially - this is only a ~~three days~~ military operation. When that stance will finally change in the official channels, it will mean they can't hold the mask anymore.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

It’s not a proxy war between Russia and the US. It’s a proxy war between China and the US.

Russia and Ukraine are the pawns

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

To me, it does not seem wise to just let these two continue along this path, but I am certain there are numerous internet experts out there who can explain to me why we should not intervene.

[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 months ago (12 children)

How would you propose the intervention happen? Sit Kim down and say "bad boy, stop it"?

What can "the west" really do to prevent or stop troops from NK being sent to the Ukraine front?

Russia isn't going to stop them from crossing their border.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

But man, it really is starting to look like WW3

It looks more like Crimean War II to me.

[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The truth is, we don't fucking know. No expert would tell you that Russia is ready to invade Ukraine, and here we go.

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 4 points 2 months ago

Be careful here. Experts would tell you that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. However as you say Russia wasn't ready for it.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I wasn't even an expert but I knew they would do that just by distribution of military. Did not expect Civ 5 to be accurate, tho

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Pretty asymmetric that isn't it. On one side you have a nation that is rapidly running out of, well basically everything, and on the other side you've got an alliance of nation states which contain among many other things the largest most powerful military on the planet.

Finally the nation that is running out of resources is now getting military support from quite possibly the worst place they could get it from.

It's going to be one of those ridiculous situations that only happens in Civilization, where you're bombing cavemen with nukes because your adversary has failed to advance through the tech tree fast enough.

[–] bluGill@kbin.run 6 points 2 months ago

Unfortunately China is not running out of everything and they are looking like they might back Russia here. Iran is also backing Russia and not to be underestimated.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm wondering what Kim gets from this though?

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I honestly think he might legitimately believe that a couple platoons of NK soldiers will clear this whole mess right up and then the world will have to take them seriously.

The North Korean leadership is not exactly well known for their excellent grasp of reality.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

My thought is maybe either food or arms or research for arms production/nukes from the Russians.

Edit Addendum: the article says as much actually lol. This is what I get for just trying to get an idea of NK actions from the title.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)