this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025

337 points (100.0% liked)

World News

41837 readers

6108 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.
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 10/19
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

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

337

Majority of western Europeans think Trump is threat to peace, survey finds (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

A YouGov poll in five Western European countries found majorities view Donald Trump as a threat to European peace, with concerns rising after he suspended military aid to Ukraine.

Most respondents oppose Kyiv’s exclusion from U.S.-Russia peace talks and doubt Europe alone could support Ukraine.

Support for increased defense spending remains limited, despite fears that Russia could attack again.

Proposals for European peacekeepers in Ukraine have mixed support. The survey highlights growing skepticism about U.S. commitments to NATO and European security.

top 33 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 7 points 41 minutes ago

Majority of western Europeans are paying attention, survey finds

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 11 points 1 hour ago

A minority of western Europeans are idiots.

[–] ghostrider2112@lemmy.world 56 points 3 hours ago

A majority of Western Europeans also have a better education than the majority of my fellow American citizens.

[–] Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 hours ago

If it was only peace lol.

He's a threat the very survival of the specie.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 24 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Most if us un the US too, probably.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 4 points 1 hour ago

Both supporters and opponents.

The supporters want violence. Us opponents see that he is pushing for it.

[–] ITguru@feddit.nl 6 points 2 hours ago

Hi guys, new here on lemmy. Just want to say FKUC Trump!

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

Read that as: Majority of Western Europeans suspect ocean of containing water.

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

"The great peacemaker" needs big wars so that he can eventually "make" a peace...

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Yet support for increased defense spending is limited. I guess there may be a change in attitudes once the Americans enact tarrifs against the EU and/or formally leave NATO.

[–] plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Most countries have announced increased defense spending with support across the political spectrum and EU defense stocks are one of the few safe havens left during this tariff nonsense. France has offered a nuclear umbrella to its neighbours. Poland is up to 5% GDP on defence. Not sure what you mean by limited support but maybe I misunderstand.

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago

I was referring to the survey results.

[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

They don't even have to leave NATO formally, just undermine confidence in article 5 enough that it's no longer a deterrent.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The US has always been the largest threat to world peace

[–] dufkm@lemmy.world 0 points 34 minutes ago

always

Even in July 1914? Interesting take.

[–] Tamei@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Breaking news, really. The dude who threatens to invade his allies is a threat to peace, bravo! If we keep up this pace with dealing with the situation, then we are doomed.

[+] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -28 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Most respondents oppose Kyiv’s exclusion from U.S.-Russia peace talks and doubt Europe alone could support Ukraine

I mean not only did Kyiv host peace talks that excluded Russia (thus came to nothing), but Zelenskyy outlawed talks with Putin so why is he complaining?

And yeah, Europe can’t defend Ukraine alone. The UK for example already sent basically their entire SPG fleet to Ukraine. 7 months ago, Poland had sent basically half of their SPGs to Ukraine. NATO‘s artillery fleet outside of the US is already gutted despite not being at war. France only have enough ammunition to last a few weeks in a bitter fight against Russia per France’s own calculations.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Russia has broken every treaty they have signed with Ukraine, why even bother after 20+ times?

[+] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -13 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (3 children)

I mean not really but Russia did violate some agreements but so did Ukraine.

Budapest Memorandum was made null and void when the US sanctioned Belarus which is explicitly prohibited in the agreement.

One can argue that Russian actions in 2014 violated the 1997 treaty on friendship.

Minsk II was made null and void after Ukraine not only refused to implement them but created laws that violated the spirit of the agreement and this is more or less the main reason 2022 invasion happened.

All the treaties except for the Minsk Agreements were basically made null and void following the 2014 coup.

Minsk I was violated by Russia almost immediately after it was made.

2003 treaty on Russian-Ukrainian border really only gave “legal basis for initiating the process of marking the Russia–Ukraine state border on the ground.”

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Budapest Memorandum was made null and void when the US sanctioned Belarus which is explicitly prohibited in the agreement

Oh you mean the one where Ukraine disarmed itself in exchange for sovereignty and protection and Russia armed up and got sanctioned for breaking the agreement. What a dumb fucking example.

The 1997 Treaty on Friendship was not renewed although one can argue that Russian actions in 2014 violated it.

One can argue? No Russia broke this agreement too.

Minsk II was made null and void after Ukraine not only refused to implement them but created laws that violated the spirit of the agreement.

All the treaties except for the Minsk Agreements were basically made null and void following the 2014 coup.

Minsk I was violated by Russia almost immediately after it was made.

Minsk Agreements had already been violated by Russian troops more than 4000 times, as noted by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense during a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Inter-Parliamentary Council. Ukrainians were shelled both from the temporarily occupied territories and from across the Russian border.

Russia has never honoured a single agreement with Ukraine, and has used each treaty to force Ukraine to weaken itself.

Fuck off.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

Oh you mean the one where Ukraine disarmed itself in exchange for sovereignty and protection and Russia armed up and got sanctioned for breaking the agreement. What a dumb fucking example.

No it isn't, US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement and America's only response was that the Memorandum is "not legally binding" and this action made it null and void in its entirety.

One can argue? No Russia broke this agreement too.

It depends if you consider null and void due to 2014 coup or not.

Minsk Agreements had already been violated by Russian troops more than 4000 times, as noted by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense during a meeting of the Ukraine-NATO Inter-Parliamentary Council. Ukrainians were shelled both from the temporarily occupied territories and from across the Russian border.

No Russian action undertaken under the Minsk II agreements ever violated the SPIRIT of the agreement. There were ceasefire violations but Russia never violated the spirit of the agreement.

It is for example, true that Russian-backed forces launched an offensive to capture a strategically important area but the fighting died down after 5 days when Minsk II came into effect when the area was captured and Russia also claimed that Minsk II did not apply to Debaltseve and Ukraine used similar arguments when launching their own operations into grey zones as you can see here:

"Yuriy Biriukov, an adviser to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, says that almost the entire "grey" zone in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, has been liberated from Russian-led forces without breaching the Minsk peace agreements and is under control of the Ukrainian army."

Zelenskyy on the other hand, refused to federalize the country despite Ukraine having the obligation to give eastern territories autonomy through federalizing the country because of the Minsk Agreements. Ukraine also had the obligation to uphold linguistic rights to ethnic minorities but violated the Minsk Agreements with the 2019 language law which didn’t outright ban the Russian language but did discriminate against those who did not speak Ukrainian or an EU language.

Fuck off.

Rude.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Your arguments in this thread are in bad faith.

For example treating the term "federalize" as if it's just a switch one can throw. If you actually know what federalization is, you would understand that the process takes massive legal effort, likely years, of alignment of legal processes.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Are they? Ukraine had many years to implement the Minsk agreement, Instead, Ukraine proceeded to implement new language laws which discriminated against the Russian language (going against the agreement), continued to imprison and torture political dissidents after the agreement was made as per Amnesty International which was also in violation of the Minsk Agreement which explicity stated that Ukraine was not allowed to imprison or punish people due to events related to the war in Donbas. Ukraine also refused to allow local elections.

"Ukraine insists that local elections can take place only after a complete ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops and weapons.

Clear violation of spirit of agreement as such Russian forces were necessary for protecting the autonomy of the people in the Donbas until Minsk implementation.

The entire agreement was Ukraine allows local elections, Russia withdraws then everyone’s happy. Russia can’t do its part if Ukraine doesn’t

[–] smokin_shinobi@lemmy.world 2 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

Fuck off, nobody here is buying your propaganda.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -1 points 37 minutes ago

Quite rude.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No it isn't, US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement and America's only response was that the Memorandum is "not legally binding" and this action made it null and void in its entirety.

Ukraine followed the agreement and disarmed itself, Russia did not and actually armed up, you skipped that part... Russia was also forbidden to continue military actions and they did anyway. (This included the illegal occupation of Crimea, followed by a falsified gun-point referendum. By doing this, Russia completely disregarded its obligations to respect Ukrainian borders and independence).

It depends if you consider null and void due to 2014 coup or not.

It depends? One can argue? Do you want to commit here or just dance around the point

No Russian action undertaken under the Minsk II agreements ever violated the SPIRIT of the agreement. While you can claim they technically violated the agreement, they did not violate the spirit of the agreement as both sides generally observed the cease fire aside form the occasional shelling from both sides.

The spirit of the agreement? What the fuck are you talking about... They broke the agreement thousands of times.

Rude.

Fuck you, fuck off and fuck Russia.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Ukraine followed the agreement and disarmed itself, Russia did not and actually armed up, you skipped that part…

Nothing in the Budapest Memorandum forced Russia to disarm itself.

Russia was also forbidden to continue military actions and they did anyway. (This included the illegal occupation of Crimea, followed by a falsified gun-point referendum. By doing this, Russia completely disregarded its obligations to respect Ukrainian borders and independence).

Such actions were undertaken after US sanctioned Belarus in 2013 in violation of the agreement thus it was already by that point, null and void in its entirety.

It depends? One can argue? Do you want to commit here or just dance around the point

If you want my opinion, the 2014 coup made all previous agreements null and void. I mean the coup happened because snipers part of the maidan movement shot their own protestors as a false flag resulting in Yanukovych's regime's downfall.

The spirit of the agreement? What the fuck are you talking about… They broke the agreement thousands of times.

According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense....

Nonetheless, no Russian actions ever broken the spirit of the agreement. Minsk II was supposed to bring peace to Ukraine by providing more autonomy to regions with large ethnic minority populations, ceasefire violations committed by both sides does not violate the spirit of the agreement.

The entire agreement was Ukraine allows local elections, Russia withdraws then everyone’s happy. Russia can’t do its part if Ukraine doesn’t.

Fuck you, fuck off and fuck Russia.

Again, rude.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

You argue in such bad faith. You also just appeared on Lemmy to spread misinformation and it's clear that everyone here realises that.

So to continue this would just give you more opportunities to spread your bullshit, so I'm going to just block you and move on.

Also fuck you and fuck off back to reddit.

[–] AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Account created just today and spouting mostly russian propaganda. Fuck outta here dumbass.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Migrated here from Reddit. Also spouting anti-Trump statements.

[–] Noite_Etion@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Lol. Like they are mutually exclusive.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Absolutely wild equivocations made here. "One could argue" Yes, one could argue that invading another country could violate a peace treaty... I hope you're trolling and not really this cooked.

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280401fbb

It was not "explicitly prohibited" by the agreement. Stop spreading misinformation. This is a quick read to find out how obviously wrong you are.

Your language alone is suspicious. "Budapest Memorandum WAS made null and void" for something that wasn't disallowed by the agreement. Meanwhile, "One can argue that Russian actions (passive language) on 2014" for something that was EXPLICITLY forbidden.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.world -2 points 2 hours ago

It was not “explicitly prohibited” by the agreement. Stop spreading misinformation. This is a quick read to find out how obviously wrong you are.

Yes it was,

"Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind."

Try again.

Meanwhile, “One can argue that Russian actions (passive language) on 2014” for something that was EXPLICITLY forbidden.

It depends if you consider it null and void due to 2014 coup. If you don't, it was in violation of that agreement.