342
submitted 5 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 27 points 4 days ago

I don't understand how shit like this does not already warrant to enact article 5. Russia sends literal sabotage units to us to physically destroy shit, as well as assassination squads to murder people. Those are and should be seen as direct attacks to our countries.

[-] cheddar@programming.dev 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Because nobody wants to start WWIII. And you shouldn't want that too.

[-] TheDorkfromYork@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

Sink one Russian warship per attack. Russia doesnt seem to mind losing ships.

[-] federalreverse@feddit.org 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

What would be the benefit of open war against Russia, especially if NATO were to start it? I see absolutely nothing.

There's a lot of room for additional sanctions against Russia too. The EU is still importing fossil gas and nuclear fuel, for example. Countries like Cyprus and the UK can probably still freeze additional Russian funds. [...]

[-] jumjummy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

The best sanctions we could impose is a complete shutdown of all of Russia’s Internet access. You’d see massive reduction in disinformation across the web.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 5 points 4 days ago

How would NATO start it after Russia repeatedly attacked us?!

[-] federalreverse@feddit.org 6 points 4 days ago

Russia emits misinformation, Russia attacks through Interwebs, Russia employs espionage, Russia sabotages. But Russia has not performed a full-scale military attack on any NATO country. And unless they do, in the eye of any onlooker, NATO would be the one to start the altercation.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io -1 points 4 days ago

When would you say the Russian invasion of Ukraine started?

[-] federalreverse@feddit.org 5 points 4 days ago

Ukraine is not a NATO country, for better or worse. (It's anyone's guess whether Russia would have attacked Ukraine if they were a NATO member.)

[-] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I like not having to survive a nuclear apocalypse, thank you.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io -4 points 4 days ago

Better than the slow cooking & societal collapse through climate change.

[-] CAVOK@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

WhAt ArE yOu TaLkiNg AbOuT FaLlOuT76 was great!

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 days ago

because politics, that would anger china and we've made the absolutely galaxybrained decision to make ourselves basically entirely reliant upon that one country to survive :)))

[-] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

More like because Russia still has nukes.

this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
342 points (98.9% liked)

Europe

576 readers
812 users here now

News, interesting stories, and beautiful pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

Spiritual successor to !europe@feddit.de.

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain)

Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures.

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other. (E.g., no direct insults against each other.)
  2. No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  3. No links to mis-information.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS