this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
177 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56907 readers
1761 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There have recently been direct annexation threats against Canada.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Not by anybody NATO would get into a fight with.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The point is to make belligerents back down by raising the cost they'd have to pay by carrying through.

This particular belligerent backs down so often that there's a special acronym for it, so NATO's a perfectly good protective tool here.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I strongly doubt the reason Trump backed down from the 51st state thing was NATO militaries. Again, no member of NATO was ever going to actually fight America for Canada. They (the European side at least; no way Turkey was getting involved) would've retaliated, but those ways, being non-military, have nothing to do with NATO.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Trump hasn't backed down from the 51st state thing permanently, he just gets distracted. Trump is deep into dementia and one of the things that results in is obsessions that simply cannot be let go of. The 51st state thing will keep coming back, just like the Greenland thing.

What stops him is that even though he managed to ensure that there are no adults in the room this time around to rein him in like last time he was in office, even the children in the room that he's surrounded himself with realize that this is a terrible idea.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Trump hasn't backed down from the 51st state thing permanently, he just gets distracted.

Maybe not permanently, but definitely for the foreseeable future. If you'll remember, Trump's official line on the 51st state business is that he will not force the issue militarily. This is as opposed to Greenland, where he has said no such thing. In effect he has backed down, because he's ruled out the one thing that could even plausibly make it happen.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago

His most recent official line.

The next thing out of his mouth could be completely different and that will become the official line at that point. He only sticks to any sort of agreement or position for as long as it benefits him, not one second longer than that.