Unfortunately can't read the article without accepting cookies, but the exerpt you shared is indeed poignant and mirrors my own thinking recently. Nothing about the current global climate is encouraging.
this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
World News
24692 readers
4 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I have rather strong online hygiene myself and several Firefox add-ons such as NoScript, already behind Mullvad. The Guardian works fine for me. If you're locked down even harder, that's of course your choice, but it seems odd that you'd block cookies from a nonprofit.
Its not the nonprofit whose cookies I am worried about, it is their ~~135~~ 133 partners. I'm also using no script and a hardened Firefox - perhaps you've just accepted the guardian's cookies?
One of my add-ons is the one that bypasses cookie requests. Sets it strictly to first-party. NoScript handles the rest of my concerns.
Interesting, I wonder how thats working under the hood with the guardian since their subscription model determines which cookies you can decline
what if you try your browser's reader mode?
If you're on Firefox, Ctrl + Alt + R (reader mode) can bypass most nagging pop-ups.
Yeah that works, thanks
The thing that pisses me off the most these days is Westerners thinking the "rules-based" order ever mattered. It's not in retreat because there were never rules protecting small states from oppression by stronger actors; it was just out of sight from Westerners until 2022.
In Gaza the world has watched as a blockade on food, aid and medical supplies, in defiance of binding orders by the international court of justice (ICJ), has now entered into its third month. Israel, in search of security, has in the past month bombed Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. It is daily urging the US to be given permission to bomb Iran.
Yeah the only new part is that they're looking to pick a direct fight with Iran. Own this shit already you pussies.
You are wrong that it never mattered. It failed in some cases but in others it didn't. And it is always something that activists could embarrass governments with. In some countries, it is even something that can be used to force a government to do stuff. It is a political space and we'll miss it when it's gone.
...but there is now a clarity across Europe, and not just in Paris, that regardless of Vance’s reassurance, Europe has to have the capability to operate autonomously of the US. Trump is self-evidently not reliable, and his benign assessment of Putin’s intentions is not shared.
Planning for a European reassurance force in Ukraine is under way, as is planning for a potential Russian attack on Europe. Since February, France and the UK, through a combined joint expeditionary force, have formed the nucleus of that planning, but this has broadened, with new political leadership increasingly coming from four members of the Weimar+ group: Poland, France, Germany and the UK.
Honestly, I think Europe's disillusionment with us will be better for them in the long run. The fact that they were waiting on Biden to take the lead in Ukraine, whose fecklessness over lending credence to Russia's prima facie bogus claim of the war being US vs Russia made him hold back many strategic options from Ukraine, meant that they were also not thinking about what Russia's aggression meant for them, and reacting accordingly.
I think the original purpose of Article 5 (in terms of US intervening vs Russia) has probably been dead for a couple decades now, and it's good that Europe won't be finding that out when Russian troops are rolling in, and the US backs off.
Starting the post with 'Blinken said this' or 'Blinken said that' is not exactly a great way to start because Blinken belongs in the Hague in chains for abetting crimes against humanity.
Any other war criminals you'd like to quote in your intro OP?
Committing thread necromancy a month in with an ad hominem is not exactly a great way to start because it violates Beehaw's community ethos.
Not an ad hom. Delivery and style of messaging is fair game in debates is it not, as long as I dont go after your character. And it came up in my feed. What can you do. There are no rules on "necro"ing are there.
I think you're just sore that I think quoting Blinken is .. problematic to put it mildly. Take my feedback or leave it, its all the same to me buddy.
I'd kindly remind you to look at the baseline expectation for this instance. You are not following it. Doubling down again here is not the right call.
OK, well you know the drill Pete, report it, get a mod to study our exchange, and get it handled. I'm ready to be judged.
Do you really think I'm not a mod? I try to point newcomers toward the Beehaw ethos ahead of going to accusations.