- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/1439031
You must log in or # to comment.
Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Spiegel Online (Der Spiegel) is rated with High Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.
Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: Germany
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiegel-online/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.Well they are using NATO weapons against Russia so alls fair.
Sending weapons to help defend against an illegal Invasion and genocide is different from supporting an illegal Invasion and genocide. Should Sweden have sent weapons to Germany in 1941 after the US started sending weapons to the UK?
I didn’t say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn’t change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.
So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.
It’s war, fairness doesn’t come into it.
As for whether it’s an escalation, you’re right that it’s not.
Ok, fair enough, but then would it have been fair for Sweden to do so if they had not declared themselves neutral? The US was neutral too. Was it unfair for the US to send weapons to the UK or Ukraine? I would argue that it wasn’t, because of the ethics of defending countries from outside attack, and upholding international law.
So then, what is the basis of “fair”? Ethics? International law? Statements by Kim? Statements by Biden?
I mean, I pointed out why the ethics argue against it, and for international law, Russia’s importation of weapons from North Korea violate multiple UN Security Council resolutions.
Kim’s statements don’t seem to justify this, since Kim has not made any outright statements about Ukraine, and has only pledged to supply weapons to Russia for “defence against aggression”, which does not match Russia’s situation. NK is basically saying they’re neutral, and then sending weapons to Ukraine, which doesn’t seem very fair.
Biden definitely isn’t ok with NK sending weapons, and his administration has denounced North Korea’s involvement and pointed out that is illegal under international law.
No party has made any statements justifying North Korea sending weapons to Ukraine, so I can hardly see how it’s fair.
I find it funny that you’re using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.
NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN’s approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.
So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.
So you’re equating the 10 year-long invasion of Ukraine, complete with attacks on civilian targets, torture, and genocide, with the NATO airstrikes on the Yugoslav military during the Kosovo War?
OK russkiy.
No. I’m equating Russia ignoring the UN Security Counsel with NATO ignoring the UN Security Counsel. And resorting to name calling just means you have nothing to use in this conversation.
How far will they go before completely shaking apart? In meters?
They may not be that bad. 7 cylinder engines with 5 valves per engine. Front engine, camshaft at the trunk. Revolutionary
Were there also NK soldiers? Or they just gave them the vehicles?
I can’t find anything on actual NK forces being deployed. Another user linked an article in English and near the end it postulates that this is sort of a win-win for NK that they can help their ally while gathering test data for the vehicles
if you have to source your war machines from DPRK… you might be losing
Official and recognized military taxonomists insist that a vehicle doesn’t count as a tank unless it’s classified manuals and specs have been leaked in the World of Tanks forums.
It’s not a tank unless it comes from the Tank region of France. Otherwise it’s a sparkling armored vehicle.
*Warthunder
I’m sure there is a difference between warthunder and world of tanks. Next time I’m flying DCS, I’ll ask around if anybody has kids that play them.
Well, the main difference is Warthunder is the place where the classified stuff is being leaked
Oh yes you’re a big tough adult playing video games!
Grow the fuck I’m, playing a more in-depth simulation doesn’t make you a more mature or better person.
Technically they’re Bulsae-4 antitank missile carriers according to Forbes.
Basically 8 TOW missiles on a wheeled BTR. Probably extremely vulnerable to ukrainian drone strikes.
Western journalists when any vehicle has the slightest amount of armour: it’s a tank!
Anyway, this is sad and hilarious. The “second-best military in the world”, everyone!
“Panzer” is a general term in German, meaning armoured vehicle, not limited to main battle tanks (Kampfpanzer) mistranslations are thus exceedingly common.
This in particular is a Raketenjagdpanzer meaning a Jagdpanzer (hunting tank) armed with missiles, not to be confused with the more general category Panzerjäger (tank hunter) which is any vehicle that hunts tanks, not just armoured ones, and not just ground vehicles, and not just vehicles but also units. That is, Jagdpanzer are Panzerjäger which are themselves Panzer.
Some Anglos also get their standard issue underwear in a twist if you call the Gepard a flak tank – that’s quite literally its official designation in German: Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard, short FlakPz Gepard, more or less literally “flight offwarding cannon tank”. An “Infantry fighting vehicle”, fuzzy term if I’ve ever seen one (in Ukraine that can mean a Hillux) is a Schützenpanzer, “marksmen tank”.
IMO those translation errors shouldn’t be corrected, they can only clean up English terminology.
