“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.

  • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn’t the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.

    • Tretiak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a huge irony that sits at heart of the American ideological system that never dawns on most people.

      If you read the history of the modern university system in the US, one thing that’s worth highlighting was when ‘area studies’ effectively got banned. That’s stuff like Russian and Eastern Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, etc. There are still a couple of exceptions in places like Yale or Harvard, but they were largely disbanded due to the efforts of social scientists that deemed them ‘unscientific’. And yet it’s ironic, because if you really have ever gotten the chance to speak with a lot of foreigners, one thing that comes through is the level of shock or pause when they ultimately discover that most of the closed minds in the American intellectual sphere are ‘liberal’ minds.

      In theory, America is a perfectly free and open society. In practice, it’s an open society with a closed mind. American intellectuals don’t listen to the rest of the world. The elite wisdom essentially believes that only societies which adopt the American model and copy American style, western liberal values, can really succeed. Really cuts against the whole grain of ‘diversity’.

      Contrast that with China for instance, in the foreign policy sphere. Whatever else you think about the CCP, in commerce or military operations or multilateral institutions, in dealing with them, one doesn’t walk away with the impression they’re trying to ‘make you Chinese’. They aren’t trying to export Chinese Communist Party values to the Taliban. They aren’t demanding you adopt gay rights. They aren’t asking you to adopt their authoritarian model of governance, etc. Sure, you can point to things like the Uyghurs as an exception. But then again, ask an Iraqi, ask a Libyan, ask a Cuban, ask a Guatemalan, etc. Liberals love to proselytize their own ideas to the ends of the Earth, even when it means military action, but can barely tolerate a domestic Christian missionary in their own neighborhood.

      It always reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew’s brilliant refutation of liberal western nonsense.

      • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at. If you really don’t want China it doesn’t have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?

        • soulless@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is this really true though? A neutral third party would not supply weapons or have any economic incentive to the outcome of the conflict, which China plainly does have. I’m not saying the US or really any NATO country is in a better position, however saying China is only interested in peace and are a neutral third party is disingenuous.

          And as to what Blinken is saying, that’s something Ukraine has been saying since the invasion began. Sure it’s not his place, however if you interpret it charitably, it could also be construed as supporting the stance of your ally in the face of pressure towards an agreement they don’t really want.

          • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Please enlighten me both on what the PRCs economic and Weapon selling intrests lie, because as far as I can tell they have not supplied any weapons, and the only economic action if you can even call it that, that the PRC has taken was not play along with US Sanctions. I would also like to hear who you think would be a better medator, because contrary to popular belief I too would like this conflict to come to a quick and diplomatic solution, the less deaths, the less destroyed homes the better.

            Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more, it has lost that ability quite a while ago by virtue of its actions on the geopolitical stage, This whole thing would read different if it was a genaric “The United States backes Ukrainians position in this negotiation” but that would ofcorse require negotiations to be happening, negotiations that are not at present happening. This is a very clear, position the US is taking and “Strongly Sugesting” Ukraine adopt aswell.

            • soulless@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Please enlighten me

              China has supplied drones and more than likely advanced technology like semi-conductors and equipment meant for operating radar systems/weapons guidance and similar. Some of this is not “official” support, in the sense that civilian Chinese companies are supplying drones, however this is certainly being used for military purposes within Ukraine. Whether or not this can be proven 100% is less important, since the appearance of bias is as detrimental to neutrality as actual bias.

              With regards to the economic incentive, Chinese trade has increased by 30% since the invasion began, making China by far the most important trading partner for Russia.

              Now, I am making no judgement as to the morality of this and I am certainly not making any pro US arguments, I am just pointing out that painting China as a neutral part here is disingenuous, they absolutely have interests that align more closely with their good friend and trading partner Russia vs. helping Ukraine and the rest of Europe reach any goals they might have.

              Second I don’t see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more

              That’s fine and I understand the sentiment (although as a rhetorical device, I find the “principle of charity” to be worthwhile and helpful towards mutual understanding), however I don’t think this makes either Russia or China any better - they just might all be a bunch of evil bastards :)

                • soulless@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I would ask them, but I would guess a delegation from the African Union or possibly a south american coalition would be as close to neutral as can be.

        • pleasemakesense@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it’s troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn’t, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn’t that meddling in the war?

          • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            They say they want peace and are willing to hold talks, I am mot sure what your getting at, in no war ever has the beginning of peace talks been the cesation of the war, and how the war ends is determined by said peace talks, talks that of right bow are not happening.

            Now if you are trying to argue that the mere act of trying to hold peace talks or offering to hold peace talks, or holding peace talks is taking a position in the war? I dont think we need to inform Switzerland that they have infact never been nutral in any conflict they mediated.

            As for what China wants, they have stated all they want is peace many times, they do not have a horse in the race on who gets what, that makes them the ideal mediators.

              • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The end goal is the cessation of the war, but the fighting contenues untill a cesefire or peace treaty is negotiated and signed, and the war contenues untill said treaty is signed. A sad truth of war is while diplomats are haggling over words on a page the fighting still contues, the war ends when the negotiations end.