U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken says the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms. Blinken said in Finland on Friday that heeding calls from Russia and others for negotiations now would result in a false “Potemkin peace” that wouldn’t secure Ukraine’s sovereignty and or enhance European security. He argued that a cease-fire allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to consolidate control over the territory he has seized, and rest, rearm, and re-attack" would not bring "a just and lasting peace.” Kyiv has given confusing signals about whether a counteroffensive is coming or already underway.
“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.
From what I understand, that’s the idea. They are just affirming the Ukrainian position and are saying hey, we won’t withhold support and force you into a peace agreement where Ukraine would concede land to Russia despite not wanting to
Except that isnt what was said what was said is that the United States will reject any peace treaty that does not include total Russian withdrawal, they are not just giving support in general, or to a point in particular, but dictating a term. This is a conflict that offically the US is not a party to and as such the US should not be making statements like this. Agian in my opinion it should not go farther than “The United States supports Ukraine in their efforrs for peace, and for all reasonable terms they put forward” if they go farther and they wanted to show it in support it would have been “As stated before, The United States suports the Ukrainian position, including the one mentioned by [offical X] on [Day y] that any peace would include total Russian withdrawl” given nither happened, it can only be taken as the US dictating terms for a thing that they have no buisness or right setting terms for
Actually that’s basically what it says in the first paragraph
the United States and its allies should not support a cease-fire or peace talks to end the war in Ukraine until Kyiv gains strength and can negotiate on its own terms
Basically saying Ukraine won’t be pressured to accept a peace deal until they’re in a stronger position
First I dont see what there suport has to do with anything, and that is why I did not mention it, and second that is what the job of a meadeator country is for, right now the PRC has been offering but someone sugessted an African Union nation or a nation from south America, to ensure both sides get heard. That is couched language to discurage peace, Russia has indicated its willingness to talk. The longer they wait the more people die.
First of all, my suggestion was that it’d be up to them. If Ukraine and Russia are OK with PRC acting as mediator that’s really all there is to it. My point was that PRC aren’t necessarily neutral.
Secondly, a peace doesn’t necessarily mean less people dead in the long run, Russia has shown how little regard they have for civilian lives, and their imperialistic posturing begs the question as to who would be next? Moldova perhaps?
As an allegory, consider that you have a neighbour who believes he should be entitled to taking the eldest of your three children and half of your house. Would a good mediator then suggest that your neighbour should only get 25% of your house and perhaps your youngest child? I think not, and I think that’s more or less the position Ukraine has when it comes to their territorial integrity. I’m sure they’re open to debate NATO membership as well as keeping Sevastopol open, but they have been rather firm that they will not discuss any option involving concession of land to Russia, and I don’t think you, the PRC or anyone else are in a position to judge them for that.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
I am a bit worried that you’re not arguing in good faith, since I struggle to see how anyone can believe that Ukraine was the one to break the various points agreed upon in Minsk II. In fact a major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that they’re not even a party, so how Ukraine could have somehow broken an agreement towards a country who by their own words aren’t a party demands some leaps in logic that I struggle to follow.
Since I don’t see us agreeing on even basic facts, I’d just like to thank you for the discussion and leave it at that.
It’s hard for me to discuss something when it seems like we can’t even agree on basic facts.
Ukraine being the aggressor due to breaking the Minsk agreement is just so far from what I perceive as reality that I’m not even sure what kinds of mental gymnastics I would have to perform to even understand your basic assumptions.
Did not Russia deny even being a party to the agreement, which in turn was a major blockage for its success? How can someone who by their own words are not even a party be wronged or have their hands forced into action? And if they’re a outside third party to the conflict, how is Russia interfering any different from say France interfering or even the US?
I think we’re so far apart not only in what we see as facts, but also our reasons for engaging in discussion that I think I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you for the discussion, and have a pleasant evening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
Look, Russia was a signitory, and therefor a party to the agreement. There where 4 parties Russia, Dontesk Luhansk, and Ukraine, and 3 mediators, how can you say Russia was not a party, it LITERALY signed the treaty
From what I understand, that’s the idea. They are just affirming the Ukrainian position and are saying hey, we won’t withhold support and force you into a peace agreement where Ukraine would concede land to Russia despite not wanting to
Except that isnt what was said what was said is that the United States will reject any peace treaty that does not include total Russian withdrawal, they are not just giving support in general, or to a point in particular, but dictating a term. This is a conflict that offically the US is not a party to and as such the US should not be making statements like this. Agian in my opinion it should not go farther than “The United States supports Ukraine in their efforrs for peace, and for all reasonable terms they put forward” if they go farther and they wanted to show it in support it would have been “As stated before, The United States suports the Ukrainian position, including the one mentioned by [offical X] on [Day y] that any peace would include total Russian withdrawl” given nither happened, it can only be taken as the US dictating terms for a thing that they have no buisness or right setting terms for
Actually that’s basically what it says in the first paragraph
Basically saying Ukraine won’t be pressured to accept a peace deal until they’re in a stronger position
Also its important to note this isnt about accepting its about starting talks, and once agian is the US setting terms
First I dont see what there suport has to do with anything, and that is why I did not mention it, and second that is what the job of a meadeator country is for, right now the PRC has been offering but someone sugessted an African Union nation or a nation from south America, to ensure both sides get heard. That is couched language to discurage peace, Russia has indicated its willingness to talk. The longer they wait the more people die.
First of all, my suggestion was that it’d be up to them. If Ukraine and Russia are OK with PRC acting as mediator that’s really all there is to it. My point was that PRC aren’t necessarily neutral.
Secondly, a peace doesn’t necessarily mean less people dead in the long run, Russia has shown how little regard they have for civilian lives, and their imperialistic posturing begs the question as to who would be next? Moldova perhaps?
As an allegory, consider that you have a neighbour who believes he should be entitled to taking the eldest of your three children and half of your house. Would a good mediator then suggest that your neighbour should only get 25% of your house and perhaps your youngest child? I think not, and I think that’s more or less the position Ukraine has when it comes to their territorial integrity. I’m sure they’re open to debate NATO membership as well as keeping Sevastopol open, but they have been rather firm that they will not discuss any option involving concession of land to Russia, and I don’t think you, the PRC or anyone else are in a position to judge them for that.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
I am a bit worried that you’re not arguing in good faith, since I struggle to see how anyone can believe that Ukraine was the one to break the various points agreed upon in Minsk II. In fact a major blockage has been Russia’s insistence that they’re not even a party, so how Ukraine could have somehow broken an agreement towards a country who by their own words aren’t a party demands some leaps in logic that I struggle to follow.
Since I don’t see us agreeing on even basic facts, I’d just like to thank you for the discussion and leave it at that.
It’s hard for me to discuss something when it seems like we can’t even agree on basic facts.
Ukraine being the aggressor due to breaking the Minsk agreement is just so far from what I perceive as reality that I’m not even sure what kinds of mental gymnastics I would have to perform to even understand your basic assumptions.
Did not Russia deny even being a party to the agreement, which in turn was a major blockage for its success? How can someone who by their own words are not even a party be wronged or have their hands forced into action? And if they’re a outside third party to the conflict, how is Russia interfering any different from say France interfering or even the US?
I think we’re so far apart not only in what we see as facts, but also our reasons for engaging in discussion that I think I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you for the discussion, and have a pleasant evening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements Look, Russia was a signitory, and therefor a party to the agreement. There where 4 parties Russia, Dontesk Luhansk, and Ukraine, and 3 mediators, how can you say Russia was not a party, it LITERALY signed the treaty