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.
No that’s not what I was trying to say. Almost the exact opposite.
I think, perhaps, we’re talking past one another.
I was clearly not referring to any US anti-fascism movement or to anyone who wanted to intervene earlier to stop Hitler. I’m fairly sure I clarified that I am not sympathetic to Nazis. I wish they had never got a foothold and I wish they were stopped sooner.
I was referring to those in the US who materially and ideologically supported the fascists. If they had not got involved, the Nazis may not have got a foothold and they may have been stopped sooner.
The US did eventually help to end the war and defeat the Nazi party’s rule. Commendable stuff.
The US state was motivated by a desire to stop the Soviets at Berlin, however, rather than to stop fascism. After the war, in the same spirit, the US intervened to rescue Nazis and install them in positions of power as a bulwark against communism. Rescuing ‘ex’-Nazis and giving them command of NATO forces was a bad idea.
I thought this was clear in what I wrote before, but I see how some of it was implied rather than explicit.
How could you possibly expect anyone to gleam “By my very narrow and specific definition of what ‘getting into the war’ means… somethingsomething the people who were against the American Nazis who wanted to aid the German Nazis were right?” out of what you wrote???
At either rate, yes we’re in agreement there. That’s not anything like the argument that this thread was about though.
Removed by mod
No that’s not what I was trying to say. Almost the exact opposite.
I think, perhaps, we’re talking past one another.
I was clearly not referring to any US anti-fascism movement or to anyone who wanted to intervene earlier to stop Hitler. I’m fairly sure I clarified that I am not sympathetic to Nazis. I wish they had never got a foothold and I wish they were stopped sooner.
I was referring to those in the US who materially and ideologically supported the fascists. If they had not got involved, the Nazis may not have got a foothold and they may have been stopped sooner.
The US did eventually help to end the war and defeat the Nazi party’s rule. Commendable stuff.
The US state was motivated by a desire to stop the Soviets at Berlin, however, rather than to stop fascism. After the war, in the same spirit, the US intervened to rescue Nazis and install them in positions of power as a bulwark against communism. Rescuing ‘ex’-Nazis and giving them command of NATO forces was a bad idea.
I thought this was clear in what I wrote before, but I see how some of it was implied rather than explicit.
How could you possibly expect anyone to gleam “By my very narrow and specific definition of what ‘getting into the war’ means… somethingsomething the people who were against the American Nazis who wanted to aid the German Nazis were right?” out of what you wrote???
At either rate, yes we’re in agreement there. That’s not anything like the argument that this thread was about though.