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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
Then I agian ask you, who would you put as a better option for the host and medator of these talks?
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.