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.
(edit) - Wow it’s only been like 24 hours since I’ve been on Lemmy and I’ve been in arguments with and been down voted by tankies and fascist supporters.
There were plenty of people back in the day that said the U.S. should stay out of Europe and the Pacific. That we should just let the Nazis and Japan do what they pleased. Those people were either cowards or traitors.
In the end, it’s clear one country is the aggressor and must be stopped before they wipe out the other. Your argument boils down to “nah, fuck them Ukranians, let them die because Putin wants it”. Nope.
It’s Putin’s war. He can end it when he likes by getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
I recommend reading this book produced by US military, it makes it pretty clear that allies played a minor role in WW2. USSR was who defeated the nazis:
a few quotes from it
Meanwhile, calling this Putin’s war is an incredibly reductionist. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
What’s going to happen in the end is that US is going to stop funding the coup regime in Ukraine just like they stopped propping up their puppet regimes in Vietnam and Afghanistan. This is likely to happen soon because election season is coming up, and Biden isn’t going to want to have this debacle hanging over him. At that point the war will be over. It’s absolutely stunning to see that grown ass adults can’t understand this.
Or, we’ll bolster Ukraine’s military until they kick the shit out of the pathetic remains of Russia, they’ll rise up and kill Putin, and then struggle for the next few decades to get out of the dark ages that Putin sent them back into.
In the end I don’t really give a shit what a tankie bot account has to say, so have a day.
The US was involved in WWII from the beginning. They were just on the side of the Nazis. The State only intervened openly in the end to prevent the spread of communism. Then they made sure to rescue as many Nazis as possible and put them in positions of power in West Germany, the EU, and NATO, etc.
Since that war, the US has been doing ‘what they pleased’, exactly what the Nazis and what Japan would’ve done. To this day the US tortures, runs concentration camps, and brutally oppresses billions of people around the world.
Those who argued for the US to stay out were right then, and are still right today.
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.
I have 2 quick questions 1 how can “Tankies” communists, Marxist Lenninists, The most anti-Facist folks you will ever meet facist supporters?
Second how exactly is this Putin’s war, as far as I can tell it is Ukraine who violated the Minsk accords for years and that was the inciting incident for this whole thing, now if you could show me how I am wrong I am all ears, but I feel it is irresponsible to pin an entire war on the president of a nation, let alone the one who did not violate the previous agreement
(edit) - Wow it’s only been like 24 hours since I’ve been on Lemmy and I’ve been in arguments with and been down voted by tankies and fascist supporters.
There were plenty of people back in the day that said the U.S. should stay out of Europe and the Pacific. That we should just let the Nazis and Japan do what they pleased. Those people were either cowards or traitors.
In the end, it’s clear one country is the aggressor and must be stopped before they wipe out the other. Your argument boils down to “nah, fuck them Ukranians, let them die because Putin wants it”. Nope.
It’s Putin’s war. He can end it when he likes by getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
I recommend reading this book produced by US military, it makes it pretty clear that allies played a minor role in WW2. USSR was who defeated the nazis:
a few quotes from it
Meanwhile, calling this Putin’s war is an incredibly reductionist. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
What’s going to happen in the end is that US is going to stop funding the coup regime in Ukraine just like they stopped propping up their puppet regimes in Vietnam and Afghanistan. This is likely to happen soon because election season is coming up, and Biden isn’t going to want to have this debacle hanging over him. At that point the war will be over. It’s absolutely stunning to see that grown ass adults can’t understand this.
Or, we’ll bolster Ukraine’s military until they kick the shit out of the pathetic remains of Russia, they’ll rise up and kill Putin, and then struggle for the next few decades to get out of the dark ages that Putin sent them back into.
In the end I don’t really give a shit what a tankie bot account has to say, so have a day.
Can’t wait to see what tune you’ll be singing next year when your regime abandons Ukraine.
deleted by creator
If by that you mean Ukraine losing a bunch of people and equipment to accomplish nothing then sure.
deleted by creator
Yeah, you can wake me up when that happens. Oh and just so everyone can be clear on who your friends are https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/05/27/stvi-m27.html
deleted by creator
The US was involved in WWII from the beginning. They were just on the side of the Nazis. The State only intervened openly in the end to prevent the spread of communism. Then they made sure to rescue as many Nazis as possible and put them in positions of power in West Germany, the EU, and NATO, etc.
Since that war, the US has been doing ‘what they pleased’, exactly what the Nazis and what Japan would’ve done. To this day the US tortures, runs concentration camps, and brutally oppresses billions of people around the world.
Those who argued for the US to stay out were right then, and are still right today.
Gotcha, we’ll put you down in the “should have let the Nazis win” column then.
I think you’ve seriously misunderstood what I said.
Removed by mod
I’m really struggling to see how you have interpreted support for the Nazis from this comment.
Nevertheless, this is clearly an unconstructive conversation, so I shall end it here.
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.
I have 2 quick questions 1 how can “Tankies” communists, Marxist Lenninists, The most anti-Facist folks you will ever meet facist supporters?
Second how exactly is this Putin’s war, as far as I can tell it is Ukraine who violated the Minsk accords for years and that was the inciting incident for this whole thing, now if you could show me how I am wrong I am all ears, but I feel it is irresponsible to pin an entire war on the president of a nation, let alone the one who did not violate the previous agreement