this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
10 points (91.7% liked)

World News

32315 readers
1050 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Why does the United States get absolutely any say in a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, there meddling stopped the last peace deals, and this is really none of their buisness. Let Ukraine set there terms and negotiate for themselves.

[–] unlink@infosec.pub -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] wesley_cook@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Also its important to note this isnt about accepting its about starting talks, and once agian is the US setting terms

[–] ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] soulless@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (13 replies)