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.
While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn’t the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.
There’s a huge irony that sits at heart of the American ideological system that never dawns on most people.
If you read the history of the modern university system in the US, one thing that’s worth highlighting was when ‘area studies’ effectively got banned. That’s stuff like Russian and Eastern Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, etc. There are still a couple of exceptions in places like Yale or Harvard, but they were largely disbanded due to the efforts of social scientists that deemed them ‘unscientific’. And yet it’s ironic, because if you really have ever gotten the chance to speak with a lot of foreigners, one thing that comes through is the level of shock or pause when they ultimately discover that most of the closed minds in the American intellectual sphere are ‘liberal’ minds.
In theory, America is a perfectly free and open society. In practice, it’s an open society with a closed mind. American intellectuals don’t listen to the rest of the world. The elite wisdom essentially believes that only societies which adopt the American model and copy American style, western liberal values, can really succeed. Really cuts against the whole grain of ‘diversity’.
Contrast that with China for instance, in the foreign policy sphere. Whatever else you think about the CCP, in commerce or military operations or multilateral institutions, in dealing with them, one doesn’t walk away with the impression they’re trying to ‘make you Chinese’. They aren’t trying to export Chinese Communist Party values to the Taliban. They aren’t demanding you adopt gay rights. They aren’t asking you to adopt their authoritarian model of governance, etc. Sure, you can point to things like the Uyghurs as an exception. But then again, ask an Iraqi, ask a Libyan, ask a Cuban, ask a Guatemalan, etc. Liberals love to proselytize their own ideas to the ends of the Earth, even when it means military action, but can barely tolerate a domestic Christian missionary in their own neighborhood.
It always reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew’s brilliant refutation of liberal western nonsense.
The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at.
If you really don’t want China it doesn’t have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?
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.
So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it’s troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn’t, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn’t that meddling in the war?
While I am at it, The PRC has been trying for months to broker peace and has Russia at the table, why doesn’t the US let Ukraine go to the table and negotiate, The United States has no right to be king of the world and has no right to be setting any terms for these talks.
There’s a huge irony that sits at heart of the American ideological system that never dawns on most people.
If you read the history of the modern university system in the US, one thing that’s worth highlighting was when ‘area studies’ effectively got banned. That’s stuff like Russian and Eastern Studies, Southeast Asian Studies, etc. There are still a couple of exceptions in places like Yale or Harvard, but they were largely disbanded due to the efforts of social scientists that deemed them ‘unscientific’. And yet it’s ironic, because if you really have ever gotten the chance to speak with a lot of foreigners, one thing that comes through is the level of shock or pause when they ultimately discover that most of the closed minds in the American intellectual sphere are ‘liberal’ minds.
In theory, America is a perfectly free and open society. In practice, it’s an open society with a closed mind. American intellectuals don’t listen to the rest of the world. The elite wisdom essentially believes that only societies which adopt the American model and copy American style, western liberal values, can really succeed. Really cuts against the whole grain of ‘diversity’.
Contrast that with China for instance, in the foreign policy sphere. Whatever else you think about the CCP, in commerce or military operations or multilateral institutions, in dealing with them, one doesn’t walk away with the impression they’re trying to ‘make you Chinese’. They aren’t trying to export Chinese Communist Party values to the Taliban. They aren’t demanding you adopt gay rights. They aren’t asking you to adopt their authoritarian model of governance, etc. Sure, you can point to things like the Uyghurs as an exception. But then again, ask an Iraqi, ask a Libyan, ask a Cuban, ask a Guatemalan, etc. Liberals love to proselytize their own ideas to the ends of the Earth, even when it means military action, but can barely tolerate a domestic Christian missionary in their own neighborhood.
It always reminds me of Lee Kuan Yew’s brilliant refutation of liberal western nonsense.
It’s very ironic how you are fine with china’s involvement but not the US’
The difference is china is merely acting as a medator, a nutural 3rd party whos job is to 1) host the negotiations 2) help the 2 sides truly hear each other and come to a compromise. If you listen to what China says about this and how they interact with Russia its in keeping with this role, that all they want is to see the fighting end. The United States by dictating terms has forfitted there ability to fufill this role, China however has sugested nor offered any terms, only a table to talk at. If you really don’t want China it doesn’t have to be China, but they already have one side seated, and I would like to hear who else you would propose?
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.
So if the war end right now would that mean Russia would withdraw it’s troops from Ukraine? No it wouldn’t, so implicitly engaging in peace talks while Russia holds territory in Ukraine would mean conceding territory. Why would china want that? Isn’t that meddling in the war?