US's Blinken says no to any Ukraine peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

115 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“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

[-] Zagaroth@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

What's wrong with helping a country defend itself from invasion by imperial warmongers?

And to be clear, yes, I am calling Russia imperial warmongers. They have been actively invading neighboring countries for decades to expand themselves. And what is an empire if not a nation built on the conquest of other countries?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

That is absolutely not what the west is doing. Ukraine is being used as a proxy to weaken Russia using the formula that RAND outlined here. All the west is accomplishing is prolonging the conflict and it will not change the outcome. Anybody who thinks this is being done for the benefit of Ukraine is absolutely delusional.

Maybe people living in the west should focus on stopping their empire from conquering countries before getting on their high horse.

[-] MikeTheComrade@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago

It's really sad how duped American citizens are here. They truly believe that when changing their bio pics to a Ukraine Flag that they're doing something. They believe their government has the best interest of Ukraine while what they're actually supporting is their government using Ukrainian bodies to weaken an adversary under the guise of defense. No one learned anything after Iraq, it was mere MONTHS ago that liberals were giving BUSH praise! They don't care about Abu Ghraib or what happened in Guantanamo Bay. A lot of people here are in for a rough awakening.

[-] JillyB@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'm confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what's best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don't know what's best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn't it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?

From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn't support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.

[-] MikeTheComrade@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don't you think?

When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren't so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there's WMD's, it doesn't matter.

And of course Ukraine knows what's best for them. That's why they keep asking for a roadmap to NATO but the US is like "Nah" - https://www.ft.com/content/c37ed22d-e0e4-4b03-972e-c56af8a36d2e

So of course they're left to negotiate. Again, the US Government doesn't care but their citizens think they do.

The US is against peace if it doesn't get more money to the military–industrial complex or if it doesn't weaken an adversary, like in this case.

[-] ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I personally don't think it's going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it's a tragedy that they're fighting or dying over whether it's Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives