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.
I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.
I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).
“i know you are but what am I?” is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.
believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.
so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it’s pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.
so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?
except it’s not-- each of those instances are very different, as is this. You can’t even accuse any one nation and have to use the nebulous “the west” because your argument isn’t even political, it’s ideological-- you just hate that anyone is opposing Russia’s imperialism, and you’re blaming the victim, using every logical fallacy, including personal insult, you can since you have no rational argument to make.
your position is transparent, angry, and you have nothing but nonsense to spew in defense of bullying and disinformation.
edit:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”).[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
The motivations of the west were exactly the same in each of those instances, and one has to work really hard to not understand what these motivations actually are.
Just because others don’t agree with your imaginings (and laughably ignorant assessment) doesn’t mean we have to work hard. Acknowledging reality, in fact, requires very little “work”.
Also, please stop projecting. The only one here who’s angry and spewing nonsense here is you.
Criticizing you isn’t “protection” nor is pointing out the obviousness of your biases. and I already pointed out how childish the whole “I know you are but what I am?” thing is, but if you want to keep up with that, that’s on you.
I’ve provided actual sources and detailed explanations for my position. All you’ve done was regurgitate propaganda drivel.
posting a bunch of pictures of where ethnic Russians live doesn’t magically make an illegal invasion legal. THAT is, as you say “propaganda drivel”, but that’s for playing, lmao
Also, whataboutism is a logical fallacy used by pseudo intellectuals to create a double standard for their own actions and those of others
well, at least you admit what you’ve done wrong. but will you stop? i doubt you’ll do more that try to blame me for your actions while claiming to be a victim…
Who said anything about altruism? All sides are motivated by self interest. Ukrainians want to kill Russian soldiers on their soil, and the US wants other people to kill Russian soldiers on foreign soil.
They cooperate because their interests align, even if Ukrainians have a more justified motivation.
Removed by mod
Wow, your maps are so persuasive!
I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.
I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.
Removed by mod
Because the PM of Kosovo was an idiot. Fortunately he now seems to be willing to change his plans.
Removed by mod
No, I said Albanians in Kosovo are like Russians in Ukraine. Neither is 100% homogeneous, but that doesn’t give anyone a right to annex their land.
Removed by mod
Whataboutism
Removed by mod
“i know you are but what am I?” is the argument of a child, and pretending that the west helping Ukraine is the same as Russia bombing it to bits is treating your audience like children.
believe it or not, not everyone is as foolish as you.
Removed by mod
so you say, but in every demonstrable way, we are, including by every claim made by their government and the plurality of their people. and it’s pretty hilarious that you claim to be some authority to make claims to the contrary. The only ones who would claim otherwise are Russia and their supporters, of which you are clearly one.
so, why should anyone take your positions seriously?
Removed by mod
except it’s not-- each of those instances are very different, as is this. You can’t even accuse any one nation and have to use the nebulous “the west” because your argument isn’t even political, it’s ideological-- you just hate that anyone is opposing Russia’s imperialism, and you’re blaming the victim, using every logical fallacy, including personal insult, you can since you have no rational argument to make.
your position is transparent, angry, and you have nothing but nonsense to spew in defense of bullying and disinformation.
edit:
Removed by mod
Just because others don’t agree with your imaginings (and laughably ignorant assessment) doesn’t mean we have to work hard. Acknowledging reality, in fact, requires very little “work”.
Criticizing you isn’t “protection” nor is pointing out the obviousness of your biases. and I already pointed out how childish the whole “I know you are but what I am?” thing is, but if you want to keep up with that, that’s on you.
posting a bunch of pictures of where ethnic Russians live doesn’t magically make an illegal invasion legal. THAT is, as you say “propaganda drivel”, but that’s for playing, lmao
well, at least you admit what you’ve done wrong. but will you stop? i doubt you’ll do more that try to blame me for your actions while claiming to be a victim…
Removed by mod
Who said anything about altruism? All sides are motivated by self interest. Ukrainians want to kill Russian soldiers on their soil, and the US wants other people to kill Russian soldiers on foreign soil.
They cooperate because their interests align, even if Ukrainians have a more justified motivation.
Removed by mod
This war was instigated by Russia. It is not a proxy war, by definition. Just a regular war.
Removed by mod