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.
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…
I think you’ve established pretty firmly your inability to acknowledge reality here.
there’s that childish “I know you are put what am I?” thing again.
You’re not criticizing anything,
now who’s denying reality? lol
you keep regurgitating nonsense here confidently and ignoring actual facts presented to you. Couldn’t even be bothered to read the the study your own regime put out.
weren’t you just accusing me of projection? and it’s always fascinating to me when people on the internet claim to be psychic. i did read it-- it’s simply, as I’ve said, dubious as an objection since it’s irrelevant and also reveals your obvious bias. You clearly don’t like that someone’s standing up to Russia’s imperialistic bullying, so you blame the victim and anyone who helps them stand up to the bully. just because the US may also benefit in other ways is irrelevant, and nothing you’ve said can prove otherwise.
You can whine and moan all you like, but that’s all it is: whining and moaning because Russia’s bullying is meeting forceful opposition and they’re looking like fools as a result.
just because some Russians happen to live in Ukraine doesn’t make it ok for Russia to invade, and the fact that you would make such an absurd argument just shows that not only are you incapable of making a rational argument, you’re clearly not willing to listen to one. That’s backed up by your incessant use of an arsenal of logical fallacies from false equivalence, red herrings, whataboutisms, to ad hominem personal attacks and the constant moving of the goalposts.
Since I can’t reason you out of the position you didn’t reason yourself into, I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation.
there’s that “i know you ae but what am I?” thing again…
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
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.
First the difference is that in the Great Patrotic War the US was a party to the war, as of right now the US is not a party to the war and fighting through someone else
Second, how exactly did Russia instigate the war, when it was Ukraine not Russia who violated the Minsk Accords?
The US was not at war until the end of 1941, so by your definition Operation Barbarossa was part of a proxy war between the US and Germany.
Russia instigated the war by sending hostile troops into Ukraine, which is an act of war. Violating a treaty is not an act of war. If it were, the US would now be at war with Russia after they violated the New START treaty.
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
there’s that childish “I know you are put what am I?” thing again.
now who’s denying reality? lol
weren’t you just accusing me of projection? and it’s always fascinating to me when people on the internet claim to be psychic. i did read it-- it’s simply, as I’ve said, dubious as an objection since it’s irrelevant and also reveals your obvious bias. You clearly don’t like that someone’s standing up to Russia’s imperialistic bullying, so you blame the victim and anyone who helps them stand up to the bully. just because the US may also benefit in other ways is irrelevant, and nothing you’ve said can prove otherwise.
You can whine and moan all you like, but that’s all it is: whining and moaning because Russia’s bullying is meeting forceful opposition and they’re looking like fools as a result.
just because some Russians happen to live in Ukraine doesn’t make it ok for Russia to invade, and the fact that you would make such an absurd argument just shows that not only are you incapable of making a rational argument, you’re clearly not willing to listen to one. That’s backed up by your incessant use of an arsenal of logical fallacies from false equivalence, red herrings, whataboutisms, to ad hominem personal attacks and the constant moving of the goalposts.
Since I can’t reason you out of the position you didn’t reason yourself into, I don’t see the point of continuing this conversation.
Removed by mod
there’s that “i know you ae but what am I?” thing again…
“DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”
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
Russia instigated the war regardless of any “provocation”.
By your definition, the Great Patriotic War was a “proxy war”, since the US sent weapons to the USSR in order to help them defeat a common threat.
First the difference is that in the Great Patrotic War the US was a party to the war, as of right now the US is not a party to the war and fighting through someone else
Second, how exactly did Russia instigate the war, when it was Ukraine not Russia who violated the Minsk Accords?
The US was not at war until the end of 1941, so by your definition Operation Barbarossa was part of a proxy war between the US and Germany.
Russia instigated the war by sending hostile troops into Ukraine, which is an act of war. Violating a treaty is not an act of war. If it were, the US would now be at war with Russia after they violated the New START treaty.