this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2023
123 points (89.7% liked)
World News
32297 readers
800 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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
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
Actually that's basically what it says in the first paragraph
Basically saying Ukraine won't be pressured to accept a peace deal until they're in a stronger position
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.
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.
First things first its Ukraine that violated the Minsk Accords, and bombed the citizens in donbass, who at the time where theirs, leading to this whole conflict when due to the violation of the accords Russias hand was for lack of a better term forced. If you will remember back it was not untill the DPR and LPR overwhelmingly voted for unification with Russia did they.
Second, you seem to be prejudging the medation China has made no statement beyond their want for peace, I am only stating that it is not the United Stateses place to be demanding any terms to a treaty let alone a mere cese fire.
I am a bit worried that you're not arguing in good faith, since I struggle to see how anyone can believe that Ukraine was the one to break the various points agreed upon in Minsk II. In fact a major blockage has been Russia's insistence that they're not even a party, so how Ukraine could have somehow broken an agreement towards a country who by their own words aren't a party demands some leaps in logic that I struggle to follow.
Since I don't see us agreeing on even basic facts, I'd just like to thank you for the discussion and leave it at that.
It's hard for me to discuss something when it seems like we can't even agree on basic facts.
Ukraine being the aggressor due to breaking the Minsk agreement is just so far from what I perceive as reality that I'm not even sure what kinds of mental gymnastics I would have to perform to even understand your basic assumptions.
Did not Russia deny even being a party to the agreement, which in turn was a major blockage for its success? How can someone who by their own words are not even a party be wronged or have their hands forced into action? And if they're a outside third party to the conflict, how is Russia interfering any different from say France interfering or even the US?
I think we're so far apart not only in what we see as facts, but also our reasons for engaging in discussion that I think I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for the discussion, and have a pleasant evening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements Look, Russia was a signitory, and therefor a party to the agreement. There where 4 parties Russia, Dontesk Luhansk, and Ukraine, and 3 mediators, how can you say Russia was not a party, it LITERALY signed the treaty
A signitory yes, but not a party to the conflict. Russia denied being that, and under point 10 they denied having any forces inside Ukraine so could not be asked to withdraw.
Schrödinger's party if you will; not there for any responsibility, there to claim foul play when the other guys refuse to play along with your charade.
At best you could argue that none of the parties adhered to the agreement, but regardless the full scale invasion of a neighbouring country, the rape and wanton murder perpetrated by the VDV/capitalist murder brigades under Prigozhin, the kidnapping and forced relocation of the Ukrainian children in occupied territories and let's not forget threats of all out nuclear war is so far beyond any perceived slight under the Minsk agreement that any reference to it is just comical at this point.
Also its important to note this isnt about accepting its about starting talks, and once agian is the US setting terms
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.
Please enlighten me both on what the PRCs economic and Weapon selling intrests lie, because as far as I can tell they have not supplied any weapons, and the only economic action if you can even call it that, that the PRC has taken was not play along with US Sanctions. I would also like to hear who you think would be a better medator, because contrary to popular belief I too would like this conflict to come to a quick and diplomatic solution, the less deaths, the less destroyed homes the better.
Second I don't see how the US has the ability to be taken charitably any more, it has lost that ability quite a while ago by virtue of its actions on the geopolitical stage, This whole thing would read different if it was a genaric "The United States backes Ukrainians position in this negotiation" but that would ofcorse require negotiations to be happening, negotiations that are not at present happening. This is a very clear, position the US is taking and "Strongly Sugesting" Ukraine adopt aswell.
China has supplied drones and more than likely advanced technology like semi-conductors and equipment meant for operating radar systems/weapons guidance and similar. Some of this is not "official" support, in the sense that civilian Chinese companies are supplying drones, however this is certainly being used for military purposes within Ukraine. Whether or not this can be proven 100% is less important, since the appearance of bias is as detrimental to neutrality as actual bias.
With regards to the economic incentive, Chinese trade has increased by 30% since the invasion began, making China by far the most important trading partner for Russia.
Now, I am making no judgement as to the morality of this and I am certainly not making any pro US arguments, I am just pointing out that painting China as a neutral part here is disingenuous, they absolutely have interests that align more closely with their good friend and trading partner Russia vs. helping Ukraine and the rest of Europe reach any goals they might have.
That's fine and I understand the sentiment (although as a rhetorical device, I find the "principle of charity" to be worthwhile and helpful towards mutual understanding), however I don't think this makes either Russia or China any better - they just might all be a bunch of evil bastards :)
Then I agian ask you, who would you put as a better option for the host and medator of these talks?
I would ask them, but I would guess a delegation from the African Union or possibly a south american coalition would be as close to neutral as can be.
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?
They say they want peace and are willing to hold talks, I am mot sure what your getting at, in no war ever has the beginning of peace talks been the cesation of the war, and how the war ends is determined by said peace talks, talks that of right bow are not happening.
Now if you are trying to argue that the mere act of trying to hold peace talks or offering to hold peace talks, or holding peace talks is taking a position in the war? I dont think we need to inform Switzerland that they have infact never been nutral in any conflict they mediated.
As for what China wants, they have stated all they want is peace many times, they do not have a horse in the race on who gets what, that makes them the ideal mediators.
So what is the point of having peace talks if not the cessation of war?
The end goal is the cessation of the war, but the fighting contenues untill a cesefire or peace treaty is negotiated and signed, and the war contenues untill said treaty is signed. A sad truth of war is while diplomats are haggling over words on a page the fighting still contues, the war ends when the negotiations end.
I expect that Ukraine is also saying "no" to any peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal.
I would interpret a statement like this from the US as meaning "we're not going to lean on the Ukrainians to accept any sort of compromise that they're not already interested in accepting," which is perfectly fine IMO.
How the Ukrainians act at the negotiating table and how they negotiate ought to be left up to them. However it is out of line for the United States to say this, first as a nation who isn't officially party to the conflict setting any terms or tones to the negotiation is out of line we should be hearing this from Ukrainian Officials instead. This is ment from Washington to be a very clear signal to Ukraine on what to do.
"There are two kinds of countries. Those the US sanctions, and those the US arms."
Anyone who's ever lived abroad is capable of comprehending what so many US citizens seem incapable of doing, and that's understand why the US isn't liked very much by a 'lot' of other countries; including the big players in Europe. Even former military advisors have said as much, on the MSM, only coincidentally, to never get invited back on again, after mentioning it.