Skip Navigation

US's Blinken says no to any Ukraine peace deal that doesn't include total Russian withdrawal

apnews.com Blinken warns Ukraine cease-fire now would result in ‘Potemkin peace,' legitimizing Russian invasion

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 negotiat...

Blinken warns Ukraine cease-fire now would result in ‘Potemkin peace,' legitimizing Russian invasion

“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.

267

You're viewing a single thread.

267 comments
  • Supporting Ukraine is the only U.S. military action since WW2 that I can truly support. Even our action in response to 9/11 was fucked up.

    • Same, its one of the only decisions the US has made that is pretty solidly good.

      • Ah yes. Good old Joe Biden repositioning his troops from Afghanistan to Ukraine.

    • As a belgian and therefore european, I disagree. US is making war by proxy here and WE are paying the price.

      I am not for war but I have nothing to justify an irreducible support to Ukraine and interference with Russia.

      NOPE

      • Agreed. This situation is far more complicated than the western mainstream media wants to convince people it is. This wasn't a conflict that was born at the outset of war. There's a reason why there's 'zero' mention of things like the Minsk Accords or any considerations given to Eurasian security arrangements. Here's an excellent primer on the background involved. I'm not at all trying to say what Russia did was justified, but they've got far more of a moral plateau to stand on than the US does.

      • Then you are morally okay with Ukraine being wiped off the map and the murder of as many of its citizen as Putin's army can manage.

        • Dude, do you honestly think Putin is trying to militarily annihilate Ukraine? Especially when he considers Russians and Ukrainians to share the same cultural lineage and history. He made numerous overtures to try and 'avoid' a conflict from breaking out. Why was the west so adamantly against laying the framework for a security arrangement that made sense for all the parties involved?

          • He made numerous overtures to try and ‘avoid’ a conflict from breaking out.

            Putin: "If you allow this country to have protection from me invading it, I'm going to invade it."
            U.S.: "Yeah... we're going to consider allowing them protection from you."
            Putin: "Oh no... somebody stop me from invading this other country...! Here I go, I'm gonna invaaaade..."
            U.S.: "Okay."
            [Putin invades Ukraine, begins murdering Ukrainians]
            U.S., months later: "Alright that's enough, we're going to help these Ukranians to keep you from murdering them."
            Putin and his sheep: "tHe U.S. iS wArMoNgErInG!!!1!!"

            • What do you think the Minsk Accords were?

              • Further acquiescence to a terrorist country's demands?

                • Is that what we arw calling a peace treaty Ukraine violated that garanteed the righta of the Russian speaking minority of Ukrainians in donbas?

                  • I honestly don't give a shit. Russia is the aggressor who invaded and massacred untold Ukrainians along the way. They now should be opposed and driven back until they come to their senses and leave, or are beaten into the dust so that they can no longer pose a threat.

                    If you want to debate the entire history of the region, take it to someone who does give a shit.

                    • “I have strong opinions about something I don’t know shit about!”

                    • Quick question, how can Russia be the agressor, when they were not the party to break the previous treaty? How could Russia be the agressor when they only entered after their allies, the LPR and DPR, newly formed after a vote of the people due to the violation of the aformentioned Minsk Accords, asked for help from their ally. Russia never took the first step, and its quite hard to be the agressor when, you where not the one agressing

              • Non-binding treaties negotiated under duress that all fell apart the moment the ink was put to paper, through which Russia tried to control Ukrainian internal affairs?

    • This has been a major reality check for me personally. For years I shook my head at the gargantuan US military budget thinking it's ridiculous. Fast forward to February 2022 and I realize it's the US once again cleaning up when Europe shits the bed. Ashamed, thankful and thoroughly convinced we need to spend a whole lot more in defense as well.

    • Amazing that you understand that your country has consistently been on the wrong side of history since WW2, but also believe this this is the first time it's not.

      • Russia was also on the wrong side of history since WW2. When two losers face off, logically one or the other must break their losing streak.

        And as it turns out, the US gets the win. Congratulations.

      • 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?

        • Yeah, no. The people that say crap like this, and uncritically swallow down the propaganda, always fail to take geopolitics seriously. In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia. Twice. If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do? If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be? Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.

          • Why does tankies support Russia they're fascists lol

          • In the last century, Europe (and Germany in particular) nearly destroyed Russia.

            Russia entered WW1 on the same spaghetti-treaty-basis as every other nation that entered the conflict of their "own" accord.

            The USSR entered WW2 as a German ally and tried to once again erase Poland and the Poles as the common German/Russian imperialist ambition required. And instead of preparing for the inevitable war that literally everyone but Stalin saw coming, the Soviets collectivly spent the mid-to-late 1930s partaking in the Great Terror, nearly destroying their own nation for the sake of satiating a madman's ego and paranoia.

            If you’re Putin, and you continue to see a military alliance year after year, encroaching further and further up to your borders, what the hell are you supposed to do?

            ....stop promoting chauvanism? Stop trying to revive the USSR against the will of those who willingly left? Stop invading your neighbours? There's like a million different ways to remain as a anti-democratic leech-state in this world without needing to use military force.

            If the USSR expanded the Warsaw Pact right up to incorporate Mexico and Canada, what do you reasonably think our response would be?

            It's nice you think the US can just arbitarily expand NATO without the consent of other members, that joining NATO isn't a choice. Likewise, it's nice you apparently don't get it was the same for the Warsaw Pact - Mongolia wasn't allowed in on it as European Communists opposed having to support potential conglict between the USSR and China.

            Just look at Russia’s military defense budget. If you think is a country preparing and readying itself for any dream of imperialistic aspirations, you are crazy.

            They've invaded two former members of the USSR, have active orders to invade a third if the oppurtunity arises, and have drawn up plans for invading a fourth-one. Sorry, but I'll rather accept the apparent reality that Russis is a myopic yes-man state that is currently doing war and committing genocide against Ukrainians.

        • What's wrong is your framing. The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with. Russia invaded Ukraine as part of the proxy war with the US. Claiming that the US is just helping Ukraine with its war against Russia is completely misunderstanding what's actually happening.

          • The US is an imperial warmonger and they created the conditions for a proxy war, which Russia engaged with.

            So the U.S. made Putin's army roll its miles long line of cold-war era military equipment into Ukraine in November of '21?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

            It's hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.

            • Ironically, the west's most looked to academic expert on Russian Studies would completely disagree with you. He warned that you would see the argument being pitched that NATO remains justified today, to "manage the security threats provoked by its own existence." Even 'US policymakers' advised that continued NATO encroachment would result in a military provocation in Ukraine. Who ignored their advice? The American foreign policy establishment. But I'm sure 'nobody' ever saw that coming, right? You know who else made similar observations? George Kennan, who was the architect of America's containment policy during the Cold War.

              And you didn't even carefully read the reply you commented to. He didn't say the US was responsible for the Russian army rolling into Ukraine. He said the US is responsible for engineering the conditions for a proxy war to take place.

            • There's nothing to lie about. What we're seeing is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The US explicitly listed conflict with Russia and China as their new strategic focus during the Obama administration. The US was making plans to include Ukraine in NATO under Clinton while Clinton was saying to Russian leaders that this would never happen.

              The US has been working on Ukraine for a very long time, as part of the strategy to dominate Europe and keep Russia from competing with them.

              NATO, the world's first transnational military force, staffed and led by literal Nazi officers, built specifically to fight Russia, has been deploying nuclear capabilities all around the world to encircle China and Russia. Deploying weapons systems to the Russia/Ukraine border would be a massive strategic check on Russia by the US. The US wanted this. It worked on Ukraine for decades to bring this about.

              Russia invaded Ukraine to fight the US. The US funds, arms, trains, recruits, and provides logistical support for Ukraine but the people dying are Ukrainian.

              This is the literal definition of a proxy war.

              • Lol. It's pretty funny how he remarks:

                It’s hard to lie about things that the whole world was watching.

                And yet he has no idea. The fog of propaganda is 'dense' on both sides. People here in the west seem to think that propaganda is something that happens 'out there' to other nations. It's extremely hard for them to see how the wool is being pulled over their own eyes.

                "The first casualty of War is Truth" - Hiram Johnson

                Let's look at a couple of instances to contrast the media coverage, and see who's really 'lying'. Take something most Americans are familiar with; the assassinations of Nemtsov and Litvinenko. There's a major between the way the west reported the accounts of their deaths, and how the Russians did it. Their deaths represented a major giveaway to the west, because they were two key opportunities that were quickly seized upon as a chance to demonize Putin (whatever your opinion of him is). Nemtsov was the leader of the Russian opposition. He was deputy prime minister under Yeltsin and was held in favorable regard by Thatcher. He met Obama in 2009. Supported Ukraine’s western orientation to Europe, etc. Made sense why the west liked him so much. There were people who thought it was a false-flag operation since Putin had nothing to gain, but the west stood to gain a great deal out of it.

                When the Russian investigation got involved in his death, they brought in a number of suspects who’s would be connections to the murder investigators were unclear. There was speculation it was retaliatory for anti-Islamic remarks he made, but even they concluded at the time that those links were tenuous and there wasn’t much to convict them on. The west played up Putin’s connections to the murder based on previously dated murders that were frequently attributed (with ‘greatly’ varying degrees of evidence) to Russian state agencies. Those people included people like Sergei Yushenkov, Forbes Russian editor Paul Klebnikov, Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, etc. There were more people involved, and ‘many’ of them had directly received funding from the US State Department backed National Endowment for Democracy, ‘or' by an NGO that was funded by the NED.

                Poroshenko claimed Nemtsov was going to reveal evidence of direct Russian support for the uprising that happened in Eastern Ukraine. For others, Nemtsov was targeted either for his symbolic importance or his useful indispensability. Rivals like Alexei Navalny co-founded the ‘Democratic Alternative (DA!) platform and he was the vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party Yabloko. DA!’s leader Mariya Gaydar also got funding from the NED and worked with people like Ilya Yashin in the People’s Freedom Party (which is ‘also’ NED funded). Yashin was close to a guy named Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was a member of NED funded Washington based ‘World Movement for Democracy’. He was a leading member of the Strategy 31 campaign for free assembly (whose ranks were filled with activists trained and coordinated by US NED funded NGO’s). And their activities had spread into Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg.

                NED was involved in expunging itself from public documents. Russian intelligence had identified a network of rebellious organizations that were funded in part by the US State Department along the lines of previous color revolutions, that were readying for a Moscow coup. Gorbachev thought the killing would be a provocation of some kind to complicate or destabilize the regime. There was speculation among ’some’ western commentators like David North that thought if the US was planning a coup that would replace Putin with a leader who was more open to the west. He gave two examples. First was either Nemtsov was killed by elements within the Putin faction as a warning to western backed opposition or, he was killed by members of the anti-Putin faction who considered Nemtsov too cautious which would be an impediment to regime change.

                The media played this up and cast as much suspicion as they could on Putin. But oddly, the west was dead silent about a string of mysterious opposition deaths that happened in Ukraine also, at this 'exact' same time (some of these happened the same day of Nemtsov’s death). Mykhailo Chechetov who was a key ally of President Yanukovych (member of opposition party Party Regional, “fell” from the window of his 17th floor apartment in Kiev). Nikolai Sergienko, deputy chief of Ukrainian Railways (supporter of Yanukovych). Alexey Kolesnik (hung himself). Stanislav Melnik (opposition party, shot himself). Sergey Valter (mayor of Melitopol, hung himself a few hours before his trial). Alexander Bordiuga (deputy direction of Melitopol police was found dead in his garage). Alexander Peklushenko (former member of Ukrainian parliament and former mayor of Zaporizhi was found shot to death). Sergey Melnichuk (prosecutor in Odessa, “fell” to his death from the 9th floor). Yanukovych’s own son (“fell” through ice of Lake Baikal in Russia). Oleg Kalashnikov (another prominent politician, died of a gunshot wound). Oles Buzina (historian and journalist, shot dead). Serhiy Sukhobok (journalist, shot dead). Olga Moron (editor in chief of Neteshinskiy Vestnik was found dead in her home, her body showed signs of a violent struggle). These all happened from January through April.

                Two people who were involved in the murder of Oles Buzina were charged and were said to be Neo-Nazi paramilitary militants. One of them got released on bail, paid for by Oleksiy Tamrazov, the owner of Media Group conglomerate and was a major oil and gas tycoon. But with Nemtsov, there were controversies that spilled over into many different allegations and counter-allegations that was spun into a story about differences in degrees of press freedom between Russia and Ukraine and the riskiness of journalism. After the elections happened in 2015 in Donbass, Ukraine banned 34 foreign journalists and 7 bloggers from entering the country. They were part of a larger group close to about 400 people across 100 organizations who were forbidden from entertaining on the grounds of “national security” concerns.

                The MSM claims over here about the dangers of doing journalism in Russia and the official assassinations of journalists are hyper exaggerated. There was a study that statistically showed that Russia had 2x the number of newspaper journalists as the US, despite having 1/2 the population and when you adjusted for per capita rates, Russian journalists were shown to be safer than any number of ‘democratic’ countries that were friendly to the US (and that includes Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, etc.). Fedia Kruikov found that 1/2 of the killings of Russian journalists that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) attributed to professional activities were either “wholly” or “partially” falsified. Many of them were killed for reasons that had nothing to do with the administration.

                In 2006, Litvinenko was a close associate of Boris Berezovsky. The British account of his death was ‘very’ flawed if you go deep into digging into it. The former lawyer Alexander Mercouris and someone else claimed that the inquiry Chair, Sir Robert Owen confused his role with that of a criminal judge who pronounced not only the cause of death but also accusing two supposed perpetrators (Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Ovum). He claimed that they had connections with the FSB and said the murder was “probably ordered” by Putin (when there was ‘zero’ factual evidence presented). He allowed no cross-examination and also no jury. A key witness refused to attend and the defendants weren’t present. They couldn’t be extradited because that goes against the Russian constitution. So the evidence that went against them was left unchallenged. Another claim was that The Chair reached outside the courtroom for evidence that suited his prejudices and his evidentiary standards varied between witnesses.

                The report suggested Russian non-cooperation with the British, but Mercouris chronicled Britain’s refusal to cooperate with Russia. They rejected the suggestion that the inquiry take place in Russia. They didn’t allow Russian investigators access to Berezovsky. They refused to share their evidence of polonium poisoning. The case for Russian involvement was even undermined by the inquiry. Expert testimony demonstrated that polonium was widely available from many different sources, not just Russia. It wasn’t expensive as anyone thought. Evidence that Lugovoi (who had actually been a KGB agent) or Kovtun were FSB agents was circumstantial at best, in addition to the FSB motive behind it. The judge unreasonably showed credit to Litvinenko’s allegations against Putin and sided with Berezovsky who (with the assistance of Bell Potting promoted the narrative of Putin’s responsibility). He attached a ‘lot’ of weight to Litvinenko’s deathbed statement, even though there was reason to suspect it was written by Litvinenko’s colleague who was an ally of Berezovsky. Litvinenko himself had actually accused an entirely different party, Mario Scaramella of poisoning him. And there were other suspects involved who had motive for wanting to see Litvinenko dead. There was awitness who testified that he was blackmailing certain parties, and that their motives were more compelling than any attributable to the FSB.

                This is the kind of shit the US does.

        • 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.

267 comments