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.
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.
First treaty violations have different outcomes, tye new START treaty was a renegotation and surplanted the previous one, a treaty that said “Hey maybe dont shell donotesk and luhonsk” that was violated and attempt to peacefully remind Ukraine of their treaty obligations for 8 years calls for a little more
Regardless of what the treaty said, a violation cannot justify war. Sovereign nations have the right to enter and leave treaties as they see fit. That’s what sovereign means: complete authority over what takes place within its borders.
When a sovereign nation will not abide by any treaties, the ultimate consequence is international isolation not invasion.
You are correct but because this acted as a defacto peace agreement, Ukraine Violating it is tantimount to breaking the peace, that is what happens when you break a peace treaty. Actions have consiquinces.
It was a peace agreement to end fighting within Ukraine, just as the Good Friday Agreement ended fighting within Northern Ireland.
Breaking either treaty might restart internal fighting, but it would not justify invasion of Ukraine by Russia (just as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would not justify invasion of the UK).
It does when by breaking the treaty there is a reforendom 2 nations break away (DPR and LPR) and then request assistance from an ally to the east.
It would be the same as if northern ireland voted to become part of ireland, the UK said no and started to attack it, Ireland would be well within its rights to enter and protect nothern ireland
RAND literally published a study explaining how US could provoke Russia into precisely the kind of war we’re seeing, but you keep on going there buddy https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
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.
First treaty violations have different outcomes, tye new START treaty was a renegotation and surplanted the previous one, a treaty that said “Hey maybe dont shell donotesk and luhonsk” that was violated and attempt to peacefully remind Ukraine of their treaty obligations for 8 years calls for a little more
Regardless of what the treaty said, a violation cannot justify war. Sovereign nations have the right to enter and leave treaties as they see fit. That’s what sovereign means: complete authority over what takes place within its borders.
When a sovereign nation will not abide by any treaties, the ultimate consequence is international isolation not invasion.
You are correct but because this acted as a defacto peace agreement, Ukraine Violating it is tantimount to breaking the peace, that is what happens when you break a peace treaty. Actions have consiquinces.
It was a peace agreement to end fighting within Ukraine, just as the Good Friday Agreement ended fighting within Northern Ireland.
Breaking either treaty might restart internal fighting, but it would not justify invasion of Ukraine by Russia (just as breaking the Good Friday Agreement would not justify invasion of the UK).
It does when by breaking the treaty there is a reforendom 2 nations break away (DPR and LPR) and then request assistance from an ally to the east.
It would be the same as if northern ireland voted to become part of ireland, the UK said no and started to attack it, Ireland would be well within its rights to enter and protect nothern ireland
🤦