“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.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s irrelevant who I blame for the war.

      I’ll explain.

      The are several interpretations of what I said. Yours among them. But I am now confirming, for the second time, that I did not mean what you think I meant.

      Two other valid interpretations, which I did intend, include: (1) that the US and it’s executives and diplomats are warmongers; and (2) that Ukrainian demands are for the Ukrainians alone to determine.

      The war is now an historical fact. Who started it is a significant issue but is neither here nor there for the point that I’m making. I’ll elaborate on that point so as to put a stop to the evident confusion.

      Peace will not be reached for so long as the US seeks profits in (a) selling weapons and (b) the reconstruction of Ukraine. The longer the war and the more destruction it causes, the more profit in it for the US.

      The US is interested in Ukraine only insofar as it reaps these profits. I say nothing of ordinary Americans, who are likely genuinely and rightly appalled at the war and hope for the US to end it. Unfortunately, if they hope for this, they do not know their government nor it’s financial interests. That is tragic, because if they did know, they might better help to end this war and many others.

      The true ends of those decision makers (in the US and in Europe, too) are clear in statements like those in the linked article. If peace was the aim, the US would not be making demands that it knows Russia will never agree to. Are Russia’s demands acceptable? It’s again beside the point.

      The question is, what is the quickest way to end the war? The answer to that question will reveal the steps that must be taken. I struggle to see how inflammatory warmongering statements from a known warmonger state could ever be part of that answer or those steps.

      • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it’s irrelevant who you blame because your argument is a strawman and tu quoque logical fallacy.

        Russia, and Russia alone is to blame for the war in Ukraine, as they are the ones who invaded and refuse to leave. The war will end only when they leave, regardless of how much you try to deflect blame onto anyone else.

        edit: and the fact that you call the US a “warmonger” simply for helping Ukraine defend itself reminds me of this:

        “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.”

        have a nice day.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.

          I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history. Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.

          No amount of ‘just war’ will cancel out what the US did to Iraq or Libya or Vietnam or Laos or any number of other military atrocities.

          • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            At least we agree that I didn’t say what I didn’t say.

            i never agreed to that

            I’m calling the US a warmonger because it’s been a warmonger for it’s brief but entire history

            now you’re just changing your argument again by moving the goalposts to yet another tu quoque fallacy.

            Even if it turns out that this is the one war in which US motivations are good (i.e. not to make profit or further it’s interests), it would still be a warmonger for every other war that it caused and prosecuted.

            so, you even admit that your earlier assertions aren’t necessarily factual, you’re just arguing in bad faith because you have a grudge about what the US did in the past, which has no bearing hereand is therefore irrelevant. like I said: a straw man and a tu quoque logical fallacy. in other words: bullshit. You just don’t like the US, and you’ll malign them for helping Ukraine defend itself, regardless of the merits, which you, yourself admit.

            Your argument is no based in facts, it’s based in your agenda of anger and bitterness.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Classic liberal - “history doesn’t matter, the only things that matter are within the contextual boundaries I draw that support my assertions. No, you’re the fallacy!”

              Pure brain rot