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

“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.

  • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Wow, your maps are so persuasive!

    I’m excited to report that I just looked at map of Kosovo, it shows almost the same thing! That region is full of people who consider themselves ethnic Albanians who don’t support Serbia in the slightest.

    I guess that means that you must support the annexation of Kosovo to Albania, by force if necessary, right? I mean, because otherwise that would mean that you are nothing more than a reflexive, anti-West stooge and there’s no way that could be possible.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlEnglish
      04·
      1 year ago

      If people in Kosovo actually want to join Albania then they should be able to. Last I checked though, there are plenty of Serbs living there who recently clashed with NATO troops. You want to remind me why that happened?

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlEnglish
          01·
          1 year ago

          Wait, but I thought you were just telling me that people in Kosovo wanted to join Albania. Can’t even keep your story straight? 🤡

          • FlowVoid@midwest.socialEnglish
            0·
            1 year ago

            No, I said Albanians in Kosovo are like Russians in Ukraine. Neither is 100% homogeneous, but that doesn’t give anyone a right to annex their land.

              • BrooklynMan@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
                0·
                1 year ago

                Whataboutism

                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).

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  01·
                  1 year ago

                  Whataboutism is a form of a tu quoque logical fallacy used to justify having double standards for one’s own behavior and that of others. Anybody using this term unironically can be safely dismissed.