Ludmila Zhernovskaya22:58, 14.01.25
They call for continued support for the country.
Pursuing a policy of peace through strength is essential both for the survival of Ukraine and for the security of the United States of America. That is why Washington must remain on Ukraine’s side in this war.Blinken and Austin Address Trump Administration with Large Article on Ukraine: Key Points
Ludmila Zhernovskaya22:58, 14.01.25
3 min.309
They call for continued support for the country.
Pursuing a policy of peace through strength is essential both for the survival of Ukraine and for the security of the United States of America. That is why Washington must remain on Ukraine’s side in this war.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin wrote about this in a column for The New York Times. Thus, Kremlin ruler Putin wanted to overthrow the Ukrainian government, install a puppet regime in Kyiv and make the West look weak, but he was unable to achieve his strategic goals:
“All of this is a testament to the resilience of the Ukrainian military and the strength of the Ukrainian people. It is also a testament to the unwavering American leadership that has rallied allies and partners around the world to help Ukraine survive the Kremlin’s imperial advance. The United States must build on this historic success, not lose it .”
Despite its enormous strategic achievements, the Ukrainian army still faces serious challenges on the battlefield, and critical infrastructure is being bombed by the occupiers. At the same time, Russia is suffering huge losses, and Putin is increasingly faced with an agonizing dilemma: to mobilize, which could destabilize the situation in Russia, or to negotiate with Ukraine to end the war.
“Since Mr. Putin retains his imperial ambitions, giving up our leverage now through aid cuts and an early forced ceasefire would simply allow Mr. Putin to rest, regroup, and finally attack again. It would be peace by capitulation, which would not be peace at all,” the column says.
Such a scenario would mean that Ukraine would be “crushed under Putin’s boot,” Europe would be under the shadow of a tyrant who wants to restore the Muscovite empire, and other friends of the United States could face the risk of aggression from autocrats who would perceive Russia’s victory as a “hunting license.”
At the same time, America will have to spend more resources and take more risks to defend itself not only against Putin, but also against other autocrats and “agents of chaos”:
“Pursuing a policy of peace through strength is vital to Ukraine’s survival and America’s security. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to support Ukraine and strengthen their position for negotiations that will eventually end Mr. Putin’s war of aggression.”
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin wrote about this in a column for The New York Times. Thus, Kremlin ruler Putin wanted to overthrow the Ukrainian government, install a puppet regime in Kyiv and make the West look weak, but he was unable to achieve his strategic goals:
“All of this is a testament to the resilience of the Ukrainian military and the strength of the Ukrainian people. It is also a testament to the unwavering American leadership that has rallied allies and partners around the world to help Ukraine survive the Kremlin’s imperial advance. The United States must build on this historic success, not lose it .”
Despite its enormous strategic achievements, the Ukrainian army still faces serious challenges on the battlefield, and critical infrastructure is being bombed by the occupiers. At the same time, Russia is suffering huge losses, and Putin is increasingly faced with an agonizing dilemma: to mobilize, which could destabilize the situation in Russia, or to negotiate with Ukraine to end the war.
“Since Mr. Putin retains his imperial ambitions, giving up our leverage now through aid cuts and an early forced ceasefire would simply allow Mr. Putin to rest, regroup, and finally attack again. It would be peace by capitulation, which would not be peace at all,” the column says.
Such a scenario would mean that Ukraine would be “crushed under Putin’s boot,” Europe would be under the shadow of a tyrant who wants to restore the Muscovite empire, and other friends of the United States could face the risk of aggression from autocrats who would perceive Russia’s victory as a “hunting license.”
At the same time, America will have to spend more resources and take more risks to defend itself not only against Putin, but also against other autocrats and “agents of chaos”:
“Pursuing a policy of peace through strength is vital to Ukraine’s survival and America’s security. The United States and its allies and partners must continue to support Ukraine and strengthen their position for negotiations that will eventually end Mr. Putin’s war of aggression.”
(C)UNIAN 2025
“It is also a testament to the unwavering American leadership that has rallied allies and partners around the world to help Ukraine survive the Kremlin’s imperial advance.”
That’s part of the whole Biden admin failure. They did just enough for Ukraine to survive.
Ukraine must ERASE the invaders. Nothing else is acceptable. Crimea can be negotiated, but only after a ruSSian defeat.
I don’t agree with negotiations about anywhere Mike, They had Crimea use, but weren’t happy with the perfect situation.
Anything gained no matter how small is a win and only serves to encourage further adventure.
They should lose everything they went after and told that they have lost what they had because they weren’t happy.
Plenty of coastline on the Black Sea in moskovia, let them build a shithole Port there if they have the ability to build instead of destroy.
But will the ruSSian scum and ottoman tatars clear the peninsula?