There have been peace proposals put forward, and the United States government has seen fit to throw shade on them, particularly on China's effort.
Whether they were right to do so is itself a question that would engender significant debate. It is certainly facetious to suggest that all "peace" proposals are of equal merit, or that any peace proposal is intrinsically superior to continued conflict.
By the same token, a peace proposal is not necessarily a bad one merely because it originated from China or even Russia.
As I have observed before, NATO's strategy appears to be supporting Ukraine in an attritional war with Russia, so as to grind down and effectively neuter Russia's military. The strategic objective for NATO is to, once again, have the Paris-Berlin axis (expressed hegemonically by Brussels) prevail over Moscow, leaving the EU as the overlord of Europe. If that is NATO's strategic objective, peace talks are not something they will be eager to see happen just yet.
Whether the EU/NATO will prevail with this strategy is an open question, but if that is the strategy then we should not be surprised that they are looking askance at peace talks just yet. Much the way Clemenceau rejected peace proposals to end WW1, the EU seems poised to push war so as to degrade Russia beyond the point of sustainability.
Whether that is a defensible policy is a question that moves rather beyond the scope of my historical assessment.
The difference was that Germany after WW1 was a viable state with a future.
Russia is not a viable state and has no future. Their demographics sealed their fate 20 years ago. Time is running out on Putin's would-be Russian Empire, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
It is my understanding the U.S. (and Canada) have repeatedly rebuffed peace talks?
There have been peace proposals put forward, and the United States government has seen fit to throw shade on them, particularly on China's effort.
Whether they were right to do so is itself a question that would engender significant debate. It is certainly facetious to suggest that all "peace" proposals are of equal merit, or that any peace proposal is intrinsically superior to continued conflict.
By the same token, a peace proposal is not necessarily a bad one merely because it originated from China or even Russia.
As I have observed before, NATO's strategy appears to be supporting Ukraine in an attritional war with Russia, so as to grind down and effectively neuter Russia's military. The strategic objective for NATO is to, once again, have the Paris-Berlin axis (expressed hegemonically by Brussels) prevail over Moscow, leaving the EU as the overlord of Europe. If that is NATO's strategic objective, peace talks are not something they will be eager to see happen just yet.
Whether the EU/NATO will prevail with this strategy is an open question, but if that is the strategy then we should not be surprised that they are looking askance at peace talks just yet. Much the way Clemenceau rejected peace proposals to end WW1, the EU seems poised to push war so as to degrade Russia beyond the point of sustainability.
Whether that is a defensible policy is a question that moves rather beyond the scope of my historical assessment.
That's not advisable to push Russia that far as we learned with the Treaty of Versailles and Germany.
The difference was that Germany after WW1 was a viable state with a future.
Russia is not a viable state and has no future. Their demographics sealed their fate 20 years ago. Time is running out on Putin's would-be Russian Empire, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
You view this as a war for empire and not of defence for Russia?