Russia Attacks Ukraine

[Diogenes]

For the first time since 1939 a major European power, Russia, has attacked another country in Europe, Ukraine. We have not seen an analogous situation since Germany attacked Poland setting off World War 2. Surprisingly we have Neville Chamberlain like appeasement/isolationist responses from Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Besides the 180 turn from traditional Republican politics, to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

[Jose Fly]

Why?

Seriously? You actually need me to explain why the Cuba missile crisis is an inapt analogy for Russia's invasion of Ukraine? After you just admitted that the main driver of the former (having nuclear missiles in Cuba) doesn't apply to the latter? Sheesh.....

are you of the opinion that one country can sometimes be justified in thwarting the rights of another? is that it?

Every situation is unique, so I'm not about to make blanket statements like that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why?

Seriously? You actually need me to explain why the Cuba missile crisis is an inapt analogy for Russia's invasion of Ukraine? After you just admitted that the main driver of the former (having nuclear missiles in Cuba) doesn't apply to the latter? Sheesh.....

Yes please do explain.

In each case we have a small country that's perceived as an existential threat to a large country by that large country and the small country aligning itself and establishing a military alliance with a rival large country.

In each case the large country that feels threatened does not feel threatened directly by the small country but by the larger rival that's using the small country as a proxy.

In the case of Cuba the threat by the US to start a war was heeded (Cuba and the USSR backed down) and the situation deescalated, in the case of Ukraine the threat by Russia to start a war was not heeded (Ukraine and NATO did not back down) and so we have a different outcome.

Sheesh.

[Jose Fly]

Why?

Seriously? You actually need me to explain why the Cuba missile crisis is an inapt analogy for Russia's invasion of Ukraine? After you just admitted that the main driver of the former (having nuclear missiles in Cuba) doesn't apply to the latter? Sheesh.....

Yes please do explain.

Unbelievable.

In each case we have a small country that's perceived as an existential threat to a large country by that large country

No. In the Cuba crisis it wasn't that Cuba was threatening the US. It was the very real threat from the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles. Ukraine has no such missiles.

and the small country aligning itself and establishing a military alliance with a rival large country.

No. Cuba was already a part of the Soviet Union before nuclear missiles were placed there. So it wasn't "Cuba has joined the USSR" that brought us to the brink of war, it was the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles.

Further, if you think NATO and the Soviet Union are analogous, I'll just let that speak for itself.

In each case the large country that feels threatened does not feel threatened directly by the small country but by the larger rival that's using the small country as a proxy.

No. Again, Cuba had already been a part of the Soviet Union prior to the missile crisis. Cuba joining the Soviet Union wasn't what brought us to the brink of war, it was the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles.

In the case of Cuba the threat by the US to start a war was heeded (Cuba backed down) and the situation deescalated, in the case of Ukraine the threat by Russia to start a war was not heeded (Ukraine did not back down) and so we have a different outcome.

So your position is that Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves what organizations they want to join?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why?

Seriously? You actually need me to explain why the Cuba missile crisis is an inapt analogy for Russia's invasion of Ukraine? After you just admitted that the main driver of the former (having nuclear missiles in Cuba) doesn't apply to the latter? Sheesh.....

Yes please do explain.

Unbelievable.

In each case we have a small country that's perceived as an existential threat to a large country by that large country

No. In the Cuba crisis it wasn't that Cuba was threatening the US. It was the very real threat from the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles. Ukraine has no such missiles.

and the small country aligning itself and establishing a military alliance with a rival large country.

No. Cuba was already a part of the Soviet Union before nuclear missiles were placed there. So it wasn't "Cuba has joined the USSR" that brought us to the brink of war, it was the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles.

Further, if you think NATO and the Soviet Union are analogous, I'll just let that speak for itself.

In each case the large country that feels threatened does not feel threatened directly by the small country but by the larger rival that's using the small country as a proxy.

No. Again, Cuba had already been a part of the Soviet Union prior to the missile crisis. Cuba joining the Soviet Union wasn't what brought us to the brink of war, it was the actual presence of actual nuclear missiles.

In the case of Cuba the threat by the US to start a war was heeded (Cuba backed down) and the situation deescalated, in the case of Ukraine the threat by Russia to start a war was not heeded (Ukraine did not back down) and so we have a different outcome.

So your position is that Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves what organizations they want to join?

Of course there are differences, no two situations are ever identical but my summary really captures the reality, one superpower being threatened by another.

The US had already secretly placed US nuclear weapons within reach of the USSR before the Cuba crisis unfolded, Turkey for example, causing huge distrust in the USSR, it had already attempted to invade Cuba and overthrow their government in 1961.

Today Russia nuclear weapons are all on Russian territory, whereas US nuclear weapons are on US, Canadian, UK, Belgian, German, Turkish and Italian territory.

Ukraine has facilities used to make nuclear weapons! it was a center or weapon development during the USSR years, can you imagine that being used when Ukraine was a NATO member?

Since the USSR collapsed and the Warsaw pact disbanded (the reason NATO was even formed) what has been the West's reaction? disband NATO? no, expand NATO, including many former USSR states bringing NATO closer and closer to Russia's border, Russia has raised this many times over the past twenty years. The threat from the USSR goes away and so NATO gets even bigger? really?

Also NATO claims (this lie is all over our news now) that NATO is a "defensive alliance" yet it acted offensively in 1999 despite having no UN authority to bomb Serbia, that is a war crime as defined by the UN charter.

Its pretty clear to those of us who follow international affairs and geopolitics closely that NATO has become the single biggest threat to world peace, when we had the USSR frustrating the US we had stability and peace, now that the USSR has gone NATO has insidiously expanded like a cancer.

There is no goodies and baddies, the situations are often complex but the evidence is readily available that it is the West that has started more wars, killed more civilians and destroyed more countries than Russia or China ever did.

There is no "Ukraine has a right" any more than there is North Korea has a right to develop nukes, Israel has a right to operate an apartheid system and so on, it is all about power.

God help us.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you've never watch this I strongly encourage you to do so:

[Jose Fly]

If you believe Ukraine does not have the right to decide for themselves what organizations they join, and if you think Russia has the right to invade Ukraine, bomb its population centers, and massacre its non-combatant citizens when the Ukraine hasn't actually done anything to threaten them, then we're going to strongly disagree.

The world is pretty united on this, so like I said....the fact that a lot of conservative Christians are engaging in apologetics for Russia's invasion is both astonishing and sickening.

[Jose Fly]

The final vote was 141 to condemn, 34 abstentions, and only four backing Russia (which cast the fifth "no" vote)Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria. So you're in rather....um....interesting company there SH.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you believe Ukraine does not have the right to decide for themselves what organizations they join, and if you think Russia has the right to invade Ukraine, bomb its population centers, and massacre its non-combatant citizens when the Ukraine hasn't actually done anything to threaten them, then we're going to strongly disagree.

Sure but I don't think I said anything about "rights" really.

We can talk about rights though by looking at precedents I think.

So did our government have the right to bomb Cambodia? we dropped 2,756,941 tons of bombs on Cambodia, that's more than the 2,000,000 tons dropped by all allied powers during WW2.

Did "we" have the right to use chemical weapons in Vietnam where to this day there are babies being born with birth defects?

Did "we" have the right to bomb Iraq destroying infrastructure, power stations, roads, bridges, drug manufacturers, oil wells etc etc?

Did "we" have the right to bomb Yugoslavia, aiding the terrorist KLA to undermine the government and ultimately fracture Serbia be enabling Kosovo to become an independent state?

I could go on at length, but you get the point and of course the "world was pretty united in this" because these targets are far away, not white European people living close to the center of Europe.

So if all of the above are "right" then I'll have to say that yes Russia is right to, to act in its own interests, unilaterally destroying and killing on a mass scale, sure, based on our own examples yes, Russia is right.

The world is pretty united on this, so like I said....the fact that a lot of conservative Christians are engaging in apologetics for Russia's invasion is both astonishing and sickening.

How do you know "the world" is united on this? you mean the TV news and press you choose to watch give you that impression? I agree, the press are giving that impression.

The western press generally report more or less inline with Western geopolitical interests, that's why crimes we commit are reported as justified if regrettable acts and crimes committed by our enemies are reported as acts of barbarity.

Consider the TV tower bombed yesterday in Ukraine, that's reported as a brutal act designed to to destroy and inhibit a free press, yet the same (almost identical) event carried out by NATO in Serbia in 1999 was reported as a necessary justified act to eliminate a source of propaganda.

You can read about these yourself, in both cases innocent young people were killed but whereas the Ukrainians are "victims" the Serbs were evil incarnate.

NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 killing several Chinese nationals (they did apologize later) has Russia bombed an embassy in Ukraine?

The fact is Serbia is even more central within Europe than Ukraine, you are outraged at the bombing and destruction befalling Ukraine (as am I) yet have - it seems - nothing to say about a comparable NATO campaign in Serbia? Ukraine is a sovereign country? so was Serbia. Ukraine has a right to defend itself? so did Serbia (against Albanian originated terrorist incursions) the hypocrisy reeks to high heaven.

So sure if the Western press is your source of information about all this I understand your view.

I recall mass - huge - protests in London against NATO bombing of Serbia (many of the protesters were elderly men who fought in WW2) and oddly almost nothing was reported of this on the TV or in the newspapers (I watched TV a lot and bought a lot of papers). The fact is there were huge protests about this but it got little mention, it was downplayed by the press so people I'd speak to had no idea, they - like you - understood that the "world was united" in bombing Serbia.

Why were there elderly men protesting in London? I spoke with many of them, they were WW2 veterans outraged that Serbia the only country in that region to refuse to bow to the Nazis and was bombed for it, an ally of the West in WW2, an ally that suffered its own horrifying holocaust perpetrated by brutal fascist that even the German SS were shocked by, was now being bombed? by the West? by the RAF? by Tony Blair?

Its complex, one option is to just sanitize it and an swallow the media story "Nasty evil Russia is inhumanely bombing and destroying a sovereign country in the heart of Europe" if it helps you sleep at night then do it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The final vote was 141 to condemn, 34 abstentions, and only four backing Russia (which cast the fifth "no" vote)Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, and Syria. So you're in rather....um....interesting company there SH.

Take a look at how the UN has voted over the years with respect to resolutions calling for Israel to stop its brutal persecution of Palestinians, guess which country voted against resolutions condemning Israel, the most?

[Diogenes]

It's actually sickening, millions and millions of people are now going to suffer all because a bunch of nutjobs insisted on expanding NATO.

Wow! How far off can you be? Are you the typical Putin/Trump loving Republican who supports those two dictators over USA and NATO?
NATO is strictly a defense organization. At the end of WW2 Russia became the USSR, the proponent of "Godless Communism." They invaded and controlled Eastern Europe. NATO was formed to protect these countries.

Why would you take Russia's side and not want Ukraine and other INDEPENDENT nations to be able to maintain their independence by a voluntary alliance with others fearing Russia?