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?

[thomasdixon]

Biden needs to call Putins bluff. Putin threatens a nuclear war which would result in mutual destruction. Putin may even call for such a strike, but I can assure you, Putins military would not comply.
(:-

[Sherlock Holmes]

From 8 years ago: Ukraine crisis could start World War 3



"This persistent demonization of Russia in the media, may end up being self fulfilling".

[bjs1]

It is a real puzzler why the West have made some of the decisions they made recently.

Clearly some estimation was done that led to the conclusion that seeing Russia invade Ukraine had more of a benefit than a cost, some net benefit - I wonder what that reasoning was? Is the beneficiary the US fossil fuel industry?

It would have been easy for Ukraine itself or the UK, Germany, France and so on, just any one NATO member to take a stand and give consideration to the request that NATO membership not be granted to Ukraine, the Russian request always was entirely reasonable given what happened following the collapse of the USSR and they have been raising their concern about NATO for over twenty years now.

Then with NATO decisions being based on consensus even one dissenter to Ukraine membership would have been enough to get the matter abandoned, yet all the sheep agreed, why?

And why did Ukraine's government not agree to reconsider the NATO membership? isn't that arrogant insistence an act of gross irresponsibility on Ukraine's part?

So when Ukraine and NATO refused to even consider the request did they think Russia would not react and invade? Clearly they did expect this because they'd been "warning" us for weeks and weeks that it was inevitable.

Therefore what is happening in Ukraine, the destruction, refugees, death and misery, increasing poverty and a recession in Russia, are all fully anticipated and expected, and regarded as a "price worth paying" but for what?

Was it a gamble, perhaps to create a situation that could see Putin assassinated or overthrown due to growing dissent among the Russian leadership? is that an anticipated outcome? is that what this is all about?

It is obviously not about some lofty principle of freedom, democracy or any of that claptrap as this article helps to explain.

I cannot agree with you here.

"Look what you made me do" is bad reasoning if comes from a physically abusive boyfriend or an entire nation.

Russia invaded. Putin gave the order. Yes, the West (including America) has done bad things in the past. Yes, Russia had genuine security concerns. None of that justifies invading a sovereign nation.

Many people warned that Russia would invade because Russia moved troops into position to invade. Putin had other options. He chose violence. That is completely on him.

The "gamble" was most likely the Putin would be more stable than he appeared and not invade a nation that had yet to do anything to provoke that invasion.

Some people may feel that talk of freedom and democracy are just hypocrisy. That may be true, at least in part. However, freedom and democracy are still on the line here. The ultimate question is: Does the Ukraine have the right to make alliances? This is not Russia defending the Ukraine from aggression (which would be analogous to the Monroe Doctrine in North America). This was Russia not liking the alliances Ukraine made the launching an unprovoked attack. There is no justification for that an no rational way to pass the blame to anyone but Russia.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is a real puzzler why the West have made some of the decisions they made recently.

Clearly some estimation was done that led to the conclusion that seeing Russia invade Ukraine had more of a benefit than a cost, some net benefit - I wonder what that reasoning was? Is the beneficiary the US fossil fuel industry?

It would have been easy for Ukraine itself or the UK, Germany, France and so on, just any one NATO member to take a stand and give consideration to the request that NATO membership not be granted to Ukraine, the Russian request always was entirely reasonable given what happened following the collapse of the USSR and they have been raising their concern about NATO for over twenty years now.

Then with NATO decisions being based on consensus even one dissenter to Ukraine membership would have been enough to get the matter abandoned, yet all the sheep agreed, why?

And why did Ukraine's government not agree to reconsider the NATO membership? isn't that arrogant insistence an act of gross irresponsibility on Ukraine's part?

So when Ukraine and NATO refused to even consider the request did they think Russia would not react and invade? Clearly they did expect this because they'd been "warning" us for weeks and weeks that it was inevitable.

Therefore what is happening in Ukraine, the destruction, refugees, death and misery, increasing poverty and a recession in Russia, are all fully anticipated and expected, and regarded as a "price worth paying" but for what?

Was it a gamble, perhaps to create a situation that could see Putin assassinated or overthrown due to growing dissent among the Russian leadership? is that an anticipated outcome? is that what this is all about?

It is obviously not about some lofty principle of freedom, democracy or any of that claptrap as this article helps to explain.

I cannot agree with you here.

"Look what you made me do" is bad reasoning if comes from a physically abusive boyfriend or an entire nation.

Well an abusive boyfriend yes, I'd agree. This is much more complex though, the analogy is so far removed from reality that I don't think it helps.

Russia invaded. Putin gave the order. Yes, the West (including America) has done bad things in the past. Yes, Russia had genuine security concerns. None of that justifies invading a sovereign nation.

Well Russia did begin to mass its troops and weapons around its border with Ukraine, as an impetus to get Ukraine to address what Russia sees as a growing existential threat, it did not just invade. Recall from an earlier post what Russian diplomats said in 1996:

Although a member of PFP, Russia has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion. Virtually all political forces within the country view this policy as an encirclement, a containment that will lead to greater isolation. Thus, Russia is particularly sensitive about the inclusion of bordering countriesthe Baltics, Ukraine, Moldova. Should the Baltic countries join NATO, Russian officials hinted that they would counter with troop concentrations or tactical nuclear weapons on the border, thus decreasing, not increasing, security in the region.

This was said after the US had already agreed in principle to not expand NATO eastwards after the unification of Germany in 1991.

And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATOs present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.
...
We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the "two + four" mechanism should guarantee that Germanys unification will not lead to NATOs military organization spreading to the east.

This seems pretty clear, the West agreed to not add new member states any further east that those members that were present in 1991, then in 1996 Russia emphasized its opposition, reminding the West of its understanding on the matter, saying it could respond by massing troops and even tactical nuclear weapons if NATO were to expand. Since then NATO has blatantly disregarded Russian concerns and added three members in 1999, seven members in 2004, two members in 2009, one in 2017 and one in 2020. This included the "Baltic states" (2004) the very thing Russia called out as a trigger in 1996.

Clearly the West was willing to pursue the expansion of NATO despite the fact that Russia had told them how it would react. So we see now, 2022 Russia stating that because NATO has relentlessly expanded despite clear understandings to the contrary and open talks inside and outside of Ukraine that it too would pursue NATO membership, it was insisting on an explicit agreement that Ukraine would not become a NATO member. We all saw the news and how this was treated. It was rejected, it was described as being unreasonable to dictate what a sovereign nation can do and what organizations it can join and so on.

Now, tell me what could Russia do at this point to prevent Ukraine becoming a NATO member? I'd like to hear, really I would like to know what additional options Russia could pursue?

Many people warned that Russia would invade because Russia moved troops into position to invade. Putin had other options. He chose violence. That is completely on him.

Well Russia warned in 1996 that it would mass troops and move tactical nuclear weapons to the borders of the Baltics/Ukraine if ever NATO tried to expand and include these, but that was ignored, and NATO did it anyway, does that not send a message to Russia? If the West was actually prepared to see Russia move tactical nuclear weapons to the border then it is obvious to Russia that such warnings and conditions have no effect on NATO policy, obviously Russia either sits back and watches Ukraine and other states on their border join NATO, develop US dominated military bases and eventually host US nuclear weapons OR they could take decisive action to stop the expansion, did I miss an option here?

The "gamble" was most likely the Putin would be more stable than he appeared and not invade a nation that had yet to do anything to provoke that invasion.

Zelensky has been openly contemptuous toward Russia and openly refused to consider not pursuing NATO, so the provocation has been cumulative, over the past thirty years it has been accumulating, Russia had been protesting, warning and even threatening yet Zelensky and the West just pressed on, sidelining Russia, that's actually a huge provocation, thirty years of NATO eastward expansion.

Some people may feel that talk of freedom and democracy are just hypocrisy. That may be true, at least in part. However, freedom and democracy are still on the line here. The ultimate question is: Does the Ukraine have the right to make alliances?

There is no definition of what "rights" nations have other than what's defined or alluded to in the UN charter, that's pretty much all we have. On that basis Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of international law and I've said already in this thread. As for rights to join alliances there is no definition of that, states either act sensibly and try to avoid conflict or the act recklessly. North Vietnam tried to establish an association with the USSR in the 1960s, the US felt it did not have that right and it invaded South Vietnam.

This is absolutely nothing new really, Russia has done nothing remarkable or outrageous at all, not if we look at the history books. The West has invaded and bombed far more than Russia has since the end of WW2, go and look at the list of victims states, its pretty long.

What is different is that the Western media have chosen to portray Russia's invasion in a very different light to how they have portrayed Western invasions and bombing campaigns in the past. The press could have portrayed victims running from bombs, hospitals being obliterated, drug factories being taken out, airports destroyed, infrastructure blown away, children maimed for a host of prior military escapades yet it did not. Serbia, Kuwait, Iraq just go and look (for example after the Gulf War 1,000,000 million Iraqi children died over the following years directly because of Western sanctions, did you know that? why was that never front page news? why was that never the lead story on the TV news?)

This is not Russia defending the Ukraine from aggression (which would be analogous to the Monroe Doctrine in North America). This was Russia not liking the alliances Ukraine made the launching an unprovoked attack. There is no justification for that an no rational way to pass the blame to anyone but Russia.

Well I understand the need for a palatable simple way to look at the world, but it isn't simple and it is far from palatable. There are other factors here too not just NATO, pushing Russia out of the energy markets is another.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's noteworthy article I stumbled upon earlier.

e.g.

I know that Ukraine's current government, now treated as if it was almost holy, was brought into being by a mob putsch openly backed by the USA in 2014.

I know that the much-admired President Zelensky in February 2021 closed down three opposition TV stations on the grounds of 'national security'. They went dark that night. I know that the opposition politician Viktor Medvedchuk was put under house arrest last year on a charge of treason. Isn't this the sort of thing Putin does?

I know that Ukraine's army has used severe force against Russian civilians in the Don Basin since 2014. The Russians have done dreadful things there, too, but there are plenty of people who will tell you that. The point is that this is not a contest of saints versus sinners, or of Mordor versus the Shire.

and

I tire of being told that Nato is purely defensive alliance when we know it bombed Serbia in 1999, incidentally killing civilians, when Serbia had not attacked a Nato member.

I also don't recall Libya attacking a Nato member before that 'defensive' alliance launched the air war on Tripoli which also killed civilians, children included, and turned that country into a cauldron of chaos, benefiting nobody.

[Jose Fly]

Putins full-scale information war got a key assist from Donald Trump and right-wing media

The former presidential adviser and Russia expert Fiona Hill made headlines last week when she stated bluntly in a Politico interview that Vladimir Putin would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.

But it was another part of that long interview that I found almost as arresting. Hill described how Putin, as he reaches for domination, relies heavily on his skills at the influence-and-information game.

"What happens in a Russian all-of-society war, you soften up the enemy," she told her interviewer, Maura Reynolds. Hill named some names: "You get the Tucker Carlsons and Donald Trumps doing your job for you."

And now, after a few years of their apologetic rhetoric on behalf of Russia, Putin "has got swaths of the Republican Party" and "masses of the U.S. public saying Good on you, Vladimir Putin, or blaming NATO, or blaming the U.S." for Russias invasion of Ukraine, she added...

...Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) said that in the run-up to the invasion, his office heard complaints from constituents who watch Carlson and "are upset that were not siding with Russia in its threats to invade Ukraine, and who want me to support Russias reasonable positions."

That Russian state TV has repeatedly played clips of Carlsons rants, complete with Russian subtitles, is a tribute to just how well-received his rhetoric has been by Putin and his allies...

...On Tuesday, former Trump-era assistant treasury secretary Monica Crowley told Fox Newss Jesse Watters that economic sanctions were so severe that "Russia is now being canceled." Within days, we heard about Russian Foreign Intelligence Director Sergei Naryshkin using the same cancel-culture rhetoric. "The West isnt simply trying to close off Russia behind a new iron curtain. This is about an attempt to ruin our government to cancel it, as they now say in tolerant liberal-fascist circles," Naryshkin said...

...He severely limits truthful information inside Russia and uses politically friendly Americans and their media magnifiers to plant propaganda and lead cheers in the West.

In the age of real-time video and the relentless presence of social media, controlling the message has became more challenging for Putin. As the estimable Fiona Hill argues, hes trying to do nothing less than take down the world order and reconstitute the Russian-speaking world as one entity.

Thats an ambitious plan. But at least his trusty American apologists laid some groundwork for him.

[Jose Fly]

When Americans Support Murderous Foreign Dictators

Smarter people than I will try to break down the myriad of reasons why people who claim to be patriotic citizens of this nation would become cheerleaders for and admirers of the highest-ranking Russian mobster as he encroaches on another sovereign nation, but heres what I do know:

People who place themselves in the camp of Vladimir Putin are not patriots, they arent America First, they arent Christians, and they arent pro-life.

Theyre also not people who get to drape themselves in the flag, or invoke allegiance to this nation, or feign offense at kneeling football players, or spout some red, white, and blue nationalistic nonsensebecause they never cared about any of it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

When Americans Support Murderous Foreign Dictators

Smarter people than I will try to break down the myriad of reasons why people who claim to be patriotic citizens of this nation would become cheerleaders for and admirers of the highest-ranking Russian mobster as he encroaches on another sovereign nation, but heres what I do know:

People who place themselves in the camp of Vladimir Putin are not patriots, they arent America First, they arent Christians, and they arent pro-life.

Theyre also not people who get to drape themselves in the flag, or invoke allegiance to this nation, or feign offense at kneeling football players, or spout some red, white, and blue nationalistic nonsensebecause they never cared about any of it.

I can see you're quite outraged by all this aren't you Jose.

I'm just curious, why is open support for Putin more reprehensible than say open official government support for Saudi Arabia? The Cato institute rank countries by their "Freedom Index" and rate Russia as 6.23 and Saudi Arabia as 5.12, the lower number means worse over all human rights. (Turkey ranks at 5.79, worse than Russia yet oddly, is a NATO member).

In 2015 Saudi Arabia began an air bombardment of Yemen, "assisted by" the US and UK. So far this has led to 260,000 people dying, UN experts claim that war crimes have been committed by both sides.

Since March 2015, over 23,000 airstrikes have been launched by the coalition in Yemen, killing or injuring over 18,000 civilians. Living in a country subjected to an average of 10 airstrikes per day has left millions feeling far from safe. Although the frequency and intensity of airstrikes have fluctuated over the last four years, the Group of Eminent Experts has continued to observe their devastating impact on civilians. One paramedic, after visiting an airstrike site in Sanaa, stated: "One week later, I was in the area and, in the drainage of the hotel, we found more bodies. The dogs had started eating those bodies. One month later, I smelled around the area and when I went to the building, I found a leg in the drainage."

Isn't it odd how the Yemeni people's plight gets close to zero coverage on the nightly TV news? isn't it odd how we don't see thousands of people waving Yemeni flags, protesting in our streets to show solidarity with the Yemeni people? Most, odd.

From The Guardian, this January:

This is a far greater scandal than the parties in Downing Street. In a just world, it would prove the downfall of our prime minister. This week, airstrikes by the Saudis and their allies killed more than a dozen people in Yemen, civilians among them. Last month an estimated 32 civilians died as a result of the ongoing conflict. The country has been convulsed by civil war since 2014. For seven years, a Saudi-led coalition has been pummelling the impoverished country with bombs, many of them supplied by Britain. Through our staunch military alliance with the Saudi dictatorship, our government is directly complicit with these atrocities.

You can be forgiven for knowing nothing about any of this: Yemen does not matter, you see. Its people have been relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of death, and most of our media show little interest in scrutinizing our government for slaughter that it is directly complicit in. The Saudi violence has only increased in Yemen since October, after the UN human rights council voted to end its war crimes investigation following intensive lobbying by the dictatorship in Riyadh.

and

Yet our government retains its tight alliance with the Saudi regime, which decapitates gay people and dissidents, brutalises women and provides, in words purportedly of Hillary Clinton, "clandestine financial and logistical support" to terrorists. This is the regime that chopped a journalist into pieces in a foreign embassy, and incinerated Yemeni children travelling on a school bus on their way back from a picnic an "apparent war crime", in the words of Human Rights Watch.

Perhaps we could apply sanctions to Saudi Arabia? they have lots of "oligarchs" too. How about disconnecting Saudi Arabia from SWIFT? Hey, maybe NATO could setup a no-fly zone to protect the Yemeni population, oh hold on, that probably wouldn't work, hold on, let me think about this more...

Where is your outrage Jose? where is your sympathy for the Yemeni victims? how come you haven't posted about the inexcusable support for Saudi Arabia we see from various well know public figures? I'd really like an answer to this please, perhaps this might elicit just a little bit of outrage:

[alexxcJRO]

When Americans Support Murderous Foreign Dictators

Smarter people than I will try to break down the myriad of reasons why people who claim to be patriotic citizens of this nation would become cheerleaders for and admirers of the highest-ranking Russian mobster as he encroaches on another sovereign nation, but heres what I do know:

People who place themselves in the camp of Vladimir Putin are not patriots, they arent America First, they arent Christians, and they arent pro-life.

Theyre also not people who get to drape themselves in the flag, or invoke allegiance to this nation, or feign offense at kneeling football players, or spout some red, white, and blue nationalistic nonsensebecause they never cared about any of it.

I can see you're quite outraged by all this aren't you Jose.

I'm just curious, why is open support for Putin more reprehensible than say open official government support for Saudi Arabia? The Cato institute rank countries by their "Freedom Index" and rate Russia as 6.23 and Saudi Arabia as 5.12, the lower number means worse over all human rights. (Turkey ranks at 5.79, worse than Russia yet oddly, is a NATO member).

In 2015 Saudi Arabia began an air bombardment of Yemen, "assisted by" the US and UK. So far this has led to 260,000 people dying, UN experts claim that war crimes have been committed by both sides.

Since March 2015, over 23,000 airstrikes have been launched by the coalition in Yemen, killing or injuring over 18,000 civilians. Living in a country subjected to an average of 10 airstrikes per day has left millions feeling far from safe. Although the frequency and intensity of airstrikes have fluctuated over the last four years, the Group of Eminent Experts has continued to observe their devastating impact on civilians. One paramedic, after visiting an airstrike site in Sanaa, stated: "One week later, I was in the area and, in the drainage of the hotel, we found more bodies. The dogs had started eating those bodies. One month later, I smelled around the area and when I went to the building, I found a leg in the drainage."

Isn't it odd how the Yemeni people's plight gets close to zero coverage on the nightly TV news? isn't it odd how we don't see thousands of people waving Yemeni flags, protesting in our streets to show solidarity with the Yemeni people? Most, odd.

From The Guardian, this January:

This is a far greater scandal than the parties in Downing Street. In a just world, it would prove the downfall of our prime minister. This week, airstrikes by the Saudis and their allies killed more than a dozen people in Yemen, civilians among them. Last month an estimated 32 civilians died as a result of the ongoing conflict. The country has been convulsed by civil war since 2014. For seven years, a Saudi-led coalition has been pummelling the impoverished country with bombs, many of them supplied by Britain. Through our staunch military alliance with the Saudi dictatorship, our government is directly complicit with these atrocities.

You can be forgiven for knowing nothing about any of this: Yemen does not matter, you see. Its people have been relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of death, and most of our media show little interest in scrutinizing our government for slaughter that it is directly complicit in. The Saudi violence has only increased in Yemen since October, after the UN human rights council voted to end its war crimes investigation following intensive lobbying by the dictatorship in Riyadh.

and

Yet our government retains its tight alliance with the Saudi regime, which decapitates gay people and dissidents, brutalises women and provides, in words purportedly of Hillary Clinton, "clandestine financial and logistical support" to terrorists. This is the regime that chopped a journalist into pieces in a foreign embassy, and incinerated Yemeni children travelling on a school bus on their way back from a picnic an "apparent war crime", in the words of Human Rights Watch.

Perhaps we could apply sanctions to Saudi Arabia? they have lots of "oligarchs" too. How about disconnecting Saudi Arabia from SWIFT? Hey, maybe NATO could setup a no-fly zone to protect the Yemeni population, oh hold on, that probably wouldn't work, hold on, let me think about this more...

Where is your outrage Jose? where is your sympathy for the Yemeni victims? how come you haven't posted about the inexcusable support for Saudi Arabia we see from various well know public figures? I'd really like an answer to this please, perhaps this might elicit just a little bit of outrage:

There is no outrage against Saudi Arabia serious wrong doings in the WEST tribe for Saudi Arabia belongs to this tribe.
There is no outrage against Russia serious wrong doings in the EST tribe for Russia belongs to this tribe.
This WEST tribe includes UE, Canada, USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Turkey and so on.
The EST tribe includes Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and so on.

All are/were morally bankrupt. Putin, Trump, Bush, Assad, Saddam Hussein, UK leaders, UE leaders and so one. Killing of the innocent, the suffering of the innocent is not the real issue for them but only the killing of the innocent, the suffering of the innocent by the members from the other tribe.
They dont have a real morality. They are all hypocrites. They all broke the golden rule.
They accused each other of things that have done themselves. They get so outraged.
These supposed moral super outrages are just fake posturing to have a reason for war.

Putin gets super outraged ("for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime,") because of the killing of the innocent and/ or suffering of the innocent in the Dombas region and then goes and invades all Ukraine and kills many innocents and causes so much suffering to the innocents at a much bigger scale.
Bush got super outraged because of the killing of the innocent and/ or suffering of the innocent in the 9/11 terrorists bombing and then went and invaded all Afghanistan and killed many innocents and caused so much suffering to the innocents at a much bigger scale.
Bush and Blair got super outraged because of the killing of the innocent and/ or suffering of the innocent at the hand of Saddam Hussein and then they went and invaded all Iraq and killed many innocents and caused so much suffering to the innocents at a much bigger scale.
Trump got super outraged("If you gas a baby or drop a barrel bomb onto innocent people, you will see a response from") because of the killing of the innocent and/ or suffering of the innocent at the hand of Assad and then went and bombed Syria and killed many innocents and caused so much suffering to the innocents at a much bigger scale.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/us/u ... eaths.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20170411-us ... cal-attack

Analogy:
If one has a real morality for example in respect to stealing he/she will be outraged if anyone steals, may it be a stranger, family member, boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, fellow countryman or foreigner.
When one is only outraged when the stealing occurs only in other "tribe" then he/she does not have really a thing against stealing. Her/his supposed morality which condemns stealing is non-existent.

C: Its all just fight for a supremacy-hegemony, power and resources between these two tribes WEST tribe and EST tribe. They fool the simpletons with fake garbage-Pharisaism, hypocrisy, virtue signaling and propaganda.

[Sherlock Holmes]

We've all seen recently how Ukraine is parading captured Russian soldiers and pilots on TV, the press are eager and happy to do this.

Yet contrast this with a similar story from 2003.