Russia threatens Denmark with nukes if they join NATO defense shield

[dzheremi]

SeventhValley, these prayers are generally written so that they can be said anywhere, since the Church may be worshiping outside of its original home country. The Coptic Orthodox Church in America prays for "the leader of this land" (the actual translation is "king", but "leader" is used in English since America does not have a king), and "for the safety of the world and of this city of ours, and of all cities, districts, islands, and monasteries".

 

[ArmyMatt]

The US being the country you should love and cherish would you bless our military equipment?

the kind that kills others? no. the kind used for transport and other such non-lethal stuff? probably.

Will ArmyMatt write a hymn to Obama as the God appointed leader of the country?

if he converts to Orthodoxy? maybe.

 

[SeventhValley]

the kind that kills others? no. the kind used for transport and other such non-lethal stuff? probably.



if he converts to Orthodoxy? maybe.

Why is it ok for other priests to do it if you will not?

 

[Lukaris]

Wow, most racist post I have seen on TWA so far.

Racist?

I expected & probably deserved harsh criticism of my post but I did not expect the superficial reactionary charge of "RACISM" ! Everything today is "racist" no substantive criticism just the ideological shrill of blanket condemnation.

This is how pathetic this type of dialogue is today.

 

[Lukaris]

Usa Slumlord is what he said:

Implying that all black people are natuarly ignorant(a form of atheistic social Darwinism) and live in ghettos. Obama is hightly educated and actually has more in common with a Stepford Connecticut family with his background background and lifestyle.

Take your slander and hit the road. I called a politician a derogatory term which had nothing to do with any race. Its so easy today blunt criticism with shrill condemnation.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Ну что сказать? Я понимаю их страхи. Кажется, что они не способны представить себе русские страхи.
Самое нужное, это умение ставить себя на месте оппонентов, врагов, и тех, с кем не согласен, суметь видеть их точку зрения. Вот что остро не хватает. Понятие bigotry в принципе есть неумение представить себе чужую точку зрения.

@Rusmeister

не способны представить себе русские страхи. - думаю, к большому сожалению, не хотят понимать. Ну, надеюсь, БОГ убережет от большой войны.
это умение ставить себя - вторая наибольшая заповедь: возлюби ближнего своего, как самого себя= поступай с другими так, как хочешь чтобы поступали с тобой=> как минимум понимай ближнего своего=>умей ставить себя на его место

Russia is not Finland's "enemy". We share a 1340 km border together and 2000+ years of shared history. President Niinistö of Finland has consistently reminded the international community that Russia does have legitimate worries and that we should sit down with Moscow to address those pain spots because that's the only way forward.

Finland warns of new cold war over failure to grasp situation in Russia

Western countries are at the gates of a new cold war with Russia, sparked by the Ukraine crisis and a continuing failure to grasp the depth and seriousness of Vladimir Putin’s grievances with the US and EU, the Finnish president, Sauli Niinistö, has warned.

“We are in the position in the west of asking what is Putin up to,” Niinistö said. “Putin keeps saying the west and Nato are hostile. [He says] they have deceived Russia with Nato enlargement and they are undermining and humiliating Russia. “So this is a situation that is not promising. I have said we are almost at the gates of a new kind of cold war that could suck in all of Europehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news.'


Niinisto discussed the Ukraine situation with Putin in person in August and said he remained in touch with the Russian leader. He said the US and EU were partly to blame for not paying enough attention to Putin’s assertions that the west was weak, hedonistic and hostile to Russia’s values, including religious values. The EU had failed to appreciate its plans for closer ties with Ukraine posed a “huge problem” for Putin.
​

So, yes, Russia does have legitime fears and we do understand that.

Finland, however, is not one of those legitime fears in any shape or form.

Putin says NATO is trying to besiege Russia, and he's not entirely wrong, yet by bullying Finland Putin does seem to be doing everything he can to fast track Finland to NATO and turn our 1340 km neutral non-NATO border into a 1340 km NATO border right on Russian borders. Why? Is he just so stupid he doesn't see the consequenses? Putin is deliberately stoking artificial, Kremlin-manufactured fears and fire where there is none and where there should be none. Why?

Exploring nationalism, especially the abuses of it, is what I do for a living. There's nothing new under the sun and Putin is doing it for the same reason other has-been autocrats have turned into nationalism as a last ditch effort to stay in power and keep themselves relevant in the eyes of their people who are slowly starting to see their emperor has no clothes.

For a while, after the chaotic 1990s and through the economic boom of early 2000s Putin was good, quite possibly the best, for Russia and Russians. Now he's dragging his country down with him. The Sotši Winter Olympics were a success and an international boost for Russia. Putin should have capitalized on that and his elevated postion as one of the world leaders to move Russia forward. Just as President G.W. Bush should have capitalized the post-911 international sympathy and his leading position to move his country and the rest of the world with it forward.

But no. The good old Hubris took over instead. With the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, President Bush took his country back instead of forward and eroded his own standing and his country's international standing with a landslide. And Putin went and did the same with his equally illegal invasion and occupation of Krim. Both leaders will go down to history as Presidents who royally blew it.

Now Putin has painted himself in the corner with his own policy missteps. If Putin really wanted the best for Russia and Russians, he would be man enough to own up that he overplayed his hand and then we could sit down and negotiate how to fix it. Unfortunately, Putin seems more interested in saving his own face than facing the fact that his policies have sent Russia from the right course to tailspin. So, as George W. Bush did, Putin doggedly forges ahead on his chosen destructive course, which means inventing more and more "international enemies" that allegedly want to "tear Russia apart" or some such propaganda nonsense -- "international enemies" like Russia's longtime partner and good neighbour, Finland, pop. 5 million!

What every autocrat knows: to distract from your own policy failures you need to divert the attention to foreign boogeyman.

Can the Russian people see through it and discern what stands for a legitime concern (the NATO enlargement, for example) and what is just a hogwash boogeyman inveted to serve a political agenda? Can the Russian people understand our frustration at the thought that some Russians might actually buy the propaganda and believe Finland to be a genuine "threat" to Russia and Russians?

 

[Dorothea]

We just call it leadership

It's good to be the King

 

[Dorothea]

yah, i dont know either. the Book of Needs has prayers for blessing all kinds of stuff, and it may even have been just a generic blessing - not necessarily specifically for weapons. but we certainly bless lots of objects that have no mind of their own to guide them.

Haven't priests in Russia blessed rockets and was there one of them blessing missiles? I don't remember. I do remember they blessed the rocket or whatever the spacecraft was called for the Russian astronauts.

Just wondering.

 

[jckstraw72]

Haven't priests in Russia blessed rockets and was there one of them blessing missiles? I don't remember. I do remember they blessed the rocket or whatever the spacecraft was called for the Russian astronauts.

Just wondering.

someone just had an article on FB today about a priest blessing a spaceship or something ... i just read the headline.

the question is - what does blessing something mean? St. Porphyrios blessed a whorehouse - i doubt that equated to acceptance of what goes on there.

 

[Dorothea]

someone just had an article on FB today about a priest blessing a spaceship or something ... i just read the headline.

the question is - what does blessing something mean? St. Porphyrios blessed a whorehouse - i doubt that equated to acceptance of what goes on there.

I agree. Personally, I think it just might be a misunderstanding because of our American senses. When we see certain things in other countries, it may seem totally strange or even freaky, but that doesn't mean it truly is.

 

[SeventhValley]

I agree. Personally, I think it just might be a misunderstanding because of our American senses. When we see certain things in other countries, it may seem totally strange or even freaky, but that doesn't mean it truly is.

We need to get our priests on the ball. It would make me more likely to convert if I saw the OCA blessing US military equipment.

 

[Trying_to_be_Orthodox]

@Dorophea

https://www.google.ru/search?q=фото...&ei=wsMVVeWUGcP7ywOp04DoBA&ved=0CBsQsAQ&dpr=1

@jckstraw72

what does blessing something mean? - same, that the blessing of the car means.

 

[Trying_to_be_Orthodox]

@SeventhValley

Suppose, Usa Orthodox military can visit own priest and ask to bless own gun, rocket, earth/air/water/space-ship without any problem.

 

[rusmeister]

Racist?

I expected & probably deserved harsh criticism of my post but I did not expect the superficial reactionary charge of "RACISM" ! Everything today is "racist" no substantive criticism just the ideological shrill of blanket condemnation.

This is how pathetic this type of dialogue is today.

What I see in most modern dialog is a readiness to make assertions coupled with a lack of willingness to consider challenges to them.

 

[rusmeister]

I think there is a big misunderstanding about what blessing is. Seven, your understanding would condemn blessing things in principle, as I see it. I think the best thing to do would not be to begin by assuming that blessing military equipment is bad but by asking what blessing things is and means.

 

[rusmeister]

Still hoping this will be moved to a new and appropriate sub-forum...

Russia is not Finland's "enemy". We share a 1340 km border together and 2000+ years of shared history. President Niinistö of Finland has consistently reminded the international community that Russia does have legitimate worries and that we should sit down with Moscow to address those pain spots because that's the only way forward.

Finland warns of new cold war over failure to grasp situation in Russia

Western countries are at the gates of a new cold war with Russia, sparked by the Ukraine crisis and a continuing failure to grasp the depth and seriousness of Vladimir Putin’s grievances with the US and EU, the Finnish president, Sauli Niinistö, has warned.

“We are in the position in the west of asking what is Putin up to,” Niinistö said. “Putin keeps saying the west and Nato are hostile. [He says] they have deceived Russia with Nato enlargement and they are undermining and humiliating Russia. “So this is a situation that is not promising. I have said we are almost at the gates of a new kind of cold war that could suck in all of Europehttp://www.theguardian.com/world/europe-news.'


Niinisto discussed the Ukraine situation with Putin in person in August and said he remained in touch with the Russian leader. He said the US and EU were partly to blame for not paying enough attention to Putin’s assertions that the west was weak, hedonistic and hostile to Russia’s values, including religious values. The EU had failed to appreciate its plans for closer ties with Ukraine posed a “huge problem” for Putin.
​

So, yes, Russia does have legitime fears and we do understand that.

Finland, however, is not one of those legitime fears in any shape or form.

Putin says NATO is trying to besiege Russia, and he's not entirely wrong, yet by bullying Finland Putin does seem to be doing everything he can to fast track Finland to NATO and turn our 1340 km neutral non-NATO border into a 1340 km NATO border right on Russian borders. Why? Is he just so stupid he doesn't see the consequenses? Putin is deliberately stoking artificial, Kremlin-manufactured fears and fire where there is none and where there should be none. Why?

Exploring nationalism, especially the abuses of it, is what I do for a living. There's nothing new under the sun and Putin is doing it for the same reason other has-been autocrats have turned into nationalism as a last ditch effort to stay in power and keep themselves relevant in the eyes of their people who are slowly starting to see their emperor has no clothes.

For a while, after the chaotic 1990s and through the economic boom of early 2000s Putin was good, quite possibly the best, for Russia and Russians. Now he's dragging his country down with him. The Sotši Winter Olympics were a success and an international boost for Russia. Putin should have capitalized on that and his elevated postion as one of the world leaders to move Russia forward. Just as President G.W. Bush should have capitalized the post-911 international sympathy and his leading position to move his country and the rest of the world with it forward.

But no. The good old Hubris took over instead. With the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, President Bush took his country back instead of forward and eroded his own standing and his country's international standing with a landslide. And Putin went and did the same with his equally illegal invasion and occupation of Krim. Both leaders will go down to history as Presidents who royally blew it.

Now Putin has painted himself in the corner with his own policy missteps. If Putin really wanted the best for Russia and Russians, he would be man enough to own up that he overplayed his hand and then we could sit down and negotiate how to fix it. Unfortunately, Putin seems more interested in saving his own face than facing the fact that his policies have sent Russia from the right course to tailspin. So, as George W. Bush did, Putin doggedly forges ahead on his chosen destructive course, which means inventing more and more "international enemies" that allegedly want to "tear Russia apart" or some such propaganda nonsense -- "international enemies" like Russia's longtime partner and good neighbour, Finland, pop. 5 million!

What every autocrat knows: to distract from your own policy failures you need to divert the attention to foreign boogeyman.

Can the Russian people see through it and discern what stands for a legitime concern (the NATO enlargement, for example) and what is just a hogwash boogeyman inveted to serve a political agenda? Can the Russian people understand our frustration at the thought that some Russians might actually buy the propaganda and believe Finland to be a genuine "threat" to Russia and Russians?

Hi, Kale,
My thoughts on your thoughts...

It may be good to recognize abuses of nationalism, but there are two questions that that expression begs: what IS "nationalism" and what is GOOD use of it? One huge problem in most modern dialog is that people assume everything and define nothing.

I happen to think that the modern rhetorical use of the word "nationalism" and five hundred other such words does not express thought, but rather substitutes for thought, rhetorical devices to have us think we have already thought. I'm a Chestertonian, and think imperialism, the general concept of empire as opposed to nation or kingdom, to be bad, but think the nation to be a good thing, so "nationalism" must be, in its beginnings at any rate, a good thing. Only when we have thoroughly established that it is good to love one's own country can we proceedto speak of abuses, bad use, of that.

In examining your presentation of the Russian side, your quotes say "Putin says" and speaks of his "assertions" rather than exploring whether those assertions are true. The practical effect is to imply that the assertions are NOT true.
ARE the West and NATO hostile? IS the American Congress making motions to arm the Ukraine? DO we not find large-scale demonization of Russia n the Western media? I am American, and have great difficulty finding anything in the English-speaking mass media that calls even for fair consideration, let alone sympathy to the Russian position. There can be no question that the organs of big government and big business both seek a new war. This is not mere assertion, but provable fact.
IS the West weak, hedonistic and hostile (and are those the most significant adjectives)? "Weak" is indeed debatable, for it depends on what exactly you are talking about. A nation that can send multiple super-carriers to launch military strikes around the world is certainly not weak in a military sense, but if its ostensible leader's views of morality are "evolving" then you certainly have major moral and philsophical weakness in said leadership. Is it "hedonistic"? I hardly see how the charge can be denied. If we may admit that the obsessions with food and entertainment, inappropriate contentography and other libertine "rights" (aka "wrongs") as vital social interests is in fact hedonism, we can admit that that, at least, is certainly fact and not assertion. "Hostile" has already been addressed and is indeed fact.

You say you understand that there are legitimate Russian fears (well and good), but you immediately follow that by saying that Putin "is not entirely wrong" (implying that he is mostly wrong) in saying that NATO is trying to beseige Russia (is that the original quote?), but if "beseige" means "encircle", then again, there is no doubt that it is true, even if some of the Russian actions DO push neighbors toward potential alliance with governments that have in fact made themselves hostile. (Did you or anyone watch, or read a text of Stephen Cohen's observations that I posted above?)

You speak of Russia bullying Finland. I don't have the exact quotes that you express as bullying, but in their absence I would suppose that it consists of warnings against Finland joining an alliance against Russia. If that is the case, I would say that it was a rather sensible position to take, hut I am open to being shown actual and correct quotes in context that show clear threat of military action against Finland. (You must remember that I generally believe in national sovereignty and that "small is beautiful". I'm no imperialist.)

Rather than continue the "blow-by-blow" (for I do read your words carefully) I would make a more general observation that you speak as if Putin has been making unilateral decisions disconnected from the geo-political realities he is surrounded by. There is actually a lot I agree with you on. I think the whole Crimea business was deplorable, to say the least, but I see a difference, in that I think I really DO understand the Russian position in that, and my sense is that you don't. That itself may be useless assertion, but you would have to play devil's advocate and show that you DO understand the Russian position to convince me otherwise. You'd have to talk about the 300 years of being factually united into one country, and the preponderance of actual Russians living in the Ukraine, and Ukrainians living in Russia, the historical interrelations that are hardly less than marriage. It is not at all the grossly simplified Western narrative of two nations that appeared and developed separately, sovereign and unrelated until little more than a year ago. And I don't see that in your words. I see only a clear understanding of your own side, NOT of the other side, and a vague acknowledgement of legitimate fears is not enough.

 

[SeventhValley]

Still hoping this will be moved to a new and appropriate sub-forum...



Hi, Kale,
My thoughts on your thoughts...

It may be good to recognize abuses of nationalism, but there are two questions that that expression begs: what IS "nationalism" and what is GOOD use of it? One huge problem in most modern dialog is that people assume everything and define nothing.

I happen to think that the modern rhetorical use of the word "nationalism" and five hundred other such words does not express thought, but rather substitutes for thought, rhetorical devices to have us think we have already thought. I'm a Chestertonian, and think imperialism, the general concept of empire as opposed to nation or kingdom, to be bad, but think the nation to be a good thing, so "nationalism" must be, in its beginnings at any rate, a good thing. Only when we have thoroughly established that it is good to love one's own country can we proceedto speak of abuses, bad use, of that.

In examining your presentation of the Russian side, your quotes say "Putin says" and speaks of his "assertions" rather than exploring whether those assertions are true. The practical effect is to imply that the assertions are NOT true.
ARE the West and NATO hostile? IS the American Congress making motions to arm the Ukraine? DO we not find large-scale demonization of Russia n the Western media? I am American, and have great difficulty finding anything in the English-speaking mass media that calls even for fair consideration, let alone sympathy to the Russian position. There can be no question that the organs of big government and big business both seek a new war. This is not mere assertion, but provable fact.
IS the West weak, hedonistic and hostile (and are those the most significant adjectives)? "Weak" is indeed debatable, for it depends on what exactly you are talking about. A nation that can send multiple super-carriers to launch military strikes around the world is certainly hot weak in a military sense, but if its ostensible leader's views of morality are "evolving" then you certainly have major moral and philsophical weakness in said leadership. Is it "hedonistic"? I hardly see how the charge can be denied. If we may admit that the obsessions with food and entertainment, inappropriate contentography and other libertine "rights" (aka "wrongs") as vital social interests is in fact hedonism, we can admit that that, at least, is certainly fact and not assertion. "Hostile" has already been addresed and is indeed fact.

You say you understand that there are legitimate Russian fears (well and good), but you immediately follow that by saying that Putin "is not entirely wrong" (implying that he is mostly wrong) in saying that NATO is trying to beseige Russia (is that the original quote?), but if "beseige" means "encircle", then again, there is no doubt that it is true, even if some of the Russian actions DO push neighbors toward potential alliance with governments that have in fact made themselves hostile. (Did you or anyone watch, or read a text of Stephen Cohen's observations that I posted above?)

You speak of Russia bullying Finland. I don't have the exact quotes that you express as bullying, but in their absence I would suppose that it consists of warnings against Finland joining an alliance against Russia. If that is the case, I would say that it was a rather sensible position to take, hut I am open to being shown actual and correct quotes in context that show clear threat of military action against Finland. (You must remember that I generally believe in national sovereignty and that "small is beautiful". I'm no imperialist.)

Rather than continue the "blow-by-blow" (for I do read your words carefully) I would make a more general observation that you speak as if Putin has been making unilateral decisions disconnected from the geo-political realities he is surrounded by. There is actually a lot I agree with you on. I think the whole Crimea business was deplorable, to say the least, but I see a difference, in that I think I really DO understand the Russian position in that, and my sense is that you don't. That itself may be useless assertion, but you would have to play devil's advocate and show that you DO understand the Russian position to convince me otherwise. You'd have to talk about the 300 years of being factually united into one country, and the preponderance of actual Russians living in the Ukraine, and Ukrainians living in Russia, the historical interrelations that are hardly less than marriage. It is not at all the grossly simplified Western narrative of two nations that appeared and developed separately, sovereign and unrelated until little more than a year ago. And I don't see that in your words. I see only a clear understanding of your own side, NOT of the other side, and a vague acknowledgement of legitimate fears is not enough.

He is the thing we have alot to fear due to our weakness.

Bush sent us on fool errands and has wasted our resources while pilling on debt. Other countries are siezing on our current weakness and are taking away business from us while also flooding us with cheap labor taking away jobs.(US businesses in their greed are complicit in this also). Other countries are waiting to swoop in and pick our bones clean, some have already started moving. Soon our retirement systems will collapse. If we do not defend ourselves now we will have no future.

 

[SeventhValley]

@SeventhValley

Suppose, Usa Orthodox military can visit own priest and ask to bless own gun, rocket, earth/air/water/space-ship without any problem.

ArmyMatt said he would not bless weapons.

 

[SeventhValley]

Also Russia has more Nukes than the US.

China has more manpower.

We are not anywhere near being this all powerful country that some make us out to be.

 

[GregConstantine]

Its not just about the numbers, its the ability to project that power to any place on earth. That is what we have the ability to do, Russia and China do not. The key to this is having a powerful navy with many aircraft carriers and amphibious assault crafts. We have about 12, Russia maybe 1 or two, China has just acquired one, but are still learning how to use it. We have free access to two huge oceans, the atlantic and the pacific, whereas Russia is boxed in on the Atlantic side. They have access to the pacific, but only where it is very cold and icy, the pacific coast in Russia have very few if any warm water ports. China has limited access to the pacific, she is blocked by a series of islands that do not belong to her. When China send her ships out into the open pacific, she has to pass through the territorial waters of other countries.