I can’t support the Ukrainian Government any longer, even though Putin was wrong to invade

[The Liturgist]

That's one thing that makes me sick to my stomach about the liberal push for war against Putin. And at the same time I see Kirill's moral imperative for opposing the West to be more neo-KGB than traditional Christian.

I feel Patriarch Kirill has been unfairly demonized.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Respectfully, I feel your post really misses the central thrust of my argument, which is that the continuation of this war is not morally justifiable.

I'm not feeling the respect, but I do agree that the war is not morally justified. Putin should agree to immediate withdrawal from Ukraine.

Instead, your argument consists of a number of points that are fallacious, or of dubious validity, or amount to quibbling, for example, a red herring (I never denied that Zelenskyy was invited to address congress; I factually stated that in his statement he protested, or if you prefer, urged using deceptive language, that the US Congress oppose the strategically sound decision of the Pentagon and President Biden to not risk escalation in a conflict involving a nuclear adversary whose strategic nuclear forces are already on alert.

Try editing your post before submitting. It certainly read that he "address congress in protest". (Doing something "in protest" usually refers to being forced to do so against you will.)

I didn't discuss the NFZ issues because I largely agree with Pres. Biden, though I perfectly understand why Zelenskyy feels the need to keep asking.

Indeed, your reply began with the absurd implication that Eastern Orthodoxy is of only tangential importance to the issue, and then moved into an irrelevant borderline ad hominem contra my praise of the recent humanitarian relief efforts enabled by the An-225 and support for renewal of pan-Slavic aerospace cooperation based on its historic achievements, and my lamentation of the destruction of a unique aircraft that would be of immediate utility in any number of humanitarian conflicts around the globe. To this, at the risk of your further ire at my alleged nostalgia for a regime Ronald Reagan, memory eternal, correctly called “the Empire of Evil”, I would add that no other aircraft, not even the A380 or Boeing 787-8F or Lockheed C5 Galaxy could match the payload of the Antonov An-225, and this is of real importance, and a cause for frustration, for anyone who has an active interest in the logistics of humanitarian relief efforts, such as the presbyter of two Congregationalist churches, who is also self-employed, and thus redirects all donations at our parishes not needed in the local community to several aid programs and disaster relief efforts worldwide, who it falls upon myself and the combined boards of directors of our two parishes to select, a selection made based on program efficiency, which depends on logistics, and the logistics of many programs have been helped enormously by that aircraft.

I dismissed those parts because I didn't think they were important. I still don't. They don't seem to be central to the alleged theme of your presentation.

The efficient operation of charitable relief efforts sponsored by religious organizations may be of little concern to persons who do not even bother to join a church that has atheist members and even atheist clergy, like the Unitarian Universalists or certain meetings of Friends (Quakers), but for pious atheists and persons of faith united in a charitable and philanthropic disposition, it is pressing, and when we lose something that has been of great benefit to helping people, it is something to be lamented. Not as much of an immediately heartbreaking tragedy such as the death of the hundred children mentioned by Zelenskyy (may their memory be eternal), but still deeply unfortunate because that aircraft was useful for life saving missions.

Since you want to bring *me* into things.. What on earth would I need a church for? If I want to get involved in charity I will find a charity, not a church.

Next, you argue that Zelenskyy was justified in appealing to our memory of WWII. The conflict in Ukraine has not approached the devastation caused even in the Vietnam War or the Saudi war on Yemen, or the civil war in Syria and Iraq, and the related ISIS conflict.

I didn't actually see his speech so I don't know how he invoked WW2, but you seem to be implying a war doesn't merit our attention until it reaches a certain level of devastation.

You also question the most reliable official numbers on casualties, provided by the UN OHCHR, which has networks of observers in a position to know, and deprecate the tragedy of 9/11, ignoring the crucial distinction that those attacks occurred without warning, and people were leaving Ukraine for weeks before the attack occurred; indeed, this attack was one of the most obviously impending military campaigns in history, and in that respect was totally unlike Russia’s sudden and immediate occupation of Crimea in 2014.

I would agree the operation by Russia seemed obvious to happen at the time preceding the actual invasion, but they didn't have to attack. As for 9-11, we did have some clues in the places we should have (intelligence ops for example), but that was a terrorist attack and not a nation state attack or a war.

What I question about OHCHR is there completeness and your willingness to use their incomplete numbers to minimize the civilian impact of this invasion as part of your justification for not supporting the invaded.

Your argument then denies that Martin Luther King Jr. was a pacifist, which is an insult to his memory, and ignorantly presumes that I am not a member of the same religion as him. As an atheist on a Christian forum, I obviously do not expect you to understand the subtleties of our theology, but I would expect you to (a) consider that this forum has a Statement of Faith defining what, for purposes of discussions here, a Christian is, a Statement of Faith agreed on by nearly all Christians (namely, the Nicene Creed), and that for purposes of discussion on the forum, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are of the same religion or religious identity, and (b) be aware that my profile does not identify me as an Eastern Orthodox Christian but as a Generic Orthodox Christian; indeed, had you read very many posts of mine you would be aware that at present, I am a Protestant clergyman, but I have been Eastern Orthodox in the past, as well as Episcopalian, and also am an ecumenist, meaning I advocate reunion of these churches, and the promotion of such reunion is one reason why I am presently involved with Congregationalism, and (c) refrain from saying things about our religion which are not incontrovertible, for example, the suggestion Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are members of different religions, and statements which are categorically false, for example, that the Eastern Orthodox cannot venerate a Protestant as a saint and martyr: the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia venerates St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, the founders of what now survives as the Moravian Church, as martyrs. The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox also venerate St. Isaac the Syrian, a member of the Church of the East, and several Orthodox saints are venerated by Roman Catholics.

As I stated in other replies, I used to be Catholic and I could probably recite the Nicene creed from memory. What I know of theology is Catholic theology (and the cultural imposition of American evangelic theology that permeates things). I have no idea how the orthodox churches select saints. (The RCC requires attested miracles, and since there are not MLK miracles he is not a saint in that church.) My comment was only that I was surprised to hear that notion as it was the first time I'd heard it. (I've heard a lot of hagiography of him but never "St.")

Religion, sect, denomination, call it what you like. I don't really care. What I was expressing is the long divisions between the three major sub-components of Christianity. I found it surprising that there would be that kind of elevation outside one's major branch. (I also find it weird that there are saints, in the RCC, that have been photographed. It just seems like saints were all people who lived back before the rediscovery of realistic painting methods.)

Most offensively, however, you then proceed to question the validity of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s doctorate on the sole basis that it may have been a “theology/ministry” doctorate, as if having a Doctorate in Theology or a Doctorate in Divinity is any less of an academic achievement than having a Doctorate in Philosophy, or Economics, or Sociology, or Mathematics, or Astronomy, or Computer Science, or Medicine. Indeed the original three doctorates offered by European universities were in Theology, Philosophy and Medicine. These remarks are deeply offensive on a Christian website, and also I believe our many African American members will, with not inconsiderable justification, regard most unfavorably this unwarranted, irrelevant and off-topic assault on the academic qualifications and moral virtue of a glorious Christian saint and martyr who contributed greatly to the abolition of segregation and other civil rights abuses, along with Rosa Parks, another great symbol of non-violent civil disobedience, which early Christians engaged in by mere virtue of their existence in the Roman Empire.

An academic doctorate in theology is certainly a much better thing that some sort of professional doctorate (like an MD). [I'll not expound on my general disdain for those who insist on being called "Dr. X".]

Lastly, with regards to the accusation of paranoia on my part, this I shall with utmost respect decline to comment on.

Fine.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Even if you feel his emotional rhetoric was justified, the man still lied through his teeth about wanting the killing to stop, which he could make happen in about two hours with one phone call, and is still making use of neo-Nazis, just as Putin is using, to call a spade a spade, jihadis.

I'm guessing the phone call is surrendering?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I feel Patriarch Kirill has been unfairly demonized.

I try hard not to think bad of him. It's not working very well. I'll say no more.

 

[chevyontheriver]

And the Russian and Ukrainian Christians are their expendable pawns.

I also was troubled by the new head of MI6 declaring that Russia’s stance on LGBTQIA+ issues was the most important moral issue in the conflict. I guess its only ok to be homophobic if you’re an Islamist regime like Saudi Arabia, Qatar or Turkey, in his opinion.

Makes me want to be Muslim.

 

[chevyontheriver]

(The RCC requires attested miracles, and since there are not MLK miracles he is not a saint in that church.) My comment was only that I was surprised to hear that notion as it was the first time I'd heard it. (I've heard a lot of hagiography of him but never "St.")

The other way of being recognized as a saint is to be a martyr. A martyr for the faith per se and not a martyr for some other cause. No actual miracles needed for them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The other way of being recognized as a saint is to be a martyr. A martyr for the faith per se and not a martyr for some other cause. No actual miracles needed for them.

It's weird that I overlook that mode now, since I used to think it was the primary route to sainthood. By the time I heard of the whole posthumous miracle thing I was probably on my way out.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Ukraine's Zelenskyy addresses Congress, invokes 9/11, Pearl Harbor, MLK as he pleads for pivotal aid

Note that Fox News has been consistently pro Ukraine, and I am citing their story because it is easy to read. Zelenskyy addressed the US congress in protest at our correct decision not to supply them with MiG-29s and provide air support, because the Pentagon and Biden have deemed these actions, correctly, to be “escalatory”, which is a euphemistic way of saying they would prompt a potential nuclear escalation that would lead to WWIII and the end of human life.

What is now causing me to oppose both the Ukrainian and Russian governments is that, in attempting to provoke members of Congress into backing things we can’t do because Russia and the US have nuclear parity and are at risk of mutually assured destruction in the event of nuclear conflict, Zelenskyy engaged in the following emotionally-charged rhetoric, which I found offensive:

• He referenced Pearl Harbor and WWII, in which the US was the victim of a sneak attack by an Axis Power and had war declared on it by Mussolini and Aldolf Hitler, whose atrocities exceed anything that has happened thus far in Ukraine, and we need to pray it never reaches that point.
• He also referenced the September 11 Terror Attacks, in which, 2,807 civillians and 189 military and civillian workers at the Pentagon were killed in a surprise terrorist action; in contrast, in the course of a war which was anticipated for months, and in which there were mass evacuations from Kiev and other cities before the main Russian offensive, as of two days ago, UN human rights observers reported 636 civilian fatalities - still a tragedy, and unacceptable, but less than 25% of the casualties on 9/11 in a war comprised of vastly different circumstances.
• He invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who I venerate as a saint and hieromartyr, because he, a staunch pacifist clergyman who insisted on non-violent struggle for civil rights for African Americans, famously rebuked the movements associated with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers, who threatened violence, by exclaiming “Non-violence, non-violence, non-violence!” Zelenskyy quoted “I have a dream!” while requesting the violent act of imposing through military force a no-fly zone, and weapons, both actions being capable of leading to nuclear confrontation according to the US Department of Defense and President Biden. I am invincibly confident that St. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream did not extend to global thermonuclear war.

More disturbing than his emotional but unreasonable appeals was this (quoting from the linked article directly):

Pointing to World War II, Zelenskyy said that "the war of the past have prompted our predecessors to create institutions that should protect us from war, but, they unfortunately don’t work."

"We see it. You see it. So we need new ones, new institutions, new alliances, and we are for them," Zelenskyy said.

He proposed "to create an association, United for Peace, a union of responsible countries that have the strength and consciousness to stop conflicts, immediately provide all the necessary assistance in 24 hours, if necessary—even weapons, if necessary, sanctions, humanitarian support, political support."

"If such an alliance would exist today…we would be able to save thousands of lives in our country, in many countries of the world who need peace, those who suffer inhumane destruction,"

This sounds to me like a dangerous idea, another potential failure of an international alliance, with undertones of one world government.

Finally, in the most dishonest part of his speech, Zelenskyy declared "I see no sense in life if I cannot stop the deaths, and this is my main issue and the leader of my people, great Ukrainians, and the leader of my nation."

This is patently false - Zelenskyy’s goal is obviously victory, or at least a scenario where Ukrainian sovereignty is protected and Russia is dealt a strategic defeat through heavy casualties, even if Russian forces secure some additional land.

These goals are not dishonorable, indeed, most people not supporting Russia would see them as laudable, however, for him to declare all he wants to do is save lives is fundamentally dishonest and manipulative when he could accomplish that objective with a single phone call to either President Biden, NATO SHAPE, or a neutral country like Switzerland, requesting their assistance or good offices in communicating with Russia to achieve an immediate ceasefire to facilitate a 24 hour period in which to work out a negotiated surrender, countersigned by representatives of Russian allies, Ukrainian allies, neutral countries and the UN.

Zelenskyy, furthermore, despite being Jewish, has, to the peril of his fellow Ukrainian Jews, made something of a deal with the devil in the form of the Azov Battalion, actual neo-Nazis, who, having been armed and unleashed, represent a major threat to the security of post-war Ukraine, in particular religious and ethnic minorities, as this article in the Guardian details: Azov fighters are Ukraine's greatest weapon and may be its greatest threat

Now, make no mistake, I am not supporting Putin, who is a KGB man who makes a pretense of Russian Orthodox piety while thus far having engaged in four conflicts that resulted in Eastern Orthodox Christians killing other Eastern Orthodox Christians (the 2008 war with Georgia, in which he permanently destroyed the Georgian Navy, resulting in the deaths of many Georgian Orthodox Christians and some Russian and Abkhazian Orthodox Christians, and the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent ongoing conflict between Ukraine and the de facto independent Peoples Republics of Donestsk and Luhansk in the Donbass, which combined with this conflict, considering that the larger of the two Eastern Orthodox churches in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, is part of the Russian Orthodox Church, have consisted of Russian Orthodox fighting and in some cases killing Russian Orthodox and other Christians from the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, its sister denomination the Russian Catholic Church and their parent denomination the Roman Catholic Church, and the Ukrainian Lutheran Church, in addition to other smaller denominations.

And Putin failed to lift a finger to stop Azerbaijan from conquering and ethnically cleansing most of the Ngorno-Karabakh Armenian Republic, territories it had held for years (Azeris had already occupied and ethnically cleansed other Armenian territories amidst the downfall of the Soviet Union), these being Oriental Orthodox Christian lands, and Azerbaijan being a nominally secular Islamic regime that is fanatically anti-Armenian, and like Turkey, a genocide denier, and also closely allied with brutal Islamist dictatorship in Iran, which is Putin’s ally. Armenia is also supposedly an ally of Russia, but when in need, they did not receive any meaningful assistance. Indeed the only thing Russia has done that helped Christians were their actions in Syria and Iraq, but they withdrew ground forces prematurely, allowing ISIS to destroy the archaeological wonders, including the ancient house church and Jewish synagogue in Dura-Europos. And if Zelenskyy did a deal with the devil in availing himself of assistance from the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, Putin has done the same thing, by employing Islamist militias from Chechnya in Ukraine for various special operations.* This is also a huge risk to postwar Russian internal security, because these “elite Chechen units” appear to be at the very least related to the Chechen Islamist terrorists who committed various attrocities in Moscow and elsewhere in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

So my policy as of now is to oppose the continued military conflict and to not support either Zelenskyy or Putin, because both have shown themselves to be deeply flawed leaders. I believe Zelenskyy, for his part, could have precluded this conflict through a peace treaty with Russia wherein they agreed to recognize and normalize relations with Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, create an autonomous buffer zone in the Donbass region, and recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea based on the referendum (it should be noted that Crimea’s population obviously did largely support Russia, with some exceptions, probably not to the extent indicated by the referendum, however, the absence of civil unrest indicates a lack of opposition, and Ukraine furthermore under President Poroshenko, who like his pro-Russian predecessor, was corrupt, but anti-Russian, could have averted that conflict by not threatening to seize the Russian naval base in Sebastopol, an action which would have been illegal under international law due to the treaty between the two countries, which is analogous to the treaty between the US and Cuba under which the US leased Guantanamo Bay (which is valid for a few more decades, although the Cuban communist dictatorship stopped recognizing it years ago, and stopped cashing the checks the US treasury has continued sending them even after the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Conversely, Russia should obviously not have invaded, and their prosecution of the war has resulted in unacceptably high levels of civilian casualties, even though the overall level is quite low by contemporary standards. Especially distressing for me, in addition to the deaths of American journalists and Ukrainian civilians in general, was the desperately sad news of the bombing of a childrens’ facility. Less distressing, but deeply unfortunate, was the destruction of the Antonov An-225, the worlds largest cargo aircraft, which has been invaluable in responding to various natural disasters. This irreplaceable, one of a kind aircraft was originally built by the Ukrainian aircraft manufacturer Antonov to transport the Soviet Space Shuttle Buran (itself destroyed some years back when the hangar in which it was stored collapsed, but which did successfully complete an orbit under automatic control, and had a higher payload than our space shuttles, and whose Energia rocket engine has since been purchased by the US for cargo flights; indeed, I wish we had purchased the entire Buran system as a Mark II space shuttle as its design was theoretically safer, as the Soviets had time to evaluate and improve on the American design, and it would have been in many respects superior to the insanely overbudget Space Launch System NASA is currently wasting money (and expensive reusable Space Shuttle Main Engines) on.

To me, the Buran orbiter and Antonov An-225 to me symbolize what Ukraine and Russia could accomplish when they were united, and can still accomplish in the future if peace is restored, not just for each other, but as the humanitarian uses of the An-225 demonstrated, for the world.

Lastly, I have to criticize the Western response. In my view, constant criticism of Russia and predictions of an invasion before one happened helped make it a reality; if the US wanted to preclude an invasion, we should have avoided discussions of NATO membership for Ukraine and offered a treaty to Russia that would guarantee non-membership for Ukraine in return for a Russian guarantee of non-intervention, and also in addition to threatening economic sanctions on Russia, used the threat of sanctions on Ukraine, which would have ensured their immediate collapse, if they did not agree to a peace treaty with Russia whereby in return for Russia withdrawing its forces and agreeing not to concentrate forces near the Ukrainian border, and vice versa, Ukraine would recognize the sovereignity of Donestsk and Luhansk and formally cede Crimea to Russia, and Russia would normalize relations with Ukraine, and the West would lift all sanctions against Russia. Such a deal should have been done years ago, given the chances of Russia giving back Crimea were nil.

For that matter, Russia never would invaded if Ukraine had retained and developed nuclear capabilities had we not offered Ukraine money to surrender their strategic bomber aircraft and the Soviet nuclear weapons that remained in their territory in the early 90s, they could perhaps have remanufactured them (since these weapons had permissive action links connected to the former Soviet nuclear chain of command, which fell under Russian control, and as such were not usable, but the weapons grade radioisotopes in these weapons could have been used to make new weapons, since most of the challenge of nuclear weapons development is in obtaining the very highly enriched isotopes needed for a supercritical nuclear explosion). And Yeltsin-era Russia was in such an economic and military state of collapse that it is unlikely it could have stopped Ukraine from remanufacturing those nuclear weapons. But that is water under the bridge, to put it mildly.

Speaking of sanctions, I also feel the most recent sanctions have resulted in unreasonable economic hardship for the Russian people, who have not had an objectively free and fair sanctions election for Putin probably since 2012, if not 2004, if not 2000, if ever. And equally troubling is Facebook allowing support for the aformentioned neo-Nazi Azov Batallion, which it had previously banned for being neo-Nazis.

Thus, rather than supporting either the Ukrainian or Russian leadership, my new position is to oppose both in equal measure. I believe that US policy should be refocused on encouraging Ukraine to surrender certain territories in the Donbass with Russian ethnic majorities to Russia and agreeing to a joint demilitarized zone 100 miles from the border in both directions, except in the immediate vicinity of Kiev, and the cessation of Crimea, in return for a peace treaty, which would be accompanied by the immediate lifting of all sanctions. Such a treaty would involve measures to dissuade Russian reinvasion. And furthermore, certain sanctions creating hardships for ordinary Russian civilians should be lifted immediately, for example, perhaps by allowing SWIFT transfers up to say US $500 per recipient per week or encouraging Visa and Mastercard to allow their services to be used in conjunction with money order services, in order to mitigate food insecurity for Russians, particularly elderly Russians who struggle to make ends meet on ridiculously small state pensions, that our actions have led to. Peace must be our only objective, not Russian victory or Ukrainian victory. Peace even if it required conditional Ukrainian surrender, as embarrassing as that would be, would be preferable to prolonging this nightmare. But the regarded as canonical, but the

Just out of curiosity, at what point should America get involved? How much more murder of innocents need to happen before we say enough is enough?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm not fond of either of them either. While Zelensky is no angel, and Putin isn't either, the real thing we should be looking for is someone who can broker peace. Sort of a Jimmy Carter for Egypt and Israel. But I don't know of anyone who could fit that bill. Joe Biden isn't even close. Pope Francis isn't even close. Xi isn't even close. And I'm not sure there are many others who might be able to do it. Any ideas?

At this point, the only possibility for peace is after Putin is executed for crimes against humanity.

 

[cow451]

My primary objection, and one that I note @Hans Blaster failed to mention in his reply, which surprised me, but on it rests the centrality of why I realized the Ukrainian government is unworthy of our support or sympathy, whereas the Ukrainian people deserve, to an even greater extent our support and sympathy, because, like their Russian brethren, they live under a government whose leadership is morally reprehensible, was the inately dishonest remark on Zelenskyy’s part that he just wanted the deaths to stop. If he sincerely wants all civillian and military casualties to stop, as I said, he should pick up the phone, call Washington, call the UN in New York or Geneva, call NATO or the European Commission in Brussels, or call the Swiss Embassy, if it is still manned, or otherwise the Swiss foreign ministry, and request assistance in securing an immediate peacefire to facilitate a negotiated surrender under a flag of truce.

If he wants to win, that’s fine, but he needs to be honest and say that.

The other contributing factor to my rejection of his government is that both he and Russia are using straight-up terrorists, in the form of neo-Nazis of the Azov Batallion, and Chechen Islamist militants, according to several reports, because of hesitation on the part of Pravoslavie (Orthodox Christians) to shoot at each other in certain intensive ground combat operations. Shelling buildings with a mobile artillery unit or shooting down enemy aircraft is much easier on the soul than close quarters combat and especially, sniper duties.

In some other universe Putin is a reasonable guy that will negotiate in good faith. This universe is quie different.

 

[chevyontheriver]

At this point, the only possibility for peace is after Putin is executed for crimes against humanity.

The ONLY possibility for peace?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The ONLY possibility for peace?

Yes. Putin needs to be brought to justice.

 

[cow451]

The ONLY possibility for peace?

Or maybe he could take a little Navalny XL IM.

 

[The Liturgist]

In some other universe Putin is a reasonable guy that will negotiate in good faith. This universe is quie different.

He has negotiated in good faith before, so its not like that has never happened. And if Ukraine sued for peace and a negotiated surrender, it is extremely unlikely that Russia would refuse. And if the promise were sanctions being lifted under peace, and being slapped back on if he reinvaded, that should be enough.

 

[chevyontheriver]

View attachment 314189
Yes. Putin needs to be brought to justice.

Are you willing to nuke Russia to get that justice?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Are you willing to nuke Russia to get that justice?

Will it happen?...probably not. Am I willing to risk nuclear war to do what is what I believe is morally right...absolutely. Putin will not stop in Ukraine. He will only stop at the barrel of a gun held by someone willing to pull the trigger.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Will it happen?...probably not. Am I willing to risk nuclear war to do what is what I believe is morally right...absolutely. Putin will not stop in Ukraine. He will only stop at the barrel of a gun held by someone willing to pull the trigger.

And you would happily pull that trigger? For peace? The only way for peace? Yikes.

 

[The Liturgist]

At this point, the only possibility for peace is after Putin is executed for crimes against humanity.

With all due respect, that’s complete nonsense. The Azerbaijani invasion and ethnic cleansing of most of the territory of the Armenian Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh is infinitely worse than anything that has happened in Ukraine, and for that matter, the illegal Saudi invasion of Yemen, which the US has supported without any morally justifiable reasons and which has caused immense suffering, is also worse than what is going on in Ukraine, and for that matter we have the issue of many other war criminals and criminal regimes that have done much worse, including Azerbaijan, Turkey, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Iran, Burma, Indonesia, Venezuela, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, Kosovo, and many others.

The PRC has been pursuing an actual genocide against the Uighurs people, and a terrible genocide was waged against the Rohingya people in Myanmar, under the presidency of the the recently deposed Burmese demagogue Aung San Suu Kyi, who was stupidly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, which cannot be revoked, but her other awards for opposing the military dictatorship were revoked; she was deposed, tried and convicted of voter fraud, corruption and violation of covid-19 regulations by the Burmese military, and our President wants to sanction Myanmar for that, never mind that the President they deposed was at the very least supportive of, and an apologist for, an actual genocide. It has also been alleged that Saudi actions against the Houthi people of Yemen are genocidal in nature, and I believe this is the case, and we accomplished this with our own weaponry.

So respectfully, what you propose makes no sense, because these genocides involve governments from around the world turning a blind eye, or even, in the case of Kosovo, using the threat of a genocide by Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic to justify bombing civillian targets in Belgrade and elsewhere on a massive scale and facilitating the ethnic cleansing of Serbians from many parts of Kosovo, and a reduction in the ethnic Serbian population, and the forcible separation from Serbia of the historic birthplace of Serbian culture, in order to protect a population comprised largely of Muslims who had emigrated from the dystopian Hoxha regime or the economic basket-case that replaced it; however, Albania proper has a very large Eastern Orthodox population and a very large Roman Catholic population, no one ever provided assistance to them or the Muslims when Hoxha banned all religion, Albania had by 1975 alienated all Communist allies except North Korea, and could have been liberated at that time. Slobodan Milosevic was a major war criminal due to his actions in Bosnia, but NATO’s attacks on civilian targets in Belgrade were similar to what is happening in Ukraine, and they also ensured Serbian citizens would hate us for a long time.

I am opposed to the death penalty; I would note Russia actually doesn’t have the death penalty, and furthermore, to claim the only way that peace can be achieved is to execute Putin just makes no sense to me, given that the situation in Ukraine has not yet acquired genocidal attributes, whereas the situation in Myanmar and the PRC and Yemen is genocidal, and the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh was an ethnic cleansing. If the US wants to take military action for beneficent reasons, there are places where we can do it and hold dictators to account, like Myanmar, Yemen and possibly Azerbaijan, without risking nuclear war. And Turkey should be expelled from NATO for past genocidal conduct against the Kurds and Armenians, Syriac Orthodox Christians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks in 1915, and ongoing military campaigns and ethnic cleansing against the Kurds, if we want to be completely fair.

Is Putin a monster? Yes. Is any US President in recent years even remotely as bad? No. But as our Lord said, regarding another proposed implementation of the death penalty, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Only in this case, because Russia is a nuclear superpower, like the US and the PRC, we can’t act even if we want to (which we certainly would in the case of China, in which the Communists have turned religious persecution and genocide into national pastimes, on a par with football and baseball in the US, or soccer and rugby in the UK).

 

[The Liturgist]

Will it happen?...probably not. Am I willing to risk nuclear war to do what is what I believe is morally right...absolutely. Putin will not stop in Ukraine. He will only stop at the barrel of a gun held by someone willing to pull the trigger.

With all due respect, I don’t think you realize the implications of unrestricted thermonuclear war between the US and Russia and/or China. And if we were to take the enormous risk of nuking anyone with nuclear weapons, North Korea, China and Pakistan are much more of a threat to our national security. And if we were to nuke anyone at all without risking the death of the entire human race, it would have to be a country like North Korea which has a small nuclear arsenal and which could not launch a credible second strike with anything approach force parity to the US.

 

[The Liturgist]

Just out of curiosity, at what point should America get involved? How much more murder of innocents need to happen before we say enough is enough?

We should say enough is enough right now and apply maximum political pressure on Zelenskyy to sue for peace, and maximum pressure on Putin to grant Ukraine reasonable concessions, such as a 100 mile demilitarized zone on both sides of the border except Kiev, Crimea and the regions bordering Crimea, and continued sovereignity, and also a restoration of the economic and trading relationship that existed with Russia before 2014, while allowing Ukraine to also retain an equal trading relationship with Europe, and Donetsk and Luhansk recognized as sovereign states, and also a normalization of relations with Transnistria. And action on both sides to immediately arrest and prosecute the Chechen Islamist forces recruited by Russia and the Neo-Nazi Azov Batallion recruited by Ukraine, because having been militarized, both groups threaten the security of both countries and it was grossly responsible to the point of idiocy for either government to use them.

In fact, I think that summarizes my view of Putin and Zelenskyy. They are evil, but they are also reckless to the point of stupidity. Both of them manifest “Dark Triad” personality traits like Narcissism, Psychopathy and Machiavellianism. In Putin’s case, the Narcissism would be in his ridiculous shirtless PR photos, and in Zelenskyy, in the bizarre TV show he made where he plays the president of a corrupt regime trying to combat corruption.