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?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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

[bjs1]

...to what extent are these events relevant to Christianity?

It is relevant to Christians because Christians across the globe might be forced into this conflict.

It does not seem to have any relevance to Christianity in terms of new doctrine or practice. There are "wars and rumors of wars." There always have been and, as long as there are people on this world, there always will be. There does not appear to be anything unique about this situation that makes it different from what Christian have faced throughout the ages.

[alexxcJRO]

OK Bernie Sanders has spoken out, I agree completely with his assessment.

It wouldn't be anything new. The US had no business in WWII either and goaded Japan by cutting off their supplies of oil and scrap metal so they'd attack and the US would have a pretence to declare war.

This is a complicated issue and I'm not saying the US was wrong to fight the Nazis obviously, but there comes a point where a country works so hard making itself look the good guy that it looks the bad guy. To me this is just about every war the US has ever fought.

If NATO is really out to get Russia (and frankly it seems as though it is) then NATO is responsible for anything Russia does because Russia can't get a fair shake at the negotiation table.

It is complicated and I think the press rely on that, as Chomsky once said having a population that is a "bewildered herd" really stifles dissent and he's right. The complexity and the general tendency of the press to make it look complex all the time, kind of leads to people never really understanding and then they don't really question what they're told. Its much easier to more or less adopt a propagandist simplified view, the condensed summary view so we can get on with our lives.

That view is that Putin is Hitler reincarnate, he wants to rebuild the old USSR and is a threat to world peace. Ukraine is a victim, struggling for democracy and self determination and needs NATO to protect it from the evil Russia. The West are benevolent and level headed, committed to principles of fairness, freedom, democracy and only grew NATO as a means of bringing security to its members. And for the most part this is the view espoused by CNN, CBS, BBC, NYT, The Guardian, The Times etc etc.

A busy person, not really into following international affairs or geopolitics cannot in any reasonable time, construct their own view so they rely on the manufactured one, this is why we see so many probably nice decent people all waving Ukraine flags, all protesting outside Russian embassies, all speaking out about the "war crimes" being perpetrated by Russia.

I've been following and reading about all this stuff for over twenty years, I saw it before in 1999 when NATO bombed Serbia.

Today Russia bombed a TV station and are dragged over the coals yet NATO bombed a TV station in Serbia and Serbia was dragged over the coals that TV station was a threat to NATO operations, had to be taken out, the one in Ukraine was an important means of communication for Ukrainians and represented a free press that Russia could not abide.

The Serbia station was (and I quote) "full of government employees, paid to produce propaganda", "its function is not to produce news and information..."

The people of Serbia and the people of Ukraine are alike, pawns in a game, in each case NATO was the cause of the problem, the West was pulling the puppet strings, it was true in 1999 and its true in 2022.

Dear sir Putin is evil and malevolent.
He said: "First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,"
Off course one can infer from that and from what has happened/ is happening in respect to countries like Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine and so one, that he wants to make URSS great again. At least have his hegemony is this parts of the world that was once in the URSS. He has no problems to do this at the expense of the innocent.
At the same time USA is not innocent. They invade, create excuses for wars in attempt to maintain their hegemony over the world at the expense of the those who are really innocent.
CNN propaganda is no different then RT propaganda.
This is a clear fight for hegemony, supremacy, power, and influence over parts of the world/world it self.
I think everyone who believes West just tries to save us from the Evil East or believes The East is just trying to save us from the Evil West is delusional.
The false dichotomy either West is Evil(Est Propaganda) or East is Evil(West Propaganda) is very fallacious indeed.
This only creates a medium where tribal mentality, bias proliferate and fuel a constant state of war, conflict, opposition.

[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.

[Jose Fly]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

That's right, Washington shared this view too when they denied (under threat of war) Cuba (a sovereign country) the right to host nuclear weapons from their friend the USSR in 1962, like you I think Cuba should have been allowed to do that, decide for themselves.

[Jose Fly]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

That's right, Washington shared this view too when they denied (under threat of war) Cuba (a sovereign country) the right to host nuclear weapons from their friend the USSR in 1962, like you I think Cuba should have been allowed to do that, decide for themselves.

Is Ukraine "hosting" nuclear weapons? Did they do so recently?

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

That's right, Washington shared this view too when they denied (under threat of war) Cuba (a sovereign country) the right to host nuclear weapons from their friend the USSR in 1962, like you I think Cuba should have been allowed to do that, decide for themselves.

Is Ukraine "hosting" nuclear weapons? Did they do so recently?

No.

[Jose Fly]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

That's right, Washington shared this view too when they denied (under threat of war) Cuba (a sovereign country) the right to host nuclear weapons from their friend the USSR in 1962, like you I think Cuba should have been allowed to do that, decide for themselves.

Is Ukraine "hosting" nuclear weapons? Did they do so recently?

No.

Then likening the Russia invasion to the Cuba missile crisis is inapt.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's positively fascinating how, if you want to see pro-Russia/anti-Ukraine talking points, check with a conservative Christian. Apparently in their world, Ukraine has no right to decide for themselves whether they want to join the EU, NATO, or any other organization.

That's right, Washington shared this view too when they denied (under threat of war) Cuba (a sovereign country) the right to host nuclear weapons from their friend the USSR in 1962, like you I think Cuba should have been allowed to do that, decide for themselves.

Is Ukraine "hosting" nuclear weapons? Did they do so recently?

No.

Then likening the Russia invasion to the Cuba missile crisis is inapt.

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