How can one-half of the Orthodox Churches in the world support this petty villain? He bribes them with "protection" if they provide ideological support for him: "Support us, and we'll insure the local Islamic thugs won't kill you." When we lived in the provinces of Russia, the local mafia would offer "protection" to the kiosk owners if they paid what the mafia demanded. One such kiosk across the street from our apartment refused to pay, and that night it burned to the ground. One Orthodox hierarch wavered about supporting the above villain, and two Orthodox bishops in that country were kidnapped (later to be killed - a little-known fact).
A mix of bribery and fear seems to keep many of the local Churches in line or at least quiet. You mentioned the murder of two Orthodox bishops. Can you provide a bit more information please?
I agree this completely and totally applies to the situation between Ukraine and Putin, but I also couldn't help but thinking back to the treacherous dealings and violence the US government had with Native Americans to acquire land. (Blame my recent reading on westward expansion). I wonder how that legacy effects our nation's spiritual health and collective soul?
In both its secular and Christian forms what you characterized as Russia's "preemptive attack in order to maintain stability in the region, and to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donetsk and Luhansk, and also in order to safeguard their very own existence" is simply an unjust war of aggression. This is not to deny out of had either the moral shortcomings of NATO or the legitimate concerns of Russia. These concerns, however, DON'T justify Russia invading Ukraine anymore then they justified their earlier invasion and subsequent illegal annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Returning to NATO, Russia's actions in Ukraine and earlier attacks against Georgia suggest that those nations that were formally part of the USSR are right to be concerned for their own territorial integrity.
Your attempt to justify Russia's aggression by drawing a parallel with the Cuban missile crisis is, at best, inaccurate. The US didn't invade Cuba but rather established blockaded. In addition, the US entered into a negotiated end to the crisis in response to a back channel the Soviet Union. This settlement not only included the removal of Soviet missiles and a promise by Cuba not to accept missiles if the US promised to not invade Cuba. Though not made public at the time, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey and southern Italy.
Whether or not our "coexistence is at stake," I can't say. I am a priest not a prophet. What I can say is that if the future your fear is at risk, it is at risk because of Putin's actions.
None this is to say, as I said above, means NATO, the US, the EU, the West or for that matter Ukraine and Zelensky, are without their own sins. But their failures simply don't justify a war of aggression.
Yes, you're correct, the US did launch a failed attempt to invade Cuba and was wrong to do so even as Putin is wrong in his invasion of Ukraine.
But if I understand you correctly, you would argue that Putin did what ANY leader would do--defend his country regardless of any moral considerations that would suggest restraint. As you write, "ANY leader would do the same [as Putin done], simply in order to not only protect its national sovereignty, but its population, its people. It doesn't matter what the archived document says. Agreements mean nothing when nations make aggressive and seriously threatening movements toward another country's border. " Evidently then, for you, the US was justified in invading Cuba they only criticism you would have is that the invasion failed.
Likewise, and again following your own moral logic, the US, NATO and the EU are justified in ANYTHING they do to prevent what they see as Russian aggression in Europe.
What you seem to object to is not war as such but any country thinking Russia is a threat to their sovereignty. You see a pre-emptive war as a legitimate way for a nation to defend itself against a potential enemy. Ok.
The problem as I see it is this: the Christian moral tradition--East and West--see a pre-emptive war as morally acceptable. In fact, neither does Putin which is why he refers to the invasion as a "special military action."
The rejection of a pre-emptive war is also the position of the Moscow Patriarchate. In their 2000 document the Basis of the Social Concept they write:
<<The development of high moral standards in international relations would have impossible without that moral impact which Christianity made on people’s hearts and minds. The requirements of justice in war were often far from being complied with, but the very posing of the question of justice sometimes restrained warring people from extreme violence.
In defining just war, the Western Christian tradition, which goes back to St. Augustine, usually puts forward a number of conditions on which war in one’s own or others’ territory is admissible. They are as follows:
war is declared for the restoration of justice;
war is declared only by the legitimate authority;
force is used not by individuals or groups but by representatives of the civil authorities established from above;
war is declared only after all peaceful means have been used to negotiate with the opposite party and to restore the prior situation;
war is declared only if there are well-grounded expectations that the established goals will be achieved;
the planned military losses and destruction will correspond to the situation and the purposes of war (the principal of proportionate means);
during war civilians will be protected against direct hostilities;
war may be justified only by the desire to restore law and order.>>
They go on to acknowledge that
<<In the present system of international relations, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an aggressive war from a defensive war. The distinction between the two is especially subtle where one or two states or the world community initiate hostilities on the ground that it is necessary to protect the people who fell victim to an aggression (see XV. 1). In this regard, the question whether the Church should support or deplore the hostilities needs to be given a special consideration every time they are initiated or threaten to begin.>>
It is worth pointing out that the moral analysis of the immorality of Russia's invasion I offered here is shared by the vast majority of Orthodox Churches almost all of whom have condemned what Metropolitan Onufriy called a “fratricidal war”.
Returning to Putin's war, not only is the invasion itself unjust, in targeting civilian sites (among other abuses), the way in which he is waging the war is also unjust. Again from the Basis:
Among obvious signs pointing to the equity or inequity of a warring party are its war methods and attitude towards its war prisoners and the civilians of the opposite side, especially children, women and elderly. Even in the defence from an aggression, every kind of evil can be done, making one’s spiritual and moral stand not superior to that of the aggressor. War should be waged with righteous indignation, not maliciousness, greed and last (1 Jn. 2:16) and other fruits of hell. A war can be correctly assessed as a feat or a robbery only after an analysis is made of the moral state of the warring parties. «Rejoice not over thy greatest enemy being dead, but remember that we die all», Holy Scriptures says (Sirach 8:8). Christian humane attitude to the wounded and war prisoners is based on the words of St. Paul: «If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good» (Rom. 12:21-22).
As for Russia being "a deeply religious country," the available empirical evidence (one of the lowest church attendance rates in the Orthodox world as well as high rates of abortion) would suggest otherwise.
Finally, and as I said in the original post, a just and lasting peace in Ukraine requires not only a complete Russian withdrawal from the country but also reparations for the widespread destruction caused by Putin's immoral war.
Again, I'm not ignoring anything. My argument is that Western sins don't justify a pre-emptive war by Russia. This is simply a non-negational part of both the Christian moral tradition (again, East and West) as well as international law.
You are of course free to reject this tradition in either its Christian or secular form. If you do, however, you undermine your own argument. If Russia is justified in acting pre-emptively based on perceived risk, so too are other.
Instead of dealing with the moral argument against the war made by the Orthodox Church. Your assertion that I am "simply parroting the idiotic and evil MSM and MIC playbook" and that this somehow which me "complicit" is simply deflection on your part.
It maybe that I and secular sources--even evil secular sources--are both condemning the war. But to reject the validity of the argument because evil people also make it, is simply illogical. There are many reasons for holding any given moral position. The fact that some of the reasons are self-serving or even wrong, doesn't invalidate the moral conclusion.
Again though, who in the Orthodox Church outside the Moscow Patriarchate supports the invasion of Ukraine?
Finally, as for violation of the Minsk agreements, both sides are at fault. But, again, why in your moral universe should either side honor the agreement? Your argument in defense of Russia's invasion is simply Machiavellian. A nation can always and everywhere make whenever they see doing so as in their own best interests.
To put it directly, why in your moral universal can Russia invade but Ukraine, why can't Ukraine attack Crimea?
How can one-half of the Orthodox Churches in the world support this petty villain? He bribes them with "protection" if they provide ideological support for him: "Support us, and we'll insure the local Islamic thugs won't kill you." When we lived in the provinces of Russia, the local mafia would offer "protection" to the kiosk owners if they paid what the mafia demanded. One such kiosk across the street from our apartment refused to pay, and that night it burned to the ground. One Orthodox hierarch wavered about supporting the above villain, and two Orthodox bishops in that country were kidnapped (later to be killed - a little-known fact).
You answered your own question, I think.
A mix of bribery and fear seems to keep many of the local Churches in line or at least quiet. You mentioned the murder of two Orthodox bishops. Can you provide a bit more information please?
I agree this completely and totally applies to the situation between Ukraine and Putin, but I also couldn't help but thinking back to the treacherous dealings and violence the US government had with Native Americans to acquire land. (Blame my recent reading on westward expansion). I wonder how that legacy effects our nation's spiritual health and collective soul?
You raise a good question here Elizabeth when you ask about past injustices against the Native American population. I wish I had an answer.
In both its secular and Christian forms what you characterized as Russia's "preemptive attack in order to maintain stability in the region, and to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donetsk and Luhansk, and also in order to safeguard their very own existence" is simply an unjust war of aggression. This is not to deny out of had either the moral shortcomings of NATO or the legitimate concerns of Russia. These concerns, however, DON'T justify Russia invading Ukraine anymore then they justified their earlier invasion and subsequent illegal annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Returning to NATO, Russia's actions in Ukraine and earlier attacks against Georgia suggest that those nations that were formally part of the USSR are right to be concerned for their own territorial integrity.
Your attempt to justify Russia's aggression by drawing a parallel with the Cuban missile crisis is, at best, inaccurate. The US didn't invade Cuba but rather established blockaded. In addition, the US entered into a negotiated end to the crisis in response to a back channel the Soviet Union. This settlement not only included the removal of Soviet missiles and a promise by Cuba not to accept missiles if the US promised to not invade Cuba. Though not made public at the time, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey and southern Italy.
If we wish to draw a parallel with Cuba, I think it might be better to look at the 1994 Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances. Like the agreement that ended the Cuban missile crisis, Russia (like the US earlier) promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unlike the US with Cuba, however, Russia has violated their agreement and invaded Ukraine. You can read the documents here: https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484
Whether or not our "coexistence is at stake," I can't say. I am a priest not a prophet. What I can say is that if the future your fear is at risk, it is at risk because of Putin's actions.
None this is to say, as I said above, means NATO, the US, the EU, the West or for that matter Ukraine and Zelensky, are without their own sins. But their failures simply don't justify a war of aggression.
Yes, you're correct, the US did launch a failed attempt to invade Cuba and was wrong to do so even as Putin is wrong in his invasion of Ukraine.
But if I understand you correctly, you would argue that Putin did what ANY leader would do--defend his country regardless of any moral considerations that would suggest restraint. As you write, "ANY leader would do the same [as Putin done], simply in order to not only protect its national sovereignty, but its population, its people. It doesn't matter what the archived document says. Agreements mean nothing when nations make aggressive and seriously threatening movements toward another country's border. " Evidently then, for you, the US was justified in invading Cuba they only criticism you would have is that the invasion failed.
Likewise, and again following your own moral logic, the US, NATO and the EU are justified in ANYTHING they do to prevent what they see as Russian aggression in Europe.
What you seem to object to is not war as such but any country thinking Russia is a threat to their sovereignty. You see a pre-emptive war as a legitimate way for a nation to defend itself against a potential enemy. Ok.
The problem as I see it is this: the Christian moral tradition--East and West--see a pre-emptive war as morally acceptable. In fact, neither does Putin which is why he refers to the invasion as a "special military action."
The rejection of a pre-emptive war is also the position of the Moscow Patriarchate. In their 2000 document the Basis of the Social Concept they write:
<<The development of high moral standards in international relations would have impossible without that moral impact which Christianity made on people’s hearts and minds. The requirements of justice in war were often far from being complied with, but the very posing of the question of justice sometimes restrained warring people from extreme violence.
In defining just war, the Western Christian tradition, which goes back to St. Augustine, usually puts forward a number of conditions on which war in one’s own or others’ territory is admissible. They are as follows:
war is declared for the restoration of justice;
war is declared only by the legitimate authority;
force is used not by individuals or groups but by representatives of the civil authorities established from above;
war is declared only after all peaceful means have been used to negotiate with the opposite party and to restore the prior situation;
war is declared only if there are well-grounded expectations that the established goals will be achieved;
the planned military losses and destruction will correspond to the situation and the purposes of war (the principal of proportionate means);
during war civilians will be protected against direct hostilities;
war may be justified only by the desire to restore law and order.>>
They go on to acknowledge that
<<In the present system of international relations, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish an aggressive war from a defensive war. The distinction between the two is especially subtle where one or two states or the world community initiate hostilities on the ground that it is necessary to protect the people who fell victim to an aggression (see XV. 1). In this regard, the question whether the Church should support or deplore the hostilities needs to be given a special consideration every time they are initiated or threaten to begin.>>
It is worth pointing out that the moral analysis of the immorality of Russia's invasion I offered here is shared by the vast majority of Orthodox Churches almost all of whom have condemned what Metropolitan Onufriy called a “fratricidal war”.
Returning to Putin's war, not only is the invasion itself unjust, in targeting civilian sites (among other abuses), the way in which he is waging the war is also unjust. Again from the Basis:
Among obvious signs pointing to the equity or inequity of a warring party are its war methods and attitude towards its war prisoners and the civilians of the opposite side, especially children, women and elderly. Even in the defence from an aggression, every kind of evil can be done, making one’s spiritual and moral stand not superior to that of the aggressor. War should be waged with righteous indignation, not maliciousness, greed and last (1 Jn. 2:16) and other fruits of hell. A war can be correctly assessed as a feat or a robbery only after an analysis is made of the moral state of the warring parties. «Rejoice not over thy greatest enemy being dead, but remember that we die all», Holy Scriptures says (Sirach 8:8). Christian humane attitude to the wounded and war prisoners is based on the words of St. Paul: «If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good» (Rom. 12:21-22).
As for Russia being "a deeply religious country," the available empirical evidence (one of the lowest church attendance rates in the Orthodox world as well as high rates of abortion) would suggest otherwise.
Finally, and as I said in the original post, a just and lasting peace in Ukraine requires not only a complete Russian withdrawal from the country but also reparations for the widespread destruction caused by Putin's immoral war.
Again, I'm not ignoring anything. My argument is that Western sins don't justify a pre-emptive war by Russia. This is simply a non-negational part of both the Christian moral tradition (again, East and West) as well as international law.
You are of course free to reject this tradition in either its Christian or secular form. If you do, however, you undermine your own argument. If Russia is justified in acting pre-emptively based on perceived risk, so too are other.
Instead of dealing with the moral argument against the war made by the Orthodox Church. Your assertion that I am "simply parroting the idiotic and evil MSM and MIC playbook" and that this somehow which me "complicit" is simply deflection on your part.
It maybe that I and secular sources--even evil secular sources--are both condemning the war. But to reject the validity of the argument because evil people also make it, is simply illogical. There are many reasons for holding any given moral position. The fact that some of the reasons are self-serving or even wrong, doesn't invalidate the moral conclusion.
Again though, who in the Orthodox Church outside the Moscow Patriarchate supports the invasion of Ukraine?
Finally, as for violation of the Minsk agreements, both sides are at fault. But, again, why in your moral universe should either side honor the agreement? Your argument in defense of Russia's invasion is simply Machiavellian. A nation can always and everywhere make whenever they see doing so as in their own best interests.
To put it directly, why in your moral universal can Russia invade but Ukraine, why can't Ukraine attack Crimea?