Rather than continue to post answers to common questions / objections we encounter on social media, several contributors have collaborated to provide answers in the form of a post that we can share.
1) Do you approve of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine?
Being anti-war as a matter of principle, we are not in favor of this invasion and feel it should end immediately. Who can support war and suffering? However, we also understand that the only chance to end the war is a negotiated settlement. That means NATO (really the US) must stop prolonging this war, and free Zelensky up to make a deal to stop the killing. At the same time it is incumbent on Westerners, particularly Americans, to understand our own complicity in igniting this crisis. This blood is on our hands as well. We also must acknowledge that we encouraged the Ukrainian military escalation against the Donbass on 2/16 that started this phase of what is really an 8 year war.
The quote below is from Jacques Baud, a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, and a specialist on Eastern countries. His recent article explaining the true background of the war and its current conduct should be required reading for anyone wanting to comment on the War in Ukraine. It was originally quoted by Orthodox Reflections contributor Vassily here.
The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.
In order to make the Russian intervention seem totally illegal in the eyes of the public, Western powers deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware.
In his speech of February 24, Vladimir Putin stated the two objectives of his operation: “demilitarize” and “denazify” the Ukraine. So, it was not a question of taking over Ukraine, nor even, presumably, of occupying it; and certainly not of destroying it.
The dramatic developments we are witnessing today have causes that we knew about but refused to see:
- on the strategic level, the expansion of NATO (which we have not dealt with here);
- on the political level, the Western refusal to implement the Minsk Agreements;
- operationally, the continuous and repeated attacks on the civilian population of the Donbass over the past years and the dramatic increase in late February 2022.
In other words, we can naturally deplore and condemn the Russian attack. But WE (that is: the United States, France and the European Union in the lead) have created the conditions for a conflict to break out. We show compassion for the Ukrainian people and the two million refugees. That is fine. But if we had had a modicum of compassion for the same number of refugees from the Ukrainian populations of Donbass massacred by their own government and who sought refuge in Russia for eight years, none of this would probably have happened.
2) What is your proof that Russia can’t project nukes all over the world w/ ICBMs & submarines?
Russia is straining to project power even into Western Ukraine. The logistics of supporting a combined arms force under fire and on the move are tough. That is not at all the same as deploying nukes. The recklessness of Western leaders, and many civilians, in advocating policies of direct military confrontation with Russia is suicidal. The same people who lecture us on saving the world from Climate Change seem strangely okay with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
3) Projecting power is not Putin’s goal?
War is a continuation of politics by other means. While Westerners may not read Clausewitz any more, Russians certainly do. Putin is absolutely using military force to leverage an agreement. It is not necessary to destroy Ukraine or occupy it to get the terms he wants. Ukraine is going to give him those terms sooner or later. Much better sooner.
These are the terms:
- No nukes for the Ukraine
- No NATO for the Ukraine
- No alliances of any kind and a neutral Ukraine
- Give up any claims on Crimea and the Donbass
Putin is obviously willing to leave Zelensky in power, but with a drastically changed military and political situation codified in a lasting peace agreement. Putin is focused on obtaining a negotiated solution between secular governments. Putin will kill no more people and destroy no more property than necessary to get the deal he believes is in the best interests of Russia. Russia’s enemy is a neighboring country with a shared history and common religion. Mass murder and occupation are, to say the least, counter productive to long-term, regional stability.
4) Ordering Ukraine not to make alliances is proper?
“Proper” doesn’t figure into it. This is pure Great Power politics and the US would not behave any differently. This is a fallen world, and large powers pushing around smaller countries is a feature of that fallen world. We explored that here (key quote below):
The US would never tolerate a hostile regime in Mexico. Any thinking person knows that. An anti-American government would never be allowed to survive on our border. We usually don’t tolerate anti-American regimes anywhere in Latin America, no matter how far away. Remember Cuba with decades of sanctions and an actual invasion at the Bay of Pigs? Remember the attempted coup in Venezuela? Or the war against Nicaragua in the 80’s with the US-funded Contras? How about the coup in Chile in 1973? Chile is over 4,000 miles from Washington, D.C. Yet, the US installed a blood-soaked military junta to rule the place, being unwilling to accept a democratically elected socialist government.
Pretending the world is otherwise than it is gets innocent people slaughtered. Ukraine was never going to be allowed to join NATO, any more than the US would allow Chinese troops in Mexico. The US would wreck Mexico completely before allowing that. If you want a good lesson on Great Power politics and Ukraine, we recommend the lecture below:
You might also want to consult the following map for what happened last time the US had a hostile regime on its border:
5) Putin has a peace offer instead of a piece offer?
This is from the Colonel Jacque Baud article:
Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the last eight years have been talking about “separatists” or “independentists” from Donbass. This is not true. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk in May 2014, were not referendums of “independence” (независимость), as some unscrupulous journalists have claimed, but referendums of “self-determination” or “autonomy” (самостоятельность). The qualifier “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin.
In fact, these Republics were not seeking to separate from Ukraine, but to have a status of autonomy, guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. For the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 that made Russian an official language. A bit like if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland.
Prior to 8 years of war and two violated peace agreements, the Donbass was willing to stay in Ukraine as long as their rights were respected. That is over now. Ukraine will have to cede the Donbass. At any point Kiev could have chosen to honor Minsk I & II protocols, but under pressure from NATO, that did not happen. Territorial concessions are the price to be paid now. As for Crimea, that has been gone since 2014, and before that the naval base was leased to Russia anyway. Expect Ukraine to potentially lose more of its sea coast.
6) Putin would keep any treaty it makes w/ Ukraine?
At this point, Putin will not make a deal with Ukraine that is not in Russia’s interests. Whatever agreement is formalized, Russia will keep. If they won’t keep it, they won’t agree to it.
7) Putin is just in violating agreement made w/ Ukraine when Ukraine gave up its nukes?
A big part of that deal was the promise that NATO would not expand eastward. Russia did not violate that covenant, NATO did. On February 19, 2022, at a conference in Munich, Zelensky announced his intention to end the Budapest Memorandum (1994), which prohibits Ukraine from developing, proliferating and using atomic weapons. This was no idle threat and set off alarms in Moscow. If you add that statement to the escalation in military force against the Donbass plus the continued desire to put Ukraine in NATO – you get this war.
8) Putin is demanding Donbass?
Putin never wanted the Donbass. More poor Russians to take care of is not attractive. From Colonel Jacques Baud:
In 2014, when I was at NATO, I was responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we were trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels, to see if Moscow was involved. The information we received then came almost entirely from Polish intelligence services and did not “fit” with the information coming from the OSCE—despite rather crude allegations, there were no deliveries of weapons and military equipment from Russia.
The rebels were armed thanks to the defection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units that went over to the rebel side. As Ukrainian failures continued, tank, artillery and anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what pushed the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Agreements.
But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against the Donbass. Bis repetita placent: poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements.
It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.
That is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their implementation while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter of the Ukraine. On the other side, the West—led by France—systematically tried to replace the Minsk Agreements with the “Normandy format,” which put Russians and Ukrainians face-to-face. However, let us remember that there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before 23-24 February 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. For example, the U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
9) Not having the word “empire” in a peace offer implies Putin does not want one?
There is no doubt that in his perfect world, Putin would reclaim many territories lost in the early 90’s. Putin does not live in that world. He is smart enough to know that. Plus, what does an empire give you? Russia was a massive empire, so was the Soviet Union. Both fell into ruin. Putin is typically cautious, and aware that conflict with the US means risking nuclear war. Inside Russia, Putin is frequently criticized by nationalists for not being aggressive enough. Want regime change in Russia? Then understand the results can be far worse than Putin.
10) Urkraine has mere “claims” on Crimea & Donbass like Argentina does on the Malvinas or Spain may have on Gibralter or Guatemala on Belize?
Let’s take a look at Ukrainian borders, shall we?
Ukrainian nationalism dates back to the 19th century. Prior to the wave of nationalism sweeping Europe at that time, “Ukraine” had no real sense of itself. Nor did it develop one overnight. So the Donbass region which is primarily Russian speaking was appended to the Ukrainian SSR by Lenin. Why should modern residents of Donbass have to abide by the decision of a dead commie? The Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954. Again, why must the residents of Crimea (mostly Russians) have to abide by the will of a dead commie? Ukraine is similar to the countries in Africa. The borders were drawn by colonial powers, and were not adjusted following independence. African nations struggle with internal and external wars over their nonsense borders. So does Ukraine. Notice also the section taken from Poland by Stalin, in exchange for giving Poland a slice of Germany? Not fair, was it? But the Poles had to get over, so did the Germans.
As noted, the Donbass was originally willing to stay in the Ukrainian state. That time has ended, and Kiev’s brutality is what ended it.
11) Putin with his nuclear bomb threats does not pose a problem to NATO & USA? USA should not suspect that Putin is insane enough to start a nuclear war?
A little history is in order. The US actually invented nuclear brinkmanship:
Brinkmanship is the ostensible escalation of threats to achieve one’s aims. The word was probably coined by the American politician Adlai Stevenson in his criticism of the philosophy described as “going to the brink” during an interview with US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles during the Eisenhower administration.[2] In the article written in Life magazine by the correspondent James R. Shepley, Dulles defined his policy of brinkmanship in these terms: “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art.”[3][4] During the Cold War, it was used as a policy by the United States to coerce the Soviet Union into backing down militarily. Eventually, the threats involved might become so huge as to be unmanageable at which point both sides are likely to back down. That was the case during the Cold War since the escalation of threats of nuclear war, if carried out, are likely to lead to mutual assured destruction (MAD).[5]
Thomas Schelling defined brinkmanship as “manipulating the shared risk of war.”[6] The essence of such a crisis is that it leads neither side to be in full control of events, which creates a serious risk of miscalculation and escalation.[6]
Use of incendiary rhetoric to shake your opponent is nothing new, and is actually an American specialty. America has done it for decades, though few Americans notice. When Putin and his regime turn up the heat, it is to remind America that a direct conflict with Russia will get out of hand very quickly. The US is actually the one escalating tensions by abandoning a “no first use” policy for nukes:
President Joe Biden has walked back from his longtime preferred policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons, according to his administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, which also seeks to shrink nuclear arsenals, starting with a new missile introduced under Donald Trump.
His long-awaited policy review says the United States “would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners,” according to a three-paragraph summary released by the Pentagon Tuesday.
Putin is not insane and is not interested in a nuclear war. The people that worry us most are in Washington. They seem to believe that use of nukes can be viable in a conflict.
But we need to look at this another way also. Even if Putin were insane, what are we going to do about it? If your opponent has nukes and is unstable, the last think you want to do is keep setting up conflicts with him. If you think “regime change” in Russia is going to happen, then think again. Even if it did, the replacement Russian regime could be even more of a problem.
12) Non-funding of Russia implies Russia is not our problem?
The past few days, images have circulated of Russian soldiers with Nazi tattoos or sporting Nazi regalia. The fact that there could be Nazis in Russia is somehow supposed to offset the Nazis in Ukraine. The key difference for Americans? We don’t fund Russian Nazis. Our tax dollars do not pay for Russian Nazis to kill and maim civilians. Our tax dollars do not arm Russian Nazis with weapons that will eventually end up in the hands of extremists all over Europe.
You can’t do good by doing evil. Ukraine is an authoritarian regime in which 40% of its armed forces are Nazis. If we had stayed out of that cesspool, none of this would be happening and the Russian Nazis could have stayed home.
13) If Putin & his friends mimic Nazi Hitler in philosophy, that is not our issue?
Mimic, how? Putin is the new Hitler. But how is he the new Hitler? Saddam was the new Hitler. Trump was the new Hitler. Calling people “Hitler” at this point is the same as calling them “racist.” There is just no meaning there anymore. The words have been used to death. People who say such things about Putin do not understand Fascism (Italian, Spanish, and German varieties), don’t understand the history leading up to WWII, and don’t have a clue what really drove the Third Reich.
What about anti-Semitism in Russia, though? Russia’s chief rabbi has stated that anti-Semitism is at a historic low. Putin was the first Russian leader to visit Israel. He is reputed to have Jewish ancestry. Putin has had a reputation as being a “pro-Jewish” leader.
14) Ukraine with its Jewish president has a significant Nazi problem?
Non-practicing Jewish president, by the way. Prior to the media needing to cover it up, the Nazi problem was widely acknowledged:
Zelensky can’t control the Nazis and they know this. Over time he has proven sufficiently pliable and even supportive. The paymasters in the West backed Zelensky, and his Jewish background makes good PR. So while the Nazis are virulently anti-Semitic, Zelensky gets a pass:
While Western media deploys Volodymyr Zelensky’s Jewish heritage to refute accusations of Nazi influence in Ukraine, the president has ceded to neo-Nazi forces and now depends on them as front line fighters.
Back in October 2019, as the war in eastern Ukraine dragged on, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to Zolote, a town situated firmly in the “gray zone” of Donbas, where over 14,000 had been killed, mostly on the pro-Russian side. There, the president encountered the hardened veterans of extreme right paramilitary units keeping up the fight against separatists just a few miles away.
Elected on a platform of de-escalation of hostilities with Russia, Zelensky was determined to enforce the so-called Steinmeier Formula conceived by then-German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier which called for elections in the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.
In a face-to-face confrontation with militants from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion who had launched a campaign to sabotage the peace initiative called “No to Capitulation,” Zelensky encountered a wall of obstinacy.
With appeals for disengagement from the frontlines firmly rejected, Zelensky melted down on camera. “I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,” Zelensky implored the fighters.
This February 24, when Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukrainian territory on a stated mission to “demilitarize and denazify” the country, US media embarked on a mission of its own: to deny the power of neo-Nazi paramilitaries over the country’s military and political sphere. As the US government-funded National Public Radio insisted, “Putin’s language [about denazification] is offensive and factually wrong.”
In its bid to deflect from the influence of Nazism in contemporary Ukraine, US media has found its most effective PR tool in the figure of Zelensky, a former TV star and comedian from a Jewish background. It is a role the actor-turned-politician has eagerly assumed.
But as we will see, Zelensky has not only ceded ground to the neo-Nazis in his midst, he has entrusted them with a front line role in his country’s war against pro-Russian and Russian forces.
The president’s Jewishness as Western media PR device
Hours before President Putin’s February 24 speech declaring denazification as the goal of Russian operations, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “asked how a people who lost eight million of its citizens fighting Nazis could support Nazism,” according to the BBC.
Raised in a non-religious Jewish family in the Soviet Union during the 1980’s, Zelensky has downplayed his heritage in the past. “The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults,” he joked during a 2019 interview in which he declined to go into further detail about his religious background.
Today, as Russian troops bear down on cities like Mariupol, which is effectively under the control of the Azov Battalion, Zelensky is no longer ashamed to broadcast his Jewishness. “How could I be a Nazi?” he wondered aloud during a public address. For a US media engaged in an all-out information war against Russia, the president’s Jewish background has become an essential public relations tool.
Behind the corporate media spin lies the complex and increasingly close relationship Zelensky’s administration has enjoyed with the neo-Nazi forces invested with key military and political posts by the Ukrainian state, and the power these open fascists have enjoyed since Washington installed a Western-aligned regime through a coup in 2014.
In fact, Zelensky’s top financial backer, the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, has been a key benefactor of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other extremists militias.
The Nazis have no issue threatening Zelensky when he doesn’t conform to their expectations, which probably explains his increasing ties to them over the past few years:
Thus, the ultra-nationalists gained a firmer foothold, by the fact that they were the ones who went to the ATO, the ones willing to continue fighting in Donbass. Add in a perpetual fear that these groups could turn against the government or officials, as recently evidenced by the 1st of December 2021 protests, no official is willing to confront them. This shows the extent of the influence and power that they can wield. For instance, Dmytro Yarosh, the founder of Right Sector publicly threatened Zelensky in an interview that he would hang from a tree.
So he may be Jewish, but he can’t control them. They control him, and in the past year he has more and more “gone native” in relying on them and catering to them.
As noted above, Zelensky is also backed by the same Oligarch who paid bounties for dead Ukrainian civilians and financially backs Azov:
There are actual mass graves in the Donbas full of Ukrainian Nazi victims. There is also public testimony linking the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian oligarchs to those killings. Sergey Litvinov, a captured Ukrainian soldier from the ‘Dnepr’ battalion, admitted to killing civilians including women and children in the villages Melovoye, Shiroky, Makarovo and Kamushnoye. Litvinov said he received money for the killings from his leadership sponsored by Ihor Kolomoysky, the Kiev-appointed Dnepropetrovsk governor and oligarch who was the owner of Burisma, the energy company which appointed Hunter Biden to its board. Kolomysky was also the primary financial backer of Ukrainian President Zelensky.
Zelensky’s campaign was 100% supported by The Servant of the People party (same name as in his TV show) which actually “has fewer donors than deputies in the parliamentary faction (248 people).” The main supporter was oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky – funder of Nazis who was fingered as paying bounties for the murder of civilians in Eastern Ukraine. His television station 1+1 hosted Zelensky’s hit show, in which he played the president of Ukraine. Kolomoisky’s media outlet provided security and logistical backup for the comedian’s campaign. Zelensky’s legal counsel, Andrii Bohdan, was the oligarch’s personal lawyer. Kolomoisky is currently in exile, splitting time between Geneva and Tel Aviv. Investigative journalists reported that Zelensky traveled 14 times in the past two years to those locations to see the oligarch.
This is not the Third Reich. The Nazis in Ukraine may be anti-Semitic, but that pales in comparison to their anti-Russian hatred.
14) Speaking of Ukrainian Nazis is anything other than absurd pro-Putin propaganda?
40 percent of the Ukrainian armed forces are paramilitary militias frequently referred to as “Nazis.” These militias are violent, ultranationalist, virulently anti-Semitic (though they give Zelensky a pass for practical reasons), fanatical and brutal. These men hate the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. The best known is the Azov Regiment. These militias have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture, massacres, using civilians as human shields, and more.
Such Nazis serve in the Rada (parliament) and dominant the Ukrainian military / security apparatus at all levels.
The situation is quite real.
16) USA funds Nazis?
This is from the same article referenced earlier from Colonel Jacques Baud:
On February 27, the Ukrainian government agreed to enter into negotiations with Russia. But a few hours later, the European Union voted a budget of 450 million euros to supply arms to the Ukraine, adding fuel to the fire. From then on, the Ukrainians felt that they did not need to reach an agreement. The resistance of the Azov militia in Mariupol even led to a boost of 500 million euros for weapons.
Yes, we fund Nazis.
17) Non-existent Ukrainian Nazis are USA problem?
As noted, prior to February 2022, the Western media routinely covered stories of Zelensky’s corruption and the Nazi problem in Ukraine. Even now, MSM sources admit that Azov is a Nazi fighting force, even while downplaying the widespread Nazi presence in the country.
18) Should I ask you if you have read Putin’s extreme regret statements on USSR having broken up? Should I tell you “Obviously, you didn’t”?
We read Putin’s speeches all the time, along with sermons by Patriarch Kirill. It is never so much what either of them say, as it is how what they say is misinterpreted by the Western media. Putin does voice sentimental feelings for when Russia was more powerful and more respected. If Putin had been in charge in the early 90’s, he might have tried to hold the former Soviet Union together. Patriarch Kirill often talks about the cultural links between the successor peoples of the “Holy Rus’.”
But Putin wasn’t in charge, and the world is very different now. None of us has ever seen a speech in which Putin declares he wants to absorb Ukaine, or Poland, or any other independent country. Doing so is beyond his economic and military capabilities, even if he wanted to. The problem is that most people don’t even read translations of Putin’s speeches. They simply read Western propaganda about what Putin says.
19) Are these Russian Orthodox reflections? What makes your reflections definable as orthodox?
We are Orthodox Christians writing about our perspectives on the Faith, current events, health, culture, etc.
—OR Staff
The repeated assertion that 40% of tge Ukrainian military forces are nazis need substantiation.
The Military Situation In The Ukraine
https://cf2r.org/documentation/la-situation-militaire-en-ukraine/
March 2022 BY Jacques Baud
The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, the chief Ukrainian military prosecutor, Anatoly Matios, stated that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from illnesses, 318 from road accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisonings (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of security regulations, 228 from murders and 615 from suicides.
In fact, the Ukrainian army was undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoyed the support of the population. According to a British Home Office report, in the March/April 2014 recall of reservists, 70 percent did not show up for the first session, 80 percent for the second, 90 percent for the third, and 95 percent for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of conscripts did not show up for the “Fall 2017” recall campaign. This is not counting suicides and desertions (often over to the autonomists), which reached up to 30 percent of the workforce in the ATO area. Young Ukrainians refused to go and fight in the Donbass and preferred emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the demographic deficit of the country.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help make its armed forces more “attractive.” Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But this is a long-term process and the Ukrainians wanted to move quickly.
So, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias…. In 2020, they constituted about 40 percent of the Ukrainian forces and numbered about 102,000 men, according to Reuters. They were armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There were more than 19 nationalities.
These militias had been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if one can argue about the term “Nazi,” the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic…[and] are composed of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov Regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division, which is revered in the Ukraine for liberating Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before carrying out the 1944 Oradour-sur-Glane massacre in France. [….]
The characterization of the Ukrainian paramilitaries as “Nazis” or “neo-Nazis” is considered Russian propaganda. But that’s not the view of the Times of Israel, or the West Point Academy’s Center for Counterterrorism. In 2014, Newsweek magazine seemed to associate them more with… the Islamic State. Take your pick!
So, the West supported and continued to arm militias that have been guilty of numerous crimes against civilian populations since 2014: rape, torture and massacres….
The integration of these paramilitary forces into the Ukrainian National Guard was not at all accompanied by a “denazification,” as some claim.
In 2022, very schematically, the Ukrainian armed forces fighting the Russian offensive were organized as:
The Army, subordinated to the Ministry of Defense. It is organized into 3 army corps and composed of maneuver formations (tanks, heavy artillery, missiles, etc.).
The National Guard, which depends on the Ministry of the Interior and is organized into 5 territorial commands.
The National Guard is therefore a territorial defense force that is not part of the Ukrainian army. It includes paramilitary militias, called “volunteer battalions” (добровольчі батальйоні), also known by the evocative name of “reprisal battalions,” and composed of infantry. Primarily trained for urban combat, they now defend cities such as Kharkov, Mariupol, Odessa, Kiev, etc.
_________________________________________________________________
Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news , L’affaire Navalny . His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.
While I tend to agree with the assertion, i really am looking for proof of this, as i have family members who would totally disagree. Unfortunately, the Reuters article cited by Baud nowhere states that 40% of the Ukrainian forces are nazi, only that 40% are paramilitary militias. The reader is left to draw make his own associations between ‘paramilitary militia’ and ‘nazi’. With no official translation of the full article by Baud available (that I could find), achieving full context is difficult, which is what i was hoping to find.
The Reuters article included the raw numbers for the Ukrainian military that was used to calculate the 40% figure. If you combine all the facts, what else would the paramilitaries be exactly? Baud has the discussion in his article about whether or not to call them “Nazis”. They are certainly different from German Nazis, but Banderites is an apt term. In the end, if they use NAZI imagery and self-identify as Nazis – why are argue with them? All of these are English translations for Baud’s articles:
https://www.thepostil.com/author/jacques-baud/
This is the specific article:
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
Are your family members denying that Ukraine has a NAZI issue?
This article is not different from what we hear and read from the Russian propaganda media, Russia who banned almost all media who doesn’t comply with Kremlin’s official scenario. I would have expected more from a Christian and orthodox perspective, more than, like: we are against war, but… Let’s justify it… And we are not actually condemning it.. Just as patriarch Kirill doesn’t.. But we do condemn what Americans did..
Christians should condemn and stand against war and those who are starting wars. Except if it’s in self defense, unless you want to say that this war is also in self defence, just as Putin pretends.
” Who can support war and suffering?”
Those who are starting it and are doing it, and those who justify it and those who are not condemning it clearly and openly.
“Putin will kill no more people and destroy no more property than necessary to get the deal he believes is in the best interests of Russia.”
Is that a fact, or just literature, a superficial figure of speech, playing with words and phrases about the thousands of victims and millions of refugees who became now only a statistic, as Stalin said? How do you know or estimate what is the exact necessary number of people to be killed, or of buildings to be destroyed, for Putin to get the deal, or if Putin really cares about those numbers?
If putin wanted to defend and to secure Donbas, or even all the Russian speaking people of East Ukraine, he could have done it and push it in other ways, diplomatically, referendums, and, ultimately, even militarily, if no other option remained, so without the whole attempt to “demilitarise and denazify” and bomb and destroy and terrorise all Ukraine. So the donbas problem was just another excuse to violently impose his political agenda. And everybody knows that Putin/Russia was not without fault and implication in Donbas, with all sort of strategic, informative and military involvement. (and now you’re saying that USA shouldn’t help Ukraine with weapons.. But Russia was involved even with troups)
And you’re talking about the Donbas referendum, when it is known that it was rapidly and improperly done, improvised, unsupervised, in conflict zone, under pressure and one sided?
Also, you’re saying that USA did and are doing the same, obviously using this as an excuse for this war, when you and we all should simply CONDEMN BOTH for their violent and unacceptable policies of ‘might is right’?
And you’re using the “fallen world” argument? That is, what can we do? that’s the situation, the bigger powers make war.. Well, in a fallen world we can condemn the evil works, war, invasion, murder, without taking sides. That’s what people of the right faith are doing in a fallen world.
And “in Europe at that time, “Ukraine” had no real sense of itself”? When, firstly, you just showed an image with the Ukrainians being there and having a territory in the 1600s. And, secondly, many people and nations were not fully independent and politically cristalised until the 19th century, because Europe was under imperial rules, but after 1848 many European nations started to form into independent and modern states, and Ukraine was part of that European struggle.
And you’re saying that “Such Nazis serve in the Rada (parliament) and dominant the Ukrainian military / security apparatus at all levels.”
Where did you get that info? How many nazis are in the rada? Because, as far as I looked, not one right wing politician was voted into parliament by the Ukrainians. So, officially, there is no nazi representation in the parliament. But, unofficially, anybody can say anything, according they own agenda.
And again, throwing words :”Ukraine is an authoritarian regime in which 40% of its armed forces are Nazis.”
How authoritarian is it when it democratically elected and changed two presidents in the recent years? Ukraine is surely not a full democracy, but if you want to see what authoritarianism really means, look at Russia.
And 40% nazi army? Where did you get that? The only military group with recognised nazi elements (so not even entirely) is the Azov battalion, of a few hundreds troops, who was even marginalised and losing its support from the government in the last years, but whom the government of course had used in the recent battle of Mariupol, precisely because they are good fighters, but nonetheless, not even close as nazi as the Russian army, which invades, bombs, terrorises, kills and commit war crimes, contless more than the Russians claimed and complained about Donbas, and more alike to what the German nazi army did to the Russians.
And not to mention that both USA and Germany have actually the obligation to help Ukraine militarily in case of invasion, just as Russia should, according with their treaty made with Ukraine for renouncing to her nuclear arsenal. But Russia did the opposite, invading Ukraine, and USA and German armies did not jump in their defence, so at least they should provide the needed weapons and military equipment.
As for Zelensky’s “intention” to get out from the Budapest agreement, an intention cannot be a justification to invade and to wage war, but can obviously be used as one, along with many other justifications used, as this article does, and just as Putin did.
And, anyway, we can see how and why Zelensky’s intention both to reconsider nuclear defence and to join NATO proves now to be justified. But even if Ukraine had almost no chances to join NATO, considering its tensions with Russia, and neither Ukraine nor NATO was a threat, Russia invaded Ukraine anyway, because it’s clearly not about security and defence, but about imperial ambitions and hystorical territorial claims, by disregarding the lives of millions of people and by killing tens of thousands and hundreds of childred. How is that justified? How can an orthodox Christian not condemn this, and instead, offer sinuous justifications? And how can the Russian orthodox patriarch not be against this obvious evil work? Maybe because he’s an heretic, a phyletist, sharing with Putin the same imperialistic and nationalistic vision?
Frankly, it would be shocking if you can find any “pro Russian” propaganda at this point, given all the censorship taking place in the West. Or even any objective reporting. Putin does not head a liberal democracy. Putin makes no pretenses about heading a liberal democracy. We are against censorship, and if we lived in Russia no doubt we would be on a collision course with Putin’s regime even as we speak.
But we don’t live in Russia. We live in Western liberal democracies. Our problem is not Putin’s censorship and propaganda. It is Western censorship and propaganda. Here is a good piece from Glenn Greenwald on the rapidly intensifying censorship campaign in the West:
Another valuable resource on censorship is Caitlin Johnstone:
Her Twitter is also really good, while it lasts:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1514954184080379906
The reason why our articles read like “Russian propaganda” is that you are not getting the full picture of this war or really any other event globally at this point. Not just because of censorship, but because of an outright, concerted media effort financed by government resources such as the Kyiv Independent:
If you are taking anything presented to you in the West at face value, then you are badly misinformed.
We are not justifying this war. We are telling what the West did to provoke the war, particularly our policies since 2014. We are further exploring how the West is using Ukrainian blood for its own purposes, and we are giving the Russian perspective which must be understood if the war is to be ended. The only way forward is negotiations that take into account security for the Donbass and Russia’s security concerns. .
Bogdan said:
That is precisely the point. Russia has justified this war on grounds of self-defense. The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.
That quote is in the article above on which we are commenting. The Patriarch of Moscow has echoed this sentiment. Now we can disagree with the Russian assessment, but you can’t ignore it if you want to make peace. The West clearly does not want peace, the West wants to use this war for its own ends. The West does not care about Ukrainians. The West cares about selling arms and getting at Russia. This is deeply immoral.
Now, you can ignore all the War in Donbass, the threat by Zelensky to acquire Nukes, the expansion of NATO, etc. and claim Putin is just “pretending.” Fine, you still have to end the war. The best way to do that, the most moral way to do that, are honest negotiations. Otherwise, the West will see Ukraine destroyed and then move on to the next victims.
Bogdan said:
This war, like all wars, is a tragedy and needs to end as soon as possible. Putin has been known for decades as a man of caution. If that shocks you, then it is because you have been listening to Western propaganda. Putin in Russia is actually criticized as a liberal. There are way more nationalistic individuals to his right, and they are way less cautious than Putin is. So far, Russia has run a very minimalistic campaign. If NATO were fighting Ukraine, every city would be leveled. The US dropped more bombs on Iraq the first day of the war in 2003 than Russia has dropped in 50 days. We just published this yesterday:
The victims of the war and the refugees are not statistics to us. They are the tragic consequences of Western-backed corruption and ultranationalism that provoked this Russian reaction. Putin does not care about our opinion. Just read the opening of this article if you want to know how we feel about the efficacy of criticizing Russian leaders in the West.
Whatever his sins, the Russians have to deal with. In a liberal democracy, the policies of our leaders are our responsibility. We can have no influence on Putin, but we should be able to have some influence at home.
Bogdan said:
Putin avoided a war for 8 years. He could have seized the referendum in 2014 as a pretext, if war is what Russia wanted. We really don’t know how to respond to what you just wrote. There were multiple rounds of peace negotiations yielding Minsk I & II agreements. Kiev, most likely under American pressure, refused to implement either. Putin has been trying to negotiate an end to the Donbass war and a promise not to expand NATO since 2014 and 2008 respectively. Prior to commencement of hostilities, Putin was practically begging the West to listen to him. As for Russia not being without fault in the Donbass, where is your evidence of that? Because we published excerpts from a really compelling article by a former NATO insider that puts the blame for it all squarely on the West and the post-coup Kiev government.
From a military perspective, the wider war against Ukraine is all about securing the Donbass. That is why the major cities in Ukraine are not occupied or dust. The Russian forces in the Donbass did not want to spend their days staring at 600k Ukrainians. Russia wants to secure the Donbass and force a peace settlement. You can argue the morality of that choice, but that is the choice that was made.
Also, where is your evidence for Russian troops? A former NATO insider said even the SBU admits that the number of foreign fighters in the Donbass was less than a 100. So what “everybody knows” does not square with actual reports from the OCSE monitors. See previous discussion of Western propaganda.
As for weapons now, absolutely we need to stop the billions in weapons that are flowing. The far right in Ukraine will use the weapons as an excuse to prevent negotiations to end the war. This war is not an existential threat to Ukraine, and needs to end via a peace agreement all sides can live with. The only thing Ukraine does by fighting is absorbing more losses. The US should get out. NATO should get out. Zelensky should negotiate an end to this war.
Bogdan said:
Are you saying the ethnic Russians in the Donbass, after having been attacked by the Ukrainian military, and after their language was banned in the country, wanted to stay under Kiev? Because that makes no sense, even on its face.
Bogdan said:
Feel free to condemn all sides. We don’t like this war anymore than anybody else does. Scream at Putin all you like. It won’t make a difference. Now if anti-war activists started putting pressure on Western governments to stop prolonging the war and search for peace, that might have some effect.
Bogdan said:
Great Power politics are not moral, they are simply facts. Feel free to condemn them. They are contemptible. Big powers push smaller nations around all the time, particularly on their borders. Such things would not exist in a more moral world. But this isn’t a more moral world, and all Great Powers expect to have a zone of influence, particularly on their own borders. Ignoring reality gets people killed and could get us all nuked. Be free to denounce the brokenness of this world all you like. Just don’t support policies that are going to end up in useless wars because we pretend the world is somehow different than it is.
Bodgan said:
After the collapse of the Kievan state, and the complete destruction of Kiev, Ukraine was ruled by Mongols and then Poles / Lithuanians. The uprising that gave you a small state for a time was really a religious struggle. Nicholas’ and Alexander’s ancestors (they contribute here and are Poles) were Roman Catholic and sought to impose Catholicism on the peasants. The “Ukrainians” of the day allied with the Muscovite state on the basis of religion. We have published maps several times indicating how the current borders took shape. As noted, a sense of “Ukrainians” as a distinct people really is quite late in history. And it is still relatively unformed. The ethic, linguistic, religious, and political situation in Ukraine is far more complicated than portrayed in the Western media, with really three distinct regional variations to “Ukrainian”. A lot of internal work needs to be done. Work that Western-backed corruption and Nazism has, so far, prevented from occurring. What is clear is that Russians living in Ukraine do not hate Ukrainians. Russians living in Russia do not hate Ukrainians. However, Ukrainian ultranationalists absolutely hate their own Russian co-citizens and all Russians in general. An acceptable basis of a healthy nationalism cannot be hatred of a people you live alongside.
Bogdan said:
They ran under other party labels because they were aware the ultraright was about to get crushed in the 2019 elections:
The Ukrainians voted for peace in 2019. They wanted an end to the wars and the corruption. Zelensky promised that. He betrayed the people who put him in power. There are reasons for that, we covered many of them in the article above as well as other articles.
Bogdan said:
Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism:
From his recent article:
Bogdan said:
We don’t fund Russia with our tax dollars. We do, on the other hand, fund and support the Kiev regime. Zelensky was elected democratically, and he promptly betrayed all of his promises. As we have documented, Zelensky has banned opposition parties, shuttered opposition media, made common cause with Nazis, and done nothing about corruption. Again, none of this would be our business if it were not that “defending democratic Ukraine” were not a justification for billions in tax-payer support going to Ukraine.
Bogdan said:
See above. The Russian Army could be comprised of 100% Nazi thugs, and it would not be our issue. We don’t fund the Russian Army. If we hadn’t intervened in Ukraine (the West) and overthrown the democratically elected government in 2014, then the Russian Army would not be in Ukraine. We already address the war crimes issue above. It makes no sense for the Russian forces to refrain from bombing civilians, only to shoot them in the heads. There is zero logic in carrying out systematic war crimes next door in a nation you plan to live with forever. So are there individual atrocities committed by miscreant soldiers? Are there mistakes? Absolutely, always happens in war. Which is why war should not happen. But a policy of harming civilians? That is not the case.
Bogdan said:
What obligation would that be? Providing “needed weapons” simply prolongs this war and causes needless suffering. Ukraine can’t win. Putin can’t allow a loss, so if necessary, he will completely destroy Ukraine. Not his first option, not even his 10th option. But at the 9th hour, if his objectives are not met any other way, then he will unleash Hell. This is simply a fact. The West is supplying weapons for its own aims, not to help Ukrainians. The war must end via a negotiated settlement. The West is willing to watch millions of Ukrainians die to prevent a Russian “victory”. There will be a Russian victory, the only question is how many Ukrainians die to get there.
By the way, the Budapest memorandum was not a treaty, and did not bind NATO (which should not exist) to defend Ukraine the way accession to NATO would.
Bogdan said:
Probably the smartest thing you wrote. By itself, the Zelensky’s speech would not have been used to justify force. Particularly since, to date, Russian objectives do not include removing Zelensky from office. The real precipitating crisis was the escalation of the attacks on the Donbass on 2/16. That straw broke the camel’s back. The other issues simply added weight to Putin’s decision to throw the dice and go for a comprehensive settlement, rather that occupying on the Donbass and leaving 600k troops staring at his numerically smaller force with Kiev possibly developing nukes.
Bogdan said:
Actually, the complete opposite. Zelensky did not get into NATO. Zelensky did not get nukes. This was always out of grasp for Ukraine. What Zelensky did was what his oligarchic and Western masters wanted – he poked the bear till he got a war. Nothing else makes any sense. Zelensky knew he would not be allowed to massively attack the Donbass with impunity. Yet he staged to do it anyway and escalated the shelling. This war was provoked on purpose, and not to the benefit of a single, average Ukrainian who just wants to live in peace.
There is zero evidence of “imperial” or “hysterical” territorial claims. Russia could have seized the pretext of the coup and the Donbass war to invade in 2014. It would have been an easier war back then, before Trump started shipping Kiev all those weapons. They did not. Rather, the Russians tried to negotiate peace.
As for all the talk about phlyetism and heresy, we just covered all that:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/is-russia-really-fighting-a-holy-war-in-ukraine/
You can disagree with the Patriarch and Russia on whether or not this war is justified. However, you can’t make any kind of case that it is “imperial” or fought because of “ethnicity.” Not on the Russian side. The Russians can be wrong, but they have reasons for their actions that are not heretical.
“There’s also western propaganda”.. I don’t even deny that and I think that few people do, but that’s not the point…
And I see how you build your narrative, the same idea again and again, like: things are complicated, not as you think.. Which again, nobody denies it, but, in fact and ultimately, it is quite simple: Ukraine DID NOT INVADE RUSSIA, BUT RUSSIA DID INVADE UKRAINE. And Ukraine did not made any threat to Russia, only self defence claims.
Is that simple.
And your using, again and again, the Donbas crisis as an argument for this invasion and war:
“That is precisely the point. Russia has justified this war on grounds of self-defense. The Ukrainian artillery bombardment of the Donbass population continued, and, on 23 February, the two Republics asked for military assistance from Russia. On 24 February, Vladimir Putin invoked Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for mutual military assistance in the framework of a defensive alliance.”
Now you are actually oversimplifying that conflict.. Firstly, you pretend that there was no Russian involvement in the crisis and conflict. Secondly, this was an internal Ukrainian political problem and conflict, which was Ukraine’s problem to solve it, with or without the diplomatic intervention or Russia or others.
Is that simple.
And the war in Donbas was not carried only by Ukraine, but also by Russia(‘s backed separatists) , as you’re using this war and the victims as a justification for further Russian offensive.
And your “the Donbas separatists asked for Russian support” is again superficial and naive. First, they were not in the position to ask for external military intervention, as they were not even autonomous. Secondly, as if this cannot obviously be seen as a Russian strategy, as Russia was already involved and interested in the whole situation..
And you keep repeating the problem of American fundings in Ukraine. If that’s the or your actual problem, then you should focus on this, on stopping it and standing against it, not on using it as a justification for the Russian invasion, CAUSE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, and the fundings do not justify this invasion, as Ukraine is free to make alliances whith whoever they want.
Just as whether Zekensky has fulfilled or nor his promises is not an argument and excuse for invasion and massacre. Again, that’s a very superficial and irresponsible justification for a war. Or whether there are “masked” nazis or whatever in the parliament… A reason to destroy the general population and their country..
According to your logic and arguments, then all the wars the US were justified, just as this is, because Saddam was also terrible, a genocidal and war criminal, much worse than Zekensky or any other person or group in Ukraine. Because no matter where the US did war, there were also bad people on the other side, and, guess what, some in those local oppositions, maybe even asked the US for help, just as the Donbas separatists did, because they were under persecution..
And because the situation is complicated everywhere..
Actually, lots of people deny the existence of Western Propaganda. Our propaganda is news, and RT’s propaganda is propaganda. According to many. The good news is that this war occurred on the heels of COVID, so many who might have fallen for agitprop years ago are now fully awake and are not. You may acknowledge the propaganda, but do you fully understand how programmed we are in the West by the non-stop, full spectrum assault on our minds?
Not really. You are leaving out the 2014 Coup, the suppression of Russian ethnicity (which really set off the people to Putin’s right in Russia), the War in the Donbass, the escalation of the war in the Donbass, the massive armaments program, the stationing of NATO soldiers / airmen in Ukraine as “trainers”, the threat of Ukraine joining NATO and all of this getting infinitely worse from a Russian perspective, and Zelensky openly speculating about getting nukes.
From the moment the conflict started, we have been bombarded with messages that Putin is insane, Putin is a monster, the Russians have no justification, Ukraine is totally innocent, NATO has no part in what is happening, Russia wants its empire back, this will lead to Ukrainian genocide (cultural or real mass murder), Russia will not stop unless we contain them, Russia is going to Poland next…
All of that is garbage. Russia tried hard to avoid this war. They may be wrong in launching, but from their perspective this war had to happen and they consider it a defensive use of force. If you want to end the war, then you need to negotiate on that basis. Running around turning this into an existential threat is helpful only to those who want to expand the war. The war needs to end, that means a negotiated solution. That will happen now, or it will happen after another 20k to 30k or more Ukrainians are dead. We would prefer now. The war cannot be allowed to expand. NATO troops cannot get involved. We must cut supplies to Ukraine, and force Zelensky to negotiate a settlement.
The 2/16 escalation in Donbass is precisely the trigger for the current war. It is not the only reason. This war really started in 2014 with the coup that led to the Donbass war and the Russians to annex Crimea. No coup, no war. That is on us. The Donbass fight is not the only reason we are here, but it is the reason why the Duma was screaming for Putin to do something right now. Had there been no coup, or the Kiev govt would have abided by the Minsk I & II, then we would not be in this war. We have quoted the Colonel Baud piece multiple times, so we won’t do so again. Simply put, the Western tales of Russian involvement in the Donbass war have been greatly exaggerated. Putin faced criticism at home because he was not doing more in the Donbass. He has a reputation of being cautious. Whether there was Russian involvement in the Donbass at all, or to what level, does not justify Kiev breaking the Minsk I & II accords that would have ended this fighting. Does not justify Kiev escalating the war on 2/16. Had the West under Trump not built up Ukrainian forces, then peace would have reigned. 2) Putin and Russia tried really hard to let Ukrainians solve this problem. That was what the whole Minsk peace process was about. The only logical way to approach Ukrainian behavior in late 2021 and early 2022 was that they, under Western orders, were trying to provoke a war. If they weren’t, they surely did a great job of it. Once the Donbass republics declared independence, then it is definitely no longer an internal matter.
We’re not using that as a justification for anything. Russia is. That means you have to take that into account if you want a peace deal. The West is ignoring the Donbass, trying to make this look like pure, imperial aggression. At this point, the war will continue till Russia gets a deal it wants, or the facts on the ground are such that Russia believes it can live with disposition of forces. That means a completely destroyed Ukrainian Army, all the paramilitaries gone, and probably Russian troops all over Eastern Ukraine. We can save a lot of lives by just negotiate now.
After they declared independence, of course they were. Much more of a position than Kosovo and Macedonia. The West backs separatists republics all the time and all over the globe. Again, we have published insider accounts with OCSE reporting that Russia was not involved to any substantial degree militarily prior to 2/16/2022. Again, Minsk I & II protocols, which you never mention, would have solved the Donbass issue and would have prevented a crisis from exploding the way it just did. The issues would have festered for years to come, but only a declaration that Ukraine was actually joining NATO would have precipitated a war. Ukraine with Western backing brough this situation to a head.
We are not justifying the Russian invasion. We are telling people what they won’t hear unless they go looking for it – what the Russians actually say they are fighting for. We repeatedly condemned the West for the coup, for the Nazi funding, for the military build up, the war in the Donbass, etc. We do not want to be involved. This is not our war, not our backyard. Russia does not care about our opinions, but perhaps the Western govts might after they lose a few elections. Another thing you simply won’t comment on – Mexico would never be allowed to enter a military alliance with Russia, China, or both. Repeating that Ukraine is free to make alliances does not change the fact that no smaller power on the border of a Great Power has that kind of freedom. Ukraine got played. The West used Ukraine for its own ends and stripped their economy bare in corrupt ways. Now the West is supplying weapons and funding to prolong the war. Not because it benefits Ukraine, but because it benefits Western policy.
Great Power politics exist, whether you like that fact or not.
That is not a justification for war. That is a justification for why NATO should not be involved. One major justification for NATO involvement is Ukraine’s democracy. Even if Ukraine were a democracy, NATO should never have pursued the policies it has. However, Ukraine is certainly not a democracy, so even if you believe the US & NATO have an obligation to defend democracies, then Ukraine definitely does not qualify. The Ukrainian people voted for peace and an end to corruption. They got more war, more Nazis, and more corruption. We have no interests in Ukraine, we should never have been involved, and our involvement only made everything worse. The “denazification” war aim of the Russians is an additional negotiating point, though will probably be carried out on the battlefield. Russia would never have invaded just over Nazis who were just carrying torches and chanting.
No, according to our logic the US and NATO should not go around the world interfering in other governments and supporting bad people. We do that a lot. Also according to our logic, the US and NATO should not go around the world toppling regimes, slaughtering people, and claiming to spread democracy. That was us in 2014 in Ukraine, sponsoring a coup that brought bad people to power under the pretense that we were spreading democracy. We want the US to stay home and tend to its own problems, rather than sowing death and destruction around the globe. By the way, if you read anything we have written, you will quickly find that we believe the actions of the US in multiple previous wars are actual war crimes. Nothing says “war crime” like mass bombing of civilians. As we are Westerners and these are our governments, we feel that we should be responsible for holding them to account. Something that has not been done. Russian citizens can see to their own when they are able.
More so here than in many other places.
While we are focused on Ukraine, the holocaust in China is rapidly become much larger.https://healthimpactnews.com/2022/protests-looting-pets-destroyed-and-mass-suicides-in-shanghai-china-as-people-starve-during-lockdowns/
Yet, the two events are related. Both are orchestrated by the globalist cabal, I have been observing since the 1970’s . The Shanghai shutdown and starvation, is the plan for us as well. However, Americans are wylie creatures housing millions of guns and some very well prepared militias. The globalist tactic here will be different. Expect something technocratic. After much investigation, I have come to the conclusion Tony Pantallaresco is at least 90% right. A secret assault has been launched on Americans through nano tech materials, not just in the vaccines but dropped from the air, putting them in the food and water. Not only have I seen the proof in the sky nearly every day, I have flushed it out of my own body and see its results first hand.
(See https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/)
In the recent months the chemtrails over our city have been severerly ramped up, something is going down. When I see a sky 90% cloud cover and the relative humitity is 7%, that’s not water in those clouds. While chemtrails have been around a long time, a major increase is easily seen. So, something is about to go down.
America will not be exempt from what is happening in other places; Canada, Australia, and Shanghai. The touted 5g is decades old military technology, look it up. My advice; detox, detox, detox, create sacred space. Make preparations for shortages, stopages, and grid shut downs.
Reply to Gum Boocho from Gab:
We referenced the written testimony of the man who, in 2014, was in charge of stopping the proliferation of small arms in Europe for NATO. Everything he wrote is linked to above. We also published this:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/an-eyewitness-to-the-us-coup-detat-in-ukraine-tells-the-truth/
Which is another eyewitness account. The Donbass region was affixed to Ukraine by Lenin. It is historically Russian, and primarily populated by Russian-speakers who have Ukrainian citizenship, though many have Russia as well. The colonel gave you a definitive explanation of how Donbass was attacked, how Ukrainian army units defected to the ethnic Russia side, and the ongoing conflict for the past 8 years. While the Donbass originally voted for self-determination within Ukraine, clearly that is over now as the republics have declared independence.
So now the Donbass is neither Russia nor Ukraine, but independent thanks to relentless Ukrainian hostility.
Hitler and the Germans did not originate the idea of invading other countries to protect co-ethnic communities. The US did so in the Hawaii, sending the Marines to protect Americans who had started a revolution and then keeping the state. Do you want to condemn that as Hitlerian? Many, many examples. The Germans in the Sudetenland were actually under persecution. Same in Danzig, and I say that as someone whose ancestors were doing the persecuting in that area. Does that justify WWII? No, but the underlying grievance in those two specific cases was true. The solution to the problem was totally unjustified.
There is no racism here. All sides are Caucasian. This is an ethnic struggle and it boils down to Russia getting involved to stop an escalation of a civil war. All this is clearly presented above, and in other posts on this site.
As part of that agreement, NATO promised not to expand. That was violated almost immediately. So far, Russia has gobbled nothing but Crimea, as the Donbass republics are officially independent states. You can see that in the article from the intelligence colonel. Russia did not foment the war, Ukrainian policy did. Crimea should never have been part of Ukraine. That was Krushchev’s folly.
NATO is controlled by the US. And we have a very aggressive history, under NATO rubrics and on our own. Try telling Serbia, Libya, and Syria all about how defensive NATO is. NATO may have been a good idea in the 1940’s, but has totally outlived its usefulness and needs to be abandoned.
The United States would never allow Mexico to join as “defensive” alliance with China. If we would not tolerate that on our border, why would Russia?
Nothing. The Lord wants peace, which Ukraine violated by escalating the attacks on the Donbass on 2/16 and the previous 8 years of war against Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Zelensky and Putin should make peace. Immediately. As noted, no Great Power would allow a neighboring country to join a hostile military alliance. God hates war, this needs to end. The key to ending it is negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.
The Bible in the OT is full of wars that were either blessed by God or encouraged by God or both. The last 2,000 years of Church history include wars that were deemed necessary by the Church, despite the fact that God hates his children killing each other. This war was provoked by Western arrogance and lack of concern for Ukrainian and Russian lives. It needs to end immediately through negotiations, and we can sort out God’s overall attitude later in history as all facts emerge.
And shame on Western propaganda that is miles ahead of anything that Russia is capable of.
“The Bible in the OT is full of wars that were either blessed by God or encouraged by God or both.”
This is a very weak excuse and justification for any war.
Those OT wars were ordered, directed or supported by God himself, not by the personal will of some priests or of military or political leaders. Did God ordered or communicate to anyone to wage this war? Or did He blessed it through any Church leader? Cause if He did, it shouldn’t be a secret in the Church, but brought to light.
And then Jesus Christ brought the gospel of peace and of forgiveness and of love for all people, including for our enemies and for those who hate us. So, nothing Christian in this war or in any war.
And “wars were deemed necessary by the Church”? What wars? And which Church Fathers talked about the necessity of wars? Except self defense, of course. And even if some Church authorities approved some wars, how does that mean that they were right and that war is right? As if we have the guarantee that Church leaders and patriarchs can’t make and didn’t make mistakes or took wrong decisions.
In Orthodoxy, we don’t have a concept of “just war” but we do have a concept as justifiable force. Romania does have a military, does it not? Are you in favor of unilaterally disarming Romania?
You ask, “Did God ordered or communicate to anyone to wage this war? Or did He blessed it through any Church leader? Cause if He did, it shouldn’t be a secret in the Church, but brought to light”
Well, actually the Russian Church seems to believe that the war is defensive in nature and thus justifiable before God. The Antiochian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate appear to agree with them. Not sure how many more.
But see, you don’t agree. In fact, the opinions of those patriarchates probably means nothing to you. So whether God Himself has spoken through those synods and more, you are not listening in any case. You don’t appear to have an open mind to the prospect that Russia is defending the Donbass and striving for a permanent peace, as opposed to NATO which is using the Ukrainians for its own, immoral ends, to bleed Russia.
All true. We don’t know. As a bishop once said to us, “You frequently figure out if a war was justifiable or not long after the fact.” Sure, if the barbarians are coming over the walls, then things are pretty simple. But what if Vlad the Impaler’s scouts tell him that an Ottoman army is gathering on his frontier, and he must attack now or lose the advantage? Ahh, that is more complicated, isn’t it? Is it an aggressive war, because Vlad struck first? Or is it defensive because the troop build up could only mean an attack was coming? Unless, perhaps, the “troop buildup” was merely a rotation of forces, and Vlad launched a bloody war for no good reason.
How do you know? Well, you don’t. We pray for guidance and we do the best we can. The situation is muddled on the Russian side to be sure. On the NATO side, not so much. We should never have overthrown the Ukrainian govt in 2014. We should never have funded Nazis. We should never have given major weapons to Ukraine. We should never have turned the other way while they abused and killed their Russian citizens. We should have demanded they obey the Minsk I & II protocols. We should have never encouraged them to poke the bear. This is all crystal clear.
As for what is the justified Russian reaction to all of the above? That is murky. Surely if they had simply gone into the Donbass there would be less of a problem. But going into Donbass only would expose the “peace keeping” troops to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops. How would that have gone, long term? Putin’s thoughts were that we would end up here sooner, or later, and so he preferred sooner.
Is he wrong? Is Russia unjustified? That is for God to decide. For now, what matters is ending the war. The only thing Zelensky can do for his people is negotiate peace. Trying for “victory” means the destruction of Ukraine. The West is pushing Ukraine to fight, but this isn’t for their benefit. It is for the immoral foreign policy of the West.
I very much appreciate this summary. I learned more in the half hour I spent studying it than I knew from all other sources going back to mid-February and I gladly shared it on my Facebook timeline.