Zelensky or Putin?
“It is easy and dangerous for Christians to get sucked into these types of political debates. Biblical wisdom and ethics do not fit into the binary formula of today’s political landscape.” - Kevin Schaal
- 6 views
There are some good points in Kevin’s post, but I had a hard time getting past the idea that there is any ambiguity at all in who’s side to be on in this one. There is not.
It’s also no more “political” than the question of abortion is political.
True enough, political allegiances and identity far too often impede the pursuit of truth. I’ve been harping on that since 2016. It doesn’t follow that all ethical questions that are pulled into some political controversy or other are non-binary.
Putin is an evil aggressor in this conflict. Christians should be unambiguous and unequivocal on that point.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Putin is an evil aggressor in this conflict. Christians should be unambiguous and unequivocal on that point.
What Aaron said!
To me, it is not about Zelensky vs. Putin and we don’t have to be a fan of either. It is about one nation going to war with another nation and spilling innocent blood for no reason at all. We can blame Putin, just like we can blame Hitler, but it is an entire nation that must do the biddings of a dictator in order for the dictator to do what he wants.
The worst Kevin came up with regarding Zelenskyy is an investigation/prosecution (not persecution) of his predecessor involving finding a lot of surveillance devices in a health club Poroschenko owned, along with corruption, money laundering, and the like. So more or less Schaal comes out against Zelenskyy because….um, he encouraged an investigation of corruption? Huh?
For things that are really an issue, Zelenskyy is pro-abortion and anti-gun-rights (or at least was until overweight middle aged guys started taking it to the Russian Army with borrowed AK’s), and a portion of his career as a comedian is pretty vulgar.
And really, no doubt deconvolving Ukraine (and Russia) from the political, cultural, and economic messes left from how the Soviet Union ended is a hero’s task, and neither nation is perfect by any means a New Jerusalem. I don’t know of anyone who would seriously think so.
But that noted, hey, they’re the ones being invaded and brutalized under totally false pretenses by a guy who likes to kill his political opponents at home, too. There are difficult things to figure out, but this is not one of them.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]For things that are really an issue, Zelenskyy is pro-abortion and anti-gun-rights (or at least was until overweight middle aged guys started taking it to the Russian Army with borrowed AK’s), and a portion of his career as a comedian is pretty vulgar.
There’s no doubt it’s clear that Putin is the aggressor, and the war can be laid at his feet.
I have to admit, though, that hearing that Zelenskyy has outlawed 11 different political parties, and is consolidating all TV channels into one national platform is concerning. It sounds a little like the beginning of yet another authoritarian dictatorship. Should that happen, the US should be very careful about propping up and supporting such a government, even as it’s clear that Putin needs to be opposed and fought, and that Ukrainian refugees need to be cared for. Our country does not have a great record handling such leaders even as they fight things that need to be fought.
As dgszweda said, we don’t need to be fans of either leader.
Dave Barnhart
Lily-livered Kevin Schaal can’t decide:
- One massed 150,000 troops and armor against the other
- One has launched 600+ missiles against the other
- One has killed hundreds of women and children
- One has indiscriminately bombed civilian buildings
Really Kevin? Can’t decide?!
[Dave White]Lily-livered Kevin Schaal can’t decide:
- One massed 150,000 troops and armor against the other
- One has launched 600+ missiles against the other
- One has killed hundreds of women and children
- One has indiscriminately bombed civilian buildings
Really Kevin? Can’t decide?!
I’m having a hard time deciding
As Mariupol hangs on, the extent of the horror not yet known
Mariupol officials said on March 15 that at least 2,300 people had died in the siege, with some buried in mass graves. There has been no official estimate since then, but the number is feared to be far higher after six more days of bombardment.
For those who remain, conditions have become brutal. The assault has cut off Mariupol’s electricity, water and food supplies and severed communication with the outside world, plunging residents into a fight for survival.
First, let’s refrain from “Lily-livered” and the like please.
Second, though I don’t think there’s any ambiguity about who’s in the wrong as far as the invasion goes, let’s keep in mind that in a war both sides engage in propaganda, and for morale and other tactical purposes numbers get exaggerated or downplayed and stories get passed on and embellished, etc. I’m sure many of the horror stories are true. Probably not all of them. But the basic facts are pretty clear as far as who’s the aggressor, and the fact that lots of people are dying because of it.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] stories get passed on and embellished, etc. I’m sure many of the horror stories are true. Probably not all of them. But the basic facts are pretty clear as far as who’s the aggressor, and the fact that lots of people are dying because of it.
Sources: BBC, NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, FOX, CNBC, missionaries leaving, missionaries in neighboring countries
Here’s the truth on Ukraine, as far as I can tell - American Thinker
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the writer of this article and what he says—I do not have enough information or knowledge to assess it or the other viewpoints with any certainty.
There is definitely propaganda on both sides. Both are boasting about their success at making progress (in either attacking or defending). I would say that the propaganda is a bit more balanced on the Ukrainian side because of confirmations from third parties and independent news agencies on the ground. Whereas in Russia, there is near total lockdown on anything resembling independence. With that said some level of propaganda is to be expected as both sides are trying to win, and perception is key in keeping moral on the upside. In the end, it doesn’t cloud the fact that innocent civilians are being hurt and killed for no rational reason, and thus should be defended on all fronts.
I really don’t want to see the US drawn into another war, but I feel that the US and NATO need to draw a hard redline in the sand as well, and if there is some conflict in actions between the US and Russia so be it. Why is Russia willing to draw the line and then enforce it, but we are too scared. Call their bluff. I feel that there needs to be a line in the sand, if we don’t hold to something and be extremely clear about it, not only will Russia call it, but there are plenty of other countries waiting in the wings to do something else in their area of scope. We drew a clear line in the Cuba missile crisis, it got very hairy and in the end it created a detente for decades to come.
[RajeshG]Here’s the truth on Ukraine, as far as I can tell - American Thinker
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the writer of this article and what he says—I do not have enough information or knowledge to assess it or the other viewpoints with any certainty.
This author is delusional. Not sure how you find these fringe articles. The West did not cause this war. Ukraine was of no threat to Russia. It is not ruled by Nazi’s, and Ukraine was neither joining the EU or NATO anytime soon. Countries can join NATO of their own free will, but if they are part of Russia’s orbit it is handled with bloodshed and suffering, repressions and persecution. The West never agreed not to expand NATO. This has been debunked over and over again (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not…)
Regardless, Russia was not under threat or even a remote possibility of threat by Ukraine and they have no right to killing innocent civilians. You need to start fact checking your news better instead of relying on an article that looks like it was written on some type of old HTML model from the AOL days.
[dgszweda]Thanks for the information and feedback. As I said, I do not know what to make of it; as time allows, I will look into the source that you providedThis author is delusional. Not sure how you find these fringe articles. The West did not cause this war. Ukraine was of no threat to Russia. It is not ruled by Nazi’s, and Ukraine was neither joining the EU or NATO anytime soon. Countries can join NATO of their own free will, but if they are part of Russia’s orbit it is handled with bloodshed and suffering, repressions and persecution. The West never agreed not to expand NATO. This has been debunked over and over again (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-…)
Regardless, Russia was not under threat or even a remote possibility of threat by Ukraine and they have no right to killing innocent civilians. You need to start fact checking your news better instead of relying on an article that looks like it was written on some type of old HTML model from the AOL days.
[RajeshG]Thanks for the information and feedback. As I said, I do not know what to make of it; as time allows, I will look into the source that you provided
As a side note, American Thinker is considered a far-right or hyper-partisan right leaning news site, with mostly unreliable or misleading information according to practically all media bias rating sites. This particular article peddles numerous debunked statements that are propogated by far-right news outlets or personalities. Here is another good fact check on one of the key statements in the article. Regardless of whether Jim Baker may or may not have speculated on NATO’s movements more than a 1/3rd of a century ago, there is nothing in any agreement or treaty. If Putin doesn’t want NATO to expand, he should work toward a treaty, like most civilized leaders would do, or he should look inward as to why all of these countries are running away from Russia and toward NATO. That might be more of a Russian issue than a NATO issue.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-ch…
[dgszweda]This author is delusional. Not sure how you find these fringe articles. The West did not cause this war. Ukraine was of no threat to Russia. It is not ruled by Nazi’s, and Ukraine was neither joining the EU or NATO anytime soon. Countries can join NATO of their own free will, but if they are part of Russia’s orbit it is handled with bloodshed and suffering, repressions and persecution. The West never agreed not to expand NATO. This has been debunked over and over again (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-…)
Regardless, Russia was not under threat or even a remote possibility of threat by Ukraine and they have no right to killing innocent civilians. You need to start fact checking your news better instead of relying on an article that looks like it was written on some type of old HTML model from the AOL days.
Of course, neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians have any right to kill innocent civilians.
Discussion