Crimeans Who Ushered in the Russians Now Have to Live With Their Choice

[pepipop]

That’s true, however, I still do not want Putin invading the Ukraine or making mince meat out of Europe (anymore than I want it overrun by ISIS or radical Muslims).

He is not, nor will he be invading Ukraine. That story’s getting stale, it’s been promulgated by the media for over a year now, and needless to say still hasn’t occurred - not will it.

 

[Tbrightson]

He is not, nor will he be invading Ukraine. That story’s getting stale, it’s been promulgated by the media for over a year now, and needless to say still hasn’t occurred - not will it.

Wow your even more Putin than Putin!

Even Putin admits his premeditiated invasion and annexation of Crimea…

and in other places:

novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html

In the interview, Batomunkuev, aged 20, describes his deployment to Ukraine in extensive detail, providing perhaps the best glimpse we have had so far into this story.

Kostyuchenko says Batomunkuev, a gunner in a T-72B tank, suffered horrific burn wounds while he was manning a tank, defending Logvinovo, a village on the highway between Debaltsevo and Artyomovsk.

 

[Tomdstone]

Even Putin admits his premeditiated invasion and annexation of Crimea…
.

Number killed as a result of the Russian “invasion” of Crimea: 0
Number killed as a result of the American invasion of Iraq: 211,000
iraqbodycount.org/

 

[josie_L]

Wow your even more Putin than Putin!

Even Putin admits his premeditiated invasion and annexation of Crimea…

and in other places:

novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html

In the interview, Batomunkuev, aged 20, describes his deployment to Ukraine in extensive detail, providing perhaps the best glimpse we have had so far into this story.

Kostyuchenko says Batomunkuev, a gunner in a T-72B tank, suffered horrific burn wounds while he was manning a tank, defending Logvinovo, a village on the highway between Debaltsevo and Artyomovsk.

I don’t know what else to say, Tbright, it’s like I’m talking to someone with amnesia (how many times have we brought up these points?).

 

[pepipop]

I don’t know what else to say, Tbright, it’s like I’m talking to someone with amnesia (how many times have we brought up these points?).

Ditto. Crimea is not Eastern Ukraine, and Putin was fully welcomed by the people of Crimea - end off.

 

[pepipop]

Wow your even more Putin than Putin!

Even Putin admits his premeditiated invasion and annexation of Crimea…

and in other places:

novayagazeta.ru/society/67490.html

In the interview, Batomunkuev, aged 20, describes his deployment to Ukraine in extensive detail, providing perhaps the best glimpse we have had so far into this story.

Kostyuchenko says Batomunkuev, a gunner in a T-72B tank, suffered horrific burn wounds while he was manning a tank, defending Logvinovo, a village on the highway between Debaltsevo and Artyomovsk.

You’ve posted this story once again, what are your comments in relation to the Ukrainian soldier’s message to Poroschenko, being treated by the Ukrainian separatists.

youtube.com/watch?v=gY5EkkBD59c

 

[josie_L]

I think that you wrongly confuse the principle of autocracy with the absence of freedom. Autocracy simply means rule by a single person. Nothing more, nothing else.

Since there are neither any other gods besides our Lord, nor does our Lord submit to any entity, He could be described as the perfect Autocrat.

I think that people tend to overlook the fact that Creation, is hierarchical, even in the absence of sin.

(Personally, I think that the title Christ the Autocrat would be much more appropriate than that of King, since a king is essentially a dynastic autocrat. As far as I know, there is no Divine dynasty.)

Jesus Christ is God, and therefore, I have no problems with giving Him the reigns to rule over His people, but other people do not have a right to rule over me, i.e., there is no such thing as a sinless (human) autocrat who will respect our free will as God does.

 

[josie_L]

Catholicism does not dictate that we should be ruled by autocracy, and neither does God.

 

[Tomdstone]

… Putin was fully welcomed by the people of Crimea …

And still is. Recent polls in Crimea show 93% approval of the decision to move Crimea to Mother Russia.

 

[josie_L]

I will not respect an autocrat, not while I’m living and breathing.

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

Catholicism does not dictate that we should be ruled by autocracy, and neither does God.

We are not discussing specific dictates. I merely tried to clarify an apparent misconception about the definition of autocracy. I have noticed that Americans generally only acknowledge authority if they find it convenient.
In other words, the caprices of the individual trump the tested tradition and wisdom of the past. Perhaps the preservation of this transmission is what ultimately necessitates a strong ruler and established social hierarchy.
Guidance of this sort is not only necessary in spiritual, but also saecular matters.

I know from my own experiences that man left to his machinations in the absence of authority will fall into a very deep pit.

Let us examine the maxim that freedom only arrives from order. This can be likened to the nature of a building. The walls (including the roof) represent order. Without these walls, the freedom to thrive independently of hostile, outside elements is greatly decreased.
Sure, the walls limit one’s mobility, much like the limits of societal order. However, these walls do not actively suppress movement either, since they only ‘act’ if a persons attempts to move beyond them.

The problem with the liberal model is its reversal of this maxim. Order arrives from freedom. If you take the previous analogy, that is like the construction of a building with no walls. The world is yours, yet nothing protects you from the elements.

Perfection and complete freedom cannot be achieved in this life/world. Unfortunately, many forget or ignore this reality.

 

[josie_L]

Ditto. Crimea is not Eastern Ukraine, and Putin was fully welcomed by the people of Crimea - end off.

No, the people of Crimea did not fully welcome Putin or his troops:

Ex-insurgent leader Igor Girkin (‘Strelkov’) has admitted in a recent Russian TV interview that the March 2014 Crimean referendum was forced through by Russian occupation forces and received almost no local support.

In an interview on the ‘Polit-Ring TV show on Russia’s NeuroMirTV earlier this week, Girkin, who was present throughout the seizure of Crimea before playing a leading role in the Russian insurgency in east Ukraine, admitted that the whole referendum was only possible thanks to the presence of Russian troops.

During the interview, Girkin explained that Crimean MPs had been rounded up and forced to vote for a referendum on the separation of Crimea from Ukraine.

“I did not see any support from the (Crimean) state authorities in Simferopol where I was. It was militants who collected deputies and forced them to vote. Yes, I was one of commanders of those militants,” Girkin told Russian TV.

The Russian annexation of Crimea in March 2014 has sparked the biggest European security crisis since the end of the Cold War, leading to a virtual freeze in ties between Russia and the EU. The Russian Federation has repeatedly defended the Crimean referendum as legitimate, and initially claimed that militant forces which seized strategic buildings and infrastructure throughout Crimea in the run-up to the vote were merely concerned local citizens.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin later admitted that the Russian army had been deployed in Crimea prior to the referendum. Russia also denies sending regular Russian army forces into east Ukraine.

uatoday.tv/news/moscow-agent-strelkov-admits-russian-army-behind-crimean-referendum-404995.html

The original interview can be accessed from this link, but it’s in Russian.

 

[josie_L]

We are not discussing specific dictates. I merely tried to clarify an apparent misconception about the definition of autocracy. I have noticed that Americans generally only acknowledge authority if they find it convenient.
In other words, the caprices of the individual trump the tested tradition and wisdom of the past. Perhaps the preservation of this transmission is what ultimately necessitates a strong ruler and established social hierarchy.
Guidance of this sort is not only necessary in spiritual, but also saecular matters.

I know from my own experiences that man left to his machinations in the absence of authority will fall into a very deep pit.

Let us examine the maxim that freedom only arrives from order. This can be likened to the nature of a building. The walls (including the roof) represent order. Without these walls, the freedom to thrive independently of hostile, outside elements is greatly decreased.
Sure, the walls limit one’s mobility, much like the limits of societal order. However, these walls do not actively suppress movement either, since they only ‘act’ if a persons attempts to move beyond them.

The problem with the liberal model is its reversal of this maxim. Order arrives from freedom. If you take the previous analogy, that is like the construction of a building with no walls. The world is yours, yet nothing protects you from the elements.

Perfection and complete freedom cannot be achieved in this life/world. Unfortunately, many forget or ignore this reality.

I’m not advocating anarchy, i.e., I realize we need authority of some kind, I simply do not agree with it being in the hands of one (human) person.

 

[pepipop]

And still is. Recent polls in Crimea show 93% approval of the decision to move Crimea to Mother Russia.

Welcomed with open arms!

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

I’m not advocating anarchy, i.e., I realize we need authority of some kind, I simply do not agree with it being in the hands of one (human) person.

I am repeating myself, but perhaps for the best.

It takes only one saint to make a good Autocracy.
It takes several saints to make a good Oligarchy.
It takes many saints to make a good Aristocracy
It takes an impossible majority to make a good Democracy.

If one man rules, naturally, it concentrates power. Yet, the benefit is the possibility of appeal to an individual conscience. There are numerous examples of kings changing their actions simply because of a personal appeal to their conscience.
In short, the rule of an autocrat maintains the primacy of human relations, rather than an that of dehumanised, abstract interests.

 

[pepipop]

We are not discussing specific dictates. I merely tried to clarify an apparent misconception about the definition of autocracy. I have noticed that Americans generally only acknowledge authority if they find it convenient.
In other words, the caprices of the individual trump the tested tradition and wisdom of the past. Perhaps the preservation of this transmission is what ultimately necessitates a strong ruler and established social hierarchy.
Guidance of this sort is not only necessary in spiritual, but also saecular matters.

I know from my own experiences that man left to his machinations in the absence of authority will fall into a very deep pit.

Let us examine the maxim that freedom only arrives from order. This can be likened to the nature of a building. The walls (including the roof) represent order. Without these walls, the freedom to thrive independently of hostile, outside elements is greatly decreased.
Sure, the walls limit one’s mobility, much like the limits of societal order. However, these walls do not actively suppress movement either, since they only ‘act’ if a persons attempts to move beyond them.

The problem with the liberal model is its reversal of this maxim. Order arrives from freedom. If you take the previous analogy, that is like the construction of a building with no walls. The world is yours, yet nothing protects you from the elements.

Perfection and complete freedom cannot be achieved in this life/world. Unfortunately, many forget or ignore this reality.

Good analogy.

 

[tomarin]

Welcomed with open arms!

This would be like the U.S. orchestrating a referendum in Quebec for it to leave Canada and become an American state, and for the U.S. to send lots of American soldiers to supervise the voting in said referendum. There’s no way that’s even remotely legal or (more importantly) legitimate. In fact I think it’s considered an invasion and an act of war.

 

[tomarin]

I am repeating myself, but perhaps for the best.

It takes only one saint to make a good Autocracy.
It takes several saints to make a good Oligarchy.
It takes many saints to make a good Aristocracy
It takes an impossible majority to make a good Democracy.

If one man rules, naturally, it concentrates power. Yet, the benefit is the possibility of appeal to an individual conscience. There are numerous examples of kings changing their actions simply because of a personal appeal to their conscience.
In short, the rule of an autocrat maintains the primacy of human relations, rather than an that of dehumanised, abstract interests.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[josie_L]

I am repeating myself, but perhaps for the best.

It takes only one saint to make a good Autocracy.
It takes several saints to make a good Oligarchy.
It takes many saints to make a good Aristocracy
It takes an impossible majority to make a good Democracy.

If one man rules, naturally, it concentrates power. Yet, the benefit is the possibility of appeal to an individual conscience. There are numerous examples of kings changing their actions simply because of a personal appeal to their conscience.
In short, the rule of an autocrat maintains the primacy of human relations, rather than an that of dehumanised, abstract interests.

And how does an autocrat (saint that he/she may be) hold his/her power over the people (when people are sinners with fallen natures)?

 

[Klemens_Hadwig]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That statement presumes an irredeemability on the part of the ruler. Man’s sinfulness is neither absolute nor irreversible. Even the worst of persons can be saved. I believe this what we as Catholics believe.

As an example of a modern ‘absolute’ swayed by conscience, I offer to you an event in the early 1990s.

President Kim Il-Sung of the DPRK was convinced after one-on-one negotiations with former US President Carter to halt the ‘inevitable’ nuclear project at Yongbyon. The project was obstinately advanced by President Kim Il-Sung, even while the United States threatened a military strike or a possible invasion of the Korean peninsula. As you probably know, President Kim Il Sung displayed little regard for the cost in human lives during his rule over the DPRK. Yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, he was convinced to halt the programme for the sake of peace. Maybe peace was not his motivation, but perhaps fear. However, a man clearly bent, maybe even obsessed with a certain goal had been convinced to abandon that course of action.
Sure, President Kim Il-Sung did not convert (he died soon after). All I am saying is that even the worst of rulers can be swayed to good action.

There are many perhaps, better examples. However, I thought that the more contemporary, totalitarian ruler would be more effective.