Why All Catholics Should Support Ukraine

The_Reginator

The_Reginator

Active member
From this opinion piece:
Russia has a centuries-long history of religious persecution of Catholics. The dominant Russian Orthodox Church has worked to help suppress the Catholic Church in Russia-controlled areas of Poland and Lithuania under the czars.
Click to expand...
Why All Catholics Should Support Ukraine

I haven't heard much news lately and I really do not know what is happening with the Russia/Ukraine conflict. This opinion piece speaks of how the Catholic Church is being treated and began to change my earlier view on the subject (the view that governments and the media are misdirecting us).
Then I began reading the comments and became very confused as to what the truth really is.
  • Who is/are the villain(s) here: Russia? Ukraine? The CIA? NATO? the USA?
AND​
  • Under which regime is the Catholic Church safest in Ukraine and Russia?
 
The Soviet Union was knocked down, but not out. It began the re-constitution the moment Putin assumed power. It is absolutely clear that he is re-assembling the union. Poland borders Ukraine and is the most heavily persecuted nation in recent history. It is the land bridge over which German and Russians forces have trod to wage war.
End times or not, of all generations, we are closest to the Parousia.
However, the only morally acceptable solution is a just end to an unjust war. Technology allows us to. watch human death, souls lost, families destroyed in real time. It is horrible to contemplate. This also tends to demonstrate that the Russian Orthodox Church is now as political as spiritual, perhaps even more so.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
The Soviet Union was knocked down, but not out. It began the re-constitution the moment Putin assumed power. It is absolutely clear that he is re-assembling the union. Poland borders Ukraine and is the most heavily persecuted nation in recent history. It is the land bridge over which German and Russians forces have trod to wage war.
End times or not, of all generations, we are closest to the Parousia.
However, the only morally acceptable solution is a just end to an unjust war. Technology allows us to. watch human death, souls lost, families destroyed in real time. It is horrible to contemplate. This also tends to demonstrate that the Russian Orthodox Church is now as political as spiritual, perhaps even more so.
Click to expand...
To echo what I have said on other fora, being as absolutely generous to Putin (though he probably doesn't deserve it) as possible, if Russia perceived a tangible threat to her homeland from a NATO-enabled Ukraine, she might have been morally justified in neutralizing Ukraine's military capability as a pre-emptive strike. But attacking civilians, apartment buildings, hospitals, and so on, not justified at all. Plebiscites could have been held in heavily Russian areas, such as the Donbass, and if an overwhelming majority of the people therein wanted to be part of Russia and not Ukraine, then let them go, and redraw the borders.

Ukraine's hands aren't entirely clean either. Drone strikes into civilian sites deep within Russia, such as the attack on the apartment building in Moscow, aren't justified either, even as a retaliatory measure.
 
Except for Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler (none of them NATO members), who has EVER invaded Russia? Who would ever want to? Ambitious tyrants like Putin view everything through the paranoid lens of jealousy for power. A defensive organization is not offensive, except to Putin.
 
po18guy said:
Except for Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler (none of them NATO members), who has EVER invaded Russia? Who would ever want to? Ambitious tyrants like Putin view everything through the paranoid lens of jealousy for power. A defensive organization is not offensive, except to Putin.
Click to expand...

Good point. But looking at it through Russia's eyes, they lost (albeit peacefully) the Baltic states, Ukraine, and the Central Asian republics (you probably can't think of Belarus as "lost", they are basically a vassal state of Russia). It would be kind of like a North American Union, ruled by an autocratic Washington and existing from the time of the First World War, and having consisted of everything north of the Panama Canal, including the Caribbean islands, then having broken up, and a rump United States being left behind with Texas chewed out of it. That rump USA would be mighty cranky about having (let's say) a risen Texas Republic firmly aligned with a China-DPRK alliance with the threat of bases and missiles in Wichita Falls, Amarillo, Denton, and Texarkana, and folks in the Panhandle longing to be reunited with the US. That's probably about how Putin views Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia, and probably about how he viewed the threat.
 
Almost a full year after @HomeschoolDad's last post, it looks as though this is now the beginning of the end of the Ukraine war.

This coming Friday, 15 August, Trump and Putin are due to hold a bilateral meeting in Alaska. From the gossip and rumours that we’re seeing in some of the papers, the broad outline of the deal is already agreed. Russia gets the Crimea plus a part (how big?) of the four oblasts along Ukraine’s east coast.

Years ago I already had the impression that the EU was making a big mistake by encouraging Ukraine to defy Putin’s expansionist plans, recklessly giving undertakings that “You can rely on us to back you up,” both in terms of military support and a promise of full EU membership in due course. Possibly even NATO membership as well, but I don’t have such a clear recollection about that.

I’m not sure now whether it was already Zelensky in power at the time or one of his predecessors, but whoever it was, he walked into a trap and Ukraine is now going to pay the price for that foolishness. By the look of it, Putin and Trump are already starting to draw lines on maps.
 
The_Reginator said:
From this opinion piece:

Why All Catholics Should Support Ukraine

I haven't heard much news lately and I really do not know what is happening with the Russia/Ukraine conflict. This opinion piece speaks of how the Catholic Church is being treated and began to change my earlier view on the subject (the view that governments and the media are misdirecting us).
Then I began reading the comments and became very confused as to what the truth really is.
  • Who is/are the villain(s) here: Russia? Ukraine? The CIA? NATO? the USA?
AND​
  • Under which regime is the Catholic Church safest in Ukraine and Russia?
Click to expand...
Russian nationalism is different to other forms (Soviet, NAZI) in that it includes religion as one element of influence on the population and on imposing a very specific rule of "law and order". It was like that under the Tzarist rule, in which all religions that were not the official Russian Orthodox were persecuted at various degrees, depending on how much of a threat they were perceived to be. Putin has retaken that historical trend, perhaps as a way of unifying the population agains the modern trend of globalization (a myriad of cultural and economic aspirations that the obsolete Soviet infrastructure could not satisfy). It is important to note that the Russian Federation was bankrupt when Putin was first elected, and he faced upheaval in provinces, which were faring even worst than Moscow and St Petersburg. Reining in rebellious provincial leaders was paramount, and Putin used all tools available, including manipulating Orthodox Patriarchs, who probably missed their political power from Tzarist times, into folding to his plan.
The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church amounts to about 6% of the population, Ukrainian Orthodox believers are about 46% and 42.5% are atheists. The remainder 5.50% is comprised by Protestants, Latin Catholics , Muslims and Jews (in order of their share of the population).
In 2022, Putin ordered up to 200,000 soldiers into Ukraine, his aim was to sweep into the capital, Kyiv, in days, overthrow its pro-Western government (which was planning to join the EU since 2013, Maiden uprising) and return Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence [= economic (trade, pathway for oil pipelines from Russia), and geopolitical (the Crimea is key to access to the Black Sea, with Ukraine's EU membership NATO would gain a port which would limit Russian power in the region, including limiting its access to the Mediterranean in case of a conflict)]
EU membership requires conditions for the well working of market economies as well as personal freedom, including religious freedom. From that perspective, a Ukraine that is independent of Russia would be better for Catholics in Ukraine. So, although the conflict is not a religious one, it has a religious dimension.
The EU in general (Germany took some time to join because it has direct interest in Russian oil), NATO and the US supported Ukraine with military training and equipment, as well as humanitarian help for victims and refugees.
 
Last edited:
I hesitated on whether to share this link, because it is pure political analysis, with no direct religious link. It does talk about the moral arguments regarding the annexation of Crimea, and that can have a Christian perspective. The article was written in 2014, when Russia first invaded Crimea, by Andrei Illarionov, Russian economist and former senior policy advisor to Vladimir Putin from April 2000 to December 2015, while Illarianov was a senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, a prominent libertarian public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It advocates for individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. Illarionov has stated that Putin laid claims on Ukraine as early as 2003, with the Tuzla Island Conflict.
Over ten years have passed since the article, and as we wait for tomorrow's meeting, is it worth remembering what the discussion was back in 2014.
 
Thank you for that link, @Nanny1935. If we had access to the author of that article, I would like to ask him one question.
[Quote:] The way of Crimea’s transfer from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 does not matter at all.
He dismisses the question without giving it even a moment's attention. At the time, I believe the Western media saw it as a bribe that Khrushchev paid to the Communist Party of Ukraine in exchange for the party bosses' support for him in his contest for supreme power in the Kremlin, less than a year after Stalin's death, when he was still being challenged by several potential rivals. I have no way of telling whether that is the plain truth but, on the face of it, it might very well matter enough to be taken into consideration in the present context.
 
BartholomewB said:
Thank you for that link, @Nanny1935. If we had access to the author of that article, I would like to ask him one question.
[Quote:] The way of Crimea’s transfer from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954 does not matter at all.
He dismisses the question without giving it even a moment's attention. At the time, I believe the Western media saw it as a bribe that Khrushchev paid to the Communist Party of Ukraine in exchange for the party bosses' support for him in his contest for supreme power in the Kremlin, less than a year after Stalin's death, when he was still being challenged by several potential rivals. I have no way of telling whether that is the plain truth but, on the face of it, it might very well matter enough to be taken into consideration in the present context.
Click to expand...
I read the same story about the reason Krushev transferred the Crimea to Ukraine (it is the Russian version, Ukraine has a different one) . But there are other historical factors, that also matter. Since the Russian Empire annexed the Crimean Khanate (an independent Kingdom) in 1783 in violation of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, the administration of it changed 14 times, until it was transferred to Ukraine. Culturally and geographically, the Crimea is closer to Ukraine than Russia (centered in Moscow, miles away); the current Russian population in Crimea is a Soviet transplant from after WWII, when the Soviet Union relocated the Tartars, accusing them of cooperating with the Germans.
The fall of the Soviet Union was pandemonium, it was impossible to plan nor debate. One day people were soviets, the next day they acquired the nationality of their place of residence. So a student from Kazakstan attending Moscow University became Russian, while his his family back home was Kazakhstani. The chips fell were they mostly randomly did, and Crimea became Ukrainian. Which happened at the time of the fall, became law, (the Kazakhstani student did not lose his Russian nationality). Illarionov worked for the Russian Federation's Government since 1992, in those early days.
The Crimean case is not clear, and we could debate for years- which is probably why Illarionov simply states "it does not matter" (in emphatic Russian manner) as a way of stressing that what really matters is international law and the laws in a democratic society.
I am not making Illarionov's case, there is not enough information in this article- my speculation is that his appeal for international law is a hope to rein in Russian expansionary ambitions (imperialist chauvinism in the the article) and falling in to feudal patterns of the past. Instead, many hope for a modern state, which means a true democracy- Illarionov continues to work in DC for democracy in Russia.
 
Last edited:
Historically, had the Crimea ever been part of Ukraine before Khrushchev handed it over in 1954? It was part of Turkey for over 300 years, from 1475 until Russia annexed it in 1783. If it was ever part of Ukraine at all, it looks as though that can only have been before 1475 at the latest.
 
BartholomewB said:
Historically, had the Crimea ever been part of Ukraine before Khrushchev handed it over in 1954? It was part of Turkey for over 300 years, from 1475 until Russia annexed it in 1783. If it was ever part of Ukraine at all, it looks as though that can only have been before 1475 at the latest.
Click to expand...
It was the other way around. In the 14th and 15th Centuries, the majority of Ukrainian territories became part the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while Southern Ukraine was dominated by Golden Horde and then, the Crimean Khanate, which came under protection of the Ottoman Empire. Kyiv, or Kiev, became part of the Tsardom of Russia in 1667, specifically with the Truce of Andrusovo although it had been occupied by Russian troops since the 1654 Treaty of Pereyaslav. This arrangement was solidified further in 1686 with the Treaty of Eternal Peace.
The territory of Ukraine as it was at the time of its independence when the Soviet Union fell was assembled over time, with successive cessions by different powers. Should one claim that the Ukraine does not exist, or that it be reduced to the territories of the Cossak Hetmanate?
Should the Crimea be an independent state and be returned to the Tartars?
Should Armenia have a similar fate? Between the 4th and 19th centuries, the traditional area of Armenia was conquered and ruled by Persians, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols and Turks, among others. After the Turkish invasion in 1920 and escaping the Turkish genocide, Armenia came under Soviet Protection, becoming a Soviet State in 1922.
If we take the perspective of Soviet members of the Soviet Union, those states developed an identity, which they would like to preserve. It is even possible that they think their identities were preserved better during the Soviet Union, than what they would be today if they came under Putin's Russian rule.
I see it as a very complex conversation.
 
Thank you BartholomewB
I did not include before the base for Illarionov Legal argument to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea: Uti possidetis juris or uti possidetis iuris (Latin for "as [you] possess under law") is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States. Originally applied to establish the boundaries of decolonized territories in Latin America, UPJ has become a rule of wider application, notably in Africa. The policy behind the principle has been explained by the International Court of Justice in the Burkina Faso / Mali Frontier Dispute:
“[UPJ is a] general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new States being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power…Its purpose, at the time of the achievement of independence by the former Spanish colonies of America, was to scotch any designs which non-American colonizing powers might have on regions which had been assigned by the former metropolitan State to one division or another, but which were still uninhabited or unexplored.”

Here the link for the analysis from Cornell Law : https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/uti_possidetis_juris

Uti possidetis juris is the principle that the EC used in recognizing former Soviet states right to self-determination after the Declaration No. 142-Н of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, formally establishing the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a state and subject of international law" on December 26, 1991. EC recognition of the states made them eligible to apply to EU membership once they transitioned to market economies.
The declaration of the EC (1991) (EC Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union) specifically declares "respect for the inviolability of all frontiers, which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement."

This means that an accord pushed on Ukraine after the Russian invasion, can be considered invalid and reversed.




Needless to say, the application in some cases could create even further debate: Israel, here is a paper, which would support your proposition of the one state solution for the region:
 
Last edited:
The meeting seems to have gone well. They're hinting at a follow-up meeting, possibly in Moscow, though they don't seem to have said anything about a date for that. I suppose there'll be a pause now to see what Zelensky has to say about it all and then, after that, another pause to see what Macron, Merz, Starmer and others have to say about what Zelensky said ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top