Pope Francis is facing backlash from Kyiv for his remarks suggesting Ukraine should go to the negotiating table to work out a diplomatic settlement with Russia. In comments made during an interview conducted last month with RSI, the Swiss broadcaster, the Catholic leader once again offered to act as a mediator between the two warring sides. The Ukrainian government has criticized the Pope and reaffirmed their refusal to negotiate with the Kremlin.
The Pope is under fire for saying Kyiv should have the “courage of the white flag,” utilizing the same phrasing prompted in a question by his interviewer as was subsequently clarified by the Vatican. Interviewer Lorenzo Buccella put it to the Pope like this, “In Ukraine, some call for the courage of surrender, of the white flag. But others say that this would legitimize the stronger party. What do you think?”
The Catholic leader responded, “It is one interpretation, that is true… I think that the strongest one is the one who looks at the situation, thinks about the people and has the courage of the white flag, and negotiates.” He continued, “When you see that you are defeated, that things are not going well, it is necessary to have the courage to negotiate.”
“Negotiations are never a surrender,” the Pope added, “It is the courage not to carry a country to suicide.” Pope Francis said “international powers” should assist these talks. When asked if he would offer up his services as a potential mediator, the Pope answered affirmatively “I am here.” He implored, “Do not be ashamed of negotiating, before things get worse.”
Ukraine’s top diplomat, Dmytro Kuleba, fired back “Our flag is a yellow and blue one. This is the flag by which we live, die, and prevail. We shall never raise any other flags.” Ukraine’s foreign minister went on to thank the Pope, however, for his “constant prayers for peace” and said he hopes he will soon visit Ukraine.
Kyiv’s ambassador to the Vatican, Andrii Yurash vowed to refuse diplomacy with Russia. “[We will not be] peace talking with Hitler,” he continued, “If we want to finish [the] war, we have to do everything to kill [the] dragon.”
Anton Gerashchenko, formerly an adviser to Ukraine’s Interior Ministry, blasted the Catholic leader, insisting “It does seem strange that the pope doesn’t urge to defend Ukraine, doesn’t condemn Russia as an aggressor who killed tens of thousands of people, doesn’t urge Putin to stop, but calls on Ukraine to raise the white flag instead.”
Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, also rebuked the Pope. During a meeting with Ukrainians in New York City, he said “Ukraine is wounded, but unconquered! Ukraine is exhausted, but it stands and will endure. Believe me, it never crosses anyone’s mind to surrender.”
Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, Derek Chollet, counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, told War on the Rocks that Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was never on the table during pre-war talks between the US and Russia. He said it was viewed by the administration as a “non-issue.”
Since the war began, the US has consistently intervened to sabotage peace talks including those mediated in the immediate wake of the invasion by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett as well as the Turkish government. Talks brokered by the latter actually culminated in a draft peace treaty, which if signed would have led to Russia pulling back to lines held before the invasion and Ukraine committing to a neutral status regarding NATO and its decades-long expansion targeting Russia.
In an interview last year, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett explained that, during talks he brokered in the wake of the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed not to depose the Ukrainian regime and in turn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had agreed to renounce his aims to join NATO, which the former Israeli leader described as the “reason” for Russia’s invasion. The effort never bore fruit, Bennett lamented, “[Washington and London] blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.”
In April 2022, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kyiv to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky the “collective West” was not ready to sign on to a deal ending the war even if Kyiv was willing to, effectively killing the progress made by the Istanbul negotiations.
Around that time, the Washington Post reported “Even a Ukrainian vow not to join NATO — a concession that Zelensky has floated publicly — could be a concern to some neighbors. That leads to an awkward reality: For some in NATO, it’s better for the Ukrainians to keep fighting, and dying, than to achieve a peace that comes too early or at too high a cost to Kyiv and the rest of Europe.”
As a result of the Joe Biden administration’s proxy war with Russia, Ukraine has lost 20% of its country and roughly half a million Ukrainian soldiers have been slaughtered or severely wounded. After helping to provoke the war, the Pentagon seized upon the opportunity to back Kyiv with the aim of “weakening” Russia and crippling its military. With peace talks seemingly ruled out by the West, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warns humanity has never been closer to outright nuclear war.
Efforts to bleed Russia’s military and economic strength have failed. As EUROCOM chief General Christopher Cavoli explained to Congress last year, Russia’s navy and air force have taken negligible losses and its ground forces are “bigger today” than when the war began. The Pentagon is exhausting its own weapons stocks to support Kyiv’s failing war effort, while Russia’s capacity to produce armor and ammo has outstripped the entire NATO alliance. Conversely, Ukraine has depleted its air defenses, ammunition, artillery, and manpower. So many Ukrainian troops have been killed that the average age of a soldier fighting Russia is at least 43.
Last week, following a meeting with Zelensky, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan again said his government was “ready to host a peace summit that Russia will attend too.” According to media reports, the Ukrainian president balked at the proposal and declared he “does not see a place for Russia” at such a summit.
During his recent State of the Union speech, Biden compared Putin to Adolf Hitler and shouted that his message to his Russian counterpart was “we will not walk away! We will not bow down! I will not bow down!” The White House is committed to providing Kyiv with approximately $60 billion in military aid to keep the war raging along.
Pope Francis has previously come under fire from the halls of power in Ukraine for telling young Russian Catholics they should be proud of their national heritage, as well as for his condemnation of Kyiv’s car bomb assassination outside Moscow which killed journalist Darya Dugina.
Connor Freeman is the assistant editor and a writer at the Libertarian Institute, primarily covering foreign policy. He is a co-host on the Conflicts of Interest podcast. His writing has been featured in media outlets such as Antiwar.com, Counterpunch, and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He has also appeared on Liberty Weekly, Around the Empire, and Parallax Views. You can follow him on Twitter @FreemansMind96.
Thank god none of those “peace talks” succeeded in making Zelensky surrender. If he had, he would have been immediately impeached. Slava Ukraini!!
Efforts to bleed Russia’s military and economic strength have failed.
LOLOL
Russia Lost Another $65 Million Dollar Warship
Russia’s Air Force Has Finally Given Up
If you’re so all fired anxious to fight the Russkies, why don’t you take your trusty musket and go fight them yourself?
There many ways to support the Ukraine cause.
But you too are free to go die for Putin.
Ah, the perfect keyboard warrior wants everybody else to fight and die for some cause: Ukrainians for Ukraine, Russians for Russia, and me for Putin.
But you won’t go fight. How convenient!
I don’t see you heading out to fight for Russia or Gaza or China or Iran or any of your other friends.
“I don’t see you heading out to fight for Russia or Gaza or China or Iran or any of your other friends.”
First, I don’t see any reason to go out and fight for, or against, any of the ntions you list. As a matter of foreign policy, I believe in maintaining friendly relations with all nations. I also believe in avoiding entangling alliances with any nation.
Second, I am not urging anybody else to fight. I am also not trying to rob anybody to pay for some damnable war.
I’m just guessing here. Did Don make a comment suggesting you go fight on Russia’s side? He has me on ignore so I couldn’t read the reply to your comment. Did I make a good guess?
He did and he’s right.
How is he right? Brian Cantin doesn’t cheerlead for more war, Don does. You, like Don, interpret any comment not cheering on Ukraine to continue to be fodder for the west as being pro Putin/Russia. Reality be damned.
Supporting an invaded country does not mean we all have it take-up-arms. The Ukrainians aren’t asking for bodies — just gear and ammo.
I’ll accept that he isn’t pro-Putin if you’ll accept he’s a weak debater…
Supporting an invaded country for nit mean we all have it take-up-arms.
What?
(Fixed)
Actually the Ukrainians are asking for bodies. They are desperately short on them. You can have all the gear and ammo in the world. If you don’t have the meat to sling it over to the other side you is gonna lose. This is what the panic is over, there is neither shells nor fodder for the canons.
And yet, the Ukes have fought the Russians to a standstill.
Well no they haven’t. They are trying to put up a defense line, too little too late, while drawing back that is being broken at the moment and burn through Ukrainian troops like no one’s business. And losing rather crucial equipment while at it. The Russians are taking advantage of this weakness of the Ukrainian military leadership that they care way too much about how things look, rather than how things militarily really are, causing them to waste their troops needlessly on trying to hold areas that have very little military value but the loss of which hurts the propaganda effort.
Having installed Syrsky for Zaluzhny hasn’t helped the Ukrainians mitigate those self-defeating tendencies that the Zelensky regime – in sofar as they even understand – finds very hard to overcome.
You’re getting the wrong information.
Yes, a good guess.
What Francis should have told Kiev is “I’m the fucking Pope, I represent the Prince of Peace. This is what I do”.
Really. What would anyone expect the pope — any modern pope — to say?
The Pope should shut the F up. No one is invading and annexing the Vatican
They are all safe there playing with their altar boys. .
Nah, he should have just been honest and said “like the recent popes before me I’ve been trying to get all Christians back together under one communion, even if it means appeasing the KGB agent currently running the Patriarchate of Moscow.”
Please, Mr. Knapp, don’t descend to the level of the ignorant haters here who gleefully use the subject of the article as an excuse to jump on their hobbyhorses and rant away.
The pope called for negotiations. That’s a good thing and, as Believe and Obey says, it’s what popes do.
As Stalin reputedly asked, how many battalions does the pope have?
Either side could make a plausible offer at any time.
But the table for that just simply isn’t going to be set until, at a minimum, Ukraine admits that it’s not getting Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk, and until Russia admits that it’s not going to keep the occupied portions of Kherson and Zaporzhia.
It’s unsurprising that the pope would virtue signal to particular audiences. That’s usually a religious leader’s main job. But that’s also all it amounts to.
“As Stalin reputedly asked, how many battalions does the pope have?”
Yeah, you and Stalin both know that the pope can’t convert advice and pleas for negotiation into military force. Congratulations to you and Stalin.
“Either side could make a plausible offer at any time.”
They did. And the two came very close to agreeing on a settlement. Then the US strong-armed Ukraine into continuing the hopeless (for Ukraine) fight.
“But the table for that just simply isn’t going to be set until, at a minimum, Ukraine admits that it’s not getting Crimea, Donetsk, or Luhansk, and until Russia admits that it’s not going to keep the occupied portions of Kherson and Zaporzhia.”
I can’t be certain, but I doubt that Russia will agree to giving up Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. I definitely don’t see any indications that anyone in Ukraine or the West would be able to force Russia to do that — without risking WWIII, that is.
“It’s unsurprising that the pope would virtue signal to particular audiences. That’s usually a religious leader’s main job. But that’s also all it
amounts to.”
It’s most likely that the pope was simply expressing his honest belief that negotiation is the best course for Ukraine to follow. After all, popes usually do prefer settlements to continued bloodbaths and wreckage. And being pope means not having to worry much about “virtue signaling” (a stupid and offensive term), since the people who matter tend to be confident that popes are virtuous.
the occupied portions of Kherson and Zaporzhia
That’s the landbridge to Crimea. Russia is not giving it back. It amazes me how that continues to elude you.
Actually, I’ve generally suggested — ever since mid-2022, when it became clear that the “Special Military Operation” was a failure based on its publicly announced goals (“demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine,” aka regime change — that the Russians might be able to keep a land corridor along the Azov coast. And also that they actually could get into a position to “dictate terms,” if they could ever secure Donetsk, by simply declaring a unilateral ceasefire and returning to “frozen conflict” when and if they can establish a line of control enclosing Donetsk, Luhansk, and a narrow corridor. So no, that not only has not “continued” to elude me, it hasn’t ever eluded me.
Again (and leaving aside the rest of your irrelevant verbiage), the “corridor” (ie the land bridge to Crimea) consists of the parts of K and Z oblasts that Russia has already taken and “controls.” They aren’t giving them back. That does continue to elude you, as you posted directly to the contrary above.
The Kremlin claims that the entire two oblasts are “part of Russia” due to a “referendum” it held.
The problem is that they haven’t taken, and are unlikely to ever take, the entirety of those oblasts.
But while they’re still feinting at the attempt to, and trying to secure Donetsk, they could create a defensible line of control for a narrow corridor along the Azov coast, so that when they declare victory and a unilateral ceasefire and GTFO of the rest of those oblasts, a tired Ukraine will make noise but let things return to “frozen conflict” without trying to retake that corridor.
they could create a defensible line of control for a narrow corridor along the Azov coast
But why settle for a half a loaf?
The Russians don’t seem to be any where near as pessimistic as to the final outcome as you are.
“But why settle for a half a loaf?”
Because half a loaf is the most they’re going to get.
“The Russians don’t seem to be any where near as pessimistic as to the final outcome as you are.”
In order to be pessimistic or optimistic about the final outcome, I’d have to care what the final outcome is. I don’t. I would like the war to end, and I don’t particularly care on what terms. If the Russians were capable of taking all of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — or for that matter all of Ukraine — and did so, and that ended the war, I’d just be glad the war was over. If the Ukrainians were capable of reconquering Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea, and did so, and that ended the war, I’d just be glad the war was over.
The longer the war drags on, the worse.
That doesn’t mean I’m going to pretend that ought is is.
The longer it drags on the worse for the loser.
That would be Ukraine.
They share that dishonor with the US and EU.
You’re still not getting it. Regardless of what happens in the Donetsk, or in the rest of the K and Z oblasts, the land corridor to Crimea through K and Z oblasts has not only already been establshed, but so has the “defensible line of control” (multiple overlapping lines of formidable fortifications, actually) for that corridor (which is not really all that “narrow”). The Ukies themselves showed just how “defensible” that line was in their catastrophic failure of a “counteroffensive” against it last summer. Has all of this also eluded you?
He is not wrong and repeated what wise and educated diplomats have said. And I am not Catholic, BTW:
I think 500+ years after the Reformation the Catholic Church is resigned to the fact that there will always be a multiplicity of Christian confessions.
However, regardless of confession, it is the Christian position to take to seek peace. This is especially the case for a war which should never have been fought, as it could only be “won” with direct US intervention (WWIII) and is in fact already lost. The Christian, secular, moral, and sane thing to do is to negotiate a peace before more lives are needlessly lost, and the terms for the Ukrainians only get worse.
“negotiate a peace before more lives are needlessly lost, and the terms for the Ukrainians only get worse.”
That begs the question of whether there will be some kind of massive change that puts the Russians in a position to dictate worse terms.
It is clear that Ukraine has been ground down by a war of attrition that they never could win. The west does not have the excess war materiel and Ukraine does not have the manpower. Russia is beginning to advance west, and will likely continue to do so, taking more land as they do. By waiting to negotiate a peace Ukraine will simply be presented with a fait accompli that makes it even more of a dysfunctional rump state that it is already likely to become. All, of course while seeing many more killed.
There never was a way to win without direct US involvement, and there still is not. If that is a question you need begged, then I cannot help you..
“It is clear that Ukraine has been ground down by a war of attrition that they never could win.”
I don’t think it’s clear at all. Show me where Russia has caused some sort of rout after Avdiivka (which was reportedly due to lack of artillery ammo). Your post is just wishful thinking with no evidence you’re correct. (In other words: tankie talk!)
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war-map-russian-offensive-stalling-avdiivka-1877838
You clearly don’t understand the macabre math of wars of attrition. It is not about bits of land at first, it is about kill ratios relative to overall strength, which are now clearly in Russia’s favor. That the offensive has stalled does not change the math. Russia will continue to advance as Ukraine is running out of bodies. It is like the adage of how someone went bankrupt “slowly at first, then all at once”.
The wishful thinking is on those who think that a nation dramatically smaller in population and industrial capacity can win a war of attrition. As for your “tankie” comment, I would rather be in the tank for peace than in the (body) bag for war.
“ Russia is beginning to advance west, and will likely continue to do so, taking more land as they do.”
It looks like it was YOU who brought up land first. I’m thinking, YOU don’t understand attritional warfare.
Also, you don’t seem to have any clue about warfare at all:
“ The wishful thinking is on those who think that a nation dramatically smaller in population and industrial capacity can win a war of attrition.”
Do I have to provide a link regarding the Vietnam War, son?
Also, you don’t know what a tankie is. Please look it up before commenting.
Yes, they will take more land as Ukraine begins to grind down, in a war of attrition-pay attention now-that they cannot win (absent direct US intervention). You are the one trumpeting a Newsweek article about the slowing offensive. My point is that short term ebbs and flows are just noise. Russia continues to grind down Ukraine and as I stated in my bankruptcy analogy it will be slow at first, then all at once.
More to the point you have failed to articulate a Ukrainian path to “victory” that does not entail WWIII, if you care to, I would be fascinated to hear your plan generalissimo.
Historical analogies are useful if applied intelligently. Vietnam does not fit here because, first, it was peripheral to core US interests, unlike Ukraine for Russia. Second, Vietnam is geographically remote from the US making force projection problematic. No such problem for Russia. Finally, there was massive resistance among the general population in Vietnam to US imperial policy. While there is likely some opposition in the Russian majority in the Donbas, there is likely as much, or more antipathy to the Ukrainian nationalists governing from Kiev. If Russia tried to occupy the western portion of Ukraine, which there is no indication they ever wanted to, then the Vietnam analogy would have a bit more applicability.
As for “tankie”, I understand what you meant by it. I was turning it back toward you because I simply do not care what you think of me. I am certain when I am all done on this earth I will not be standing before a warmonger but rather the Prince of Peace. So, why would your name calling bother me at all. Class dismissed.
“Russia continues to grind down Ukraine and as I stated in my bankruptcy analogy it will be slow at first, then all at once.”
You have no evidence of that. It comes off as wishful thinking.
Yes. I’ve seen you Russia-philes move the goal post on comparison to the Vietnam War. Nice try though.
Good luck with the Afterlife!
You keep repeating the mantra of “wishful thinking” as if that is an argument. You have not attempted to deal with the facts of the situation, which are resulting in Ukraine losing ground to Russia. You are silent about Russia’s much larger population, industrial base, and military manpower. You remain silent about the crisis of manpower on the Ukrainian side. If the official Ukrainian casualty rates were even close why would Zelensky be asking for 500K more troops to be conscripted.
You also refused to answer a single point I made about why the Vietnam analogy does not fit this situation (Cuba 1962 comes much closer). I’m kind of disappointed; the prowar lobby, back in the days of Bill Buckley used to at least make an argument. Meanwhile, actual rational thinkers will continue to work for peace.
I have used the Cuba example before and it was dismissed. I’ve used the South Africa example and it ended with a similar dismissal. You frame the argument as “bigger is better” and I give you an example —which you dismiss. The fact is, it IS a good example. If you try to add logistics, geopolitics, or even desire, you muddy-the-waters and say my example wasn’t good enough.
So, we’ll have to see who’s correct in their assessment.
I’m always impressed with the “antiwar types” who totally ignore Russia’s aggression and destruction in Ukraine. (Although, that does fit the tankie definition, no?)
I have never dismissed the Cuba example before; it is a much more relevant historical comparison. Yes, you gave Vietnam as an example. I rebutted it with specific points. That rebuttal stands, as you have again failed to respond.
No need for scare quotes around antiwar types. I am the antiwar half of this debate. Also, I have never morally justified Russia’s invasion. It is a crime against humanity, as all war is. There is, however, a difference between moral justification and provocation. In the altogether immoral world of international relations, it is clear NATO expansion provoked Russia, the way placement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 was a dangerous Soviet provocation of the US. It seems the prowar crowd is the one looking for some utopian solution based on an erroneous Manichean sense of black and white, good, and evil in international relations. All I am seeking is harm reduction; like ceasing the slaughter of innocents and dialing back the risks of global nuclear war.
Yes, we will sadly see, after many more unnecessary deaths, that you are wrong about Ukraine’s chances at “victory” (still would love to hear your plan for a path to Ukrainian victory that doesn’t blow up the world). Anyway, I do wish you a peace that you are sadly unwilling to grant to Ukraine.
I never said YOU dismissed the Cuba example but others have.
It’s good to hear you’re actually antiwar. (However, using “provocation” as an explanation for Russian invasion makes you come off like a Putin apologist)
As far as the Vietnam War analogy, the US “core interest” was the defeat of communism. (Which at the time — I’m sure you know — was important.) Russia’s “core interest” is re-establishing the Russian Empire. (Which I’ll concede is important to Putin but I’m not sure the Russian people would agree.) The “massive uprising” of the population isn’t even close to factual. The Vietcong were idealistically closer to North Vietnam and were never considered the majority of the population. (Ukraine may have had a similar guerilla force but Russia failed in its initial thrust toward Kiev. So, no, you’re not as intelligent as your think you are (even though you use big, archaic words).
But I’ll help you out in understanding people fighting an empire for their homes, families, freedom, and culture. How about the Irish War of Independence?
It is erroneous to claim that Russia’s core interest here is reestablishing the Russian empire. See this piece: https://original.antiwar.com/Nicolai_Petro/2024/03/10/four-myths-that-are-preventing-peace-in-ukraine/ in antiwar.com that ran just today. Russia is trying to protect its near abroad from encroachment by an adversarial military alliance, just as any regional power would do. It is the US that is aggressively expanding into areas seen as an existential threat to Russia. The way the US saw missiles in Cuba as an existential threat. There is nothing in Putin’s actions that would lead any reasonable person to conclude he is an expansionist seeking conquest. Also, there is every reason to think that an economy the size of Italy’s (Russia) does not have the capacity to pull it off, even if they wanted to.
Had the US not been bent on expanding its hegemony globally to Russia’s borders, and had the US not given Ukraine military and financial assistance, Ukraine would have negotiated neutrality, as did Finland (until recently), and Austria, and Switzerland. Hence there would have been no invasion, and no bloodletting, and no risk of direct war between two nuclear armed states. Is this perfect, or even moral? No, but it represents serious harm reduction from US imperial expansion.
I mean whose troops are on whose borders. Who is encircling who? Who has expanded toward the other even after the most serious threat (USSR) dissolved? If the US were simply a nation among nations, and only defended itself the world would be demonstrably safer.
As for Vietnam, there is no way that the Viet Cong could have won without the support of the populace, as the guerilla war demanded that they dissolve back into the civilian population. They may not have been the first choice, but they were seen as better than the series of dictator-puppets that the US put in charge of South Vietnam. But no need to rehash a history you thinly understand. This example is not particularly relevant to the current US proxy war in Ukraine.
“Russia is trying to protect its near abroad…” is what Putin SAYS he wishes. What he WANTS, however…
“There is nothing in Putin’s actions that would lead any reasonable person to conclude he is an expansionist seeking conquest.” Except for all the expanding and conquest he’s already done! (The Nordic countries obviously agree with me and joined NATO!)
Ahhh, yes. The weak argument that I “thinly understand” is all I need to know who won the argument. Also, you didn’t address my War of Irish Independence example. Are you still reading the Wikipedia post about it?
“Thinly understand” ended my comments that defeated your “argument” regarding Vietnam. As for the Irish War of Independence why is that especially comparable? Ukraine was independent until they let themselves be turned into a client state of the US, with NATO membership on the table which is what precipitated Russia’s invasion in the first place. If they had accepted the deal put forth in March of 2022 they could have kept the Donbas in exchange for neutrality. Even as a rump state they will be independent, at least the heavily Ukrainian parts of the country.
There is some similarity in that the Irish were being systematically discriminated against by the British and their Northern Irish collaborators, much like the Ukrainian nationalists were discriminating against the Russian ethnic groups in the Donbas. Is that the similarity you were looking for? If the Ukrainians are so intent on throwing off Russia’s yoke, like the Irish were the British, why have millions left, hide from the draft gangs, and are subject to a Ukrainian law forbidding 18–60-year-old men from leaving. Perhaps they were ok with the status quo ante and just want a peaceable life. Not everyone wants a neocon world order.
You’re of the linear thinking type that can’t think conceptually. I understand now. You need examples to line-up perfectly for you to understand.
I’m pretty sure it was Putin himself who said Russian-speaking people of Donbas were “systematically discriminated against”. He even went as far as saying it was genocide.
I’m not sure all of the reasons people left Ukraine (fear, cowardice, etc.) but how many Russians have fled Putin’s conscription?
I have evaluated examples and pointed out where there are some similarities and differences. I never have claimed that historical examples must line up perfectly, they never do. The point is to evaluate these examples in their totality and see if they can teach us anything useful about the present moment. Vietnam does not particularly do so, as I have shown, and Cuba 1962 does, as I have shown.
Yes, Putin did say that the people of the Donbas were discriminated against. It is safe to assume that the residents of that region agreed as they were being shelled by the Ukrainian government. Not to mention the previous attempts to snuff out Russian culture and replace it with Ukrainian nationalism.
As is typical of a neocon pro war person you look at only negative reasons why Ukrainians and Russians would leave a war zone-fear, cowardice, etc. How about sanity and a desire to keep hold of one’s humanity. There are no good guys in any war, as they are all unjust, and destructive of our humanity. Perhaps holding all warring parties in contempt at the same time is a little too much conceptualizing for you. Peace Now!
Well, as far as shelling goes, there WAS a civil war. As far as attempts to “snuff out” Russian culture, well, not so much:
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/11/1085979641/putin-claims-russia-speakers-were-being-killed-in-ukraine-is-that-true
You can attempt to label me a neocon but if you check my posts, I’m far from it. What I am is a person who believes you can only deal with a bully if you beat him. If you don’t even try, then he’ll keep taking your lunch money (or your land if that’s what he wants).
I have used the Cuba example before and it was dismissed.
Yes. By me. But I was using a hypothetical situation where Cuba didn’t apply.
Yes. I know; and you were inaccurate.
No, I wasn’t. The hypothetical scenario I talked about was completely different than the Cuba situation.
I don’t think so but you might be right.
“I’m always impressed with the “antiwar types” who totally ignore Russia’s aggression and destruction in Ukraine”
you have a point here.
“You have not attempted to deal with the facts of the situation”
Here are the facts of the situation:
Since the Russian blitzkrieg failed in February and March of 2022, the war has effectively been in a stalemate.
Two years later, the Russians still haven’t even secured Donetsk. And they still face an alliance that outclases them in ability to produce and deliver arms and munitions to the battlefield by a full order of magniude and can keep this shit up for decades at little relative expense to itself, while the Russians have already had to e.g. freeze petroleum exports more than once just to keep their own factories running.
Could something change? Sure, something could change. But until something changes, nothing has changed.
It’s not in a stalemate. You are focusing on bits of land going back and forth, although that is changing in Russia’s favor. This is a war of attrition which Ukraine cannot win. Ukraine’s military has been ground down and is giving ground and perhaps may crack, we shall see how that plays out. In any event, they are highly likely to lose more ground.
Also, you vastly overestimate the current ability of the west to out manufacture the Russians. Yes, greater productivity in the medium and long run would favor the west, but that, by the west’s own admission will take the better part of a year to crank up. That assumes no setbacks, supply interruptions nor labor issues. The kill ratio’s, production ratios and the population and resources all favor Russia, and absent direct US involvement will continue to do so.
Of course, these facts don’t capture the needless provocation of Russia by the US which precipitated this conflict in the first place. It is US imperial expansion that foisted all of this on an innocent people. US insistence upon negotiations could end the slaughter. All of which is why the Pope was correct to call for diplomacy.
We agree on the causes, and always have.
The difference seems to be that you believe western MSM when they pretend there’s a “munitions gap.” Did you also buy the “missile gap” and the “bomber gap?”
According to the US Army (non MSM) the US is producing about 30K artillery shells per month: https://www.army.mil/article/273152/us_army_and_industry_partners_mobilize_to_boost_us_artillery_production#:~:text=At%20present%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Army,to%20further%20expand%20production%20capacity.
According to Defense One (also non MSM): https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/11/ukraines-artillery-supply-declines-shells-go-israel/392130/#:~:text=Ukraine%20uses%20240%2C000%20shells%20a,hotspots%20like%20the%20country's%20east. Ukraine is using about 240K shells per month. Best estimates (admittedly hard to come by) are that the Russians are producing about 250K shells per month. That sounds like a gap to me. That does not consider what the US is sending to Israel to support its genocide. All this also ignores the severe manpower shortage Ukraine is facing.
The thing we should all agree on at this point is that this thing is over. Time to negotiate a peace before more needless blood is spilled and the terms get even worse for Ukraine.
“According to the US Army (non MSM) the US is producing about 30K artillery shells per month”
If you don’t think the US Army is MSM, you’re not thinking clearly.
And even assuming that the US Army is truthful about that (even though it has lied about many things, including the “missile gap” and the “bomber gap” and, at the end of WW2 the “number of US divisions vs. Soviet divisions in eastern Europe gap”), the US is not the only country producing artillery shells.
I agree that it’s time for peace. But Zelenskyy’s US/EU/NATO masters and Putin’s oligarch masters apparently disagree.
Inaccurate to draw a comparison to this conflict and Vietnam. Seriously, WTF?
What’s next? You going to tell us that Zelinsky is the modern day Ho Chi Minh whilst he’s actually a bumbling puppet leader reading from a script. Just like his master.
So, more land losses as Russia creeps westward, no aid from the Empire and rampant corruption.
Let me guess, “we shall see” and let’s hold our breath for another stellar “counteroffensive v3.0”.
Yeah, that’ll work.
A bumbling puppet who has made the “second greatest army in the world” come to a halt. (I fixed it for you.)
“….come to a halt”
That’s it. You’ve got it figured out!
Zelinsky is doing great. Only 31,000 confirmed KIA. He said so himself. Russia probably 1,000,000 KIA, right?
Poised for victory, by the sounds of it! Let me guess; The Empire Strikes Back?
Glug, glug, glug…….
So, show me where im wrong, a**wipe…
Review your posts; plenty of inaccurate statements and ridiculously incorrect historical analogies. The latest being Vietnam.
The vast majority on this forum that challenge your inaccurate claims are met with the usual BS you spew, name calling and emotional rhetoric that usually ends with a desperate ‘Slava Ukraini!’
Your BS rhetoric demonstrates that you are both inept and unable to provide succinct and factual responses.
Keep mining Wikipedia, son.
Awww, upset with me?
Absolutely not. It’s great that you have an open forum to display your emotional instability, irrational arguments and inability to qualify statements, analogies, etc.
It’s both baffling and entertaining.
But there is an inherent value with your posts because they are great example to show my kids why it’s important to stay in school and get a formal education.
Yes. Now I’m uneducated. It sucks that you procreated.
Voila!
Ukraine is an economic and financial black hole. Ukraine has lost a sizeable percentage of its young men to dismemberment and death.
There was a time that I could feel some sympathy for the Ukrainian people, but they have now had time to weigh the sanity of their leadership. I have no more sympathy for them.
They deserve their leadership (as do we).
As for the Pope, I find nothing illogical in what he has said, nor in how he said it. Western leadership is a counterfeit monstrosity that preaches the opposite of what it mouths. Western leadership with a few rational exceptions, is incompetent and devoid of either ethics or morality.
The fact that westerners willfully ignore the lesson of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 is more than adequate testimony to either their stupidity or their corruption or both.
I vote for both.
The stopped clock strikes twelve again. Just–for God’s and everyone else’s sakes–don’t let this nincompoop papal poseur be in charge of any process intended to bring world peace. Given that he has totally wrecked all chances of peace within the Church he titularly leads.
Got it. You hate the pope so you’re here to use a a report of his calling for negotiations as an opportunity to share your hatred.
Childish and stupid.
Ah, playing the “hate” card. How woke, leftie and unoriginal.
Hillary Clinton should never have smeared Trump supporters as deplorables. That label should be reserved for people who really deserve it — people who utter vile, hateful nonsense like your posts here.
LOL
As the saying goes, he’s the only Pope we have … and in this and many other cases, he happens to be right …
“Pope Francis, how about this instead: ‘Putin should have the courage to withdraw his invading troops from Ukraine and abandon his genocidal imperial pursuits,’” wrote Julia Davis, a journalist who frequently covers Russia and the war in Ukraine.
Republicans against Trump:
How about the Pope use his influence to call on Putin to withdraw his forces from Ukraine?
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1766701584870719522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1766701584870719522%7Ctwgr%5E8715d7d9c5a1b4d1ab63e5bc2de0ff9fac165ce5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fukrainetoday.org%2Fpope-francis-ukraine-comments-spark-furious-backlash%2F
Poland’s Foreign Minister to Pope: How About Putin’s Courage to Withdraw Army from Ukraine?
https://ukrainetoday.org/polands-foreign-minister-to-pope-how-about-putins-courage-to-withdraw-army-from-ukraine/
Maybe Pope Francis has a better grasp on reality than Julia Davis. But if he doesn’t officially call for Putin to withdraw, he must also be a Putin stooge. Standard stupidity.
The West still tries to win rethorics while Russia wins reality. Julia Davis is a sort of female Ahmed Chalabi lacking his charming demeanor.
Sure, Mr. Pope. Ukraine should surrender to these animals:
An abominable glimpse into the evil mind of an orc:
The phone of a captured Russian who wrote a list of things to try in the war:
“In war, it is mandatory to try the following things (otherwise, why go there at all?):
1) Taste human flesh;
2) Torture a prisoner of war (preferably make him cry and beg for mercy, but do not spare and kill him slowly and horribly. For example, bury him alive or cut him with a chainsaw);
3) Rape or kill an ENEMY girl. The best way to do this is with the whole company.
4) Take trophies from the houses of killed enemies to home for good luck! And for memory!
5) If possible, personally participate in the execution of all prisoners of war. And ideally – drown them in ice holes, stab them with a bayonet, or burn entire families, along with their houses.”
https://ukrainetoday.org/an-abominable-glimpse-into-the-evil-mind-of-an-orc/
https://i0.wp.com/ukrainetoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/img_3071-1.jpg?w=608&ssl=1
I saw that.
It’s Sick.
That’s just one but the Russian Army is full of those.
Where you have the time to write all this nonsense? Don’t you know that Ukraine needs cannon fodder urgently now. This war is not going to lose itself you know. Well maybe it does, but you letting the dirty work done by the elderly, women and even mentally incapacitated Ukrainians, Ukrainian men dragged (pretty violently also) from the streets, people arrested while trying to flee all stuck in some camo and kicked to the front, off to an early demise doesn’t it seem just a tiny bit to like you’re a slacker? Shouldn’t you even try to pretend to be hero or something? Slava your ass to the front ASAP.
So brave those noncombatants are to tell others to keep dying for one more day without negotiating with the relevant party. Russias bombs are becoming accurate. They produce 3x the shells the west can. The US won’t invest even deeper in a lost cause. If Ukraine insists on waiting to negotiate until they are in an even weaker position, I guess that stupid choice is theirs to make. Along with overthrowing their own democracy in 2014 it shows quite a pattern of stupid choices.
Your tankie talking points are running out of steam. Fact is, Ukraine has fought the Russians to a standstill. The Ukes are attacking Russian infrastructure and sanctions have weakened Putin. Russia may still make incremental advances but now Macron is shaming other European leaders (I see you Germany!) into stepping up. Dark Brandon will get what he needs from his idiot congress soon. Summer in Ukraine should be interesting.
“sanctions have weakened Putin”
How?
“Dark Brandon will get what he needs from his idiot congress soon.”
Which at best will prolong the stalemate.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-sanctions-us-treasury-state-827008882162cc95a9dba4e4f93411d3
And, right now, prolonging the stalemate is what Ukraine needs in order to rest and build-out its military.
You said weakened Putin. And that article is just about new sanctions. The old ones certainly didn’t do the intended harm to the Russian economy. Or Putin.
Again, you just can’t grasp that a war of attrition favors the country with multiple times the population of the other country.
Again, we’ll see who’s correct.
If it gets to the point that you are correct, we will be on the verge of a very large war. That stalemate will be remembered fondly.
Again, we shall see.
Which according to US Intel cited by CNN, might let Ukraine begin to go on the offensive again in a year or two, no doubt after several more rounds of dozens of billions of US taxpayer money. Which won’t be coming, newsflash.
Which WILL be coming.
Bizarre juxtaposition of references in Independent (UK — US edition) headline:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-war-putin-nato-troops-latest-b2510252.html
Justin Raimondo here explaining in 2003: “THE BIZARRO EFFECT: Did 9/11 rip a hole in the space-time continuum?”
https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j111903.html
Of course.
“Since the war began, the US has consistently intervened to sabotage peace talks…”
You’re lying, Freeman–you or your sources, probably both. You have no real proof, only hearsay. Oh, and did you forget about Biden’s offer to set Zelensky up a government in exile? Do you think that was Biden’s way of sabatoging peace talks? It was more like a way of facilitating Putin’s invasion. Thank God for Zelensky: “I don’t need a ride. I need ammo.” The man has balls. Unlike the Pope.
The War Party really does want to fight to the last Ukrainian. Hence the hysteria about the Pope recvomending peace talks.
Agree. Team Biden knows that Ukraine cannot drive Russia back to its 1991 borders, and that Ukraine will suffer tens of thousands more deaths if the war is not stopped. But their goal has never been to restore Ukraine. It has been to weaken Russia. They hope that if the conflict continues for long enough, Russia will eventually waiver.
But they didn’t recognize how significant the consequences would be for the west. Europe is descending into economic turmoil, while Russia’s economy is improving. Much of the world is turning away from using the dollar for international trade. And our own military is concerned about the drain on weapons and ammunition caused by shipments to Ukraine and Israel.
Itchy fingers on nuke codes for WWIII. That’s why Oppenheimer is a darling of Hollywood MIC propaganda.
FORGET UKRAINE WHERE ARMIES FIGHT ARMIES. STOP THE CRIME IN GAZA WHERE THE IDF IS KILLING MOSTLY DEFENSELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
IS THE POPE SO BLIND HE CANNOT SEE UKRAINE IS NOT A GENOCIDE, BUT GAZA IS A GENOCIDE OF THE FUTURE OF THE PALESTINIANS !!!!
Did you not notice that the pope was responding to a question specifically about Ukraine?
Fix the caps lock.
Try using Google to see what the Pope is saying about Gaza.
YOU are the blind.
Ukraine is Putin’s personal genocide.
Reason they call him genocide Putin.
But you support war criminal Putin so you will never admit he is committing genocide.
Killing Ukrainian innocent civilians and Displacement by force of Ukrainians from their homes/land is Genocide.
You are of course right. If the Russians were about genocide in Ukraine the picture would look entirely different. You just have to look at the difference in combatant/ civilian kill ratio between these two to see how exactly grotesquely dishonest a genocide claim is in the case of Ukraine and how this is an even more grotesque and undeniable reality in the case of Gaza (and more gradually in the West Bank)
So you are OK with the war in Ukraine, but not the war in Gaza.
From my memory: millions of Russians died to drive the NAZI Germans out of Ukraine after the battle of Kursk. We, in Western Europe, were thankful because it brought our own liberation closer. How times have changed.
We in Western Europe should have been thankful but actually I distinctly remember none of the sort existing. The history we were taught at school told of Americans rescuing us. No mention of Russians having anything to do with anything. What we were told of Russians was that they had a revolution, were communists now and had nuclear bombs they want to drop on us. As a side mention in our particular area it actually were Polish and Canadian forces who showed up for some clearing out operations when the war was already all but over. Nevertheless the Americans too made great sacrifices (again) to save our ass from the Nazis and I don’t know of anyone not being eternally grateful for that. All the more puzzling why after all this time the American leaders of today betray all those brave men and women having laid down their lives to defeat that grotesque evil and now support them and stand up to clap their hands blue for them inside our democratic institutions.
No doubt the Pope, with his billion followers and wealth hidden in the Vatican, is simply a proxy for Putin and his eminence Patriarch Kiril
The “courage of the white flag” is an interesting comment. Even if one were to set aside the proxy war facts of this case, Russia’s regional role and need for security in its near-abroad, and other items, and assume this actually was the simple case of imperial aggrandizement that its portrayed as being, what is the correct and moral path to follow here?
We know that Russia will not quit, indeed cannot quit, until its security aims have been reached … this, per the 2008 Burns memo.
We know that Russia has several times the men and many times the materiel that Ukraine can employ, no matter how well supported by the west.
We know that Russians specialize in attritional warfare and, over the past two years, have attritted away Ukraine’s best soldiers … only the young and the old are left.
Under these circumstances, is it more moral to urge a nation to sue for peace or, out of a feeling for revenge and nationalism, to urge it to continue to fight a hopeless war where more and more of the flower of its manhood and its infrastructure (not to speak of its actual land area) will inevitably be lost?
Churchill’s “we will fight them on the beaches” speech was BS … if England had had a land connection to France, they would have surrendered just as fast as the French did in ’39.
There you go with all those inconvenient truths again.
One of the requirements under the theory of “Just War” is that the fighting has a reasonable chance of success. Perhaps that is what the Pope was referring to? Another is that the benefits of fighting outweigh the harm. Under either tenet, it is hard to justify the Ukraine’s war.
The Ukranians are a proxy. There is no use for the Russians to talk to them. The Zelensky regime – who has put it into law that they shall not negotiate with Russia for at least as long as Putin is in power – has proven that even beyond that particular petty judicial PR stunt in march and april of 2022. There the West shattered any doubt about who the relevant parties to talk to was. Not Ukraine.
But then it also has no use for the Russians to talk to the US, who have proven over the course of decades to be so completely untrustworthy as to be an utter waste of time to come to an agreement about anything at all with. And the Europeans in sofar as they are relevant or useful to anyone have also removed all doubt, and not only featuring Merkel & Hollande as uncharacteristically dishonest, as to whether they are serious parties to be negotiated with in good faith. Diplomacy is dead in the West. Every suggestion of negotations has been met from the start with utter hostility and was always painted dutifully as an instantation of “appeasement” and an excuse to once more drag the corpse of Chamberlain around for a bit.
So now the Urkanians are basically fucked, the US will walk away and the EU are panicking and have no clue as to what’s next. It is just all around disaster and it is utterly deserved.
The pope’s position is made clear in this cartoon.
Jake Broe nails it: The pope can go to hell
https://youtu.be/aqGAMs1cNf4?t=505