[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

I do not agree, and this account is not only not accurate, it is misleading.

That being said, in the interests of disclosure for contextual purposes in this conversation, I am an " Old Believer" Orthodox Christian of the Byelokrinnitskaya Popovtsy. That is, we have priests and bishops and do not follow the " official Orthodox Church".

At one time, all the Cossacks in the Ukraine and elsewhere were Old Believers and some still are.

I think that everything going on now in this conflict between Russia and the West has spiritual roots in the Unia and the Raskol, and the attempt by the Papacy to subjugate everyone to their spiritual if not temporal rule as well. There were many Unia around Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Romanov ( and Tsar Peter after him) assisting them in creating a modified "State Church " that was and is inching ever closer to the Papacy.

Okay, I found this podcast….

https://nickcady.org/2023/05/18/the-ras ... %20Ukraine.

I think you would agree with much of what they say except for the shot they take at Old Believers in the end. As it relates to the Russia-Ukraine war, they make the point that there has heen a revival of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and now a return to the traditional connection between church and state. They are on a mission from God to bring the Ukrainians back to the one true Christian church. I guess my question would be whether Putin sees it that way, or is the war purely political without religious overtones? They don’t really make a strong case for their theory.

[annatar1914]

Okay, I found this podcast….

https://nickcady.org/2023/05/18/the-ras ... %20Ukraine.

I think you would agree with much of what they say except for the shot they take at Old Believers in the end. As it relates to the Russia-Ukraine war, they make the point that there has heen a revival of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and now a return to the traditional connection between church and state. They are on a mission from God to bring the Ukrainians back to the one true Christian church. I guess my question would be whether Putin sees it that way, or is the war purely political without religious overtones? They don’t really make a strong case for their theory.

@Hakeer :

I actually am very familiar with Dallas Theological Seminary. You will not find a bigger group of Evangelical morons than there, outside a Trump rally. Dispensationalism/Christian Zionism metastasized from there, and these are the people who teach that Russia will lead an Islamic alliance against Israel during the End Times and be destroyed by God: the prime source of anti Russian hatred in the United States has its Nexus at Dallas Theological Seminary.

So on listening, i'd have to disagree with pretty much everything said on the podcast.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

I actually am very familiar with Dallas Theological Seminary. You will not find a bigger group of Evangelical morons than there, outside a Trump rally. Dispensationalism/Christian Zionism metastasized from there, and these are the people who teach that Russia will lead an Islamic alliance against Israel during the End Times and be destroyed by God: the prime source of anti Russian hatred in the United States has its Nexus at Dallas Theological Seminary.

So on listening, i'd have to disagree with pretty much everything said on the podcast.

Humm, I thought you and the podcast were on the same track. Either I don’t understand what you are saying, or the podcast, or maybe both.

I thought the key thing is that the Raskol 1666 changed the liturgy. Old Believers objected. It added Western elements (3 finger blessing, etc.), and so this caused the Old Believers to split off from the rest of the Russian Orthodox. The Urkranian Greek Ortodox also has some changes in the liturgy that Old Believers reject. What’s worse, in 2018 the Ukranian Orthodox Church is now autonomous (autocephalous?). The other thing they say is that the Russian Orthodox believe they have a mandate from God to unite all Slav sects, including the Ukranians into their beliefs, liturgy, etc.

Putin is certainly more openly supportive of the Russian Orthodox church than was the case for the Soviet Union (anti-religious) policy of the state. Therefore, he may be feeling some religious and well as political motivation in the war. If none of this narrative is true, then I don’t see the relevance of the Raskol 1666 to the current war.

[annatar1914]

@Hakeer , and by extension @Verv , and @Potemkin , let me see if I can be clearer.

You stated:

I thought the key thing is that the Raskol 1666 changed the liturgy. Old Believers objected. It added Western elements (3 finger blessing, etc.), and so this caused the Old Believers to split off from the rest of the Russian Orthodox.

This isn't quite what happened, the answer is much more complex, but in some ways quite simple and clear. The changes weren't usually Western, but were frequently arbitrary and senseless, and presaging ever more radical changes over time. Article explaining some of this in not 100% correct, but still gives a fairly good idea:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

You see, Orthodox Christianity is a/the way of life, and that way was transmitted from Christ and His Apostles through Church Fathers and Councils to the faithful of today. Why change what works?

Nikon became Moscow Patriarch in the 1650s, and surrounded himself with people known to be agents of the Vatican like Paisius Lagarides:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisios_Ligarides

Arseny the Greek, others. And there are like minded people in their hierarchy even now, who innovate in order to bring everyone to Rome, so to speak.

This old Catholic encyclopedia article about Nikon mentions that he " could" have been a secret Catholic:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11077b.htm

The Urkranian Greek Ortodox also has some changes in the liturgy that Old Believers reject. What’s worse, in 2018 the Ukranian Orthodox Church is now autonomous (autocephalous?). The other thing they say is that the Russian Orthodox believe they have a mandate from God to unite all Slav sects, including the Ukranians into their beliefs, liturgy, etc.

Some of this makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. I know that it comes from these American Evangelicals, but frankly their ignorance is only outmatched by their hatred and arrogance when examining these things.

The true Orthodox Christian Church is that Church instituted by Christ, and her Head is Christ, not some Pope or whatnot. Bishops have an area of jurisdiction or omphorion by which they shepherd their flocks and none are superior or inferior to each other.

On "official" Orthodox Church so called:

An argument between themselves about who has priority and jurisdiction, from those who I regard as close to being Schismatical and heretical assemblies, is equal parts laughable, tragic, and historically inevitable.

They will all fall into the Papacy's lap, or return to Orthodoxy.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer , and by extension @Verv , and @Potemkin , let me see if I can be clearer.

You stated:



This isn't quite what happened, the answer is much more complex, but in some ways quite simple and clear. The changes weren't usually Western, but were frequently arbitrary and senseless, and presaging ever more radical changes over time. Article explaining some of this in not 100% correct, but still gives a fairly good idea:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

You see, Orthodox Christianity is a/the way of life, and that way was transmitted from Christ and His Apostles through Church Fathers and Councils to the faithful of today. Why change what works?

Nikon became Moscow Patriarch in the 1650s, and surrounded himself with people known to be agents of the Vatican like Paisius Lagarides:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisios_Ligarides

Arseny the Greek, others. And there are like minded people in their hierarchy even now, who innovate in order to bring everyone to Rome, so to speak.

This old Catholic encyclopedia article about Nikon mentions that he " could" have been a secret Catholic:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11077b.htm




Some of this makes no sense to me, I'm sorry. I know that it comes from these American Evangelicals, but frankly their ignorance is only outmatched by their hatred and arrogance when examining these things.

The true Orthodox Christian Church is that Church instituted by Christ, and her Head is Christ, not some Pope or whatnot. Bishops have an area of jurisdiction or omphorion by which they shepherd their flocks and none are superior or inferior to each other.

On "official" Orthodox Church so called:

An argument between themselves about who has priority and jurisdiction, from those who I regard as close to being Schismatical and heretical assemblies, is equal parts laughable, tragic, and historically inevitable.

They will all fall into the Papacy's lap, or return to Orthodoxy.

“This council officially established the reforms and anathematized not only all those opposing the innovations, but the old Russian books and rites themselves as well. As a side-effect of condemning the past of the Russian Orthodox Church and her traditions, the messianic theory depicting Moscow as the Third Rome appeared weaker. Instead of the guardian of Orthodox faith, Russia seemed an accumulation of serious liturgical mistakes.
Nevertheless, both Patriarch and Tsar wished to carry out their reforms, although their endeavours may have had as much or more political motivation as religious; several authors on this subject point out that Tsar Alexis, encouraged by his military success in the war against Poland-Lithuania to liberate West Russian provinces and the Ukraine, grew ambitious of becoming the liberator of the Orthodox areas which at that time formed part of the Ottoman Empir. They also mention [b]the role of the Near-East patriarchs, who actively supported the idea of the Russian Tsar becoming the liberator of all Orthodox Christians[/b] (Kapterev N.F. 1913, 1914; Zenkovsky S.A., 1995, 2006).”
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Old_Believers

This passage states the political significance of1666. My guess is that these guys were paid to come to Moscow to support the Tsar’s political ambitions, and revising the liturgy was a secondary objective, and as the article states, actually undermines the belief that the Russian Orthodox Church is the one true Christian church and Russia is mandated by God to unite all the other Orthodox churches, including Ukraine, into Russian orthodoxy.

As I said, the relevance of this to the current war depends on what Putin’s government believes is the mission in Ukraine. Is it only political (i.e,. stop Ukraine from aligning politically with European Union and NATO), or is it also to absorb the Ukranian Orthodox Church back in conformity with old traditions (no Catholic liturgical or theological concepts)?

[annatar1914]

@Hakeer , (with shout-out to @Verv
and @Potemkin ) you said:

This passage states the political significance of1666. My guess is that these guys were paid to come to Moscow to support the Tsar’s political ambitions

No, not exactly. This is because all these men, these alleged Bishops, had been subjects of the Ottoman Turkish Empire who had uncanonically paid the Turks for their Clerical offices and couldn't have left for Russia unless they represented the Sultan's interests: or the interests of whoever bribed the Sultan's government. And no Ottoman Turkish official would have never sent them unless it actually was meant to weaken Russia, like the Germans allowing Lenin into Russia on the infamous " Sealed Train" during WW 1.

Note that Patriarch Nikon was deposed at the Synod, his " reforms " approved but his leadership neither wanted nor necessary to the plans of the agents once around him like Arseny the Greek and Paisius Lagarides. Tsar Alexei? This was all beyond him for many reasons.

"and revising the liturgy was a secondary"

No that was primary. Forcing people to go along with even the most seemingly trivial and senseless innovation and novelty for novelty's sake conditions them to accept anything at all, including incrementally and gradually more important changes as time goes by.

and as the article states, actually undermines the belief that the Russian Orthodox Church is the one true Christian church and Russia is mandated by God to unite all the other Orthodox churches, including Ukraine, into Russian orthodoxy.

I don't think that you understand Orthodox Christian self awareness of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian even in a political sense, which hasn't changed. Caesero-Papism is as anathemized as Papal Caesarism. Church and State should work together for the common good harmoniously, but failing that we can live under any system or none at all, anarchy. As long as we're free is what is important, for the task of Theosis of the human person, and reflective of that, Sobornost. Collective mutual love.

The Orthodox Church as I mentioned wasn't free though in the Islamic Ottoman Turkish Empire, nor was it free in the Papist Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Lutheran Swedish Baltic Sea Empire. Only place that it was free was in the Russian lands.

If it could be subverted there, and persecuted, there was the hope in some foreign quarters that the Russian people could be made Catholics.

As I said, the relevance of this to the current war depends on what Putin’s government believes is the mission in Ukraine. Is it only political (i.e,. stop Ukraine from aligning politically with European Union and NATO), or is it also to absorb the Ukranian Orthodox Church back in conformity with old traditions (no Catholic liturgical or theological concepts)?

Neither characterization is accurate I'm afraid, so it's impossible to reply in the negative nor the affirmative.

What the present Russian establishment thinks about this conflict, or any other elites out there anywhere in the world, is irrelevant, though.

This is because there are world historical and material forces in motion, quite deterministic in origin, that are working to make the consequences of this operation beyond any elites abilities to influence or change.

There are no spiritual causes that aren't fully enmeshed in the material world, nor are there material considerations that don't point to higher and purposeful spiritual realities.

My fear ( and I could be wrong, if so forgive me if I am, my apologies if so) is that I'm talking to someone who doesn't quite grasp the importance of the spiritual in the lives of many people, nor why it is.

And misunderstanding in that case when looking at a culture which has certain spiritual elements infused in its DNA, it's cultural code, would be unfortunate.

What would it mean to you, for illustration sake, for me to agree with and quote Dostyoevsky when he wrote: " Beauty will save the world", something that has connotations that resonate in the Russian mind that are lost in translation elsewhere? Even though it's a universal truth?

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer , (with shout-out to @Verv
and @Potemkin ) you said:



No, not exactly. This is because all these men, these alleged Bishops, had been subjects of the Ottoman Turkish Empire who had uncanonically paid the Turks for their Clerical offices and couldn't have left for Russia unless they represented the Sultan's interests: or the interests of whoever bribed the Sultan's government. And no Ottoman Turkish official would have never sent them unless it actually was meant to weaken Russia, like the Germans allowing Lenin into Russia on the infamous " Sealed Train" during WW 1.

Note that Patriarch Nikon was deposed at the Synod, his " reforms " approved but his leadership neither wanted nor necessary to the plans of the agents once around him like Arseny the Greek and Paisius Lagarides. Tsar Alexei? This was all beyond him for many reasons.




No that was primary. Forcing people to go along with even the most seemingly trivial and senseless innovation and novelty for novelty's sake conditions them to accept anything at all, including incrementally and gradually more important changes as time goes by.



I don't think that you understand Orthodox Christian self awareness of what it means to be an Orthodox Christian even in a political sense, which hasn't changed. Caesero-Papism is as anathemized as Papal Caesarism. Church and State should work together for the common good harmoniously, but failing that we can live under any system or none at all, anarchy. As long as we're free is what is important, for the task of Theosis of the human person, and reflective of that, Sobornost. Collective mutual love.

The Orthodox Church as I mentioned wasn't free though in the Islamic Ottoman Turkish Empire, nor was it free in the Papist Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Lutheran Swedish Baltic Sea Empire. Only place that it was free was in the Russian lands.

If it could be subverted there, and persecuted, there was the hope in some foreign quarters that the Russian people could be made Catholics.



Neither characterization is accurate I'm afraid, so it's impossible to reply in the negative nor the affirmative.

What the present Russian establishment thinks about this conflict, or any other elites out there anywhere in the world, is irrelevant, though.

This is because there are world historical and material forces in motion, quite deterministic in origin, that are working to make the consequences of this operation beyond any elites abilities to influence or change.

There are no spiritual causes that aren't fully enmeshed in the material world, nor are there material considerations that don't point to higher and purposeful spiritual realities.

My fear ( and I could be wrong, if so forgive me if I am, my apologies if so) is that I'm talking to someone who doesn't quite grasp the importance of the spiritual in the lives of many people, nor why it is.

And misunderstanding in that case when looking at a culture which has certain spiritual elements infused in its DNA, it's cultural code, would be unfortunate.

What would it mean to you, for illustration sake, for me to agree with and quote Dostyoevsky when he wrote: " Beauty will save the world", something that has connotations that resonate in the Russian mind that are lost in translation elsewhere? Even though it's a universal truth?

There seems to be a connection between the Raskol 1666 and 1682 Moscow Uprising…

“In the fall of 1682 Prince Ivan Andreyevich Khovansky (Tararui)—Sophia's close associate and one of the leaders of the rebellious Streltsy—turned against her. Supported by the Old Believers, Khovansky—who supposedly wanted to install himself as the new regent—demanded the reversal of Nikon's reforms. Sophia and her court had to flee the Moscow Kremlin and sought refuge in the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra. Eventually, Sophia managed to suppress the so-called Khovanshchina (Khovansky affair) with the help of Fyodor Shaklovity, who succeeded Khovansky in charge of the Muscovite army.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_uprising_of_1682

Isn’t it possible that the Turks sent these guys to Moscow in 1666 to stir up political chaos in Russia? If so, it seems they succeeded in 1682.

Regarding the Russians motivations in 1666, I read somewhere that these guys were paid by the Russians (rubles and furs) to come to Russia. Why would the Tsar have interest in Nikon adding Greek elements to the Russian Orthodox liturgy? The Zelenkovsy explanation seems more reasonable to me. He claims these guys came to Russia and supported the Tsar’s political goals by reinforcing the idea that Russia was on a mandate from God to unite the whole Orothodox world, including Ukraine, under Russian orthodoxy. On this account, once Nikon fulfilled his purpose, he was no longer of use. Also, I read somewhere that later in his life he was more attached to the Poles and their religion, so that would not make him popular in Russia.

You say, “Only place that it was free was in the Russian lands.” But the Old Believers were persecuted in Russia after 1666, so I do not understand this statement. I do understand that freedom of religion is more important to you than politics. However, throughout human history, religion has been exploited by kings and despots to justify wars. I am trying to understand how that played out in Russian/Ukraine history, and does it have application to the current war.

Catholics have no monopoly on the desire to spread their religion. So do Jews, Muslims, and Orthodox Russians (at least as far as all the rest of the Slav Orthodox sects, from what I read about their “mandate from God.”).

I understand that you believe there are “historical and material forces” at work in the world. I was just curious whether you think Putin believes any of this, or is his motivation almost purely political. At least outwardly, he does appear to have some religious connection to the Russian Orthodox Church. But that is a long way from feeling that he is on a mission from God in Ukraine.

If “Beauty will save the world” gets lost in translation from Russian to English, then I am sure I don’t know what it means. Russians are not the only people who love beauty. When I need a spiritual lift, I listen to music of Mozart. It is beautiful.

[annatar1914]

@Hakeer :

"There seems to be a connection between the Raskol 1666 and 1682 Moscow Uprising…"

All this actually began in 1654 AD, as I recall. But the connection is this: the Old Orthodox Russian civilization was struggling to defend itself.

“In the fall of 1682 Prince Ivan Andreyevich Khovansky (Tararui)—Sophia's close associate and one of the leaders of the rebellious Streltsy—turned against her. Supported by the Old Believers, Khovansky—who supposedly wanted to install himself as the new regent—demanded the reversal of Nikon's reforms. Sophia and her court had to flee the Moscow Kremlin and sought refuge in the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra. Eventually, Sophia managed to suppress the so-called Khovanshchina (Khovansky affair) with the help of Fyodor Shaklovity, who succeeded Khovansky in charge of the Muscovite army.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_uprising_of_1682

There was even an opera made about it, where the motivation of the Streltsy and the Old Believers appears to overlap but is only seemingly different. The unity lies with the attitude towards the modern Western style government and nation state, a hostile attitude that permeates all Russian history and modern existence.

Isn’t it possible that the Turks sent these guys to Moscow in 1666 to stir up political chaos in Russia? If so, it seems they succeeded in 1682.

No, this was a " crypto Papist" operation, too many of the change agents in charge and around Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei like Paisius Lagarides and Arseny the Greek had well established ties to Rome.

Regarding the Russians motivations in 1666, I read somewhere that these guys were paid by the Russians (rubles and furs) to come to Russia

Paid by the aforementioned persons around Nikon.

. Why would the Tsar have interest in Nikon adding Greek elements to the Russian Orthodox liturgy? The Zelenkovsy explanation seems more reasonable to me. He claims these guys came to Russia and supported the Tsar’s political goals by reinforcing the idea that Russia was on a mandate from God to unite the whole Orothodox world, including Ukraine, under Russian orthodoxy. On this account, once Nikon fulfilled his purpose, he was no longer of use. Also, I read somewhere that later in his life he was more attached to the Poles and their religion, so that would not make him popular in Russia.

Not entirely true and exact. When you're Orthodox, you don't " have" or " strive towards" Unity, you already have it, it's the Truth that is the universal governing principle. But aside from that for the moment, Nikon and Tsar Alexei were enthralled not only by an implanted vision of liberating the former East Roman Empire from the Turks, but doing so as part of an alliance of Western states and under the sovereignty of the Papacy, ultimately. Tsar Alexei Romanov was under the domination of Patriarch Nikon, and only broke with him when Nikon fell into his own version of the Papist heresy. They kept his changes though. Patriarch Nikon really and truly entirely rejected the true theology of Orthodox Christian Church government, nearly beating Bishop Paul of Kolomna to death himself for resisting his revolution from above, his usurpation.

You say, “Only place that it was free was in the Russian lands.” But the Old Believers were persecuted in Russia after 1666, so I do not understand this statement. I do understand that freedom of religion is more important to you than politics. However, throughout human history, religion has been exploited by kings and despots to justify wars. I am trying to understand how that played out in Russian/Ukraine history, and does it have application to the current war

Basically, it comes down to Western style ideologues trying to change Russia from within, and falling that, destroying her. Alexander Solszhenitsyn wrote once somewhere that the Romanovs from 1654 AD to 1905 AD had had murdered ( he estimated from his research) about 15 million Ancient Orthodox Christians. I believe that it was much more than that conservative estimate. And that's just the martyrdoms.

The spiritual was enough of a motivating factor to cause that reaction....

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :



All this actually began in 1654 AD, as I recall. But the connection is this: the Old Orthodox Russian civilization was struggling to defend itself.


There was even an opera made about it, where the motivation of the Streltsy and the Old Believers appears to overlap but is only seemingly different. The unity lies with the attitude towards the modern Western style government and nation state, a hostile attitude that permeates all Russian history and modern existence.



No, this was a " crypto Papist" operation, too many of the change agents in charge and around Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei like Paisius Lagarides and Arseny the Greek had well established ties to Rome.



Paid by the aforementioned persons around Nikon.



Not entirely true and exact. When you're Orthodox, you don't " have" or " strive towards" Unity, you already have it, it's the Truth that is the universal governing principle. But aside from that for the moment, Nikon and Tsar Alexei were enthralled not only by an implanted vision of liberating the former East Roman Empire from the Turks, but doing so as part of an alliance of Western states and under the sovereignty of the Papacy, ultimately. Tsar Alexei Romanov was under the domination of Patriarch Nikon, and only broke with him when Nikon fell into his own version of the Papist heresy. They kept his changes though. Patriarch Nikon really and truly entirely rejected the true theology of Orthodox Christian Church government, nearly beating Bishop Paul of Kolomna to death himself for resisting his revolution from above, his usurpation.




Basically, it comes down to Western style ideologues trying to change Russia from within, and falling that, destroying her. Alexander Solszhenitsyn wrote once somewhere that the Romanovs from 1654 AD to 1905 AD had had murdered ( he estimated from his research) about 15 million Ancient Orthodox Christians. I believe that it was much more than that conservative estimate. And that's just the martyrdoms.

The spiritual was enough of a motivating factor to cause that reaction....

You say, ‘The unity lies with the attitude towards the modern Western style government and nation state, a hostile attitude that permeates all Russian history and modern existence.”

This statement ties it all together for me. The attitude toward Western style government has continued from 1066 to today. It also circles us back to your last video where the guy speaks of the clash between “Russian civilization” and “European civilization.”
Ukraine historically and literally has always been torn in both these directions for centuries. Will Ukraine unite with the Russian civilization or the European civilization, or continue to be the battleground where they meet?

What Putin call “denazification” of the Ukraine government is really an attempt to stop Ukraine from drifting further toward European style government and alliances (European Union, NATO membership, etc.) and, most importantly, a constitutional democracy rather than a Russian “strong man” at the center of government – whether a Tsar in 1066 or Putin today.

As far as the Catholic church and the pope is concerned, it doesn’t seem to have much force in contemporary Ukraine. As of 2022, 72% of Ukrainians still identify as Eastern Orthodox and only 9% as Catholic. I assume your worry is that, if Ukraine becomes more aligned with European civilization politically, it will eventually become more aligned religiously. At least, that is what I infer from your post. True?

[annatar1914]

You say, ‘The unity lies with the attitude towards the modern Western style government and nation state, a hostile attitude that permeates all Russian history and modern existence.”

This statement ties it all together for me. The attitude toward Western style government has continued from 1066 to today. It also circles us back to your last video where the guy speaks of the clash between “Russian civilization” and “European civilization.”
Ukraine historically and literally has always been torn in both these directions for centuries. Will Ukraine unite with the Russian civilization or the European civilization, or continue to be the battleground where they meet?

What Putin call “denazification” of the Ukraine government is really an attempt to stop Ukraine from drifting further toward European style government and alliances (European Union, NATO membership, etc.) and, most importantly, a constitutional democracy rather than a Russian “strong man” at the center of government – whether a Tsar in 1066 or Putin today.

As far as the Catholic church and the pope is concerned, it doesn’t seem to have much force in contemporary Ukraine. As of 2022, 72% of Ukrainians still identify as Eastern Orthodox and only 9% as Catholic. I assume your worry is that, if Ukraine becomes more aligned with European civilization politically, it will eventually become more aligned religiously. At least, that is what I infer from your post. True?

@Hakeer , and by extension @Verv , and @Potemkin :

Hard for many Zapadniks to understand, caught up in the Papist and Protestant maelstrom as they are, but before 1054 AD the West was Orthodox Christian. I honour Blessed Augustine, St Augustine of Hippo, as a Orthodox Church Father. St Ambrose of Milan, St Hillary of Poitiers, St Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, Pope St Gregory the Great Bishop of Old Rome, known as "The Theologian", Pope St Leo the Great, many others. The West fell from the Unity and is still falling....

If I share the hostility towards the West because of what it has become, I would share that hostility with the ancestors of those in the West today.

You speak about the Ukraine as the battleground. Well, it's been the path of Western aggression against Russia for centuries. The Teutonic Knights, the Swedes, the Germans, Napoleon and his Grand Armee of 14 nations, the Nazi axis...

Novorossiya and the Donbass, the Crimea, was never historically part of any Ukraine policy, and the " Right Bank Ukraine" always has identified as Russians for sure too.

But then, mere defense against the Germans never lasts too long, against the Ostseidlung, the Drang Nach Osten. What about the Lusatian Sorbs, the Czechs and Slovaks, the Poles? Or the Serbs and Slovenes and Bulgarians, do they not deserve to not someday go the way of most of the Wends in what is now East Germany?

No sir, " Denazification" means Denazification. And your " nine percent" is close to 100% of the Banderites embedded in the Ukrainian government and military, education and elsewhere.

Never again. That's what I worry about. Fascism, which is the very essence of the West.

The Global/Western elites of international finance Capitalism are afraid of the Revolution by their very nature. I tell you, that as distasteful as a Trump is to " liberal Democrats" they would support him 100% in order to keep even the mere ghost of Communism from becoming a real nightmare again. To prevent a USSR 2.0. So the Goons and Oligarchs of the Ukraine, in coming to power through their puppets, serve the function of a garrison state just like Israel in the Middle East. Not that the West cares about the Ukraine other than a colony:

You say that it's a " strongman" that is the trouble. No for the West it's a return of the Soviets, which is true political freedom because it is also socio economic freedom, socialism.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer , and by extension @Verv , and @Potemkin :

Hard for many Zapadniks to understand, caught up in the Papist and Protestant maelstrom as they are, but before 1054 AD the West was Orthodox Christian. I honour Blessed Augustine, St Augustine of Hippo, as a Orthodox Church Father. St Ambrose of Milan, St Hillary of Poitiers, St Prosper of Aquitaine, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, Pope St Gregory the Great Bishop of Old Rome, known as "The Theologian", Pope St Leo the Great, many others. The West fell from the Unity and is still falling....

If I share the hostility towards the West because of what it has become, I would share that hostility with the ancestors of those in the West today.

You speak about the Ukraine as the battleground. Well, it's been the path of Western aggression against Russia for centuries. The Teutonic Knights, the Swedes, the Germans, Napoleon and his Grand Armee of 14 nations, the Nazi axis...

Novorossiya and the Donbass, the Crimea, was never historically part of any Ukraine policy, and the " Right Bank Ukraine" always has identified as Russians for sure too.

But then, mere defense against the Germans never lasts too long, against the Ostseidlung, the Drang Nach Osten. What about the Lusatian Sorbs, the Czechs and Slovaks, the Poles? Or the Serbs and Slovenes and Bulgarians, do they not deserve to not someday go the way of most of the Wends in what is now East Germany?

No sir, " Denazification" means Denazification. And your " nine percent" is close to 100% of the Banderites embedded in the Ukrainian government and military, education and elsewhere.

Never again. That's what I worry about. Fascism, which is the very essence of the West.

The Global/Western elites of international finance Capitalism are afraid of the Revolution by their very nature. I tell you, that as distasteful as a Trump is to " liberal Democrats" they would support him 100% in order to keep even the mere ghost of Communism from becoming a real nightmare again. To prevent a USSR 2.0. So the Goons and Oligarchs of the Ukraine, in coming to power through their puppets, serve the function of a garrison state just like Israel in the Middle East. Not that the West cares about the Ukraine other than a colony:

You say that it's a " strongman" that is the trouble. No for the West it's a return of the Soviets, which is true political freedom because it is also socio economic freedom, socialism.

I learned a new word “Zapadnik”. There is no doubt that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have been for decades working hard to spread capitalism and democracy to the former USSR countries. The State Dept. even has the “FLEX” program to bring the brightest high school students from those countries, including Russia, to study in the U.S. for one year. My wife and I hosted a girl from Kyrgyzstan.

Your new video explains this very well. The IMF is an evil institution. They suck resources out of developing countries and throw them into debt. Ukraine has not only been the scene for military conflicts between East and West for centuries but also cultural (religious, economic, political conflicts).

One thing you may not completely understand about liberals in the U.S. is that we are not all Zapdniks. I am old enough to have lived through the Cuban crisis when we nearly went to nuclear war with Russia. Reagan escalated the nuclear arms race with Russia to the point that both countries had more than enough nukes to destroy the planet. It is insane. Fear of communism is still very much alive. Trump calls Harris a communist.

My own brand of liberalism favors constitutional democracy but also the principle of national “self-determination.” The people of a country should be free to choose whatever political and economic system they prefer without interference – especially military invasions – by other countries attempting to push them in the opposite direction. For that reason, I not only oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but also the U.S. military in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was nearly arrested protesting the Vietnam War. You may call that war another example of West versus East.

One of the possibilities of constitutional democracy is the election of a man like Trump who has no commitment to its principles and would undermine democratic institutions and install himself and his family into political power until 2036 like the autocrat he envies in Russia and those radical politicians in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, North Korea, etc. To answer your point, I would rather have USSR 2.0 than autocracy in America, assuming it doesn’t end in WW3.

Zelensky is not a Catholic or a Nazi. I have been trying to get specific names of the other leaders in Ukraine and look up their biographies. I would like to know how many are Catholic and have fascist political views. Can you help me with this project?

[annatar1914]

I learned a new word “Zapadnik”. There is no doubt that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have been for decades working hard to spread capitalism and democracy to the former USSR countries. The State Dept. even has the “FLEX” program to bring the brightest high school students from those countries, including Russia, to study in the U.S. for one year. My wife and I hosted a girl from Kyrgyzstan.

Your new video explains this very well. The IMF is an evil institution. They suck resources out of developing countries and throw them into debt. Ukraine has not only been the scene for military conflicts between East and West for centuries but also cultural (religious, economic, political conflicts).

One thing you may not completely understand about liberals in the U.S. is that we are not all Zapdniks. I am old enough to have lived through the Cuban crisis when we nearly went to nuclear war with Russia. Reagan escalated the nuclear arms race with Russia to the point that both countries had more than enough nukes to destroy the planet. It is insane. Fear of communism is still very much alive. Trump calls Harris a communist.

My own brand of liberalism favors constitutional democracy but also the principle of national “self-determination.” The people of a country should be free to choose whatever political and economic system they prefer without interference – especially military invasions – by other countries attempting to push them in the opposite direction. For that reason, I not only oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but also the U.S. military in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I was nearly arrested protesting the Vietnam War. You may call that war another example of West versus East.

One of the possibilities of constitutional democracy is the election of a man like Trump who has no commitment to its principles and would undermine democratic institutions and install himself and his family into political power until 2036 like the autocrat he envies in Russia and those radical politicians in Hungary, Turkey, Italy, North Korea, etc. To answer your point, I would rather have USSR 2.0 than autocracy in America, assuming it doesn’t end in WW3.

Zelensky is not a Catholic or a Nazi. I have been trying to get specific names of the other leaders in Ukraine and look up their biographies. I would like to know how many are Catholic and have fascist political views. Can you help me with this project?

@Hakeer , @Verv , and @Potemkin :

@Hakeer :

Firstly, let me address a few niggling points then I can move on. Putin isn't an " Autocrat", in the sense that Western media has given the term for centuries: a despot or tyrant or strongman. " Autocrat" is actually a sacred term and denotes a charismatic leadership of a God blessed and annointed sovereign. The Romanovs of course gave themselves the formal title being the Emperors of Russia.

No leader has come to Russia from God in the original spiritual sense in a long time.

Now as to the Uniates, or Eastern Rite Catholics of the Ukraine. If you want examples of elected leaders in political positions there are people like this, right off the top of my head:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... prov=rarw1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_ ... eer%20Army.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan_Koshulynskyi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... prov=rarw1

Voting wise they generally get little votes in the East, and mainly in the Western Ukraine in places like Lvov, Galicia and Volhynia. Their power is both more physical and more hidden, subversive, than with above board politics.

You have the actual fanatics embedded in the special police forces, the GUR, the Ukrainian military, groups like Azov and Tornado Battalions, the interior ministry organizations, the volunteer military force, the cultural and educational institutions, etc ... I don't have names for all of them for what should be obvious reasons.

You see, during the Great Patriotic War, Bandera himself and many of his men fled to the West and were used by the Western intelligence services and thus in the Cold War. They went almost entirely underground and in some respects still are. Few normal people in normal times will accept Nazi and Fascist propaganda.

In the 1950's those Banderites who remained in the Ukrainian SSR fought an irregular war against the Soviet Union. Khruschev declared an general amnesty though and even some Banderites then came back to the Ukraine. Thereafter the organization infiltrated all the local Soviet institutions in the Ukraine including the CPSU itself.

I have to say that I almost admire the dedication and intrepid nature of these people, clerical fascistic though they are and were. They were better at applying Leninist principles of subversion and revolution to their cause than many Leninists.

So that leads again to the role of Zelensky: sure he's neither a Catholic nor a " Nazi " per se,( although he could be a Trotskyist, it would not surprise me)but he is powerless against them. He acts as a screen behind which they have operated, and when the Ukraine loses this war, he'll be the Jewish scapegoat they can blame. In the interim they help him send a lot of non Uniates to their deaths, kill " Moskals", and strengthen themselves for the inevitable post war power play.

THEN they'll take over completely and go after the Jews.

I doubt you'd support their national self determination then, but then it would be too late: a Nazi Ukraine, no doubt armed with nuclear weapons, and supporting Fascist revolution everywhere.

[annatar1914]

@Verv , @Potemkin , and others:

I felt like I needed to go back and take a look again at the political philosophy of Alexander Dugin, I believe that I have done a disservice to the man and his thinking if I do not. I shall display two recent articles by him and then give my thoughts:


"Only War Determines What Exists And What Does Not

Alexander Dugin

Winners are not judged. Everyone else is. The only exception is made for winners. For our truth to prevail — in both the grandest sense (civilizational, philosophical, religious) and the smallest (simple facts like shelling, casualties, invasions, attacks on nuclear facilities) — we must, at the very least, win.

War affects the very nature of existence. It is war that decides what exists and what does not. This is the metaphysical aspect of war — it can erase something from existence or bring it into being. As Heraclitus said, war makes one person a master and another a slave. The winner becomes the master and therefore exists. The loser either ceases to exist or becomes a slave, and being a slave is worse than not existing at all.

That is why it is pointless to be outraged by the behavior of modern Germany or Japan — because they lost World War Two, they are now slaves of the West; they effectively do not exist.

After the Cold War, Russia found itself in the position of a slave — thanks to Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and the liberal reformers. And thanks to everyone who supported these traitors and obediently lined up at McDonald’s. There is a principle in church law: “to treat it as if it had never happened.” This is not a judgment of truth but a judgment of existence. Maybe something existed in some sense, but the church fathers command that it be abolished, reduced to nothing. The fathers, who rule over the present and have triumphed in it, freely and sovereignly, like masters, judge the past, deciding what really happened and what essentially did not.

This is how not only church fathers act, but also any ideology, any power. Orwell did not reveal any “totalitarian” paradox when he said, “who controls the present controls the past.” This is what everyone does, always. If someone wants to challenge a particular verdict on what was or was not, they only need to seize power — that is, to win.

Putin, like a geopolitical Spartacus, has led a rebellion to bring Russia out of non-existence. But Russia will only truly exist when it wins. Existence and victory are synonymous.

Russia is what will come to be.

P.S.: The fate of Ukraine also depends on this war. And it is not just a question of whether it will continue to exist (I hope not), but whether it ever truly existed at all. Existence is not proven by the past; it is determined in the present through the act of creating the future"

And the other:


"The Hermeneutic Circle of Russian Victory


Alexander Dugin

In philosophy, there is a concept called the hermeneutic circle. This idea originated with Schleiermacher, evolved through Dilthey, and was further developed by Heidegger and Gadamer. The basic principle is that understanding requires knowledge of both the whole and its parts. However, when we first approach something, we do not fully grasp either the whole or its parts. Moreover, understanding a part without knowing the whole is impossible, and the whole cannot exist without its parts (otherwise, what makes it a whole, and what is it whole in relation to?). This seemingly paradoxical situation is resolved through a process of approximation.

Imagine we start with an approximate idea of both the part and the whole — like two Rorschach blots. We begin carefully and without jumping to conclusions to relate them to each other. We continuously align one approximation with another, over and over, until they start influencing each other, gradually sharpening the blurred outlines of both. This process is the hermeneutic circle, a repetitive, circular movement around a central idea, aimed at understanding both the structure of the periphery and the center. In other words, both the whole and the part are understood through their ongoing circular relationship, moving from vagueness to clarity.

Heidegger frequently used this method, repeatedly asking the same question and circling around an elusive center and a blurred periphery.

However, one must be cautious when trying to formalize this method. It is easy to lose sight of the subtle philosophical task of distinguishing what constitutes the whole and what the part. Hermeneutics is grounded in Aristotle and is deeply connected to phenomenology (as Dilthey realized after engaging with Husserl’s ideas). If we interpret the whole and the part outside of Aristotelian ontology (for example, through atomism or materialism), the entire approach collapses. Thus, practicing hermeneutics requires a particular philosophical culture.

Now, let us apply the principle of the hermeneutic circle to victory. The Victory in the war with the West in Ukraine serves both as a goal and a means. The exceptional significance of this Victory in Russian history compels us to view the current Russian statehood as an instrument, a method. In this sense, modern Russia is a part of Victory, a condition for it. Victory represents the beginning of the future, while the past and present are merely precursors to it. Returning to Aristotle, the primary cause is the final cause, causa finalis. Victory in Ukraine is the entelechy of Russian political history — it is the purpose for which everything else has existed. From Vladimir the Bright Sun to Victory, from Kiev to Kiev.

Victory is greater than the Russian Federation as a whole because Victory represents the essence of Russia in its fullness. The Russian Federation is just a part of Victory; Victory is the whole. It is destiny, the final triumph.

To achieve Victory, Russia must be adjusted to fit it. This is what is happening now. It is being done both correctly and incorrectly. It is correct when we see Victory as the goal and the whole, and the Russian Federation as the means and the part, as a specific moment in our political history. It is incorrect when we treat the Russian Federation as the whole and absolutize the status quo, excluding the true whole of Russian history. When a single moment of political history is exaggerated to overshadow the entire existence of Russia (the whole), we stray from the right path. As we shift from the incorrect to the correct approach, Victory draws nearer. We bring it closer. This is the hermeneutics of war.

Doing things correctly means restructuring the state to serve Victory. When Victory ceases to be just a part and becomes the whole, the state will, in turn, cease to be everything and an end in itself, becoming instead the means and the path to Victory. At that point, something new will be established — the State of Victory. And then we will triumph.

Afterward, a new hermeneutic turn will occur. Victory will become the foundation of a new Russian statehood. Only a new Russia can achieve Victory, and it is precisely this new Russia that will emerge after Victory. Victory itself will then become part of the future, a moment of the whole. The new statehood will be an even more cohesive phenomenon, a new core, and an absolute center.

In other words, Victory is a bridge between the past (including the rapidly fading present) and the future. The more Victory is realized, the more Russian time itself will become.

The Russian Federation is not fully Russia. It is a part of Russia — both in time and space. Victory in Ukraine must transform this part into the whole, making Russia truly Russia in the fullest sense. This transformation goes far beyond territory, population, strategy, or geopolitics. It involves the hermeneutic circle of all Russian history. This is the solution to the metaphysical problem of Russian destiny."

He's different, after the cowardly Ukrainian terrorist attack on him and the murder of his daughter. Less nebulous and ambiguous.

[Potemkin]

He's different, after the cowardly Ukrainian terrorist attack on him and the murder of his daughter. Less nebulous and ambiguous.

Experiencing the trauma of the Real tends to have that effect. As Samuel Johnson put it, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Nothing is more Real - more traumatic - than death and loss. The Real is the aporia, the gap, the nothingness, the trauma, which the Symbolic - all our words, all our language, all our abstract thoughts - is trying to close up, to heal, to incorporate into itself. Of course, it can never succeed. But it must always keep trying.

Dugin is clearly a smart guy, but he is pinning too much on a Russian victory in Ukraine; in fact, too much on the concept of military and material victory in general. When Jesus was crucified, this represented the ultimate defeat and humiliation. His life was lost, his cause was lost, and his followers scattered and hid, and denied ever having known him. And Jesus chose defeat and humiliation over victory and triumph, precisely to make a point to his followers and to humanity in general - he who would save his life must first lose his life. Christ’s victory over sin and death required that he take on the burden of the world’s sins and that he taste the bitterness of death. Victory requires defeat, as its inseparable shadow, its dialectical opposite without which it cannot exist. Dugin, it seems to me, is clearly not a Christian.

[annatar1914]

Experiencing the trauma of the Real tends to have that effect. As Samuel Johnson put it, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Nothing is more Real - more traumatic - than death and loss. The Real is the aporia, the gap, the nothingness, the trauma, which the Symbolic - all our words, all our language, all our abstract thoughts - is trying to close up, to heal, to incorporate into itself. Of course, it can never succeed. But it must always keep trying.

Dugin is clearly a smart guy, but he is pinning too much on a Russian victory in Ukraine; in fact, too much on the concept of military and material victory in general. When Jesus was crucified, this represented the ultimate defeat and humiliation. His life was lost, his cause was lost, and his followers scattered and hid, and denied ever having known him. And Jesus chose defeat and humiliation over victory and triumph, precisely to make a point to his followers and to humanity in general - he who would save his life must first lose his life. Christ’s victory over sin and death required that he take on the burden of the world’s sins and that he taste the bitterness of death. Victory requires defeat, as its inseparable shadow, its dialectical opposite without which it cannot exist. Dugin, it seems to me, is clearly not a Christian.

@Potemkin :

I do believe that you are right. And not right in a way which blythly dismisses Dugin or anyone like him, but one that acknowledges Dugin as essentially a Pagan, unfortunately.

Following the ancient Orthodox Christian faith is not something taken on as aesthetically pleasing or to be reactionary in that modern ironical way, but to accept that the time for losing was long past. Before our era. The Restrainer has been put aside, and there are far more people like but unlike Dugin, who aren't afraid to choose formal Apostasy over formal adherence to Christ yet with worldly values.

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer , @Verv , and @Potemkin :

@Hakeer :

Firstly, let me address a few niggling points then I can move on. Putin isn't an " Autocrat", in the sense that Western media has given the term for centuries: a despot or tyrant or strongman. " Autocrat" is actually a sacred term and denotes a charismatic leadership of a God blessed and annointed sovereign. The Romanovs of course gave themselves the formal title being the Emperors of Russia.

No leader has come to Russia from God in the original spiritual sense in a long time.

Now as to the Uniates, or Eastern Rite Catholics of the Ukraine. If you want examples of elected leaders in political positions there are people like this, right off the top of my head:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... prov=rarw1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_ ... eer%20Army.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruslan_Koshulynskyi

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? ... prov=rarw1

Voting wise they generally get little votes in the East, and mainly in the Western Ukraine in places like Lvov, Galicia and Volhynia. Their power is both more physical and more hidden, subversive, than with above board politics.

You have the actual fanatics embedded in the special police forces, the GUR, the Ukrainian military, groups like Azov and Tornado Battalions, the interior ministry organizations, the volunteer military force, the cultural and educational institutions, etc ... I don't have names for all of them for what should be obvious reasons.

You see, during the Great Patriotic War, Bandera himself and many of his men fled to the West and were used by the Western intelligence services and thus in the Cold War. They went almost entirely underground and in some respects still are. Few normal people in normal times will accept Nazi and Fascist propaganda.

In the 1950's those Banderites who remained in the Ukrainian SSR fought an irregular war against the Soviet Union. Khruschev declared an general amnesty though and even some Banderites then came back to the Ukraine. Thereafter the organization infiltrated all the local Soviet institutions in the Ukraine including the CPSU itself.

I have to say that I almost admire the dedication and intrepid nature of these people, clerical fascistic though they are and were. They were better at applying Leninist principles of subversion and revolution to their cause than many Leninists.

So that leads again to the role of Zelensky: sure he's neither a Catholic nor a " Nazi " per se,( although he could be a Trotskyist, it would not surprise me)but he is powerless against them. He acts as a screen behind which they have operated, and when the Ukraine loses this war, he'll be the Jewish scapegoat they can blame. In the interim they help him send a lot of non Uniates to their deaths, kill " Moskals", and strengthen themselves for the inevitable post war power play.

THEN they'll take over completely and go after the Jews.

I doubt you'd support their national self determination then, but then it would be too late: a Nazi Ukraine, no doubt armed with nuclear weapons, and supporting Fascist revolution everywhere.

Thanks for the links. Very interesting, especially this guy Andriy Parubiy. He looks very dangerous, but I have not been able to find current information about him. Does he still have any official position in the Ukranian government? In any case, the fact that this guy ever got to a high level in the government says there is an effective far-right block in Ukraine. That is disturbing. Would he be a likely person to replace Zelensky, or some other guy you haven’t named?

I don’t understand how you can say that Russia will win this war with Ukraine and yet fascists will come to power in Ukraine, kill Zelensky, persecute Jews, end democracy, etc. Would not that mean Putin’s “denazification” objective was a failure? Or does Russia “winning” the war simply mean Putin annexes more land from eastern Ukraine, while the western part remains intact and transitions toward fascism? Please clarify.

I will always support constitutional democracy and national self-determination, even when I do not like the results of elections. You work within the system to restore them in the next election, as we did in 2020 to defeat Trump. As I said in another thread, if we elect someone like Trump who aspires to autocracy and succeeds in making free and fair elections impossible, then, and only then, would I support violent overthrow of a dictator, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence. But that is something to be done internally by the people of my country, not with outside military invasions by other countries, as we did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Putin is doing in Ukraine. The exception would be if the country staged its own invasion of another country as Germany did in WW2. Then you take whatever is necessary to force them back within their own borders. Nothing more, nothing less. I totally oppose “nation building” as we attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was doomed from the start. If the people of Afghanistan or Iran choose theocracy over democracy, that is their decision. I prefer a free society where you and everyone can practice whatever religion you want, but not invading the country, installing my own puppet government, as we did in Afghanistan, and expect any different result than what we got after 20 years of military and economic involvement.

[annatar1914]

Thanks for the links. Very interesting, especially this guy Andriy Parubiy. He looks very dangerous, but I have not been able to find current information about him. Does he still have any official position in the Ukranian government? In any case, the fact that this guy ever got to a high level in the government says there is an effective far-right block in Ukraine. That is disturbing. Would he be a likely person to replace Zelensky, or some other guy you haven’t named?

I don’t understand how you can say that Russia will win this war with Ukraine and yet fascists will come to power in Ukraine, kill Zelensky, persecute Jews, end democracy, etc. Would not that mean Putin’s “denazification” objective was a failure? Or does Russia “winning” the war simply mean Putin annexes more land from eastern Ukraine, while the western part remains intact and transitions toward fascism? Please clarify.

I will always support constitutional democracy and national self-determination, even when I do not like the results of elections. You work within the system to restore them in the next election, as we did in 2020 to defeat Trump. As I said in another thread, if we elect someone like Trump who aspires to autocracy and succeeds in making free and fair elections impossible, then, and only then, would I support violent overthrow of a dictator, as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence. But that is something to be done internally by the people of my country, not with outside military invasions by other countries, as we did in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Putin is doing in Ukraine. The exception would be if the country staged its own invasion of another country as Germany did in WW2. Then you take whatever is necessary to force them back within their own borders. Nothing more, nothing less. I totally oppose “nation building” as we attempted in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was doomed from the start. If the people of Afghanistan or Iran choose theocracy over democracy, that is their decision. I prefer a free society where you and everyone can practice whatever religion you want, but not invading the country, installing my own puppet government, as we did in Afghanistan, and expect any different result than what we got after 20 years of military and economic involvement.

For @Verv , and @Potemkin , also

@Hakeer :

Good questions, which I will try to answer best I can.

What I do know about the present day Bandera Nazi organizations and their open ( as opposed to sub rosa politics) activities, is that groups like C-14 rebranded strategically as long as the Western money keeps flowing, but that won't last long because the ideology remains as does the militant activity.

The denazification and demilitarization operations were necessary from the Russian perspective. " Winning" is different in meaning to the leadership than my viewpoint or someone else's perhaps, but I'm sure of one thing: the Ukraine and it's frontiers are not going to be those of the 1991 independence, itself based on the internal Ukrainian SSR frontiers of the Soviet Union era.

Since I'm not a mind reader and can only read my own mind ( even that imperfectly to be sure). I may be so bold as to aver my own opinion, as startling or a bit crazy as it may seem to some. Here it goes:

The Soviet Union never legally ceased to exist in 1991. Whatever exists politically in it's place is a usurping power that however has varying prudential validity to exist or not to the individual person living in the Soviet Space. However strictly speaking toleration of the status quo in the so called " former Soviet Union" is a matter that requires rectification at some point. Peacefully and through an organized process I should think.

Again I'd like to recapitulate:

Many more died than the reported accounts.

Russia and the Ukraine are thus not at war now as two legal entities in my opinion and for what that's worth. Organized military patriotic forces ( aware or otherwise of this on some level) are engaged against fascist forces on legally Soviet territories, as part of a periodic resumption of the anti revolutionary versus revolutionary struggle ongoing since October 1917 to today.

Note what the Ukrainian soldier admits to, being a Banderite, mocking an old woman:

You can see what her country is to her. But she's not alone, numerous examples abound. Here's one:

This wasn't the last word in history:

So my idea of victory is quite specific in some ways but maybe broader and more encompassing than others idea of victory might be.

Victory certainly doesn't involve leaving an opportunity for a nuclear armed Nazi Ukraine to ever exist, not just for the sake of the region but also the whole world.

[Hakeer]

As you know, I support democracy. From my perspective, both the creation and dissolution of the USSR would have been more acceptable had it been the result of free elections by all the people involved in the decision, rather than only the political leaders of three countries. So, it was undemocratic in both its creation and dissolution, but so was the government of the USSR with its one-party rule.

I am still not clear about what you expect will happen in Ukraine. Will Russia just get some of the land in the east, and the west will remain and become fascist? Or will Putlin overtake the whole country with military and install a new government loyal to Putin, as we tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that were to happen, I don’t see how Ukraine possibly ends up with a fascist government, unless that happens years after a counter-insurgency such as Afghanistan did to finally get Russia and the U.S. out of their country.

[annatar1914]

As you know, I support democracy. From my perspective, both the creation and dissolution of the USSR would have been more acceptable had it been the result of free elections by all the people involved in the decision, rather than only the political leaders of three countries. So, it was undemocratic in both its creation and dissolution, but so was the government of the USSR with its one-party rule.

I am still not clear about what you expect will happen in Ukraine. Will Russia just get some of the land in the east, and the west will remain and become fascist? Or will Putlin overtake the whole country with military and install a new government loyal to Putin, as we tried in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that were to happen, I don’t see how Ukraine possibly ends up with a fascist government, unless that happens years after a counter-insurgency such as Afghanistan did to finally get Russia and the U.S. out of their country.

@Hakeer :

The Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 was not at all " undemocratic", but representative of the Soviets that the people had organized organically after the forced abdication of the Tsar, overthrew the unrepresentative so called " Provisional Government" of the fake " February Revolution" of the dictator Kerensky, which had come to power in a coup.

As far as I can tell, there will be no insurgency in the Ukraine, because all the Bandera will be dead as they've been doing so far. The nearest analogue to destroying them all now so as to avoid an irregular conflict for years later, was the strategy of General Franco:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ebro

Beyond that, I cannot speculate as to the planning, beyond deliberate slow grinding attrition

[Hakeer]

@Hakeer :

The Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 was not at all " undemocratic", but representative of the Soviets that the people had organized organically after the forced abdication of the Tsar, overthrew the unrepresentative so called " Provisional Government" of the fake " February Revolution" of the dictator Kerensky, which had come to power in a coup.

As far as I can tell, there will be no insurgency in the Ukraine, because all the Bandera will be dead as they've been doing so far. The nearest analogue to destroying them all now so as to avoid an irregular conflict for years later, was the strategy of General Franco:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ebro

Beyond that, I cannot speculate as to the planning, beyond deliberate slow grinding attrition

My understanding is that they actually had a free election in November, 2017. Lenin and the Bolsheviks lost badly (25% of votes), but they refused to accept the results. Lenin subsequently became USSR’s first dictator.

I was saying that if Putin does a full-scale military occupation of the whole country, there will surely be a counter-insurgency like we had in Iraq and both Russia and U.S. had in Afghanistan for many years.

The Spainish civil war was a civil war, not the military of one country against another. I know that you don’t see Ukraine as a nation with a nationalistic identity, but they do. Nearly all the men in Ukraine fighting this war were never USSR citizens. In the long run (years), Russia could end up leaving Ukraine as Russia and U.S. finally did in Afghanistan. In that case, some radical-right party could emerge in Ukraine.