Reflections on the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Airstrikes on a monastery that is housing refugees:

"Metropolitan Arseniy commented on the airstrike on the Sviatogorsk Lavra.

The abbot of the Sviatogorsk Lavra, Metropolitan Arseniy, in his video message called madness the shelling of the monastery, which does not and cannot have any military facilities.

The bishop of the UOC said that the Assumption Cathedral of the monastery, as well as the monastery hotel, which accommodates 520 refugees from Kharkiv and Izium, including 200 children, were damaged as a result of the bomb fall. Among them are those wounded by glass fragments.

“At the time of the airstrike, there were about 10,000 civilians living in Sviatogorsk along with the refugees. There were no military units on the territory of Sviatogorsk and the Sviatogorsk Lavra," Metropolitan Arseniy stressed. “In other words, the attack hit a peaceful city and one of Ukraine's three Orthodox shrines – the Holy Dormition Sviatogorsk Lavra.”

The bishop called it madness "to make airstrikes on civilians and people who fled from the war because of the bombing." Metropolitan Arseniy said that medical assistance had been provided to the wounded. However, according to the information he has, a second airstrike is being prepared.

“I as the abbot of the Holy Dormition Sviatogorsk Lavra, urge everyone on whom it depends to stop this madness, the bombing, the strikes on absolutely peaceful cities,” the metropolitan said."

from https://spzh.news/

You know, last night whilst my wife was on a Zoom call thingy, I put on Amused to Death, and then I read mine and other collabs reviews of the work.

suitkees wrote: @Lorenzo: I honestly don't think that underlining the hypocrisy of Western politics makes us better understand the reasons of Russian invasion of Ukraine - there is as much, if not more, hypocrisy to be found in Eastern politics. This can only become an up-bidding of examples of hypocrisy, lies, broken promises, etc. that will - in my opinion - only get us bogged down more into binary thought instead of getting us out of that. In my opinion, NATO expansion can only be considered as a menace from a Russian (Putinist?) point of view. For the Eastern European countries that became member of NATO, it is/was rather a guarantee to not fall again under a Russian domination/dependence, be it economic or military. (Also: NATO is not a country and cannot be taken as a synonym for the USA. Don't forget, as an example, that USA's proposal of an Ukrainian membership of NATO was vetoed by Germany and France in 2008). Since the creation of the Community of Independent States by Yeltsin in 1991, it became rather clear that a "partnership" with Russia meant just a new domination by that country. The Visegrad and GUAM countries didn't want that and would rather protect their new found sovereignty. To guarantee that sovereignty a membership of NATO seem(ed) a logical step. Transnistria (1992), Chechnya (1994-1996), Georgia (2008), Ukraine (2014 and now) only prove them right: their sovereignty is under threat. Russian sovereignty has never been under threat; that perception is just that: a perception. And this feeds the narrative and discourse that Putin wants to make us believe in. For me, the central questioning in all this should not be the (perceived) menace - of a Russian or a NATO expansion - but the sovereignty of countries. In these last 30 years, Russia has not a very good track record in respecting the sovereignty of countries...

Edited by jamesbaldwin - March 14 2022 at 05:22

@Lorenzo.  This has been asked before, but I'll ask it again: Do you really think that Putin will go no further if he gets those concessions? And isn't it a coincidence that he's destroying the buffer between himself and NATO with merciless bombing? And for what purpose? Defense or offense?

Edited by SteveG - March 14 2022 at 06:19

Archisorcerus wrote: tszirmay wrote: The Otto von Bismarck quote is nowhere near bigotry at all, it was a wartime comment by a famous statesmen  , it is not intended as a slight to the Russian race , Bigotry encompasses racism, but is not necessarily limited to it. This sounded like a huge generalisation. Thanks for clarifying.

jamesbaldwin wrote: SteveG wrote: @Lorenzo.  This has been asked before, but I'll ask it again: Do you really think that Putin will go no further if he gets those concessions? And isn't it a coincidence that he's destroying the buffer between himself and NATO with merciless bombing? And for what purpose? Defense or offense? I hope that Putin and Zelenskij will agree as soon as possible on the three points requested by Putin. According to the Israeli press (Walla News and Jerusalem Post), Bennett would have asked Zelenskij to accept those conditions. I hope Putin doesn't ask for more, but I'm not sure. In the position of military advantage that he is in, he could do it. For Ukraine, the most important thing should be stop the war, stop the killings and the devastations, and  maintain its sovereignty. If Putin complies with the required points, Zelensky may be able to keep the government of Ukraine. Putin's war on Ukraine is wreaking havoc on cities, and obviously, like any war, what it gets is disproportionate to the damages it does.  Russia, however, made little use of airplanes to bomb, resulting in a relatively low number of civilian deaths when we take into account how many buildings have been destroyed. Instead, there are many refugees, people who have fled even if, in most cases, their home has not been destroyed. There are two millions of refugees so far and all of them will fall on the shoulders of European countries that have never accepted so many refugees in such a short time. During the first week of the war, European countries accepted more Ukrainian refugees than they accept in one year of all refugees from Africa and Asia. This means that the policy of the right-wing parties on the acceptance of migrants is hypocritical and racist. It is not a coincidence. Ukraine had become a nation with NATO weapons and bases, although it was not a part of it. Putin has decided to invade it, to destroy laboratories and military bases, along with unfortunately much more. And to ask that Ukraine sign an agreement in which it declares itself neutral. In this way, Putin has shown the US that it cannot cross the red line established by Moscow, consisting of Ukraine and Belarus. What Putin does is aimed at the US. Ukraine is merely the victim of a clash between the two superpowers. But if he gets what he wants, I don't see what else Putin can do in the middle of the Europe. Putin cannot extend his rule beyond Belarus and Ukraine.  The problem for Europe will be what to do after this war. Europe will have to understand what it wants for itself and for the relations it has with Russia. Does it make sense to be just a monetary union, without having its own politics and its own army? Furthermore, there could be new inter-ethnic clashes in Europe, after all it is from the war in Yugoslavia that in Europe there are problems of independence everywhere (the case of Scotland and Catalonia are not yet resolved) According to the Italian analyst Orsini, Putin's next target will be Georgia, another borderland.

omphaloskepsis wrote: King of Loss wrote: jamesbaldwin wrote: SteveG wrote: @Lorenzo.  This has been asked before, but I'll ask it again: Do you really think that Putin will go no further if he gets those concessions? And isn't it a coincidence that he's destroying the buffer between himself and NATO with merciless bombing? And for what purpose? Defense or offense? I hope that Putin and Zelenskij will agree as soon as possible on the three points requested by Putin. According to the Israeli press (Walla News and Jerusalem Post), Bennett would have asked Zelenskij to accept those conditions. I hope Putin doesn't ask for more, but I'm not sure. In the position of military advantage that he is in, he could do it. For Ukraine, the most important thing should be stop the war, stop the killings and the devastations, and  maintain its sovereignty. If Putin complies with the required points, Zelensky may be able to keep the government of Ukraine. Putin's war on Ukraine is wreaking havoc on cities, and obviously, like any war, what it gets is disproportionate to the damages it does.  Russia, however, made little use of airplanes to bomb, resulting in a relatively low number of civilian deaths when we take into account how many buildings have been destroyed. Instead, there are many refugees, people who have fled even if, in most cases, their home has not been destroyed. There are two millions of refugees so far and all of them will fall on the shoulders of European countries that have never accepted so many refugees in such a short time. During the first week of the war, European countries accepted more Ukrainian refugees than they accept in one year of all refugees from Africa and Asia. This means that the policy of the right-wing parties on the acceptance of migrants is hypocritical and racist. It is not a coincidence. Ukraine had become a nation with NATO weapons and bases, although it was not a part of it. Putin has decided to invade it, to destroy laboratories and military bases, along with unfortunately much more. And to ask that Ukraine sign an agreement in which it declares itself neutral. In this way, Putin has shown the US that it cannot cross the red line established by Moscow, consisting of Ukraine and Belarus. What Putin does is aimed at the US. Ukraine is merely the victim of a clash between the two superpowers. But if he gets what he wants, I don't see what else Putin can do in the middle of the Europe. Putin cannot extend his rule beyond Belarus and Ukraine.  The problem for Europe will be what to do after this war. Europe will have to understand what it wants for itself and for the relations it has with Russia. Does it make sense to be just a monetary union, without having its own politics and its own army? Furthermore, there could be new inter-ethnic clashes in Europe, after all it is from the war in Yugoslavia that in Europe there are problems of independence everywhere (the case of Scotland and Catalonia are not yet resolved) According to the Italian analyst Orsini, Putin's next target will be Georgia, another borderland. Fairly accurate assessment.  I also apologize for my comment above. I concur.  However, I doubt Russia will allow Zelenskyy to continue as Ukraine's leader. Rumors swirl that America is preparing Zelenskyy to rule Ukraine in Exile.  Zelenskyy owns a Florida mansion.

I think that Putin will allow Zelenskyy to continue, until he's poisoned and a puppet leader is "voted' in a "fair and unbiased election." Btw, I'm slowly growing to trust the NATO leaders, as they seem to have cooler heads than many I've encountered concerning this disaster.

Edited by SteveG - March 14 2022 at 10:14

Re Steve G: Yes, a big part of this invasion probably has to do with Zelensky not being a putin puppet, and poison is usually putin's way of dealing with those who don't agree with him.

Edited by Easy Money - March 14 2022 at 10:53

Not only Finland, but Turkey is also seeing the arrival of Russian dissidents: