Bulgaria and Lithuania fear they could be next on Russia's hit-list but U.S. Vice President Joe Biden promises: 'We're in this with you'

I think you’re right.

How does someone call themselves a Catholic and compare a man to Hitler? Putin has less blood on his hands than the west and yet you compare him in likeness to one of the most evil men that ever set foot on this planet.


He didn’t compare Putin in severity to Hitler, he compared him in strategy.

One can apply the lessons of history even when the relative stakes of two situations are not as high. Granted Hitler citation are tiresomely common, but the comparison to Sudetenland is quite accurate.

I don’t know Putin personally. None of us does. I have a low opinion of him because of two things:

  1. His political enemies have a way of dying mysteriously or being locked away in prison indefinitely without any definite crime having been committed.
  2. A.S. Solzhenitsyn, who very exhaustively studied and documented what it was to be a KGB agent, (or one of their victims) opined that one could not even be a KGB agent without being an inveterate criminal, and to rise high in the organization required a very high degree of serious, even deadly, criminality. It’s too bad more people don’t read his works, as they are very enlightening, especially to those westerners who tend to see evil only in the open societies.

You may think Putin has “less blood on his hands than the west”, but that presupposes a judgment that the actions of the west were and are evil acts. That is nowhere near being a “given”. That could be argued almost endlessly, and is. But the asserted evils of the west are not what this thread is about. It’s about whether Putin’s Russia presents a credible threat to other former Soviet states. They obviously think so, and one must then address whether one has good reason to think they’re wrong in having that fear.

The trouble in the Ukraine wasn’t started by Russian President Putin. The UN are the ones who made an illegal move to try to take possession of Ukraine when it was Russia’s. Putin’s actions have been defensive in response to a UN power grab attempt. It would be like if Russia tried to take Alaska from the United States. The United States would not just let it happen. So we shouldn’t expect Putin to not react defensively when someone is trying to take over one of their territories. The UN has been trying all sorts of ways to punish Putin for not going along with the gay agenda and because they can’t stand how Russia is going back to being a Christian nation. First it was them sending gays to protest him at the Olympics, and now this. So I don’t agree with you.

The Ukraine does not belong to Russia, it belongs to the Ukrainians. Putin had no right invading Crimea, just like he had no right to invade Georgia (in 2008). Moreover, this has nothing to do with the gay rights agenda, i.e., it’s about Russian imperialism.

P.S. Putin’s hold on Russia is anything but Christian.

The UN is the one that is acting imperialist. They are acting like they want a one-world government. Ukraine may not have been technically part of Russia, but Russia has more right to claim it than the UN does. And the real reason behind this UN-staged revolution is because Putin made the gay activists angry because he wasn’t going to go along with the gay agenda. It’s a smoke screen.

Sounds like America too.

Torturing people, locking people away indefinitely in Cuba, bombing countries at will, arming and training the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein against Iran, depleted uranium shells against civilians, abusing Iraqis ad nauseam.

You cannot compare Crimea to the Sudetenland, Hitler wanted to wipe out the Jews and retaking the Sudetenland was just a stepping stone to his 1000 year Reich. Putin is not acting like this, he doesn’t want to wipe anybody out, he doesn’t want to swallow up the whole of Europe, he was just protecting the ethnic Russians. Maybe the west would feel ore comfortable if he had gone in with bombers and tanks destroying homes and killing tens of thousands of innocent people.

America is annoyed because they wanted Black Sea bases for themselves just like Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian oil.

Whether the UN wants a world government does not signify, Russia CANNOT invade another country, moreover, the Ukrainian revolution was about a country seeking self-determination and eschewing corruptive forces, i.e., this is not about the UN or the EU or the West or Russia, it’s about the majority of Ukrainians who want freedom and prosperity for their country. Trying to claim it was staged is an insult to all those who participated (and there were millions) and died (the protests were even supported by the UGCC and UOC who held the government culpable for the violence).

All the gay stuff aside, I don’t think it is particularly relevant to the question whether Ukrainians are or ought to be a nation in their own right, or whether the country is an artificial construct of the U.N.

Unfortunately Ukraine is a divided place. It always has been. Interesting that people often speak of it as “The Ukraine”. Ukrainians find that offensive and insist on “Ukraine”. Why have we in the west so long referred to it as “The Ukraine”? There might be better reasons than the following, but possibly because it has been a “region” for such a long period in history that we have come to think of it in that way.

And there’s some truth to it, and much of the reason why it’s the truth is tragic. Crimea was an incessant battleground between Turks, Tatars and Cossacks. It was long regarded in the region as an outlaw sanctuary and not much more. Much of Ukraine was ruled by Tsarist Russia. Much of it was ruled by Poland. Much was ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire. And much of it was incomparably rich farm land, divided and redivided among various powers. And so, it was not surprisingly thought of as a “region”; “the Ukraine”.

But in the collective memory of Ukrainians, there was the fact that once, Ukraine was the center of the universe among the east Slavs; far richer and more important than Muscovy. But it was torn to shreds. Crimea, ultimately, was conquered by the Tsars who sent the Cossacks who were loyal to the Tsars to conquer those Cossacks, Tatars and all who were not.

And, of course, much of those occupations and divisions had cultural consequences. And the Soviet genocide and replacement of much of the population with ethnic Russians had an effect; a tragic one that Ukrainians who truly think of themselves as “Ukrainians”, not Russians, realize.

In one of the “Gulag” volumes, Solzhenitsyn speaks of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine; Russians and Ukrainians, at great length. Russia, he opined, could not find its own soul until it allowed Ukrainians their freedom. He did lament that the relationship, which was almost one of identity at one time (days of the Kievan Rus) had become so terribly bad that strong linguistic and ethnic similarities might not be enough to persuade Ukrainians that a relationship with Russia could ever be anything other than total separation. He rather thought the relationship could not, due to history, be close ever again. With his new imperialism, Putin has, I am sure, sealed the feeling among ethnic Ukrainians that Russia can never be anything but an enemy.

That Ukraine is divided cannot be denied. I have, at times, talked to Eastern Ukrainians who utterly identify with Russia and disparagingly sometimes refer to Western Ukrainians as “Poles”, and Western Ukrainians who despise everything about Russia and feel no affinity with Russians whatever, precisely because they know where the "Ukrainian Russians’ loyalty really lies. I have talked to Crimean Tatars who don’t trust either one, but don’t trust Russia more. Crimea can be thought of as a microcosm of the divisions that so fatally divide Ukraine.

There may be no cure for the hostilities other than separation. Ukrainians can’t do that without being accused of “ethnic cleansing” and giving Russia an excuse to conquer the whole country. Russia can do it because it doesn’t care what the west calls it. And Russia, presently in the process of “ethnically cleansing” Crimea will, I suspect, do it in more of Ukraine than just Crimea.

The reality is that ethnic Ukrainians would live with Russians in the country if they would accept that Ukraine ought not be simply another part of Russia. Personally, from what I have heard, I don’t think Russians within Ukraine share that sentiment. Russian xenophobia might be second only to that of Han Chinese, but it would be a close second.

I think if one lived in Russia for awhile as a dissident, one would find one’s fate much different from that of being a dissident in America.

Not wanting to start the incessant argument over Iraq, it may be worth noting that the Kurds, the Sunni tribal leaders and many of the Shiites begged America to stay. One can argue over their reasons or their rationality in doing so, but that they did is simply a fact.

It should be noted too that Hitler really did use the exact same rationale in the Sudetenland; “to protect ethnic Germans” who, he claimed falsely, were being abused by the Czechs.

Russia is in the process of “ethnically cleansing” Crimea of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars. And that’s a fact as well.

And America has ports of call in the Black Sea, and has had for a long time. America also agreed to the Russian lease of Sevastopol. America didn’t need Sevastopol and never tried to get it. One can make an argument that the U.S. really was trying to protect the world’s oil supply in Iraq and other places by deposing Saddam Hussein. But there’s not enough oil in Syria for anybody to care about, which is why Syria is a net importer of oil, and has been for decades.

I do agree that Obama’s war on Libya was a foolish and arrogant mistake, just as his backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was.

That is a very uninformed statement.
I am no friend of Obama, and I most certainly do not like the way he jokes about droning the Jonas brothers if they don’t treat his daughters right, or jokingly remind comedians that are interviewing him about all the armed national guardsmen that surround him (so people better be careful with the zingers against him), but John McCain, or Sarah Palin, or Mitt Romney or any of a number of Obama’s political enemies do NOT have a way of disappearing if they oppose Obama a little too much.

The America media for sure do make a habit of kissing the butt of this president, but they do so because they like to kiss his butt, and not because they are in any danger of disappearing if they don’t. There have been any number of embarrassing and outrageous exposures of Obama by certain segments of the American media, and they operate with impunity.

That is not to say that Obama does not abuse his power—certainly the maker of the Mohammed videos disappeared for a few years in prison—, but the situations with Obama and Putin when it comes to freedom are in now way comparable.

Huh? Russia CAN invade another country (see Crimea). Whether they should or not is up for debate.

This is of no concern to the United States. We have our own kettle of fish to deal with. We do not have the resources, the money or the time to deal with this. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the Pentagon is downsizing troops by the thousands. We are not the world’s policemen.

Holy Cow! It happened again. I agree with livingwordunity. :smiley:

Saw on Fox news, oh yea we get Fox in Ireland, that Mitt Romney debated this with Mr Obama about the threat of Russia, and Mr Obama laughed up his sleeve at it, who’s laughing now ?


It is not up for debate, i.e., what Russia did was immoral and against international law, hence the reason I said “cannot”, i.e., I did not mean to imply that they hadn’t.

The UN who make and enforce “international law” are the same ones who are trying to pressure the Vatican to drop her moral teachings on homosexuality and abortion. The notion of “international law” sounded good at first, but it is now opening the way for a hedonistic one-world government.

I never said I liked the UN, moreover, the UN creates resolutions rather than laws, i.e., international laws were put in place way before the UN was even created, and there is a reason why they’re there. Moreover, the UN cannot enforce the Vatican to do anything it does not want to, simply because it does not have the means to enforce it, hence the reason most UN resolutions go unheeded.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.