Over the last month or more, I have had several people ask me how I view the war in Ukraine. I have shared my thoughts in various ways on social media, and on my blog, I have focused on dealing with the biblical support for the concept of non-interventionism. A lot of people today just brush aside non-interventionism[1] as a serious position on foreign policy. However, though it may be a relative minority position, today, it is a well-considered position and one held by a notable statesman like Thomas Jefferson himself:
“ENTANGLING ALLIANCES. Contrary to common belief, the phrase “entangling alliances” was turned by Thomas Jefferson, not George Washington. Washington advised against “permanent alliances,” whereas Jefferson, in his inaugural address on 4 March 1801, declared his devotion to “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” It is a pet phrase of isolationists warning against foreign commitments.”
Of course, as esteemed a figure as Jefferson was, and as absolutely correct as he was on the foolishness of locking your country into foreign alliances, he is just one man. Hence, as a minister, I thought it was of much more value to explore the Biblical theology of non-interventionism and alliances and I will continue to do so, with more writings forthcoming. But what about the war in Ukraine itself? I have not avoided discussing it, with many posts looking at different aspects of the war on my social media pages. But I have decided to finally address it in a blog itself: How to view the war in Ukraine?
This is both a simple question and a complex question. It is simple because there is really only one correct way to view the war; the accurate way, and it is complex because most people cannot agree on what that way is. This is partly because of the natural fog of war. There is often a lack of clarity during war about what is happening because both sides are seeking to deceive each other, but it is also because overall the western media has picked a very clear side and perspective and they are hitting that perspective hard. To such a degree that even those who should know better not to trust them are largely following along with that narrative. So, we will now evaluate the different ways people view this conflict. There are variations of these positions, and these are just generalizations, but the following three views broadly account for the main lenses through which to view this conflict.
For the average normie who relies on the media, Putin is a big authoritarian bully who is picking on his poor and innocent neighbour that did nothing to provoke the attack. This is essentially the consistent message of western media and elites.[2] Now, even though we have zero reasons to trust our elites and leadership or media, the relentlessly consistent attack of their rhetoric and visual aids in unison presenting this theme is too much for most people to see through or shake. Therefore, for most normies, on either side of the political spectrum, Putin has committed an unjust war against a weaker power, and we must do all, or as much as we at least reasonably, can do, to stop him. This narrative has the added benefit of helping people feel like the inflation they are suffering is a just pain, and a necessary contribution to the effort to stop evil. This view is that a big power is picking on a little power.
The next category of people are the more informed conservatives, who know our media is dishonest but still can only see Putin’s act as an authoritarian attack on liberty and democracy. This is because this view starts from the premise that Putin and/or Russia are inherently evil. Many people in this camp are far better informed historically and even of the recent context. They also know that the media and elites cannot be trusted, but neither can Putin, and they believe they just “happen to agree” with the media, in this one instance. They argue that they take each situation and media narrative on its own merits. They know that both sides have every reason to lie, our elites – because it is what they do, and Putin – because that is what leaders at war do to their enemies. They know there is an information battle happening.
They even know that to some degree western forces have provoked this war by foolish actions overseas, and therefore they have a more nuanced reason for saying Putin must be stopped: our elites may be bad, but Putin is worse; he is the reincarnation of Stalin, the embodiment of Hitler returned (people forget those two were mortal enemies), and he is proving it by raping and pillaging his way across a smaller power to build his empire or rebuild the Soviet Union. They know the West has been aggressive on the world stage, but they now say, “But this war of Putin’s shows it was justified aggression.”[3] Yes, our elites are bad guys, but they are the leaders we have in this time, so we need to get behind them in their effort to contain the Soviet threat 2.0. This is just a more informed version of the first position, based on reading history, but incorrectly reading history[4] into Putin and his actions.
Then there is the view that completely shuts out the western media perspective; is not convinced that all things Russian are inherently evil, and takes a broader historical approach to what is happening. It recognizes this war began in 2014 with the US aided coup of Ukraine, but also recognizes something of the Thucydides trap[5] that we find ourselves in today. Rather than seeing Putin as the embodiment of evil, and the western elites as flawed people seeking to achieve justice and liberty in the world, this view sees what is correctly happening: we are seeing the decline of the U.S. Empire, and the results of its efforts to maintain that power, and the ability of nations to move against it now that it is weakening. This, in my opinion, is the correct way to view the war in Ukraine, which best accounts for all that is happening. This war is not a border crisis between a major power and minor power. It is a war between a regional power and the global aggressive empire, with the minor power caught in the middle.
This view does not see Putin as our saviour, or our side as righteous. It views what is happening through the lens of power politics. The United States, or really, the global empire, has been continually throwing its weight around since the fall of the Soviet Union, encroaching closer and closer to past and present enemies, and is willing to do all that it can to maintain its power. Because of this recklessness, the United States has pushed its forces all the way to borders of Russia, a regional power that said it would not stand for such a situation. The correct way to view this war is that a regional power is drawing a line in the sand with the global power, and the global power is pulling out all stops, with its information supremacy, to make a defensive war look like an offensive war.
If you deny that this is a fight between Russia and American globalism you are just not being honest or aren’t really informed about the situation. For example, the US is bragging about having been in Ukraine since at least 2014:
The U.S. Army’s Special Forces, better known as Green Berets, have had a deep impact on Ukraine’s fight to defend itself from a Russian invasion, despite not being directly involved in the conflict.
Ukraine was taken very seriously by Special Forces,” retired Green Beret Sgt. Maj. Martin Moore told Fox News Digital.
After Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, a move that faced minimal resistance, the Ukrainian military began an effort to modernize its forces to prepare for possible further Russian incursions into the country. The U.S. military also quickly stepped in to help, with the Army’s Green Berets taking on a critical role in training Ukrainian forces.
America has been interfering in Ukraine for some time.
This war is really a war between globo-homo[6] and a nationalist power that has decided to say to the globalist powers, no further. This does not make Russia our friend. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. But Russia is opposing the globalist powers, and those of us who are opposed to globalism is watching this with fascination because if Russia is successful this sets globo-homo on the back foot and forces it to retreat. This may be painful in the short term because there will be national instability, but in the long term, this will allow more nations to take their sovereignty back. Hence, why so many people are not condemning Putin and his autocracy. Because from our perspective a nationalist autocrat is saying no to the globalist autocrats, and we have been waiting for world leaders to oppose the globalists system for some time. Even Trump never really achieved much on this front.
America might say that Putin is not the good guy. I would just respond that the Galactic Empire has no credibility to judge Jabba the Hut for his activities.
But because how you see this conflict is a matter of the lens you are viewing this through and a result of the information you have at your disposal, I have decided to share at least one very good source which I use to keep informed; the Unz Review, and particularly Mike Whitney. Here is an extended excerpt from one of Whitney’s latest pieces:
Why is NATO sending more lethal weaponry to Ukraine? Didn’t Putin say that poring arms into Ukraine would increase the likelihood of war?
Yes, he did, but the US and NATO continue send more shipments anyway. Why?
And why does Ukraine need more weapons?
Could it be that Ukraine’s 600,000-strong military is collapsing like a trailer park in a hurricane? Is that it? Is that why NATO had an emergency confab in Brussels on Thursday to restate their support for a NATO-trained army that has not successfully launched even one major counteroffensive against the Russian military?
The media insists that the Russian offensive “has stalled”. Is that what you call it when your opponent captures an area the size of the UK in less than 3 weeks or when all your air and naval assets have been obliterated or when your Command-and-Control centers have gone up in smoke or when most of your combat troops are either encircled by Russian forces or fleeing to locations west of the Dnieper River? Is that what “stalled” looks like?
Do you get the impression that the media is not being entirely straightforward in their coverage of the war in Ukraine? Do you think that maybe their WEF-linked owners might have a dog in this fight? Here’s how Archbishop Vigano summed it up recently in an article linking “Covid tyranny” to the war in Ukraine:
“The ideological continuity between the pandemic farce and the Russian-Ukrainian crisis continues to emerge, beyond the evidence of the events and statements of the subjects involved, in the fact that the ultimate perpetrators of both are the same, all attributable to the globalist cabal of the World Economic Forum.” (“Exclusive: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò”, Gateway Pundit)
Truer words were never spoken. It’s all manipulation by globalist “stakeholders” pursuing their own narrow interests. As for the war, check out this analysis from a post at Larry Johnson’s new blog A Son of the New American Revolution. I can’t vouch for the author, but he sounds a lot more credible than CNN:
“Official claims of a major Ukrainian counteroffensive near Kiev are completely fake; it’s totally made-up, it never happened—they simply don’t have a coherent military force in the Kiev area that’s capable of conducting an organized counteroffensive. All they have in and around Kiev is various bits and pieces including police and army special forces, civilian militia, regular police, some air defense, and a few artillery batteries. It’s not an offensive force—it’s a crazy quilt. …
What’s left of the Ukrainian army east of the Dniepr river is running out of diesel, and should be out of tube and rocket artillery munitions (and in fact, artillery) by the first week of April. Outside of the Donbass, it’s a war of attrition, with Russia wearing away the Ukraine’s ability to fight, using stand-off weapons (air and missiles) first and foremost. On Sunday, Russia hit a cache of munitions that was being hidden—Hamas-style—at a “vacant” retail and sports complex in downtown Kiev. Russia is finding tons and tons of Ukrainian army materiel, and methodically destroying them….
Russian and Donetsk/Lugansk forces have picked up so many U.S. and British antitank weapons, it’s visually documented they’re now using them on the battlefield. …
…Yes, but can the author be trusted?
I don’t know but– let’s face it– when the media lies relentlessly for 4 years about “Russian collusion” followed by another 2 years of “Everyone’s going to die from the flu”; any critical thinking person is going to look for other sources of information, right? It’s a credibility issue, and, regrettably, “credibility” is a term that is never applied to the mainstream media.
So, where do we go from here?
Good question; and you can see from NATO’s statement that leaders in Washington and across Europe are determined to throw more gas on the fire. That’s the message they’re sending to the world; ‘We are united in our determination to defeat Russia whether we blow up the planet or not.’ Got it? Here’s a clip from their declaration on Thursday:
“Since 2014, we have provided extensive support to Ukraine’s ability to exercise that right. We have trained Ukraine’s armed forces, strengthening their military capabilities and capacities and enhancing their resilience. NATO Allies have stepped up their support and will continue to provide further political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself. …..We remain determined to maintain coordinated international pressure on Russia. We will continue to coordinate closely with relevant stakeholders and other international organizations, including the European Union.
Russia’s unprovoked war against Ukraine represents a fundamental challenge to the values and norms that have brought security and prosperity to all on the European continent” (“Statement by NATO Heads of State and Government”, NATO)
Are you surprised that NATO would openly boast about arming and training thousands of Ukrainian combatants since 2014?
Well, are you surprised? You can read the rest of this piece here, which I highly recommend. I recommend reviewing other non-mainstream sources, because they discuss information our media just ignores or shrouds in spin.
People often assume those who have a different view to them about a topic are uninformed. This is often true, but not always. Sometimes it is simply because some of us are looking at a far wider range of informative sources. I highly recommend you make use of sources like this, because at the very least they are interesting, but even more importantly, they are not written by our own elites who are highly incentivised to deceive us again and again and again. Liars often lie because if they are caught in their original lie it can have terrible ramifications for them and their position. So, they must continue to grift until it finally collapses, hopefully, after they have long retired to a nice villa somewhere. But there is one thing for certain: you will not get the correct view of the war in Ukraine from those who have consistently lied to you for years now. So, if you find yourself agreeing with them, this should at least give your pause, to re-evaluate, shouldn’t it?
[1] Non-interventionism is not isolationism or pacifism, it is the idea that you don’t entangle yourself to the agendas of other nations, but set your own course with your own people for your own people’s good. You also prepare to defend your nation against any and all enemies.
[2] For example the Australian Prime Minister “Prime Minister Scott Morrison has condemned the “brutal” and “unprovoked” actions of Russia, as its troops launched an attack on eastern Ukraine today,” If you believe gas lighters again and again it’s all on you when you suffer as a result of their lies. If you believe them after you have clearly seen them lie on other issues, I don’t even know how to help you.
[3] Ignoring that aggression begets aggression in return.
[4] And I think certain theologies as well.
[5] “Thucydides Trap, also referred to as Thucydides’s Trap, is a term popularized by American political scientist Graham T. Allison to describe an apparent tendency towards war when an emerging power threatens to displace an existing great power as a regional or international hegemon.” Essentially this happens because the decline of the existing power, or rise of other powers, changes the balance of powers in the world, allowing them to challenge the dominant power. Even if in this case it is not directly.
[6] Globo-homo refers to the globalist immoral empire that pushes its degenerate morality and corrupt power around the globe.
