In his January 14th Angelus remarks, Pope Francis uttered a sentence that deserves thorough analysis and—in my view—is deeply problematic. Talking about military conflict across the world, particularly in “Ukraine, Palestine, and Israel,” Francis said: “In other words, today war is in itself a crime against humanity” (emphasis in original Vatican text). The original: “In altre parole: oggi la guerra è in sé stessa un crimini contra l’umanità.”
What did Francis mean? To adapt Cardinal Pell’s phrase: “Franciscus locutus, confusio augetur” (Francis has spoken, the confusion grows).
Is war “in itself a crime against humanity?” Such a statement is utterly alien to the Catholic moral tradition, which speaks of “just war.” If there is such a thing as a “just” war, war cannot be “in itself” evil. That is not to deny that war has bad consequences and should be avoided, if possible; but that is a profoundly different thing from saying war itself is always wrong.
There are circles in the Vatican and the broader Church that want to scrap just war theory and identify the Catholic position with functional pacificism. I reject those efforts for two reasons.
First, it would require the Church to repudiate her teaching, declaring that what she once deemed just under certain conditions is no longer just. Second, it would deprive Catholic public officials of an ethical framework by which to engage in a defense of countries for which they are responsible, essentially making them morally incapable of preserving their nation’s rights and freedom.
No doubt, the Angelus remarks will be spun, focusing on the “today” (oggi): war today is a crime against humanity.
But what is it about “today” that is novel in the history of warfare, rendering war “in itself” unjust? Francis does not tell us. He implies “it sows death among civilians and destroys cities and infrastructure.”
But if that is what makes war a “crime against humanity,” then there would never be any possibility of self-defense. The model of two armies marching out into the middle of a battlefield, stopping, sounding a trumpet, and then rushing each other, disappeared—except in Narnia movies—over two hundred years ago.
If civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction are the criteria for war “in itself” being immoral (a big “if,” given Francis does not necessarily connect the dots), then the United States was wrong to fight Japan and Germany in the Second World War. Poland—which saw 20% of its prewar population die and its capital systematically reduced to rubble—should have surrendered and instead launched intensive German classes. Because destructive consequences usually affect both sides, this approach would create practical moral equivalency between victim and victimizer.
Noncombatants are entitled to protection. In the cases Francis cites, however, the endangerment of noncombatants come from the aggressor’s battle tactics. Hamas deliberately hides behind human shields. It deliberately co-locates its offensive military capabilities in civilian areas. Russia’s attack strategies are shock-and-awe, designed through three winters to demoralize Ukrainian civilians.
All these practices violate standards of humanitarian and ethical conduct of war. The fact that aggressors resort to them is intentional: they do so to box those who fight by ethical standards into situations where the aggressor immunizes himself against effective retaliation because of the high collateral costs created by human shields.
That is the “crime against humanity” about which Francis needs to speak. It is an abdication of teaching responsibility not to engage with how a victim of aggression may rightly defend himself (a defense which includes ensuring an aggressor cannot repeat the aggression) when the aggressor deliberately incorporates civilians into his fighting strategy. Surrender cannot be the only “moral” choice.
I do not purport to offer a solution, though I suggest we also need to develop a better understanding of the moral responsibilities of a population caught in such circumstances to act in their own self-defense. Eighty years after World War II, we still ask: “How could the Germans have allowed the Nazis to do what they did?” At what point did “Nazi” crimes become “German crimes,” and what is the analogous situation when terrorists co-opt state structures? At what point did Germans have a responsibility for bringing down an unjust aggressor using their territory, their cities, and their legal structures to pursue aggression? When does one stop being a “bystander” and become complicit?
These are the real ethical questions that “war today” poses. But these questions are not new. Once upon a time, the “novel” aspect of contemporary warfare was nuclear war: given the global and possibly unrestrained consequences of thermonuclear warfare, was that kind of war every admissible?
But we seem to have instead slipped backwards, abandoning just war theory as it applies–without banalizing the suffering–to what is quite “conventional” warfare involving quite conventional ethical cheating to gain an advantage. The solution here cannot be to say that fighting to protect your rights is “a crime against humanity.”
One wonders whether the “analysis” here reflects less hard ethical thought and more the attenuated attention span of moderns: a brutal war has lasted 100 days or two years with many casualties, so we have to shut it down, irrespective of what that will bring tomorrow or whether yesterday will be capable of repetition. But is that moral leadership? Or just a news cycle shortcut?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Like with the death penalty being now “inadmissable,” like with Francis emphasis to save the earth, his proclamation of human fraternity and global brotherhood, like his proclamation that hell may be empty, he is fufilling the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen: “a religion without a Cross, a religion without a world to come.” Jesus in fact said that wars “must” come for His Kingdom to come to fulfillment (Matthew 24:6). But first comes the “Great Humanitarian” and his false global peace. The Church today is heading into fulfillment of Catechism 675.
Excellent citation, LJ.
Puts this clown car of a papacy in its proper perspective.
My PhD is in modern European History, with emphasis on Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Both regimes practiced mass extermination. War, which can be defined as the breakdown of moral order, is sometimes dreadfully necessary. It is the lesser of the evils. Today the reality of potential mass extermination by nuclear wars, a reality Our Blessed Mother revealed at Akita, may be what the Holy Father had in mind.
Yes, and yet we are reminded of the somewhat divergent pastoral letters of the 1980s, from the Germany, France and the United States.
The major difference, in my perception, was the framing of the problem itself: (a) the risk of collateral damage or the “slippery slope” into Armageddon (American pastoral), the (b) strategic imbalance of armaments on the eastern front (German pastoral, noting the 3:1 advantage at the time claimed by Soviet tanks versus tactical cruise missiles in the West), and (c) the intrinsic threat of state-sponsored Marxist ideology spreading from the still-intact Soviet Union (French pastoral).
See “The Challenge to Peace” (“Pastoral Letter” of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1983, and whose pacifist theology was separated from the central question of prudential judgment, and confined by consultations with Rome to an appendix—through Cardinal O’Connor); but also James Schall, S.J., who supplied “Out of Justice, Peace” (Joint Pastoral Letter of the West German Bishops) and “Winning the Peace” (Joint Pastoral Letter of the French Bishops), published in one volume by Ignatius Press, 1984.
Our Blessed Is most always provides solutions. If this what Holy father pope Francis has in mind, the emphasis to avoid war he might be referring to should be put on the solutions Our Blessed Mother has given to us, or else someone unpleasant is at the horizon.
For example, our Lady of Fatima spoke the WW ii to the children as the consequences of the humanity to their own way,that is, failure to follow our Blessed Mother’s advice.
Two days ago, I listened to a conference talk by Fr. Chad Ripperger speaking of what Catholics should do in case we do not have access to sacraments.It sounds like there is a big possibility of bad days in the future ( One can listen to the conference talk in the Station of the Cross podcast “Sermons For Everyday Living”.
Very good
Good points.
Allowing evil to mount without resisting- as it as it grows to the point of violence
Recognize we live in Time and Place and have been given responsibility
-we are required to discern and discriminate. Otherwise there is no choice, no intellect , no free will.
Allowing and encouraging chaos by lack of prudence lack of courage lack of trust that we can discern and choose between good and evil. Lack of trust that there is such a thing as Good.
Choosing life is not passive
War is just and needed. They are now using neural weapons to turn kids gay. The eugenics program has been discovered by non-catholics. God sees our intentions, actions and will. Amen!!!
Where does the Pope’s statement leave those of us serving in the profession of arms, and our military chaplains (and Archbishop Broglio)? Does fighting and killing the enemy in defense of our country make us complicit in “crimes against humanity”? The Pope has managed to insult and alienate yet another segment of the faithful.
saying this facetiously, but then a Catholic cannot be in the military?
conscientious objectors only need apply?
Legitimate self defense, such as the Allies in WW2 would be a “just war,” but pre emptive war, such as George W.Bush’s invasion of Iraq is not a just war. The invasion of Iraq was a con job and many naive people went along with it.
The correct distinction is between a war of aggression and a lawful war. A war of aggression is defined by Article 2(4) and (6) of the UN Charter and by customary international law as the use of armed force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. In this light, the war of the Coalition versus Iraq was NOT inconsistent with the purposes of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. UN Security Council Resolution 1483 adopted under Chapter VII certified it as lawful.
Where were those “weapons of mass destruction?” The attack on the U.S., I.e. 9/11 was by the Saudis, not Iraq. I find it curious that you are trying to justify this non just war. Still spouting the W Bush horse manure.
WMD don’t come into it. The use of armed force on that occasion was consistent with the purpose of enforcing the hitherto unexecuted legal consequences of Iraq’s war of aggression against Kuwait: (1) give adequate guarantees against non-repetition; (2) reparation; and (3) just satisfaction including in this case the judicial execution of Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s high-level leadership.
Mr. Petek,
The 50 states that comprise the United States of American had no business being in Iraq. It was a fabricated war developed into a frenzy against Saddam Hussein by the Military Industrial Complex, and led by vice president Dick Cheny, whose former employer Haliburton was in the thick of this quagmire of aggression. Haliburton made billions off of this planned war. Mr. Petek, remember what Jesus said, “the love of money is the root of all evil”.
I advise reading “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” by
Kenneth M. Pollack. This was the intelligence gathered that justified preventing a much much worse scenario for the world, through Saddam Hussein triggering a world wide depression by…well, it is a compelling case with much evidence. He later pivoted, said he was wrong etc, from, i suspect, a desire to be employable, but it is the book that convinced me to support the Iraq invasion, knowing my brother was likely to go since he was in the military (and he did). Nightmares of blood on my hands, but also we have a long military history in our family, and know that sometimes preventing a much worse horror is necessary. I realize many many disagreed then, and since then of course 20/20 hindsight has kicked in, but we make the best choices we can with the information we have.
Will,
For the sake of dialogue, not argument, here’s a variety of complicating factors about the invasion of Iraq…
Like some monarchies, even a tyrant can keep the lid on sectarian discord and warfare, but Hussein was also guilty of chemical-gassing and exterminating between 30 to 60,000 of his people. How long does one standby while watching a gang rape on First Avenue New York?
But, then, there’s the news report, quickly buried, that the Muslim informants to the United States were actually maneuvering outsiders to demolish his sectarian and internal adversaries. And, the report, also quickly buried, that Hussein’s scientists had already destroyed the WMD arsenal, but were too fearful to tell the front office—such that Hussein continued to bluster his threats internationally.
Then, further, yes, there is the sectarian warfare spawned by an invasion itself which proved to be too protracted to keep the lid on internal sectarian strife. But why? Well, the very week before the invasion the second and upper pincer of a quick and decisive two-pincer strategy was removed when Turkey’s Erdogan (responding to its own internal factionalism) withdrew his earlier permission to cross Turkish airspace from the north. The momentum to proceed now from only the south continued, and with costly results.
For purposes of dialogue and with benefit of perspective—more than mere hindsight—what should the perennial Catholic Church be witnessing and saying? In particular instances to a hair-trigger, well-armed, convoluted world, further threatened globally by resurgent Marxism in China and nationalism in Russia, and by anti-incarnational Islam from Morocco to Indonesia, and by insipid Secular Humanism in the West—a complex and labyrinthian world barely living on the vapors of received Revelation and moral clarity?
Synodal and facile harmonization of “polarities” seems not enough.
You say Saddam killed 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqis. How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed as a result of the US invasion? You say the US Forces won a quick victory and they did. They won the war and lost the peace. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein only helped Iran. He was awful but was a counterweight to Iran.
Iraq was a mistake, like Vietnam.
The Iraqi death count is estimated at 281,000 to 315,000. But I did NOT say that the US Forces won a quick victory…quite the opposite. Read more carefully…
The point is that it was not quick as planned, and therefore that too much time elapsed and sectarian violence then had time to break out and ISIS time to establish itself. Too bad the sectarian informants, or Hussein’s blustering about WMD which he reportedly no longer had, or the late withdrawal of Turkish airspace from a pincer invasion strategy, or even the misleading failure of the UN to act on sixteen earlier warnings, or the unanimous endorsement (!) of the UN Security Council for serious consequences (Resolution 1441).
The situation then morphed into whether or how to withdraw once fully engaged, surely not too abruptly as in Afghanistan. That went well.
As an armchair observer I claim no expertise, but am glad to know that some are so clairvoyant as to airbrush the terms “just” and “unjust” on intricate, slippery and, yes, volatile situations, and now to hear in moral desperation that even a measured defensive war (if still possible) is unjust, intrinsically (?).
Iraq was not a measured defensive war. W Bush and his people thought that we could invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein, and install a U.S. puppet government. But the nation of Iraq itself was a mix of Sunnis and Shiites who hated each other and were essentially ungovernable. Invasion was a bad idea. Iraq is not a western country and we cannot make it into one.
Iraq was not an honest mistake, but the product of arrogance and ignorance on the part of W Bush, who was desperate for a victory in the Middle East after 9/11. Attempts to whitewash the Iraqi War are doomed to failure, because everyone (including Trump) knows what a debacle it was.
This old Marine is still angry about friends I lost in Vietnam,another unjust war, conducted by another Texan President. Wars rarely turn out as expected. They are easy to get into, but difficult to get out of. Statements about W Bush meaning well, are worthless. Good intentions mean nothing. You only fight if you are attacked and then your response is not “measured.” Your response is to destroy your attacker by any means necessary. No unjust or extracurricular wars.
Will, our views might not be so far apart as you think.
Also of the Vietnam age bracket, my tour in 1968-9 was spent in a Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare unit (ASW carrier plus destroyers) tasked partly to deter possible Soviet submarine incursions into the Gulf of Tonkin.
And, about small details that matter, across Puget Sound from me today is the destroyer and war memorial “Turner Joy,” in the Bremerton Naval Shipyard, and which was the precipitating incident selected by Congress for its fateful Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964. It seems that the ship (sonar) probably mistook its own propeller cavitation (evasive course changes) for incoming enemy torpedoes.
But, in the opening days of the Iraq War, might there have been defensible reasons, apart from President Bush’s superfluous TV ad lib (?) about Western-style “nation building” in a sectarian Islamic setting? At best a fanciful cultural clone rather than a “puppet”? No one disputes that a “debacle” followed.
And, of your response to utterly “destroy your attacker” rather than to remove an abuse to the common good, is this consistent with “just war” theory, or is it more “extracurricular”? Excessive Versailles war reparations pretty much caused or enabled World War II. Another early detail that matters. Also, the sideline fact that Ho Chi Minh was treated so dismissively at Versailles.
Question: Does anything Pope Francis says “deserve thorough analysis” except for the fact that he is Pope? Whatever the answer to that, it is a given that virtually anything he says of note is “deeply problematic.” That itself is the essence of the matter and would be true, in my view, even if he were not the Pope. That he is the Pope exacerbates the problem several times over.
I’m happy to see your comment, Thomas Hubert. It has occurred to me that some very well-meaning and highly intelligent readers launch into endless analyses of just about any bit of nonsense this Pope seems to utter – as if it’s worth refuting. It just gives legitimacy to the ravings of either a madman, a deceiver or an imbecile (take your pick). At some point this man in the See of Peter should just be ignored.
Dr. Grondelski alludes to Poland and the hopelessness of early resistance to the Blitzkrieg. Of today, he also asks about the “situation when terrorists co-opt state structures.” Three points:
FIRST, Just War Theory requires that there be reasonable hope of success, and yet St. John Paul II had this to say about Polish resolve:
“…despite the clear inferiority of her military and technological forces. At that moment the Polish authorities judged that this was the only way to defend the future of Europe and the European spirit” (Memory and Identity (New York: Rizzoli, 2005; 141). Success? Proportionality? Was such resistance “immoral”? What, too, about the Warsaw Uprising?
But, wait, are we now talking about overkill (?), even as we are instructed that in “dialogue” nobody ever loses? Not ever! Grondelski does “not purport to offer a solution” to the asymmetries imposed by Russian and Hamas terrorism and now the mounting number of human shield and civilian casualties.
SECOND, perhaps Pope Francis’ opinion (formal teaching?) falls under the unstated opinion and premise that even defensive war now is essentially and only an adjunct to the out-of-control international arms trade? That could be an interesting parlor-game riddle in our very imperfect and even surreal world….
But, during the Cold War Fr. Werenfried von Straaten, founder of Aid to the Church in Need, questioned ethereal social justice nostrums and rejected the Vatican’s Ostpolitik toward earlier Soviet oppression. He clarified (clarified!): “Yes, there is no peace without justice, but there is no justice without truth.”
THIRD, so about truth: if the homosexual lifestyle can co-opt the Catholic Church (Fiducia Supplicans), then why can’t (Grondelski) “terrorist co-opt state structures”?
And, what of the former Christian/European spirit as still affirmed by the former pope St. John Paul II—now when an Amazonian shaman leads group incantations at the most recent Davos convention, not long after the Amazonian Pachamama was made Queen for a Day inside of St. Peter’s Basilica?
Excellent article Mr. Grondelski. In my opinion these off the cuff Papal remarks/platitudes are causing great harm.
Grondelski without question makes a reasonable argument for the justice of war in given circumstances. Who could tolerate Nazi German aggression against Poland? And so on.
Although in a more contemporary sense, in our day because of the capacity to destroy nations and possible world war it seems unacceptable. Furthermore, the causes of current conflicts are not that clearly definable in terms of aggression. As much as there may be empathy for Ukraine, the present danger to Poland, Finland aggression toward Russia continued with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the pro West Yeltsin government. The West represented by NATO continued to advance its posture East into former Soviet republics Ukraine, Georgia. We had a genuine opportunity to win Russia over to the West as an ally and support of Western ideals. Instead we remained hostile and lost the opportunity due to myopic neocons and industrialist interests.
The seductive media message, including the US and Europe regarding Ukraine is that we’re defending democracy, whereas the Ukraine government continues to be one of the world’s most corrupt. A despotic regime, adversary of Christian belief. The Ukrainian Catholic Church is entrapped within with little choice but to support Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is both president and prime minister, a despot in total control with huge overseas assets.
What are we accomplishing in continuing to send Ukraine Billions of dollars and highly technical military equipment? Continued death and depletion of Ukrainian manpower and US defense needs. Except for US arms manufacturers and the accrued wealth.
The savagery inflicted by Hamas on Israelis deserves response. But so does Muslim savagery inflicted on Nigerian Catholics. Why the quiet? Just war in our day, to a large extent, has morphed into a tool for ulterior interests. Pope Francis may be wrong on a lot of vital questions, although on the issue of a just war in our day his rationale deserves attention.
Your comment, Father, is unsupportable. To begin with, there was never a threat to international peace and security attributable to the Republic of Ukraine that could have justified a war of regime change, let alone that of territorial conquest and annexation for which Russia is responsible, and has been responsible in respect of Ukraine (2014) and Georgia (2008).
I should also mention Russia’s occupation of territories taken in the wars of aggression waged by the USSR in concert with Nazi Germany, against Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Germany (in respect of northern East Prussia) and Japan (the Kuril Islands and southern Karafuto).
Russia has succeeded in handing her western neighbours all the justification they need to take St Petersburg, Moscow and the Caucasus with a view of pacifying the country and finishing the accounting exercise that should have been undertaken in respect of the crimes of the Communist movement.
Michael, your opinions on not irrefutable because you’re convinced they are. My comment addressed the after the fact wrongful decision for Russia to invade. My comment addressed the continuance of a conflict that is stalemated, costing life and grief for many and should be negotiated with compromise on both sides.
Insofar as Russian grievance you dismiss out of hand that Russia could possibly consider being threatened by Nato encircling its frontiers. Finland allied itself with Nazi Germany. When Zhukov regained Soviet territory it offered the Finns the option to rid Finland of German troops or they would.
So you’re just solution is the annihilation of Russia? Think carefully about what you’re saying, which is in agreement to what Nazi Germany wished to do to Russia. Gorbachev, later Yeltsin and others were friendly toward the West until finally the locked in, unforgivable posture of the West brought about former KGB operative Putin. Putin simply requested that Ukraine give Russia assurance it would not ally with Nato. Putin offered to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, its government and armed forces. Ukraine first agreed then relented with pressure from the Biden administration, the Bidens apparently enriched with deal making in Ukraine. You’re policy ideas are what drove Russia to ally itself with China. Insofar as Poland, which I’ve always defended, it was Russia that took territory from Germany and ceded it to Poland for the formation of a viable state.
Finland during WW2 was allied to Nazi Germany from 1941, but its forces advanced only as far as its pre-war borders with the USSR, and no further.
My just solution is the implementation of the international law concerning aggression: Russia must cease its aggression, withdraw from all Ukrainian territory and give adequate guarantees against non-repetition, not excluding consent to the occupation of its territory. It must pay reparations to defray the costs of reconstruction in Ukraine and the cost to nations of arming her. Then, there must be just satisfaction, including the judicial punishment of Putin and Russia’s leaders.
There is no moral equivalence between an aggressor and his counterbelligerent, any more than between a convicted defendant and the judge who sentences him of punishment. The defeat of Russia and the punishment of its leaders and war criminals is not negotiable, because the law requires it.
As for East Prussia and Poland, I am intimately familiar with the matter, as my mother – German of Polish parentage – was born and raised in East Prussia. The eastern territories were detached from Germany in part-compensation for the detachment of the Kresy, Poland’s eastern territories, which the USSR had conquered in aggressive collaboration with Nazi Germany and was determined to keep.
My mother and her sister and two brothers were evacuated near the end of 1944. Her father stayed behind. The Russians destroyed their home town of Johannisburg and my grandfather’s house, and unleashed thereby a typhus epidemic in which my grandfather died.
I have recently read, and recommend, RM Douglas’ book Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War. It is a strong critique at an academic level of the forcible transfer of 12 to 14 million Germans from their homes in eastern Europe after WW2.
Thanks for the informative personal account Michael. When we share in discussion personal insight, views and experiences we better each other’s knowledge and judgment.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was justified because of Ukraine’s constant shelling of the people (mainly Russian ethnics) of the Donbass republics (redoubled in the months prior to the War), the growing Nazification of Ukraine–as manifested in the Azov and Bandera battalions, and the virtual “NATOfication” of Ukraine. Putin could not ignore the pleas of the Donbass Republics for help, or the threats to his own country posed by a greatly militarized, Anti-Russian neighbor.
As for the annexation of Crimea, this was prompted by the 2014 CIA coup against Yanukovich, the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. He was overthrown for the “crime” of wishing to be friendly with Russia. The CIA coup signaled to the world that Ukraine would not be allowed to have an independent foreign policy; in other words that it would be a nation subject to the US and its neocon ideologues.
The people of Crimea and Donbass, seeing this, voted to be independent of the new Kiev regime–one as a part of Russia, the other, as independent Republics. Putin, after a 95% pro-Russian referendum, recognized the Crimea as part of Russia (naval infantry was already in Crimea in accord with a prior treaty), but, perhaps imprudently, declined to recognize the Donbass Republics at that time.
Crimea and Donbass are ethnically Russian, and, given the Kiev regime’s hostility to the people therein, are completely alienated from the 1993 version of Ukraine–which is really a Frankenstein’s monster, and not an organic nation state.
The finger of Divine Providence is on Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Russia. The end result of the war will be a humiliation for the Godless West and its client states.
Chris Albrecht. I believe you’re responding to Michael Petek. Although, I’m aware and agree with your assessment of the Russia Ukraine conflict regarding the Donbas and Crimea. Which is why there needs to be more accurate appraisals of the conditions for a just war.
Yes, Father, I was indeed responding to Mr. Petek. I must have pushed the “submit” button right after you did.
Mr. Albright, I’m not so sure that the finger of Divine Providence is on Putin, but I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. Bombing civilian targets aside, which BTW the Allies did in WWII (Dresden and Tokyo anyone?) what people do not understand is the historically Russian paranoia. Putin correctly perceived the emerging NATO threat in Ukraine (read Western influence which we exacerbated) and decided to neutralize it. If Russia and China massed on the US/Mexican border, would we not be alarmed? Well, maybe not Biden. He’d probably invite them in and grant them all American citizenship but I digress. Any rational president would attack that clear threat just as Putin has done in Ukraine. I will opine further that Poland has nothing to fear. Putin does not want Ukraine. He wants simply to neutralize a threat.
The “Finger of God” on this war criminal? Ukraine in its 1991 is a sovereign state. Russia has NO business addressing ethnic issues in Ukraine. Would Nigeria have a right to remedy “anti-African-American” discrimination in, say, Alabama? EVERYBODY in 1991 agreed the USSR would divide on republic lines: by what authority did this “man of God” (LOL) decide that arrangement was now, 30 years later, to be revised? And who was Putin to say with whom Ukraine could be friends, including NATO? NATO is not a threat to Russia unless Russia aggressively interferes in the affairs of third countries. These are elementary principles. Please don’t gaslight for the butcher of Bucha.
After the end of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, Russia was *willing to accept the new independent Ukraine,* despite its non-organic character (Lithuanian-Polish–Germano-Austrian Galicia, Russian Crimea, Donbass, etc.)–really a product of two world wars and three commies: Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev.
The key events necessitating a change in Russia’s policy–which the Western media have ignored–were:
1) The unjust and illegal CIA overthrow of Yanukovich in 2014.
The question then became: can those regions which voted for Yanukovich, seeing that Ukraine was now subservient to the US, decide to detach themselves from Ukraine? After all, they were not claiming a right to overthrow the new US-ruled Kiev regime, they just wanted out! This is reasonable and ties in with the principle of self-determination of peoples.
Hence the popular Crimean referendum–which detached Crimea from Ukraine, and united that region to Russia.
Although Russia, quite understandably, accepted and supported this successful referendum, *they declined, however, to recognize the Donbass Republics (Donbass and Lugansk), hoping that they could remain a part of a federal Ukraine–but as semi-autonomous regions.*
Ukraine however responded with violence to the decisions of Donbass and Lugansk, and shelled them until Ukraine eventually relented and signed the *Minsk accords* with the separatist governments and the OSCE. Russia played, of course, a role in coordinating this.
These accords involved a cease-fire, removal of heavy weapons from the front line, freeing/exchange of prisoners, and limited autonomy for Donbass (but still within Ukrainian borders). Minsk I was in 2014 and Minsk II in 2015. (I believe there was a third agreement in 2019.) In any event, Ukraine signed these accords, but violated them–often at the urging of the West, a West which cynically urged Ukraine to sign the agreements, but then violate them. All the while the West filled the Ukraine with Nato weapons, and trained numerous Ukrainian units.
2) All of this was the second key reason necessitating a change in Russian policy.
3) Finally, in the three months prior to Russia’s invasion, the Ukrainians intensively shelled and bombed the Donbass Republics, and in the week prior to the invasion they were massing to invade the Donbass with troops and armor.
Russia beat them to the punch, however.
The rest is history. Not only has Ukraine permanently lost Crimea, Donbass, and Lugansk; but now they have lost Zaporozhye and Kherson as well. This is the upshot of your US-instigated intransigence, Ukraine!
Chris Albrecht, your comments do not establish beyond doubt the existence of a threat to international peace, attributable to Ukraine, which could justify the use of armed force, either through the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, or at all.
The teaching of the Catechism is that there must be an injury to a nation or community of nations which is lasting, grave and certain.
Translated into the language of international law, there must first be an internationally wrongful act attributable to Ukraine, an act which is not in conformity with what is required of it by international law.
That injury must be sufficiently grave as to amount to a threat to international peace, namely so serious that the use of force to remove it would not be entirely unreasonable.
The grave injury must be lasting, namely it has a continuing character either alone or in combination with the failure to complete the execution of all its consequences in international law: cessation and non-repetition, reparation and just satisfaction.
Certain means that there must be no doubt of the existence of the injury, its gravity and its continuing character.
“lasting” 2014-2022–9 years of constant Ukrainian shelling of Donbass and Lugansk
“grave” 15000+ dead, thousands more wounded, civilian infrastructure destroyed
“certain” OSCE verified the facts, as well as international media.
We might add the following just war criterion. “The exhaustion of all other means before the use of lethal force.” For this,see the 9 years of diplomatic (2014-2022) talks involving Russia, Donbass Republics, and Ukraine, as manifested in the Minsk accords. The accords were then repeatedly broken by the Ukrainians.
A 9 year process involving sustained diplomacy? Hardly the action of a war-hungry nation!
The Russian bear is patient–but poke him once too often and he *acts:* as Ukraine and the US are discovering to their sorrow!
Fr. Morello,
The road to hell begins with a single step (or some such aphorism)…
About such remote beginnings, would a militarily-poised Putin ever have crossed the line with tanks into Ukraine if Biden, first, had not executed such an inept, abrupt and catastrophic exit from Afghanistan? Did Putin conclude that the West would buckle? Bad guess, and Ukraine is the victim. Meanwhile NATO has rediscovered much of its original resolve and reason for existence.
In the post-modern world, it would be really great to still have a papacy “innocent as a dove and wise as a serpent,” both (Mt 10:16). The prudential judgment thing, rather than airbrush slogans.
Never have I had such a number of warmongers, or is it pacifists? respond to one of my irrefutable comments. Humor aside second guessing possibles for Russia’s attack of Ukraine is simply guesswork and neither here nor there. The timeline for the attack was at the end of a series of attempted negotiations with Ukraine who in the end followed US prodding and affirmed their intent to join Nato.
Still it could be what you say, despite Russia having long held serious political historical interests in its relations with Ukraine. Ukraine had the right to defend itself, although it would have fared better without US interference in their affairs.
It’s difficult to swallow your concept of HAMAS ‘hiding behind civilians’ when: A. The population of GAZA has been condensed into a smaller and smaller geographical area,B. The oppression against the Gazan residents is tantamount to boiling a live crab, in a simmering pot, lasting decades. And then any Gazan retaliation is deemed ‘terrorism’,and C. The injustices against the Palestinian peoples have been protected by US vetoes over UN condemnation of Iraeli actions, for ages and ages. Truly, the Palestinians, may in fact, believe that their actions (thru Hamas), may constitute a Just War.
Also Peter what appears to be occurring is the danger of self fulfilling prophecy. Listening to retired generals assuring the audience that Russia is planning to invade Finland and Baltic states in 2 years, giving details on the military strategy is clearly such. As long as we expect Russia to seek expansion westward, and we take provocative actions like massive Nato US joint military drills, the presumed enemy will begin to behave like that enemy.
Yes, the “self fulfilling prophecy.” From Centesimus Annus (1991), two points to ponder:
“The events of 1989 are an example of the success of willingness to negotiate and of the Gospel spirit in the face of an adversary determined not to be bound by moral principles[!]. These events are a warning to those who, in the name of political realism, wish to banish law and morality from the political arena. Undoubtedly, the struggle which led to the changes of 1989 [the success of Solidarity in the specific case of Poland] called for clarity, moderation, suffering and sacrifice. In a certain sense, it was a struggle born of prayer, and it would have been unthinkable without immense trust in God, the Lord of history, who carries the human heart in his hands” (n. 25).
AND, “…the non-violent commitment of people who while always refusing to yield to the force of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of bearing witness to the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since VIOLENCE ALWAYS NEEDS TO JUSTIFY ITSELF THROUGH DECEIT, AND TO APPEAR, HOWEVER FALSELY, TO BE DEFENDING A RIGHT OR RESPONDING TO A THREAT POSED BY OTHERS” (n. 23, CAPS added).
So, how to transplant this sort of thing now to the continental scale and in a very advanced case quite unlike the religious/cultural solidarity of Poland of 1989? How to avoid the “Guns of August”? And, from whence commeth the more real “provocations”?
Yes, though it’s complex, John Paul achieving a miracle not simply with Poland’s Solidarity and his contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union – that within the collapse the major Soviet Russia experienced an interior awakening from Gorbachev to Yeltsin. Russians Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn revealing the deep intellectual humanness of the Russian character. Could not that moment have been benevolently exploited by the West to bring about another miracle?
Macierowski [below] in the same vein responds to the inevitability of war from a spiritual perspective, “Might we be too self-absorbed to notice that other people in the world also have claims? If so, might our self-absorption in part account for our failure to read or to heed the claims of others? It is harder to step back and think after we have started killing each other”. Is it too late, is it beyond justice for America to encourage a negotiated settlement for the Ukraine Russia war? Or must our vast financial and military equipment contribution to Ukraine continue? Because we’re Americans does that mean we’re always in the right, when our own nation is rife with injustices? Indeed it is time to step back to consider whether we are engaged in a no exit strategy.
Father, you are usually right but your stance towards fault in the Ukraine-Russia war is horribly misguided. No, we did not push Russia into being an enemy after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact, we did everything we could to bring them into the normal family of nations, inviting them to join the G8, trying to assuage Putin in many things, developing close economic ties with them. But Russia is Russia, and they have a strange fantasy that Russia is an Empire that, by right, should dominate all of Eastern Europe certainly, and probably all of Europe if they can. You may have been listening to the wrong people on this subject. Russia loves a strongman, Russians loved to be dominated and even beaten by their rulers, and they think everyone else in the area should love being beaten by Russia, too. Just look up the concept of “Russian Mir” which pervades Russian thought.
Thanks Samton, I certainly don’t claim to be irrefutable including this subject. By the time we got to Putin’s ascendency as the new Tsar of all the Russias the reemergence of the 2nd Cold War had already begun.
Patriarch Kirill is really the promulgator of the Rus fantasy that at one time was real, when all the Russias extended from Poland to Alaska. Putin is more a realist and in my estimation wants a strong Russia recognized as having sovereign interests in regaining stature if not a protective amount of territory. Despite his lament over the collapse of the Soviet Union. Much if it goes back to the old Cordon Sanitaire by which Soviet Russia was cordoned. Nato in Russia’s view is the new Cordon.
Nobody from NATO went to Kyiv or Tbilisi and said “you must join NATO!!” Those countries made a free choice to join NATO, and that is THEIR business, not/not Russia’s. They wanted to join NATO because — as we see in the case of Ukraine today and in 2014 and Georgia in 2008, Russia is and remains an imperialist country that denies others the right to choose their futures. So, no, please don’t plead about how Russia was betrayed by the West. Russia chose to continue its victim identity, not unlike woke crybullies at American universities demanding their “safe spaces.” What amazes me is that otherwise realistic thinking people seem somehow to give the Russian barbarians credit no matter what they do. Next week, after he lies about Hamas at the UN on Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov goes back to Moscow for a mid-week meeting with Putin’s altarboy, Patriarch Kirill, on the “Foreign Ministry-Russian Orthodox Church Coordination Committee.” That says enough.
In reply to Mr. Grondelski’s, “one does not have to give the Russian barbarians credit no matter what they do,” I would disagree that countries joining NATO is only THEIR business.
When the Berlin wall fell, and the Soviet Union came apart the United States told Russia that NATO would extend no farther than what had been East Germany. We violated that by adding many countries to NATO, east of East Germany, and small Baltic countries actually on Russia’s border. NATO exists to fight who? Russia.
Those of us old enough to remember 1962 remember that we came very close to nuclear war with Russia over them placing missiles in Cuba, ninety miles from our border. We would not accept that.
In fact, a country joining NATO is not only THEIR business, since the other NATO countries have to approve.
Article Five of the NATO contract requires ALL NATO members to come to the aid of any NATO country attacked. If Russia would invade Estonia (population 1.4 million), would you want us to attack Russia? I would think that we should give some serious thought to that, especially since we lost our most recent war against what has been referred to as “goatherders with fertilizer bombs.”
It has just been reported that NATO is going to have military exercises in eastern Europe with 90,000 troops, some in the Baltic states bordering Russia. No NATO provocation there.
If Russia “invades” Estonia. So, in other words, “invasion” is OK if you are closer to Russia? Or Belgians are more worthy of living freely than Estonians?
Not at all JG. There are lots of injustices in the world, and we cannot correct them all. My question was are you willing to be required to go to war with a major nuclear power over the invasion of Estonia. It is a simple yes or no question. I would be interested in your response, and also to my comment on your statement that it is only THEIR business, and my point of the expansion of NATO while the Soviet Union was falling apart.
Thank you for a well written piece. I agree wholeheartedly
So , on the basis of this ill advised pop-opinion by the Pope, what does he propose? Should we have let Japan get away unscathed after Pearl Harbor? Perhaps to bomb even more American cities and murder more people? Does the rape of Nanking ring a bell for him? Should we have let the Germans continue their atrocities all over Europe, attempting to wipe out every Jew, not to mention Poles and Catholic priests? So, WHAT, exactly, is this pope suggesting? That people are supposed to submit to putting their neck on the chopping block for the sake of a supposed “peace”. Sorry, but I dont value peace that much that I would cooperate with that, no matter WHAT the pope thinks. Submission to dictatorship and potential extermination is NOT peace. It is just capitulation. It is a disgusting idea on the face of it to anyone who values liberty and freedom. Francis has spent too much time among guys who reply “how high” when he says jump. As for me, I vote to go down fighting.As for Francis, I wish that he would stop talking about issues he has no knowledge of.
Obviously, the truism that the only thing evil requires in order to triumph, is for good people to do nothing, has never tickled the auditory senses of PF, or, if it has, he has exercised his free will by ignoring it.
The devl, operates by sowing the seeds doubt and confusion. Upon this fledgeling but inherently invasive and aggressive crop he heaps copious amounts of fertilizer in the form of lies and deceit. When combined with the growth accelerators of greed, envy and pride, this rapidly maturing crop then yields, in abundance, the fruits of division, discord, conflict and ultimately, violence – culminating in war.
In each instance in which PF has written or spoken since his arrival on the world stage, (note that the word election is purposely avoided), what follows is an inevitable flood of doubt, confusion, contradiction and conflict.
Does anyone see a consistent pattern developing here?
As our Lord cautioned us, “You will know them by their fruits.”
Insofar as PF’s perspective on an empty hell is concerned, for a time, it does indeed grow more and more empty, as long as he continues to clothe hell’s demons with the trappings of cardinals… but only for a time.
I am inclined to give a pope a pass on saying something ill-thought out during a speech. Pope Francis was never a precise thinker or speaker. He says lots of overwrought things to get a point across, and then he often retreats and says “I dare not say more”. It’s sad when a pope is so thoughtless and imprecise and unlearned, but that is what we have to live with. It’s when he does this in an official document from the DDF that things get bad.
Hoping that the title of of the article draws attention and its blessing unto many lives – in also seeking ways to be educated for peace ..
Holy Father who has not shirked from drawing attention to the need for spiritual warfare , even calling it a ‘beautiful struggle ‘ – https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2014/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20141030_a-beautiful-struggle.html
Eve of Feast of St.Sebastian, who chose the path of fidleitybto holiness nd its peace, against ? generational spirits too prevailing in a land that imagined its origins from wolves , to have the related attitudes against chastity , related contempt for role of women and children, seeing Christianity as the threat…arrows of prayers of such as Light of The Spirit , to pierece through the blindness in our times too , to see the dignity of human lives , trusting The Mother would be there to guide her children into ever more powerful paths in peace as fruit of holiness.. that no Mahdi is going to be brought down either by calling on death spirits …and similar lessons , spoken with the Love of The Father to be taken in world over and in domestic churches too !
How is any of this directly and specifically related to the topic of this article? Did you read this article?
With Francis, the optional is imperative and the imperative is optional.
Holy Father, well aware of world events , in the Light of the Holy Spirit highlighting again as his repsonsibility, the intercoennectedness of evils – as has been done by The Mother at Fatima – ‘war is punishment for sins.’ and many others .
David’s lamentation about Jonathan as read in today’s readings too relevant – in O.T. times, with its prevalence of a ‘user’ attitude towards women and marriage seeing them as beneficial for wordly power and lineage, along with the (subtle ) lack of the concept of the holiness of women – the ‘oneness in mind and heart ‘ as blessed by The Lord not there yet , to love each other with His Love, seeking only the good of the other …
David may be sensed a glimpse of same in Jonathan , love like that of a Father / brother , which both of them might have missed out in own families .
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2024/documents/20240117-udienza-generale.html – Avoiding user attitudes in families and relationships , to also help avoid wars, not to use war itself as a means of lust for power , to instead be in the long term process of being educated in ways of peace as fruit of true Love ..
Peace !
Good thing the church held a different, rational opinion when the Muslims armies and then Ottomans were menacing Europe. Too bad the church took a relativist, effeminate stance when communism/nihilism has been knocking on our doors.
Another $0.02 cents, about the randomness of chaos once we are overcome by either moral astigmatism or simply human imperfection…
Because of the 16th-century Ottoman advance in eastern Europe, both the emperor and the pope were so preoccupied that little did the notice the stirrings of an obscure Augustinian monk named Martin, nor Tetzel’s triggering abuse of the indulgence thing…such that Christendom soon split in half. The catastrophic religious wars in Europe were the distant result.
And still with us is the unsatisfactory armistice between faith and reason as we find in the Council of Westphalia (1649) and the devolved, anti-Christian/secularist nation-state system with all of its defects (and some provisional benefits). Even inside the fortress Vatican, the natural law seems now on the poker table, as in James Martin rather than Martin Luther, and as in the double-vision Fiducia Supplicans.
Connect the dots, or the cents, or the sense, or whatever…
In response to the Pontiff Francis:
Aggressors in wars of aggression are immoral.
Defenders in wars of aggression are moral and just. If I recall correctly, St. Thomas Aquinas concluded that a soldier fighting in such a situation, by defending those he loves at the risk of his life, is doing an act of charity.
As I see it, two great geopolitical strategists lie behind the current confrontation between the U.S. and Russia in Ukraine. The Russian, Aleksandr Dugin, says that the American Empire should be destroyed. The American, Zbigniew Brzezinski, announced a plan for the dismemberment of Russia. A thermonuclear war might further both of these goals. Happily, however, Dugin and Brzezinski are merely advisors, and today’s principal moral agents are the American President Biden and the Russian President Putin. We can hope they are men of good judgment.
Both Dugin and Brzezinski agree with one of the key founders of geopolitics that Eurasia is the key to world power. Their master Halford Mackinder in 1919 put the issue like this: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” Russia currently occupies the Heartland. To prevent Russia from again emerging as an imperial power, Brzezinski advises the dismemberment of Russia into three republics. To weaken Russia sufficiently to get to that stage, Brzezinski proposes separating Ukraine from Russia. To ensure that Ukraine can be successfully carved out under Western hegemony, he proposes replacing the loose belt of neutral states buffering Russia from the West by an eastward expansion of the North American Treaty Organization right up to the Russian border. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the bipolar power equilibrium between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. collapsed, leaving the U.S. as the only superpower at its “unipolar” moment. Brzezinski thought the U.S. had a “narrow window” of supremacy before its power faded into a “multipolar” world. The success of this strategy depended upon the continued weakness and disarray of Russia.
When Paul Wolfowitz and other neo-conservatives took over the liberal Democrat Brzezinski’s strategy, Dugin was already publishing his Foundations of Geopolitics in 1997 and did not welcome the plan to reduce Russia to a “regional power.” Russian geopoliticians have been studying Anglo-American grand strategy for over a generation. The neo-conservatives, however, neglected Brzezinski’s caveat: this effort at coercion could only work during the “narrow window” while Russia is weak. They felt confirmed in their judgment of Russian weakness by her “special military operation” using nowhere near the three-to-one ratio of forces normally required for an attacker to dominate a defender. They also neglected the advice of Kennan, Burns, and others, that the eastward expansion of NATO would provoke a dangerous response from Russia, especially if it touched upon Ukraine.
There are two signs that Russia is not as weak as she was in 1997 when Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard appeared. First, for the economic sanctions to work, the West must have almost total control of the world economy. If that were so, the growing Berlin-Moscow axis of cooperation that Dugin outlined in 1997 would be checked by the destruction of the Nordstream pipeline. The growth of cooperation of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa was a sign that this is no longer the case. Accordingly, Russia was able to pivot to alternative markets thereby leaving the German economy in jeopardy and the Russian stable. Second, when it became clear to the Russians that the Brzezinski plan was to move on to the Ukrainian phase, the Russians developed a “special military operation” using a slow, methodical artillery and rocket attack inviting the loyal Ukrainian troops into kill boxes like Bakhmut. The disproportionate firepower of the Russians (at times, I hear, at a ratio of 10:1), left some 500,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead on the field, a third of its population displaced and in exile, billions of dollars locked into the iron triangle of the Pentagon, the arms industry, and the Congress, and an inflationary impoverishment of the already weak American under-classes. Apparently, the “window of opportunity” did not stay open as long as required even for the technical calculation. Geopolitical calculation is notoriously thin in considering moral questions. Is there any evidence that just war doctrine has actually been taken into account in American decisions regarding Ukraine? For we can expect to exercise greater influence upon our own leaders than we can upon those of our opposite numbers. If there is evidence that just war doctrine formally guides American foreign policy regarding the Ukraine, this could count as evidence against Pope Francis’s statement: “In altre parole: oggi la guerra è in sé stessa un crimini contra l’umanità.”
Now that Washington has helped new European nations into an expanded NATO, Russia is recruiting 1.7 million troops and there are prognostications that arms production will rise.
Except for minority reports like those of Douglas Macgregor, John Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter, and Jeffrey Sachs, our current political leaders seem to be locked into the belief that they still enjoy the “unipolar moment” of a generation ago. What evidence do we see that our policymakers are even considering the developing plans for multi-polarity? It is particularly disturbing that the minority views are being ignored rather than refuted. Are the only proponents of multipolarity to be found among Russian scholars of American grand strategy?
What can we do now? Though a year late, why not commemorate the sixtieth year of Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris? Second, we should pause and examine our consciences. Might we have made mistakes—or even sins? Have we failured to recognize key facts? Have we carefully formed our moral character and habits? Our attitude toward other players in the world? Third, once we have paused to examine our own actions, we might consider reaching out to others to explore the best ways to fix what damage we can. One possible aid in this effort might be to work through Scupoli’s book on Spiritual Warfare; there is an adaptation in Russian. Pope Francis has entrusted both Ukraine and Russia to the care of Mary. We in the United States may have no less need of her intercession. Might we be too self-absorbed to notice that other people in the world also have claims? If so, might our self-absorption in part account for our failure to read or to heed the claims of others? It is harder to step back and think after we have started killing each other.
Such an effort at reflection is especially important before we take irrevocable steps to catastrophe. The last constitutionally declared war of the United States ended in 1945. In matters as serious as an escalating confrontation with Russia, might now be a good time for a Congressional discussion? Is the War Powers Act irrelevant? So far the American public has yet to be told what exactly would count as an American victory? I fail to see how the destruction of Ukraine would count. Do our military and naval leaders have no moral responsibility to provide competent advice to our political leaders?
Your truly,
E. M. Macierowski, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy
Benedictine College
1020 North 2nd Street
Atchison, KS 66002
P.S. These are my personal views.
Prof Macierowski, Russia was aware of the Brzezinski strategy to weaken Russia by dismemberment starting with Ukraine, as it appeared to this observer as part of a US Ukraine Russia policy. This Brzezinski plan was known, at least was available to Russia in the 90’s in Brzezinski’s publicly available writings. Russia likely realized the unfolding of the strategy with the overthrow of Ukraine’s 1914 Maidan revolution and installment of a pro West regime. It would seem Russia’s insistence that Ukraine refrain from entering Nato was for Russia an urgent matter.
Your assessment seems to say that we’re locked into a no win scenario. A change in administration prepared to rectify our mistakes would be in order. Although that change may still find rectification a great challenge in itself. If so then your recommendation of Scupoli’s Spiritual Warfare has efficacy for all of us.
Correction: Ukraine’s [2004] Maidan revolution.
Macierowkski views Ukraine as a key piece of the unsuccessful Brzezinski “Global Chessboard” for transitioning into a multi-polar world. Part of this strategy was that Russia would remain weak long enough, but equally that China could be contained as not more than a regional player.
Now we have a militaristic Russia and expansionist China engineering BRICS as an emerging more-than-regional power bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). To which each of the members must decide whether this is a real coalition or subordination (more to China than to Russia).
Meanwhile, other than the Brzezinski chessboard as a lens, other predisposing lenses regarding Ukraine include cultural Russian nationalism and the strategic goal of a warm water port into the Med (the earlier Crimean War of 1854); the Cold War memory and invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968; especially, the 1994 Budapest Agreement under which Ukraine surrendered all of its nuclear weapons (inherited from a dissolved USSR) in exchange for security, a commitment involving NATO members and regardless of whether Ukraine actually joined NATO or not; the betrayals of resident populations always attendant to abrupt exit strategies, as in Afghanistan; and, yes, internal and pre-invasion violence within southeastern Ukraine—versus and now the Russian tank invasion with a death toll of half a million (the “liberation” and targeting ! of largely Russian-speaking rather than ethnic Russians).
Imperfect, fallen and sinful mortals tend to view current events through our simple predispositions and, from onion-layered facts, we construct conflicted world views. For many, and in a complex and compact world, the Russian tank invasion and relentless targeting of civilian populations is an indisputable fact that clearly crosses a line. Amazing!
Yours truly is not at all convinced by the implication that the United States is the one wedded to a unipolar and domineering worldview. But with Macierowski, this too is only a personal opinion.
Excellent comments Professor Macierowski. The thing that is missing from all of this discussion is the distinction between the 3 principles of jus in bello, to confine the destructiveness of war, rule out certain kinds of weapons, protect civilians, and limit the area and range of fighting AND jus ad bellum, namely right authority, right intention, reasonable hope, proportionality, and last resort. In today’s conflicts there is almost complete rejection of even thinking about these important issues. When we get away from the instigating comment from Pope Francis and then get lost in the back and forth of specific instances of conflicts we lose sight of WHY Pope Francis may have made this remark. His intention might have been to get us to start talking again about the morality not just of the morality of the beginning of a war, but they way in which it is carried out, as well as the calculations for the continuance of defensive actions (Israel vs Hamas) or regaining lost territory (Ukraine vs Russia). All the other discussion is about self-justification to allow our continued participation in war and conflicts rather than to follow the words of Jesus “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you.”
War is not a tool of Christian statescraft…LOVE is. It should be a LAST RESORT (see ad bellum above) be proportional, and have a prudential judgment of chance of success. If Pope Francis’ remark sparks just this kind of debate then it has served its purpose. These ideas are not shared in the Evening News which focuses on body count. Body count can help us make a judgment on proportionality, but does not spur serious reflection and debate about the ongoing conflicts and their justification.
Great debate here, but lets not miss the point. Pope Francis pushes us toward engaging in the debate that matters. Could it be that if we treat one another with human respect, listen to one another, pray for one another, and for those of us who are Christian follow the teaching of Jesus…would there be any need for war? Just an idea…
Thanks, Deacon, for calling for a return to the principles regarding just war. You rightly call attention to the issue in jus ad bellum and jus in bello. But what about jus post bellum? What have we Americans done to rebuild Iraq? I fear that the late Usama bin Laden won a strategic victory over the United States by persuading President Bush to abandon the doctrine of jus ad bellum in favor of “preemptive action.” To be sure Israel has the right to defend itself against the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023. I fear, however, that both we and they are being tempted into disproportionate violence. If we indulge in taking up this temptation, we will not only perform unjust deeds but also turn ourselves into unjust people. It is important to recognize that even where injustice calls for punishment, it does not demand the punishment of the innocent. (Permit me also to qualify my suggestion about invoking the War Powers Act. It is not my intention to suggest that we do away with unity of command at the executive level; rather it is to call for a serious public discussion of the principles we need to distinguish right and wrong.) Professor Grondelski criticizes Pope Francis’s comment “oggi la guerra è in sé stessa un crimini contra l’umanità” as though it abrogates the doctine of just war. In my reading, the “oggi” indicates not a simple abrogation of the doctrine, but an existential claim that at the present moment we are neglecting this doctrine and therefore risk committing a crime against humanity. To be sure, the phrase “in sé stessa” can be read as meaning “essentially.” But then why specifically mention “today”? My comment is based on a charitable interpretation of Pope Francis’s words and calls for bringing the principles of just war doctrine to bear on American public policy in political and military affairs. If Pope Francis’s remarks help to restore serious discussion of this issue, we will have been well served.
It seems reasonable to conclude that if it is true, as has been asserted (without refutation to my knowledge) that Western European countries refuse to pay their “promised dues” to fund NATO, that they are not committed to NATO, and that therefore NATO may amount to a disguise representing I suppose only US, or perhaps (but maybe not) a “US plus UK” mechanism for getting certain things they want in Europe.
It is not clear or convincing that European countries actually want NATO.
On the other hand, maybe the European ruling class are getting paid off at election time episodes to keep their mouths shut while the US does what it pleases, sort of like “the new Roman Empire?”
Putin is certainly a malicious sociopath. But on the other hand, I regret to have to admit that it seems most (all?) western nations, including the US, Canada and UK, have emerged in the 21st century as increasingly barbarous, pagan (as voiced with pride by leading neo-con spokesman and imperial warhawk Robert Kagan) and tyrannical (thinking of the strategic objective of the US State Department / European Union / WEF for the international drag queen empire).
Perhaps, regarding “the powers,” their are no “good guys.”
A philosophical muse on the reality of our perceived reality. Everyone except the blessed few [not excluding the ignorant] need a Devil, somewhat similar to every family needs a crazy uncle. Russia fits the devil need [perhaps the crazy uncle as well].
When the entire media, plus the current administration, including Republicans, neocons, retired 4 star generals are all convinced that Russia is the perennial devil, something is either terribly right or terribly wrong. With that premise in the constructed mindset of what deviltry is, Russia can do no good in doing right. What then, if Russia is always by its evil nature doing evil may they have the ability to do a good that must be evil?
That said, if our perception of the evil monster of the Volga Russia is always putatively that of evil, even when perceivably doing good, then does it mean that it’s our skewed perception of good and evil that determines our foreign policy and political theory. I submit this because of the irretractable mindset that appears to be leading us into inevitable cataclysmic world war.
Russia has been the evil monster of Europe ever since the October 1917 Revolution. The first genocide committed by Communists was the Holodomor, the campaign of the mass starvation of the Ukrainian nation.
Russia has been named as an aggressor not only by the UN General Assembly, but also by Our Lady of Fatima.
The Russian Federation is but the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic under another name, discontinuous – by reason of its revolutionary origin – with the Russian Empire and bearing state responsibility for the crimes and wrongs of Communism.
“When you hear of wars and insurrections, do not be terrified; for SUCH THINGS MUST HAPPEN first.” –Luke 21:9
Someday, we will have a better pope who knows when to keep his mouth shut when he is in over his head. PF is in over his head quite often.
Yes, imagine how horrible the world would be if people started regarding war as a crime against humanity! The Church’s ethic of life is a seamless garment, yet many ignore it.
The problem is that while good people already believe that, bad people, or amoral people, of which there are plenty, do not. So, unless you want to become the victim of a homicidal dictator, the answer is, you defend yourself, your people and your country.Period. Wishful counting of how many angels dance on the head of a pin avails nothing. And lumping in people who are simply defending themselves with the aggressors trying to kill them is unconscionable.Real life is not an unrealistic fantasy.
To CR: Actually the Church’s ethic of life is not a seamless garment. The term did not come into use until Cardinal Bernadine made it.
The immediate result was that pro-abortion democrats said that pro-death penalty republicans’ issues cancelled each other out. Not true, and the Church had not made all life issues equivalent previously.
I am constantly amazed that bishops, with years of theology and philosophy, do not make the distinction between killing the innocent and the guilty.
Not true. There is now private property and freedom to worship God in Russia. These two principles alone prove its non-communist character.
In fact, in Russia today one sees the beginnings of the social reign of Christ the King. Have you seen the magnificent Cathedral built as a place of worship for the military? Or Russian troops praying to St. Michael before going into battle? Add to this Russia’s ban on transgenderism, and forbidding of gay pride parades, and you have a very Christian-
sympathetic country.
Want to see an example of a genuine evil empire? Look no further than America.
Gee, and I wonder what the folks in Crimea and Ukraine think about your view of their friends the Russians??
Those who control Ukraine are criminals, and they’re supported by the current illegitimate American regime.
Recall the “Cuban Missile Crisis” (Russia posting ballistic missiles in Cuba) – today we have America posting ballistic in Ukraine, and Ukraine prostituting itself to criminal enterprises such as bio-weapon labs, money laundering, and cutting off Russian access to the Black Sea.
Ukraine is a victim of its oun corruption. Correct me if I’m wrong.
So prohibiting a gay pride parade makes for a “Christian Nation?” Interesting logic. I wonder what the Ukrainians, Poles, Hungarians, etc. think of that logic?
A godless planet NEEDS wars in order to shape the future. We NEED a military- industrial complex. When half of adult Americans have diabetes and cardiovascular disease, then Americans will do what they have to in order to survive. (That is, make bombs, rockets, bullets and tanks, fighter jets, destroyers.) Life in Purgatory!
I am no historian on the background of current geopolitical landscape. I intend to focus on the current internal and external disgrace. I don’t agree that war is inevitable to cleanse societies.
Dictator war lords in the current era are being eulogized by our influential cowardly politicians. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán “is a powerful leader. I like power”. “Xi, Un, Putin are brilliant men”. That autocratic mindset, supported by millions of Americans, is on the rise putting our democracy in further peril. Our government is in disarray. Congress is so polarized that they are not legislating, they are investigating the investigators. Impeaching with little or no evidence.
The current wars in the middle east and Ukraine are escalating. Red Sea commerce is being attacked by Yemen terrorists. Putin, the war criminal, is increasing his destruction of Ukraine even though many sanctions are in place.
The US is continuing to support Israel’s war with military tanks and 2,000 LB bombs. Gaza is destroyed and its innocent Palestinian citizens are being slaughtered, currently 25 thousand including 10,000 babies, with nowhere to go and no help in sight.
We cannot use “thoughts and prayers” as the only response. The world, UN, must respond to the plight of the innocent with actions taken by all. At home we voters must decide between autocracy and democracy and to vote our consciences.
Hold your children closer. And, pray for almigty God to interveine.
If you’re not a fan of war and foreign misadventures Mr. Morgan then you should hope Donald Trump wins the election.
Mrscracker. Are you a fan of wars? We are lifelong Republicans. We gamble on the “sucess” of a criminal purpetrator of treason, violence, family threats, hate, lies How could you? You might join a political group. My family and friends have joined “Republicans for sanity”.
Thanks for your reply.
If by Israel – Hamas war you mean the Palestinian genocide then yes it is unjust.
I will hypothesize the antichrist will come during a world war and create peace by uniting all religions and nations while relocating fundamentalists and exclusivists to reeducation (death) camps.
It seems that modern warfare is so destructive that both sides are using violent immoral means to achieve their goals. Therefore, the war itself becomes immoral.