Trump & Vance Humiliated Zelensky

It amazes me how ignorant people talk the loudest. First came ngo funded media and color revolution (likely USAID) whipping up the population into a frenzy, which led to Poroshenko being replaced by the puppet known as Zelenskyy. We saw Ukrainian ethnic Russians being attacked by Ukraine in the Donbass. As well as a push to install Ukraine into the EU and NATO, setting up bases along the border. So please, spare me the globalist narrative drama of the West having clean hands and big bad Russia unjustly expanding.

It is you who made the plea to the authority of the bishops, not me. Also when bishops only give one side of the story and do not speak to the whole story it is not good, especially when lives are at stake. We see this time and again everywhere in the church too, not just Ukraine.

 

I just read that President Z has sent a letter to the White House apologizing and agreeing to the mineral deal. The White House has said the letter is acceptable but they will wait to see if he really signs the agreement

 

wow my ashes never look like a perfect cross like that - mine always seem to appear as just a smudge

 

It's a grim scenario but you may well be right. I do believe DJT is absolutely opposed to war and loss of life. He will do everything he can to broker peace in this conflict.

 

The agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1994, stipulated that Ukraine would hand over its nuclear arsenal to Russia for dismantling. In exchange, Russia committed to respecting Ukraine's borders and territorial integrity.

What we see in the actions of separatist groups in Ukraine is a carefully laid path for an armed invasion—sowing instability through separatist movements to justify military intervention and install a puppet leader like Lukashengo, something Putin would never tolerate in his own territory.

That said, between the clown from Kyiv and the former KGB agent, the Ukrainian Church has nothing to gain. However, becoming an extension of the State where the Catholic religion is not particularly welcomed, is undoubtedly a catastrophe.

 

NATO's breaking its assurance to not move to the east in return for the reunification of Getmany was the first violation. The US engineered and funded coup was the second. The Russians didn't violate international law by going to the aid of ethnic Russians being bombarded by the replacement government when they had voted to secede from Ukraine. Territorial integrity gives nobody the right to bombard civilians.

By your standards, every current and former member of the CIA is a liar, a cheat and a thief. Probably an assassin too but Mr. Bolton didn't boast about that.

Sad to say that the West are the bad guys this time, not for the first time and not only in Ukraine. They need to clean up their own act. Bad as he may be, Putin isn't guilty of genocide.

 

That is a very partisan twisting of Just War Theory. One of the first principles of the Theory is that one should not pursue a war one cannot win. The Ukraine is inexorably losing, despite all the support it has received. It needs to be called. That link also takes upon itself the authority to make the judgement that Russia's invasion was unjustified. Given the advance of NATO on to Russia's borders and its explicit desire to 'weaken Russia', and the ongoing assaults on the ethnic Russians of the East by the Zelensky government, that judgement is very tenuous, indeed. Given Russia was under such threat, they had far more justification to invade than had the United States under the second Bush, to invade Iraq, to give one example.

 

Would you side with the United States over their support of the Israeli assault on Gaza? Over their attack on Iraq in 2003. Their occupation of Afghanistan? Their interference in Syria? In Libya?

Was JFK wrong to react so strongly against Krushchev in Cuba?

Do you not consider the possibility this is a war between Christians ultimately manipulated by certain non-Christians, including Zelensky, who have absurdly disproportionate power in the Ukraine, and also had in the previous US administration? This is not a simple religious war. It is an attempt to impose the woke, perverted way of life so enthusiastically embraced by most of the rulers of the degraded West upon a Russia that has explicitly rejected it. It is typified by the former 'comedian' Zelensky, whose party trick in that role was so obscene I will not describe it here. What has happened in the Western World in the last sixty years or so has been the general imposition of a new 'morality' that originates in a source that is not just unChristian, but, as demonstrated by their words, actions and chief scriptures, is the most anti-Christian sect in the world. It is typified by a Zionist regime that regards itself as above any law and has perpetrated a terrible genocide right in front of the world and supported by the West, particularly a United States dominated by Christian Zionist heretics, ably supported by Catholic bishops afraid of saying a word against them, lest they be accused of anti-semitism. It has got to the stage that Russia, and even China, are less disordered than the post-Christian West. What do you think Our Lady was telling us at Fatima? Or the other Catholic prophecies referred to here? Russia is far from perfect, but she may be the instrument God uses against our latter day Sodom. Rant over!

 

I was thinking about that prophecy, which also has other sources if I remember correctly, on the way home from First Friday this morning and this thought came into my head:

In every single event there is more than one possibility of outcome, often several. Free will plays a big part when men are involved, we have a choice in everything we do, often several. We know from our scientists that there are uncertainties in even the smallest material events (Heisenberg and quantum uncertainty). In all the time that has passed in the intervening years, think of the unimaginable number of variables in political and social situations throughout the world, magnified by so many wars, revolutions and other forms of chaos. Our present situation could be so different in so many different ways. But, they are uncannily close to that which Marie Julie Jahenny predicted and events seem to be focussing ever closer to the vision she saw. This is so unlikely, in worldly terms, that it is very difficult to deny the Hand of God in it all. There would be those who would accuse me of confirmation bias, but I cannot see how such bias can explain the objectively close correspondence between Marie Julie's visions and the current realities. A degraded, de-Christianising Europe crying out for Chastisement; a usually isolationist Russian Bear being prodded and provoked; a resurgent Mohammedan enemy, ripe for an opportunity; a United States seemingly intent on withdrawing from it all. When the USSR fell, I thought that was the end for these prophecies. How times have changed.

 

Do you know that the Ukrainian revolution left a toll of 108 dead, most of whom were killed by government forces? So, by your logic, some foreign country could have intervened in Ukraine at that time. Besides, it's a joke to use the argument that Russia was defending ethnic minorities to justify invading a sovereign country, considering that if something similar happened in Russia, Putin would have nipped it in the bud long ago (in his own view)—just as he does with many of his opponents. The West needs to convert, but for you, any action by Putin carries a sanctifying Midas touch simply because of his anti-Western rhetoric.

 

I mentioned Putin's past as a KGB agent because you brought up Zelensky's past to discredit the Ukrainian Church's claims about the ongoing special operation in Ukraine. I even think Ukraine deserved a better leader than him, especially because, after the apostasy of Fiducia Supplicans, it emerged as a beacon of light for all of Europe, with its bishops reacting in unison against the document. However, a better leader would certainly not be another puppet of Putin who would forbid the Church from engaging in proselytism.

 

It's not a black-and-white issue of good boys versus bad guys. Still, there are nuances and degrees to consider. The Ukrainian bishops deserve great praise for their response to Fiducia Supplicans-in this they were performing their role. However, although they are individually, as citizens, entitled to support their nation in war, they are not entitled, as I understand it, individually or collectively to bring their position and authority as Catholic Bishops to bear on the issue. That is not their job. And it creates dangers for their flock. They would do well to follow the example of Pius XII's tight-rope act during the Second World War, when he managed to convey the Church's moral authority upon events, without taking sides, although he might have had private allegiances.

On balance, I see the scales of justice tipping more towards the Russian side. They seem the more honest and straight in their opinions. The British and French (and are not the French currently involved in sponsoring the latest invasion of the misfortunate Congo?), tell us, on the one hand, that Russia is ready to topple with one final push, but, on the other hand, if the push isn't delivered the Russians will sweep all over Europe. Contradictory stances like that are essentially lies. I do not trust blatant liars, not as far as I'd throw 'em.

I also have a certain sympathy for the Russians moving in to defend their brothers in the East. In the late sixties and early seventies, the Unionists of the North of Ireland were conducting ethnic cleansing, with the full assistance of their armed police force, against the Catholics. Our then Prime Minister, Jack Lynch, said that the Republic 'wouldn't stand idly by', while these atrocities went on, but unfortunately, the Republic didn't have the might to back up the words (it did induce the perfidious ones to send in their army to, briefly, protect the Catholics, before they too turned on them). Still, Lynch was morally right, in my opinion, so I couldn't condemn the Russians in as much as that was a reason for their invasion. Would anyone, apart from the Zionists and their sympathisers, have complained if a grand army of Middle Eastern states had invaded 'Israel' (a blasphemous name-The Catholic Church is Israel) to put a stop to their recent genocide?

 

If we consider the prophecy of Gog and Magog, it is quite possible that this could happen someday. After the fall of Israel, the Catholic Church inherited Israel’s prerogative as the intermediary covenant of salvation between God and humanity. However, as St. Paul teaches us that, at the end of history, all of Israel will be saved, then in at least one context, Israel still refers to the Jewish people who have not yet converted.

Regarding the position of Ukrainian bishops on the war, the fact that the Russian state treats Catholics as second-class citizens, without official recognition and without the right to engage in proselytism, suggests that they lump us together with Western culture in general, disregarding the significance of authentic Catholicism in its traditional form.

Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but just two years later, Hamas rose to power. While this is not a reason to condemn the entire Palestinian people to suffering, it does indicate that any international intervention in the Holy Land should focus on Hamas’s military capabilities, as the group continues to indoctrinate future generations to hate Israel.

 

The snipers who killed at 2013 protests were not from the Ukrainian government, nor did Yanukovych, as a legally elected president who was looking for another term, have any reason to kill protesters, who numbered around 50,000 at most, a good portion of whom were from foreign countries. We are talking about Ukraine, which had a population of over 45 million, and the number of protesters was miserable.

It is widely known that Yanukovych was a weak ruler and would not have had the power to order the police to kill protesters, nor the army, and his power fell very quickly after the initial violent protests, so it makes no sense that he had the power to order a brutal killing, but did not have the power to protect himself and his power at the top.

The Russians came in partly for the sake of the Russians in Ukraine, but the main reason was that they did not want NATO on their borders and to be surrounded by NATO on such a large line as Ukraine.

This is what they have been repeating since the mid-90s when the former Warsaw Pact members joined NATO.

According to reports at the time, the snipers were CIA operatives...

 

Yes or No - Is Bishop Stepan Sus corrupt? Yes or No - Is Bishop Stepan Sus lying?

 

I have a few comments on the last paragraphs about Europe.
It is of course true that the US Biden administration dragged Europe into the war.
The American interest in weakening Russia has existed for a long time and can be read about in various places (Brzezinski; Georg Friedmann; Rand Corporation...).
There is also information that a weakening of Europe was planned, not only as collateral damage but as a complementary benefit.
In addition to geopolitical and power-political incentives, the USA also had the advantage mentioned of you of being able to force Europe to switch to expensive LNG.

And this extremely expensive energy in Europe, together with the backfired economic sanctions against Russia, has led to inflation that is being felt by all citizens in the EU and which is causing companies in countries with industrial production, for example here in Germany, to go bankrupt or emigrate en masse. (there are also a number of political decisions within germany that are exacerbating the situation, but this is irrelevant at this point)

It is clear that Trump will not take any economic account of Europe.
This makes it all the more important to have European politicians who also represent their own interests.
But so far we only have that in a few countries and certainly not at EU level.
This brings me slowly to the point I wanted to make and where I can't quite understand your argument.
You correctly describe the internal European conflicts and the threat of economic chaos.

But to what extent do European globalists need or use war to avoid or delay economic problems?

On the contrary - a continuation will cause further massive economic damage to Europe.
Military aid for Ukraine is largely financed by debt and flows primarily into the American arms industry. There is virtually no “return on investment”.
Further war and the continuation of economic sanctions will make raw materials even more scarce and expensive.

Btw, the EU Association Agreement, with which the EU/USA gave Ukraine/Yanukovych the choice - trade with the EU or Russia, instead of trade with the EU and Russia - was the concrete prehistory of why the Maidan was initiated by the US. The AND would have turned the EU and Russia into a free trade zone via Ukraine. American politicians did not like that.

I believe (if you disregard the possibility that they deliberately want to plunge europe into chaos) that the main reason why European politicians still seem to want war is that it would be extremely difficult for them to change course politically. They have got stuck in the mantra that Russia must be defeated.
And as described, the price of trying to defeat Russia was and is too high and the economic damage caused is too great, so that a sudden change of policy would make Western European leaders accountable for their previous decisions. That's what these politicians are afraid of.

The reason why I believe that France, Britain (Germany will join with the soon to be new blackrock chancellor) will have to accept peace is that money alone will not help. Rearmament will not succeed because there is a lack of raw materials, industry, infrastructure and personnel.

The question remains whether the USA can still be persuaded to provide a certain amount of support. Satellite data would be essential.
And the prophecies suggest otherwise. But before the Russian invasion, there would still be civil wars on the program.

(Until recently I assumed that the chaos would lead to the Warning and soon after to the Antichrist. The user LMF has plausibly explained in another thread that after the warning, miracle, chastisement we are somehow on the way to the Triumph and an “era of peace” before the AC is to be expected).

 

I’m glad you wrote this last paragraph, and I agree with you.

 

I'll bite.

Is it wrong to withhold and not speak to the whole truth? Is it corrupt? Is it a form of lying? Does this make one corrupt? Are people dying in Ukraine because the truth is being withheld from them.

The answer to all of this is yes. Now what? If that bishop was decent he would be calling for peace not ongoing support. I've seen recently where they want to be able to recruit 14 year olds now. Also, the many kidnappings of men off the street to go fight in the war. What has the good bishop had to say about such things?

The answer is likely nowhere, because it would likely get him killed if he spoke out against the agenda of Ukrainian overlords.

 

How could any Palestinian, under present circumstances, not hate Israel, lest he was a saint? This applies more strongly to those of Muslim persuasion who have not had the privilege of being brought up in a tradition of 'love your enemy', the most radical, and difficult of Our Lord's teachings.

 

I have read eye-witness reports from nurses who treated the wounded who were insistent that the trajectories of the bullets of the victims could only have come from those outside the government area. Of course, they might be the liars and Nuland is as honest as the day is long...just like her husband and Shapiro and all the oh-so-honest neo-cons.

Christ didn't describe 'the synagogue of satan' for nothing, that's for sure.