Civil War in the Ukraine?

Discussion in 'The Signs of the Times' started by padraig, Jan 20, 2014.

  1. picadillo

    picadillo Powers

    From a man who knows:

    Jim Sinclair’s Commentary

    The entire Ukraine will be praying to be Russian by the time the IMF gets finished with them. Retirement payments are due to drop almost 50%.

    Ukraine gas prices may have to rise 40% to satisfy IMF: minister Brussels (Platts)–20Mar2014/418 pm EDT/2018 GMT

    Ukraine’s retail gas prices may have to rise 40% as part of economic reforms needed to unlock loans from the International Monetary Fund, Ukrainian energy minister Yuriy Prodan told reporters in Brussels Thursday.

    "This is an unpopular reform…an extraordinary measure needed to get out of the crisis," Prodan said.

    Ukraine would need real support from the international community to start developing the economy, he added.

    The EU has said that its proposed Eur11 billion ($15 billion) financial aid package to Ukraine is conditional on Ukraine implementing economic reforms agreed with the IMF and the gas sector reforms agreed under Ukraine’s energy community membership.

    Prodan said there was an IMF mission in Ukraine assessing the situation, and he could not say yet when the price rises would start.

    "We are short of time to have a smooth price rise. It has to be done urgently, it’s the only thing to relaunch the economy," he said.
  2. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To Steve D:

    You wrote:
    After such “lovely” description of my comments as “ten page reply of obfuscation and distortion” which you await “without much interest”, my first thought was not to reply to you at all. Eventually I decided to reply only for the sake of other people who may read this.

    You wrote:
    Stalin was a blood-thirsty beast. He displaced not only the Tatars, but he displaced millions of Russian and Ukrainian peasants who resisted his “collectivization” efforts. Millions of Ukrainian and Russian peasants who owned just one cow were deemed “kulaks” which is translated as “filthy rich bourgeois”. Tens of millions of Ukrainian and Russian people were starved to death because Stalin “expropriated” all grain from peasants and people did not have any grain to put into soil to raise the crop. Ukraine suffered unprecedentedly high death toll. So, it is a joke to talk only about the Tatars.

    You wrote:
    Who told you that only Russian blood was shed in liberating Crimea from Hitler? Not me! The Crimea was liberated from Hitler in 1943. Not only ethnic Russians fought in World War II, but many non-Russian citizens of the USSR did.

    When I told about shedding of blood of Russian soldiers, I was talking about the Russian-Turkish war in 1768-1774, during the time of Russian tsarina, Catherine the Great.

    At that time, Ukraine was divided mostly between Poland and the Ottoman Turkish Empire. During this war, part of Ukraine which belonged to Ottoman Turkish Empire was also liberated from Turks:

    Below is an excerpt from the article:

    The Russian victories allowed Catherine's government to obtain access to the Black Sea and to incorporate present-day southern Ukraine, where the Russians founded the new cities of Odessa, Nikolayev, Yekaterinoslav (literally: "the Glory of Catherine"; the future Dnepropetrovsk), and Kherson. The Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, signed 10 July 1774, gave the Russians territories at Azov, Kerch, Yenikale, Kinburn, and the small strip of Black Sea coast between the rivers Dnieper and Bug. The treaty also removed restrictions on Russian naval or commercial traffic in the Azov Sea, granted to Russia the position of protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, and made the Crimea a protectorate of Russia.

    Catherine annexed the Crimea in 1783, nine years after the Crimean Khanate had gained nominal independence—which had been guaranteed by Russia—from the Ottoman Empire as a result of her first war against the Turks. The palace of the Crimean khans passed into the hands of the Russians. In 1786 Catherine conducted a triumphal procession in the Crimea, which helped provoke the next Russo–Turkish War.

    The Ottomans restarted hostilities in the second Russo-Turkish War (1787–92). This war, catastrophic for the Ottomans, ended with the Treaty of Jassy (1792), which legitimised the Russian claim to the Crimea and granted the Yedisan region to Russia.

    So, you mixed up time-frames, despite my previous “ten page” detailed comment.

    You wrote:
    Personally, I am happy that the Ukrainians booted out this thief, Yanukovych. He stole billions from Ukrainian people, and now Ukraine has no money in its treasury. Personally, I would like to put this thief on trial and to see him hanged.

    The Ukrainian people have all legitimate rights to deal with Yanukovych. But, at the same time, the Russian people have all legitimate rights to the Crimea.

    You wrote:
    I don’t think that “the Baltic Republics and even in Poland and Sweden (among other nations)” got frightened, but I clearly see that you got really frightened by this “boogey man”. It is so human to imagine someone as a “boogey man”, to imagine all horrors that this “boogey man” can do to us, and, then, be unable to sleep because of this “boogey man”.

    You wrote:
    When I read this statement, I yawned. The West has no right to “react” to the Crimean conflict. The Crimea belonged, belongs and will belong to Russia. As to Obama, in my previous comments, I stated my opinion regarding to his “reaction”. Obama was nowhere to be found during the Crimean conflict. He ran and hid himself before and he will act in the same way in the future.

    But, as I can see, you personally “react strongly” to this “boogey man”, which you created in your imagination.

    God Bless!
  3. Andy3

    Andy3 Powers

    Wait a minute. You really want Yanukovych hung for robbery? A little harsh for a Christian don't you think? I remember a certain robber on a cross next to Jesus. Should this robber be crucified too. What ever happened to love the sinner hate the sin? Or love your neighbor as yourself?
  4. jerry

    jerry Guest

    concernedforusa: i am on my tablet so cannot copy and paste as I would like.
    I would have liked to have c & p ed the start of your post #382. It made me smile.

    i am so pleased that you are not rising to the bait that SteveD has laid to raise the temperature of the argument.
    I enjoy reading your detailed responses.
  5. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To: Andy3

    You wrote:
    The apparition of the Blessed Virgin to three Portuguese children was a genuine apparition. The Roman Catholic Church made a thorough investigation and confirmed it. The Words or Our Lady of Fatima are better than gold. These words are rightfully placed on the same level as the Words of God in the mouth of the Prophets of the OT and the NT. There are no questions about this.

    At the same time not all Marian apparitions were officially announced as genuine apparitions by the Roman Catholic Church. For example, take a look at this new post “Apparitions Medjugorje” posted today in the Forum “Marian Apparitions”

    The Roman Catholic Church never announced this apparition as a genuine one. There are many reasons to believe that it was just a hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting people for a monetary gain. So, we should be very, very careful before relying on something with a 100% assurance.

    You wrote:
    Yes, we should follow the prophecies that came after the Scripture. But, we should be very, very careful. The Prophecy of Our Lady of Fatima came after the Scripture, and, as I said before, we can rely on these words with 100% assurance.

    As I told before, many of the Saints of the Russian Orthodox Church made prophecies concerning the End of Times. The Russian Orthodox Church conferred on those holy and honest people the title of the Saints because of their holy life dedicated totally to God. We believe in the Saints and, in our prayers, we ask the Saints to protect us.

    At the same time, there was no one instance, when the Russian Orthodox Church officially announced that the End of Times prophecies of those Saints are to be absolutely trusted as the Word of God in the Biblical prophecies. No one instance!

    We all are humans. The Saints also were humans. Only God is without errors. The Saints were not the liars, they absolutely believed in what they were saying, but, in some ways, they could be in error. Only the Word of God in the OT and in the NT and the Words of Our Lady of Fatima are without errors.

    I know that you rely on the End of Times prophecies of the Saints of the Roman Catholic Church. They ALL were holy and honest people. They absolutely believed in what they said. The Roman Catholic Church reported the words of those Saints. But, did the Roman Catholic Church announce that you can rely on the End of Times prophecies of some Saints with 100% assurance? Did the Roman Catholic Church announce that these prophecies are as good as the Word of God in the OT and in the NT? I don’t think so.

    This is precisely what I was talking about. We can rely with 100% assurance ONLY on the prophecies in the OT and in the NT and on the Words of Our Lady of Fatima.

    Does it mean that we should disregard all the End of Times prophecies of the Saints? By no means! Many of those prophecies might be right. I personally trust in the prophecy of St. Nilus of Sinai, although the Church doubts its authenticity.

    You wrote:
    Precisely! That is why we have the Bible that we have today. That is why we can trust in the Word of God in the Bible, on which we can rely with a 100% assurance! And we can rely with 100% assurance on what the Church officially announced to be as good as the Word of God in the Bible!

    God Bless!
  6. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To Andy3:

    You wrote:
    In my previous comments I wrote that the Crimea was never the land of Ukraine. The Crimea was always a territory of Russia. In 1960, Nikita Khrushchev, the former leader of the USSR, in authoritative manner, without asking opinion of people, announced that the Crimea belongs to Ukraine, because the Crimea has a common border with Ukraine. In Khrushchev’s mind, it made no difference because the USSR was still one country. As you can understand, nobody could openly question this authoritative decision of Nikita Khrushchev without being immediately put in jail, in the mental hospital, or worse. But, at the same time, nobody can force Russia to be hostage to the authoritative decision of this feeble-minded Dear Leader of the Soviet times.

    Russia is entitled to whatever is rightfully Russian territory, and by this I mean only the Crimea. Russia is NOT entitled to any other territory that rightfully belongs to Ukraine or to any other country. Period!

    God Bless!
    picadillo likes this.
  7. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To Andy3:

    You wrote:
    You are right; your words brought me to my senses. When I wrote my previous comment, I allowed some wild, “heathen” part of me (sometimes this side can come to the surface) to prevail over me as a Christian. I can only say that I am very angry with this thief who robbed blind my people. But, of course, this should not be an excuse to say what I said. I humbly apologize to God and to everybody in this Forum for my words.

    God Bless!
    Andy3 and picadillo like this.
  8. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To Jerry:

    Thank you very much for your appreciation.

    God Bless!
  9. Mac

    Mac Guest

    You seem very open to the winds of change David.Recently returned to the Faith have we?
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2014
  10. Mac

    Mac Guest

    concernedusa said...The apparition of the Blessed Virgin to three Portuguese children was a genuine apparition.

    Then wake up and smell the true church of Rome brother.Perhaps if the miracle of the sun happened in Moscow... to ROC ...leg to stand on?
  11. davidtlig

    davidtlig Guest

    Not quite sure how to take your comment, Mac, but I definitely try to be open to the Holy Spirit who is constantly wanting to guide us and the Church. The 'communion for the divorced' topic certainly provoked some hardline comments on this forum but I prefer to watch and listen to the Pope when something like this comes up. Although my understanding of the faith is very different now to what it was 40 years ago, there is not a line in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I disagree with.
  12. Andy3

    Andy3 Powers

    I agree Concerned. Sometimes we all feel this way. Many are like St. Peter in the garden picking up the sword to defend our Lord. It is quite human. I often wonder though why Peter lost this passion and rage to protect his master just a few short hours later when instead he denied our Lord three times. Yesterday I had to catch myself from this internal rage over something rather insignificant. I was waiting to pull into a parking spot of a full parking lot with my turn signal on and two young boys in a car quickly whipped around and took the spot from me. They knew I was sitting there and just kind of smirked at me as they did it. The rage built up and I just wanted to get right out of my car and confront them but I decided to just leave and go elsewhere instead to calm down and not esculate an uncharitable act.
    Heidi likes this.
  13. Frodo

    Frodo Guest

    Hi concerned. I certainly appreciate the vast knowledge of the history of your people and your strong faith. But I'm afraid I can't follow your arguments. Let us take this one for example:

    This is not true, as you yourself know, and go on to write:

    Then you go on trying to explain it:

    A couple of things here:

    1) Was Khrushchev not the leader of the USSR? Of course he was. Therefore Ukraine does have a rightful claim to Crimea, whether some people like it or not.

    2) If what you say is true - that it was always one country and it didn't matter, then why did it take over two decades for Russia to officially bring back Crimea into the fold when it wasn't one country anymore and it did mater? The most logical answer is that it was not Russia's to take back.

    3) If your explanation is truly correct - that Crimea is truly a Russian territory - and this is the real reason why Russia is acting like she is, tell me, why hasn't Putin come flat out and said so from the beginning? I contend that it is because this is not the case.

    4) As for the West being involved, being from Ukraine, you should know very well why we are concerned and indeed required to step in: the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. For those who do not know, this is an agreement which the USA, UK, AND Russia agreed to security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world's third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.

    Russia, my friend, has indeed broken its agreements and has acted wrongly. White-washing the situation does nobody a service and will lead us down a path towards a hardening of hearts and of war. It is only in humility - of both sides- that we can hope that an armed conflict can be avoided. Let us all pray for that.
  14. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To Mac:

    You wrote:
    First of all, I always told that the Roman Orthodox Church is the true Church of Lord Jesus, as well as ALL Eastern Orthodox Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church, are the true and faithful Churches of our Lord and Savior. So, being in the Russian Orthodox Church, I already smell its rosy aroma of the true Church of God.

    Second, I am not your brother but your sister in Christ. I do not know how Jerry was able to figure it out (see Jerry’s comment # 375, on p.19), but he correctly identified my gender.

    Third, there is no doubts whatsoever that the apparition of the Blessed Virgin to three Portuguese children was a genuine apparition, and the Words of Our Lady of Fatima are as 100% reliable as the Words of God in the OT and in the NT.

    Fourth, in the tread “Medjugorje – The Great Prophecy Is Unfolding”, I commented extensively on the very clear implications of the fact that Our Lady of Fatima appeared to three Portuguese children in the Catholic country and not in Russia and that she gave her command to the Pope of Rome and not to the Patriarch of Russia.

    It seems to me that the explanation which was given by me was too much for some (or, maybe, for all) people in this forum to accept. As a result, that thread was locked. I do not want to run the risk of locking this thread also; it’s better to be safe than sorry.

    So, you can see my explanation in the previous thread “Medjugorje – The Great Prophecy Is Unfolding”. There, my comments are: starting on p.8 and ending on p.13.

    God Bless!
  15. Ah...yes. Woke up to at least two inches on the ground this is lit and toasty warm. Kids are still in bed and its 11:30am and I am still in my jammies getting ready to go color my hair. My husband gets up early and lights the fire and starts the coffee. Gotta love a husband who works from home! I love homeschooling...we will sit around and school later today after everyone rises up! I have lettuce, carrots, turnips, mint, lemons and herbs and spinach in my greenhouse ready to be picked right now. That makes for a great salad for no meat Friday!
    Charity and Adoremus like this.
  16. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    The Church is not against the death penalty per se.

    The death penalties given at the Nuremburg trials in my opinion were justified.
  17. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    This is the true agenda concerning the Ukraine. Few people see this.
  18. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To: Frodo [Part I]

    (Because I am allowed to post not more that 1,000 characters, I will make my reply in 2 parts)

    When I said that the Crimea always belonged to Russia, I meant that it belonged to Russia from 1700s to 1960, when Nikita Khrushchev made his authoritative decision. And, in my previous comment, I made it clear.

    You wrote:
    The USSR, in its essence, was never a legitimate state. This was not the state of the people and for the people. It was run by blood-thirsty tyrants from the beginning of the Communist coup in 1917. This state continued to exist only due to extreme fear that it instilled it the hearts of its citizens. Tens of millions of people were killed by firing squads, died in GULAGs due to the slave-labor, were starved to death by deliberate man-made hungers, perished during force deportations.

    Every one of Dear Leaders was illegitimate leader who kept power instilling fear in people. People were not afraid for their lives only, they were afraid for lives of their wives, children and relatives. It was not uncommon to send into GULAG not only one who was labeled as “the enemy of the state”, but also his wife, children, relatives and even neighbors. The neighbors were deemed guilty of not uncovering “the enemies of the state” and not reporting them to the authorities. Millions of people, including women and children died in GULAGs. You will never be able to understand or comprehend it, unless you had an experience of life in a totalitarian country.

    Not only Nikita Khrushchev, in essence, was illegitimate Dear Leader who ruled not for the people, but his authoritative decision to give the Crimea to Ukraine was also illegitimate. Nikita Khrushchev was the Ukrainian. Before becoming a Dear Leader, he lived and worked in Ukraine. His authoritative decision stemmed from his desire to show the Ukrainians that he is still from their stock. In Khrushchev’s feeble mind, it was just a pure gesture because the USSR was still one country at that time.

    It was done without asking people at all, especially without asking the Russian people. Anyone who objected Khrushchev’s will run the risk of finding himself in a jail, or in a mental hospital, or in a grave.

    If Ukraine wants to stick to Khrushchev’s authoritative decision, and to keep the Crimea, then Ukraine should go back in time and legitimize all decisions of Dear Leaders. It should go back to the Soviet Union, and be again one country with Russia and all other republics.

    You wrote:
    The dissolution of the former Soviet Union was not so smooth, as you might think. It was a painful process. When Gorbachev was still a President of the Soviet Union, Russian Republic had its own President, Boris Yeltsin. Boris Yeltsin wanted Russia to be a separate independent country. Then, he himself will be a top leader of this country and not just a sub-President of one of the Republics of the Soviet Union.

    For this purpose, on December 8, 1991, Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, Leonid Kravchuc, the President of Ukraine, and Stanislau Shushkevich, the Presiden of Belarus, signed the Belavezha Accords, effectively seceding from the Soviet Union.

    Although, at that time, Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, Leonid Kravchuc the President of Ukraine, as well as people in Russia and in Ukraine, all knew that the Crimea was illegitimately given to Ukraine, the Russians decided not to raise this issue at that point, because, at that point, Russia needed the representation in UN, which the Soviet Union previously had as one country. So, it was decided that the Russian and the Ukrainian fleets would just share the naval bases in the Crimea. For Russia, the most important matter, at that time, was a membership in UN:

    Below is an excerpt from the article:

    The Summit of Alma-Ata also issued a statement on December 21, 1991 supporting Russia's claim to be recognized as the successor state of the Soviet Union for the purposes of membership of the United Nations. On December 25, 1991, Russian President Yeltsin informed the UN Secretary General that the Soviet Union had been dissolved and that Russsia would, as its successor State, continue the Soviet Union's membership in the United Nations. The document confirmed the credentials of the representatives of the Soviet Union as representatives of Russia, and requested that the name "Soviet Union" be changed to "Russian Federation" in all records and entries. This was a move designed to allow Russia to retain the Soviet Union's Security Council seat, which wouldn't have been possible if all States resulting from the breakup of the Union were regarded equal successors of the Soviet Union, or if it was regarded as having no successor State for the purpose of continuing the same UN membership.

    The point is that both the Ukrainian and the Russian people always knew that the Crimea belonged, belongs and will belong to Russia. Russia could claim the Crimea back as solely its territory at any time. Putin is a head of state, and, as every head of state does, he must protect the interests of Russia. And, believe me, both the Russian and the Ukrainian people know that the Russian cause is a just cause.

    The overwhelming majority of people in the Crimea are Russians. Therefore, it should not surprise anybody that 95% of people of the Crimea voted to re-unite the Crimea with Russia. The cause of Russia is absolutely just. Why do you think that it was no bloodshed when Russian soldiers took over the Ukrainian Naval headquarters in the Crimea? There was no bloodshed because Russians have a just cause and the Ukrainians do not, and Ukrainian military knows that very well.

    [to be continued]
  19. concernedforusa

    concernedforusa New Member

    To: Frodo [Part II]

    You wrote:
    I absolutely agree, Russia will honor the territorial integrity and the political independence of Ukraine, as well as any other country. The problem is that the Crimea and the Crimea only never was a legitimate Ukrainian territory. It belonged, belongs and will belong to Russia.

    Both the Ukrainian and the Russian people understand this very well. Are you trying to tell me that the illegitimate authoritative decision of Dear Leader, Nikita Khrushchev, can override the will of the people?

    Then the Russian and the Ukrainian people should stick to Dear Leader’s adamant decisions aimed at a total destruction of the Christianity in the former Soviet Union.

    Nikita Khrushchev promised that, by 1975, he will show on TV the last Christian priest, and he said that the destruction of the churches are totally acceptable.

    Below is a small excerpt from an article:

    A new period of persecution began in the late 1950s under Nikita Khrushchev.[99] The church had advanced its position considerably since 1941, and the government considered it to be necessary to take measures in response.

    The two state organizations for overseeing religion in the country (one for the Orthodox, the other for everyone else), changed their functions between 1957 and 1964. Originally Stalin had created them in 1943 as liaison bodies between religious communities and the state, however, in the Khrushchev years their function was re-interpreted as dictatorial supervisors over the religious activities in the country.[100]

    New instructions were issued in 1958 attacked the position of monasteries, by placing them under high taxation, cutting their land and working to shut them down in order to weaken the church.

    From 1959 to 1964, the persecution operated on several key levels:

    1. There was a massive closure of churches[55] (reducing the number from 22,000 to 7,000 by 1965.[101])
    2. Closures of monasteries and convents as well reinforcement of the 1929 legislation to ban piligrimages
    3. Closure of most of the still existing seminaries and bans on pastoral courses
    4. Banning all services outside of church walls and recording the personal identities of all adults requesting church baptisms, weddings or funerals.[102] Non-fulfillment of these regulations by clergy would lead to disallowance of state registration for them (which meant they could no longer do any pastoral work or liturgy at all, without special state permission).
    5. The deprivation of parental rights for teaching religion to their children, a ban on the presence of children at church services (beginning in 1961 with the Baptists and then extended to the Orthodox in 1963) and the administration of the Eucharist to children over the age of four.
    6. The forced retirement, arrests and prison sentences to clergymen who criticized atheism[103] or the anti-religious campaign, who conducted Christian charity or who in made religion popular by personal example.[103]
    7. It also disallowed the ringing of church bells and services in daytime in some rural settings from May to the end of October under the pretext of field work requirements.[103]
    The government adopted many methods of creating situations that allowed for churches or seminaries to be legally closed (e.g. refusing to give permits for building repair, and then shutting down churches on grounds they were unsafe).

    During the 1960s, Soviet citizens, especially young people, would be expelled from the party and colleges for visiting temples and for resorting to such church services as baptism, church wedding and funerals. The Russian Orthodox Church became a state enemy on the anti-religious front. The bells of nearly all temples in the country stopped tolling for decades.

    Maybe, you don’t know, but Nikita Khrushchev was personally responsible for a mass murder of men, women and children who went on a peaceful demonstration, protesting against the increase of prices on food and the decrease in workers’ wages, in Novocherkassk, in 1962. He was personally responsible for mass murder of Hungarian people during the revolt in Hungary in 1956.

    Nikita Khrushchev was personally responsible for a Cuban nuclear crisis which could end up with wiping out the humanity from the face of the earth. In 1960, in the UN, Nikita Khrushchev took off his shoe, waved it and banged it on his desk, shouting toward the Western countries: “We will bury you!”

    Are you telling me that the decisions of this psycho should be followed at any cost, disregarding the will of the people? I do not think so.

    God Bless!


  20. PERFECT...
    Torrentum likes this.

Share This Page