Understanding Putin- Ukraine

[Josh]

Meanwhile, Russia's best friends are China, Iran, and North Korea. What does that say?

Is there something wrong with these countries compared to Saudi Arabia, the United States, Canada, and Israel?

Two are communist governments. The other is controlled by extreme Islam. As a country that repudiated communism and persecutes Islamic peoples in their own sphere of influence, Russia is a sort of odd one in that group.

Edit to add: (Well, yes, China also persecutes Islamic peoples. I don't know about North Korea, but I wouldn't be surprised.)

#1. Saudi Arabia is far more extreme than Iran. Iran allows practice of Christianity and church buildings for example. Saudi Arabia doesn’t tolerate any indigenous Christianity at all.

#2. Russia has entire autonomous provinces that are Islamic like Chechnya. Russia has much more religious diversity than America does, for example.

#3. The real point is that Russia’s friends are countries America has decided are enemies. I am not interested as a Christian in deciding that some countries are “enemies”. Particularly when the West is full of extreme, godless immorality that puts any complaints one may have with Iran, China, etc. to shame.

[Neto]

Meanwhile, Russia's best friends are China, Iran, and North Korea. What does that say?

Alliances often have nothing to do with friendship.

In that case, it's just politics. I don't think in those terms, so I have no reply.

[temporal1]

.. Particularly when the [Left-]West is full of extreme, godless immorality that puts any complaints one may have with Iran, China, etc. to shame.

Possibly the worst of it being the enthusiastic obsession to EXPORT “extreme godless immorality” -
there is no respect for others to choose differently or better. The tyranny of the godless+intolerant is breathtaking.
Largely financed via the Public Treasury. No shame whatsoever. The very definition of bullies.

[Neto]

Is there something wrong with these countries compared to Saudi Arabia, the United States, Canada, and Israel?

Two are communist governments. The other is controlled by extreme Islam. As a country that repudiated communism and persecutes Islamic peoples in their own sphere of influence, Russia is a sort of odd one in that group.

Edit to add: (Well, yes, China also persecutes Islamic peoples. I don't know about North Korea, but I wouldn't be surprised.)

#1. Saudi Arabia is far more extreme than Iran. Iran allows practice of Christianity and church buildings for example. Saudi Arabia doesn’t tolerate any indigenous Christianity at all.

#2. Russia has entire autonomous provinces that are Islamic like Chechnya. Russia has much more religious diversity than America does, for example.

#3. The real point is that Russia’s friends are countries America has decided are enemies. I am not interested as a Christian in deciding that some countries are “enemies”. Particularly when the West is full of extreme, godless immorality that puts any complaints one may have with Iran, China, etc. to shame.

I wasn't characterizing any country as an "enemy", nor was I responding as "an American", or a "Westerner". It was only a response based on those country's ideological differences, both religious and political. Strictly as an outsider looking in on the entire political world.

[Neto]

Meanwhile, Russia's best friends are China, Iran, and North Korea. What does that say?

Alliances often have nothing to do with friendship.

In that case, it's just politics. I don't think in those terms, so I have no reply.

I just now saw this in the news:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62912892

During their last meeting in February - when Mr Putin travelled to Beijing for the Winter Olympics at Mr Xi's invitation - the two sought to demonstrate their close ties, famously declaring they shared a friendship with "no limits".

A poor translation? Perhaps.

[Josh]

Considering Russia shares a border with North Korea and China, perhaps it is a good thing if they are friends instead of enemies?

[temporal1]

Alliances often have nothing to do with friendship.

In that case, it's just politics. I don't think in those terms, so I have no reply.

I just now saw this in the news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62912892

During their last meeting in February - when Mr Putin travelled to Beijing for the Winter Olympics at Mr Xi's invitation - the two sought to demonstrate their close ties, famously declaring they shared a friendship with "no limits".

A poor translation? Perhaps.

i rely on you when it comes to language, for sure.
in this case, my guess is, the words are as intended. for various political reasons.
politically, i would “consider the sources” and interpret their words to be thoroughly political - and subject to change according to political/economic/military expediency.

(i would) automatically replace their words, “friendship” and “no limits” with “alliance” and “conditional.”
i don’t take everyone at their word. “accept” and, “time will tell.”

Pearl Harbor and 9-11-01 took most by surprise.

at the moment, reports are that Russia has experienced some setbacks in Ukraine.
a wounded wild animal is a dangerous animal.

[Neto]

In that case, it's just politics. I don't think in those terms, so I have no reply.

I just now saw this in the news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62912892

During their last meeting in February - when Mr Putin travelled to Beijing for the Winter Olympics at Mr Xi's invitation - the two sought to demonstrate their close ties, famously declaring they shared a friendship with "no limits".

A poor translation? Perhaps.

i rely on you when it comes to language, for sure.
in this case, my guess is, the words are as intended. for various political reasons.
politically, i would “consider the sources” and interpret their words to be thoroughly political - and subject to change according to political/economic/military expediency.

(i would) automatically replace their words, “friendship” and “no limits” with “alliance” and “conditional.”
i don’t take everyone at their word. “accept” and, “time will tell.”

Pearl Harbor and 9-11-01 took most by surprise.

at the moment, reports are that Russia has experienced some setbacks in Ukraine.
a wounded wild animal is a dangerous animal.

Thank you, but in this case, my comment has no linguistic support, which is why I allowed for the bad translation explanation. That is, because I do not know any of the languages in which these comments might have been originally reported (assuming that they WERE reported in languages other than English, Portuguese, and, Banawa ), that is, Russian or Chinese, I cannot make any judgement at all in respect to the accuracy of the translation. I would just consider the possibility that in this case, even the BBC might be slanted. I posted the link to this article because I saw it soon after our earlier conversation/exchange, and the words in that phrase jumped out at me. To be clear, I had not been particularly careful when I chose the word "friends" to start with.

In respect to the differing moral stances taken by these different governments, naturally I identify more with the official position taken by Russia than that (apparently) taken by Ukraine (and "the West"). But I put no confidence in the State, no matter which it is, or whatever political stance they take on morality. I do not look to "man" for a moral compass. This is the origin of my focus in these comments. As I stated when I (apparently) stirred this pot, I see the one as making false (to some extent, at least) claims of morality, while the other openly celebrates (to some extent, at least) wickedness. In some ways, I've always found it easier to speak about Christ to those who make no claims of following him, as compared to those who make false claims to that effect. But I also have encountered some who "reinterpret truth" to suit their base desires. That is perhaps the worst, and according to some, it might characterize a large part of Ukrainian society, as it does in our own nation. (It might also be a very noisy small part. It's hard to tell.)

[temporal1]

Thank you, but in this case, my comment has no linguistic support, which is why I allowed for the bad translation explanation.
That is, because I do not know any of the languages in which these comments might have been originally reported (assuming that they WERE reported in languages other than English, Portuguese, and, Banawa ), that is, Russian or Chinese, I cannot make any judgement at all in respect to the accuracy of the translation. I would just consider the possibility that in this case, even the BBC might be slanted. I posted the link to this article because I saw it soon after our earlier conversation/exchange, and the words in that phrase jumped out at me. To be clear, I had not been particularly careful when I chose the word "friends" to start with.

In respect to the differing moral stances taken by these different governments, naturally I identify more with the official position taken by Russia than that (apparently) taken by Ukraine (and "the West").

But I put no confidence in the State, no matter which it is, or whatever political stance they take on morality.
I do not look to "man" for a moral compass. This is the origin of my focus in these comments.

As I stated when I (apparently) stirred this pot,
I see the one as making false (to some extent, at least) claims of morality, while the other openly celebrates (to some extent, at least) wickedness. In some ways, I've always found it easier to speak about Christ to those who make no claims of following him, as compared to those who make false claims to that effect. But I also have encountered some who "reinterpret truth" to suit their base desires.
That is perhaps the worst, and according to some, it might characterize a large part of Ukrainian society, as it does in our own nation. (It might also be a very noisy small part. It's hard to tell.)

no intended pot-stirring.
i’m comfortable addressing you ‘cause i know you’ll answer “straight” and to the best of your ability.
you mention “our own nation,” my view about these words applies to all national-political leaders, including our own, they say what they say, time proves or disproves.

in olden times, i trusted U.S. leaders more, no matter party, after all, when U.S. presidents spoke, it was supposed to be representative of the people, to protect and defend the people, and with the support of Congress .. military aggression was to be reluctant, measured, not aggressive. over decades, lots has happened. to earn questions. (example: i was beyond surprised when obama’s desire to bomb Syria was not supported.)

presently, it’s quite peculiar what’s happening with the MIC in this admin, compared to the former admin.
we were vehemently warned, “the world would end” in the event career politicians did not reign. it didn’t.

the difference seems beyond coincidental (make that plural). as disturbing as that is to consider.

i don’t spend much time at all considering any political leader’s claims to faith.
i don’t know any of them, i cannot know their hearts+souls. i pray for God to lead them on righteous paths for God’s purposes -
i believe God is quite able to use even wicked ones as He chooses. i pray for no suffering. i know there is suffering.

i have no intent for contest. just dialogue. thank you. i appreciate it!

- - - - - - -

i arrived on MD for a few reasons. one was interest in having an Amish POTUS.
that was my starting place. the reason was Nickel Mines. i was impressed their leaders kindly but firmly refused media circus.
i thought, that’s a good starting place!

it didn’t take long for me to grasp reasons-why this would not be. i accepted reality.
i did find appleman, tho. also impossible for POTUS. i would vote for him. i think i can honestly say that.

[Neto]

Re: trusting the government:
I was very patriotic in HS, and for a year & a half or so after. But the first shake up for me was when I was still in HS, I think my Junior year. Watergate. I was in Government class when that happened, and the teacher really got us involved in current events. (Maybe he was glad "something big" happened, because it created a lot of interest.) We debated in class as to whether he was guilty, or not. (This class was when the first accusations came out.) I was put on the team who were to argue that he was innocent, but we lost the debate. (I was personally behind him 100% as well.)
Then there was the pull out from Nam, which I opposed. I remember telling people that the US should stop messing around in Nam, and go to the source of the problem, which I considered to be the major Communist nations. Bomb Moscow & Peking (the name people used back then).
And Nixon was apparently guilty, at least of the attempted cover-up, maybe more. The world will never really know, unless there's been a book I never read.
I was in Bible Institute, my Freshman year when Vietnam fell to the Viet Kong. I was also being exposed to both traditional Mennonite non-resistance doctrine, and the Hippie Peace Movement as well, and a mixed together version as well. All of these things lead me to began careful Bible study. This changed me not only in my eventual repudiation of patriotism and pro-war attitudes, but it was also a part of what made me take on the Biblicist approach to determining the meaning of Scripture.

Re: an Amish POTUS
There was a play they did here in Holmes County a few years ago, called something like Jacob for President. An Amish man met an outsider, who convinced him to run for president, and he won the election. When it came time to give the Sate of the Union address, he just said "The state of the Union ist gut." It WAS a fun play, but of course impossible.