Can Christians support a "just war" in a conflict?

[temporal1]

boot:
.. Putin's Russia was not under military threat.

you repeat this as tho it were the Word of God. it’s not.
it’s your opinion, you are convinced. this much is beyond debate.

however, for others, it’s not at all difficult to find that Putin has been candid -for years- about how he/Russia have believed they were under growing military threat from NATO/the U.S. .. quite frankly, it appears from the immediate military and diplomatic response, he was correct.

i’m not suggesting this justifies his peacekeeping moves/crossing into the Ukraine border. i’m not aware of anyone on MN saying this.
i’m saying, i really don’t like that NATO/the U.S., over years, methodically refused to do anything to PREVENT conflict,
then, jumped to hasty violent response+escalation, once the border was crossed.

i’m not aware of the U.S. responding this quickly, even after direct attack on U.S. soil.

This eagerness seriously stretches the limits of discerning between aggressors/victims.
(For any seriously detached outsider looking in.) Christian, CO, or other.

On a small scale, property owners are not allowed to build lethal booby traps for trespassers, even when they’re certain crimes are imminent. i presume COs wouldn’t do this, either.

- - - - - - -

Speaking of COs.
i’m sure i don’t understand how the U.S. Selective Service determines CO status.
i’m not sure Just War/justified war would make the cut.
https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/

[Bootstrap]

boot:
.. Putin's Russia was not under military threat.

you repeat this as tho it were the Word of God. it’s not.

I repeat this as though it's a simple fact. I think it is. Who was threatening to invade Russia? What evidence do you have for that?

Yes, I've read Putin's speeches. But nobody was invading Russia to overthrow the government. That's what Russia tried to do to Ukraine. Incidentally, this is common in propaganda - broadcast what you intend to the other guy, but claim that the other guy is going to do it to you. Ukraine was no threat to Russia. Ukraine has not been taking provinces of Russia or bombing Moscow or hauling Russian citizens off to camps.

[temporal1]

Who was threatening to invade Russia? What evidence do you have for that?

200+ pages in the Ukraine thread cover this, for me, John Mearsheimer’s 22min lecture on page 66 states it clearly: NATO expansion, which violated agreements.

A case can be made that Putin has been patient.

This is a problem when folks insist on discussing topics without reading/listening.
i remember even today how teachers would become frustrated at students refusing to read assigned work.
Nothing is assigned on this forum! But, talking past one another is the result.

boot: speaking of simple facts. what is a woman?

[Ken]

Who was threatening to invade Russia? What evidence do you have for that?

200+ pages in the Ukraine thread cover this, for me, John Mearsheimer’s 22min lecture on page 66 states it clearly: NATO expansion, which violated agreements.

No, NATO expansion didn't actually violate any agreements. There were informal discussions between the US and the USSR along those lines over thirty years ago during the reunification of Germany. But they were not formalized in any sort of agreement or treaty because the USSR was unwilling to make the necessary concessions to reach such an agreement. Furthermore, the USSR no longer exists. Ukraine which was part of the USSR at the time and had just as much claim to the legacy of the USSR as Russia does. You cannot point to any formal agreement between NATO and Russia that promises no expansion because no such agreement exists. Largely because Russia is unwilling to make the sort of binding security agreements necessary to reach such an agreement. Russia wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to constrain NATO without subjecting themselves to any similar constraints. That isn't how diplomacy or the world works.

A case can be made that Putin has been patient.

Not a good case. A case can also be made that the earth is flat. But it isn't a good case either.

This is a problem when folks insist on discussing topics without reading/listening.
i remember even today how teachers would become frustrated at students refusing to read assigned work.
Nothing is assigned on this forum! But, talking past one another is the result.

Fine, point us to the actual text of this so-called non-expansion agreement between NATO and Russia and I will be happy to read it and discuss it.

[Bootstrap]

Who was threatening to invade Russia? What evidence do you have for that?

200+ pages in the Ukraine thread cover this, for me, John Mearsheimer’s 22min lecture on page 66 states it clearly: NATO expansion, which violated agreements.

A case can be made that Putin has been patient.

Did you think Putin was patient when he took Crimea and sent troops into the Donbas in 2014? That's what led Ukraine to seek NATO membership, Russia was taking it one piece at a time, and Russia was threatening it again.

It's not at all clear that Ukraine would have been accepted in NATO. But NATO never invaded Russia or threatened to do so. It never invaded any member of the Warsaw Pact. It does not have the kinds of weapons that you would want to do that kind of thing. And if Putin would stop invading neighboring countries, NATO would probably go away - it was very much in decline until recent events revived it.

Neither Ukraine nor NATO seem to be threatening Russia, except for threatening its ability to take over neighboring countries. Russia is threatening neighboring countries and taking over Ukraine one piece at a time. So it's Ukraine's fault for trying to stop Russia for taking it over? This is blaming the victim.

[temporal1]

boot:
This is blaming the victim.

In everyday cases, courts do not agree that property owners who set lethal booby traps for potential trespassers are justified because they may become targets, or victims. i consider these people/homeowners victims, potential victims, i sympathize!
i don’t believe setting lethal booby traps is the way, or The Way.

When i was younger, i sometimes met young men who could be very clever at devising all manner booby traps! Ingenious.
However, something just doesn’t ring true about this mentality. It can be justified. i don’t think Jesus, or U.S. law much sympathizes. Even with non-lethal booby traps. Men can be very clever. i.e., mankind. That doesn’t make it “right in God’s eyes.”

When opposing sides refuse to listen to one another, to show respect, regardless of dislike, this often leads to escalation of feelings, tensions, violence, divorce, even war.

Jesus tells His to turn the other cheek, to love enemies-(those much harder to love than friendly victims).
What have you done to love Putin? Or even show respect for his position? Anything?

Diplomacy requires neutrality. i’m pretty sure.

[Ken]

boot:
This is blaming the victim.

In everyday cases, courts do not agree that property owners who set lethal booby traps for potential trespassers are justified because they may become targets, or victims. i consider these people/homeowners victims, potential victims, i sympathize!
i don’t believe setting lethal booby traps is the way, or The Way.

When i was younger, i sometimes met young men who could be very clever at devising all manner booby traps! Ingenious.
However, something just doesn’t ring true about this mentality. It can be justified. i don’t think Jesus, or U.S. law much sympathizes. Even with non-lethal booby traps. Men can be very clever. i.e., mankind. That doesn’t make it “right in God’s eyes.”

When opposing sides refuse to listen to one another, to show respect, regardless of dislike, this often leads to escalation of feelings, tensions, violence, divorce, even war.

Jesus tells His to turn the other cheek, to love enemies-(those much harder to love than friendly victims).
What have you done to love Putin? Or even show respect for his position? Anything?

Diplomacy requires neutrality. i’m pretty sure.

Do you understand how ridiculous your analogy is?

What do you think the courts say about a neighbor who firebombs his neighbor's house killing half the family and burning it to the ground. And then moves onto the property and claims to have "annexed" it.

Do you think the courts would look kindly towards that sort of behavior? Would the courts blame the victims because they "provoked" the violent neighbor by not agreeing to his demands? Would the courts seek to arbitrate a neutral settlement to the dispute? That is the proper analogy to what is happening in Ukraine.

And yes, independent nations do have the absolute right to establish militaries, form alliances, and defend themselves against aggression. Even if they live in a "dangerous" neighborhood. In fact that is when those rights are especially important.

[Bootstrap]

boot:
This is blaming the victim.

In everyday cases, courts do not agree that property owners who set lethal booby traps for potential trespassers are justified because they may become targets, or victims. i consider these people/homeowners victims, potential victims, i sympathize!
i don’t believe setting lethal booby traps is the way, or The Way.

Neither do I.

But neutrality doesn't mean the thief and the homeowner have an equal claim to the house and all things in it. Neutrality doesn't mean giving half the house to the thief. Neutrality means hearing the claims made by each and judging rightly.

[temporal1]

boot:
This is blaming the victim.

In everyday cases, courts do not agree that property owners who set lethal booby traps for potential trespassers are justified because they may become targets, or victims. i consider these people/homeowners victims, potential victims, i sympathize!
i don’t believe setting lethal booby traps is the way, or The Way.

Neither do I.
But neutrality doesn't mean the thief and the homeowner have an equal claim to the house and all things in it. Neutrality doesn't mean giving half the house to the thief. Neutrality means hearing the claims made by each and judging rightly.

we all have opinions, but we aren’t in position of judgment. i’m happy to say. i don’t want that job.
one day we will all be judged, nations will be judged.

in the past, diplomacy was important (on the international level).
i’m sad that it seems the MIC lobbies have eliminated the importance of diplomacy.

i’m not sure diplomats judge.
i think maybe their purpose is to prevent situations where judgment becomes necessary.

i’m not convinced we on the outside are well informed. we’re informed, for sure! God sees in full.

[ohio jones]

lethal booby traps

Wherever on earth does this come from? The only reference I can find is reports from the early days of the conflict (here and here) alleging that retreating Russians leave booby traps behind them. That does not seem to be what you are talking about here.