JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 4:13 pmEither side could end the war immediately.
I don't think so. I think that's like saying the Sudetenland could end the war with Hitler immediately. Even if Ukraine simply surrendered and let Putin have the country, I don't think Putin would stop there.
So, in other words, “just war”?
I’m not arguing for a “just war,” but pointing out that Putin has openly stated his interest in restoring the Soviet sphere. If that’s true, then even if Ukraine surrendered, the war might not end—it might just move elsewhere. Do you see it differently?
Sometimes it seems like you're framing this as though either side could stop the war at any time—as if they share equal responsibility. But Ukraine didn’t invade Russia. If one side initiated the aggression and the other is defending itself, can we really speak of them as morally equivalent?
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
I want to be really clear here: I'm not arguing for a “just war.”
What I said is that Putin has openly talked about restoring the Soviet sphere, and that if that’s true, Ukraine surrendering might not end the war—it might just shift it somewhere else. That’s not a justification of war, it's a critique of blatant military imperialism.
If you think I’ve misunderstood the situation, I’m open to hearing why. But I’d appreciate it if you let me speak for myself rather than redefining my position.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 7:42 am
Of course the real question is if she’s willing to speak out against war from all sides or if this is just a matter of allegiances.
Only one side started this war. And only one side can end this war. Everything else is just noise.
Either side could end the war immediately.
That is like saying that either side could have stopped the holocaust.
Or that either side could have stopped the 19th Century Indian wars of territorial expansion in the US.
Or that either side could have stopped the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
Last edited by Ken on Mon Aug 04, 2025 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
my “yes” was not intended to answer for anyone else.
my yes was to JH that i think he describes just war. (not that i’m well informed.)
you’ve been consistent in the Russia topic about your view wrt Russia-Ukraine. 327 pages.
my most recent view of Russia-Ukraine is they are 2 sides of 1 coin.
both have broken their word multiple times now. it’s become expected. for both.
- - - - - -
i get confused when Ukraine is understood as the perpetual victim under attack, with added speculation of Russia’s future aggression - - when Israel is not, altho identified terrorist group Hamas has stated clearly their evil intentions, and likewise have not been reliable wrt (anything).
i’m remembering when the general worldly consensus was to NOT negotiate with terrorists. at all.
yet, some responses now seem close to recognizing Hamas as a legitimate entity.
which seems unwise for this situation and future situations with terrorist organizations. in other words, “terrorism pays”.
0 x
i’m perfectly comfortable with an older, wiser, more docile Trump.
”Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.” Robert Martz
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 8:56 pm
The entire premise of just war is that fighting back is okay sometimes.
The question is… what did Jesus do.
Why is the question, “What would Jesus do?” usually directed at the victim of violence and not the aggressor?
3 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 8:56 pm
The entire premise of just war is that fighting back is okay sometimes.
The question is… what did Jesus do.
Why is the question, “What would Jesus do?” usually directed at the victim of violence and not the aggressor?
I think we tend to focus more on the questions that don't have easy answers. It's easy to know what the aggressor should do - it's harder to know what we should do if we are victims.
Why do some people act like the question "What would Jesus do?" should only be directed at the aggressor? If I am a victim of violence do I not have an obligation to act as Jesus would?
