Friday, May 30, 2025

Lamont on Trump, abortion, and Ukraine

In an article at One Peter Five, philosopher John Lamont warns his fellow Catholics and traditionalists that on issues such as abortion and Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, Trump is not an ally and must be resisted.

Posted by at

56 comments:

  1. NormMay 30, 2025 at 2:28 PM

    I don't know Prof.

    Dr John Lamont, has outright called for Ukraine to be included in NATO in this article.

    Wouldn't that gravely risk a nuclear conflict since Ukraine is already facing a Russian invasion ? And as such wouldn't it undermine the principles that you yourself outlined a few years back.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserMay 30, 2025 at 3:24 PM

      Naturally, one does not have to agree with everything in an article in order to agree with its main points

      Delete
    2. William Applied VirtueMay 30, 2025 at 6:15 PM

      I think that it's problematic though.

      In the first place, the reason why Russia started the war with Ukraine was because of provocation by NATO. NATO has posed and continues to pose a threat to Russia's sovereignty as a nation. Ukraine was Russia's red line, and the United States walked all over it.

      Delete
    3. Edward FeserMay 30, 2025 at 8:51 PM

      Lamont answers that in his article

      Delete
    4. The Great Thurible of DarknessMay 30, 2025 at 9:11 PM

      Who gives a damn was a murderous despot like Putin thinks is a "red line?" The man's been plotting against Ukraine's sovereignty for decades; everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Russia is an empire and has always been an empire, and it considers Ukraine to be its vassal. That's the beginning and end of the matter. Don't insult everyone's intelligence with your pro-Kremlin drivel.

      Delete
    5. NormMay 31, 2025 at 9:51 AM

      Hey Prof

      Fair enough. I understand.

      Delete
    6. AnymouseMay 31, 2025 at 5:35 PM

      On the other hand, NATO is not, per se, imperialist, it has never taken over Atlantic-facing countries. Putin's hatred of all things NATO is not based on any particularly legitimate fear that NATO would slice off parts of Russia for itself, it's based on fears running in the other direction: Having his neighbors be in NATO means curtailing his aggressive imperialism. "You've done me wrong by making friends with people who work out at the gym and I can't knock out with one punch. How dare you! That's aggression!"

      Delete
    7. Just another opinionJune 2, 2025 at 5:37 AM

      I've always used the thought experiment of putting the shoe on the other foot.

      Imagine that the U.S. had broken apart in the early 1990s, with Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Maine, Vermont, Alaska and Hawaii all leaving the union to become independent nations. Per capita income declines about 50% in several years, and life expectancy (especially for men) begins to plummet. The Soviet Union bestrides the world as an unchallenged colossus, the Warsaw Pact absorbs Europe, Mexico, Canada, Maine and Alaska. American nationalists are seeking to reunify the country, but Texans feel happy to be independent and are entreating Moscow with pleas to join the Warsaw Pact. America is left with only portions of its Reagan era hardware and comparatively few new weapon systems, whereas Moscow had hundreds of stealth aircraft, advanced new warships, etc under its command. Moscow cites the history of America's imperialist conflicts and interventions (e.g. Vietnam, Manifest Destiny) and states that the Warsaw Pact is purely a defensive alliance, seeking to protect small states like Texas and Canada from an aggressive America. Moscow likewise abolishes unilaterally the anti-ballistic missile treaty and intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, and refuses to rule out Warsaw Pact membership to all legacy American states. The Warsaw Pact has also engaged in regime change operations on three continents (just as in our timeline NATO has been engaged in wars that led to regime change in Libya, Serbia and Afghanistan), including the UK, one of the last friendly governments to America and a historic ally. Now imagine that in 2014, a pro-American Texas government is toppled and (with at least some KGB involvement) a new pro-Moscow government takes its place, and Russian weapons are delivered to Texas military units. Russian think tanks publish articles about possible ways to destabilize America. To make the analogy more complete we would have also had to assume a massive land war within living memory that wiped out something like 10-15% of America's population.

      What would American foreign policy look like under that situation? Would the US simply acquiesce to having all of its former states gobbled up by the Warsaw Pact? Would it believe arguments that this alliance, encroaching all around it, is 'defensive'? Is it not plausible that Americans would not try to use military force to stop the bleeding and keep Texas out of the Warsaw Pact? America almost started WWIII because there were nuclear missiles in Cuba.

      You may say that Russia is imperialist, that Putin just wants to get the band back together. And perhaps you're right about that, although to me that seems about as one dimensional as a cartoon villain. But let's grant that for now. Everything exists in context. All of the things the west has done has created both legitimate fear and pretext, and I think it is at least arguable that without this context, the invasion wouldn't have happened. The Ukraine War has been enormously costly for Russia, and I am not convinced that it was undertaken solely because Russia wants its old Empire back. Plenty of American foreign policy experts, hardly Russian shills, have warned about the various things we have done that have added to Moscow's anxieties and fears.

      Yes, Russia should have never invaded Ukraine. Yet it has invaded Ukraine, and there is at best a very low probability that Ukraine will recover even the territory lost so far, let alone Crimea. Russia may have began an unjust war, but at this point I'm not certain it is just for either side to continue it.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousJune 2, 2025 at 8:37 AM

      Ukraine has a right to its sovereignty and to defend itself and its population; Russia was NEVER actually threatened by Ukraine or NATO in the past decade, the only "threat" NATO poses to Russia is by being a defensive alliance against illegal Russian imperialistic expansion into sovereign post-soviet states - one would have to be insane to think Europe and the US actively wants to go to war with Russia; Russia is a rogue actor which supports the worst of the worst in the world and regularly engages in illegal assassinations on European countries; it is to the US's pragmatic benefit to weaken such an enemy; Ukraine has proven to be an amazing military asset which would greatly benefit NATO; Russia would never dare attack Ukraine if it were in NATO, which is why it is so anxious at the idea of Ukraine joining; there is the Budapest Memorandum; finally, Russia is actively engaged in horrific war crimes, including the kidnapping of hundreds of Ukrainian children, rape, and the outright destruction of entire Ukrainian cities;

      In every single way you look at it, it is clear that Russia is not only guilty, but MONSTROUSLY guilty. Support for Ukraine is perhaps the easiest case example for "just war" we've had in almost a century. The entire West should be supporting Ukraine, not appeasing a war criminal empire like Russia which only respects strength.

      It is disheartening to see pro-Kremlin nonsense spreading to this blogs combox of all places. This place used to be much better in the past. It shows how much the Trump wing of the Republican party has poisoned and degraded the level of political discussion.

      Delete
    9. NormJune 3, 2025 at 2:18 PM

      Will all due respect , Anon 2

      Dismissing all talk of the problems associated with Ukraine joining NATO as "Pro Kremlin" nonsense is precisely what has got us to this point. There are very real concerns of a possible Nuclear Exchange in such a scenario.

      I agree with what Prof said in his previous article a few years back that the US can continue to provide material and diplomatic support to Ukraine.

      But there a lot of problems associated with the NATO move which make it disastrous.

      Delete
    10. Just another opinionJune 4, 2025 at 4:36 AM

      Anon,

      I note that you did not engage at all with my thought experiment about what it would be like if America had gone through what the Russians have experienced for the past 35 years.

      NATO is simply not a purely defensive alliance - minus a symbolic invoking of Article 5 after 9/11, it has only ever been used for offensive operations, with its forces engaged in Libya, Serbia, and Afghanistan for instance.

      You yourself state that it is in the US interest to weaken such an enemy as Russia, but if that is the case, then the US is in turn an enemy to Russia, and thus a massive military alliance led by the US is inherently a threat to Russia.

      The west could have easily promised Russia years ago that no additional former Soviet states would be added to NATO provided that Russia doesn't engage in military action against its neighbors, knowing full well that if Russia did attack its neighbors it could change its policy on a dime. Maybe it wouldn't have been a successful concession and Ukraine would have been invaded anyway, but to have failed to have tried even something a simple and costless as that strikes me as demonstrating that the west wasn't THAT interested in peace.

      Either side of the Ukraine War is not a just war.

      As just mentioned, important concessions to Russia were not made to try to prevent the war. While that isn't entirely Ukraine's fault, it is the fault of the broader western coalition supporting Ukraine's war effort.

      More importantly, there is no reasonable hope of success especially given how bloody and destructive the conflict has been. The likely outcome is that there will be a peace in which Ukraine loses a significant portion of its pre-2022 territory, and more probably more territory the longer the war drags on. For this reason alone, no one can support Ukraine under the just war doctrine. Rather, it is of critical importance that the war be brought to a swift conclusion, recognizing Russia's territorial gains but also in some way providing Ukraine of some assurance that no subsequent attack will occur in the near-term (perhaps Eastern European peacekeepers who will act as a NATO tripwire without Ukraine joining NATO directly).

      Delete
  2. AnonymousMay 30, 2025 at 8:35 PM

    I think one should be cautious with Trump but still broadly supportive. He talks as if he is pro-abortion in many ways, but his results are the opposite. I believe a number of Planned Parenthoods are shutting down due to withholding tax revenue which is more than any of the politicians who talk the pro-life game have done.

    Regarding Russia and Ukraine, it’s complex. We want to avoid getting involved in a world war. I say give the man time to cook. He compliments Putin but also does things that Putin doesn’t like. Talking tough and then doing nothing (Biden foreign policy) certainly won’t help anyone. Waging full out war against Russia will not help anyone either. I do think people who think Russia is actually a force for good in the world are severely misinformed. But a country can be bad without needing to be resisted at all costs, especially when that could lead to nuclear exchanges.

    We have to tread carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMay 30, 2025 at 9:43 PM

    Trump's trying to get Russia to stop, by continuing to give Ukraine more missles. What more do you imbeciles want? Its YOUR fault he's still funding the losers which is causing more of them to DIE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 4, 2025 at 3:25 PM

      Trump isn't trying to stop anything. He continues to appease Putin by refusing to sanction him even though he has every moral justification to do so given Russia's war crimes and violations of international law like Iran, North Korea, etc He also will easily bash Ukrainian people while being soft on Putin and seeing Ukrainians as equally guilty for the war. Trump is a coward

      Delete
  4. Vini TadeoMay 31, 2025 at 2:41 AM

    "It is true that many of the Catholic supporters of Trump were disenchanted with or opposed to Francis. But this opposition was directed at Francis personally, and does not extend to the mental attitudes and training that he benefited from. The indoctrination of American Catholics in uncritical power-worship makes it easy for Trump and his team to sacrifice Catholics in Ukraine, promote IVF, support gay marriage, and denounce federal laws against abortion, while garnering enthusiastic Catholic support."

    I think that Catholics in general were not opposed to Francis "personally," but to how he (mis)managed important questions as a Pope (e.g., Traditionis Custodiae). Besides that, I think it is a very insightful and deep analysis that John Lamont made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyMay 31, 2025 at 11:38 AM

      "Supporters of Trump" vary a lot, but broadly there are those who are mainly driven by emotion and sentiment that regards the far-left woke agenda as disastrously evil (which it is) and eagerly seek someone who is vociferously opposed to it (who can win): they like Trump for his outspokenness and brash ways. Others are more thoughtful about policy and principles and the connections between many aspects of US political life, and on the whole prefer Trump over all of the Dem options and some of the GOP options but don't like several of his positions, viewing him as a mish-mash of good and bad policies. Catholics are among both groups. There is no single stance that represents "the Catholic vote".

      Lamont has many individual good points, but overall he is far too glib in assigning the thinking of groups, and simple almost to the point of naivete in identifying causes and solutions. His large-scale claim about Trump and pro-life policy is mostly right but also partly off target: Trump is not, and never has been, on any pro-life platform as a matter of principle. As a result, he was always prepared to accept some abortion as legally accepted. While he came out totally opposed to a federal ban on abortion, that position isn't anti-Catholic as a matter of principle because it is well arguable (and famous Catholics of high Catholic standing have argued) that it's not a federal matter, it's a state matter - unless the states pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, making it a federal matter. He re-instituted the Mexico City policy, which was a good step. (And obviously got conservative Supreme Court justices, who overturned RvW, or this issue wouldn't even be in the discussion.) But on the opposite side, he (along with Vance) appears to be both personally AND politically in favor of IVF, and not only is this contrary to Catholic teaching on morals, it is (I believe) also politically stupid. Either way, though, Trump has done and is reasonably expected to do more that is beneficial to the Life position than any national-level Dem would do at this stage of the country's politics. That is: there's room for nuance that Lamont totally ignores.

      Similarly on the Russia - Ukrainian front: (1) He starts his analysis of the war at the 2022 invasion, which neglects over 10 years of simmering conflict and many decades of prior antagonism. Lamont doesn't even allude to this. Similarly, Lamont paints Trump as if he was all on Putin's side, has abandoned Ukraine altogether, etc. But that's not even close to the whole truth, Trump has spoken harshly about Putin in the last several days, worked a Ukrainian minerals deal that should help them in the war as well, and has allowed the Republicans in Congress to work on sanctions for Moscow. It's nuanced, and Lamont is excessive in how he paints Trump's position and actions.

      That said, he is right that Catholics should attempt to hold Trump to positions that are supportive of the Church and her teachings. But Trump has never believed in Catholicism as such, and his background doesn't make him sympathetic to its principles generally. And given the decades-long destruction of Catholic education and families, there are many millions of "Catholics" who won't vote for Catholic teaching because they don't know it and/or don't accept it, so as a result the Catholics who DO believe what the Church teaches cannot provide a large enough voting bloc to actually effect much on a national level. Trump rightly recognizes that. Lamont could just as well have directed 90% of his ire toward the US bishops and the institutional US Church's shortcomings.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 1, 2025 at 5:42 AM

      >While he came out totally opposed to a federal ban on abortion, that position isn't anti-Catholic as a matter of principle because it is well arguable (and famous Catholics of high Catholic standing have argued) that it's not a federal matter, it's a state matter - unless the states pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, making it a federal matter.

      So this position is totally fine for a Catholic politician to hold, but Catholic Democrats like Biden and Pelosi can be denied Holy Communion for opposing aborition bans despite being "personally opposed", and Catholics are told that its a mortal sin to vote for Democrats.

      Yet the only practical difference between the two positions is that Trump's position allows some states in the Bible Belt to put in place abortion bans that are fairly easily evaded, a benefit that is arguably cancelled out by his cuts to social spending, which may encourage more abortions.

      My view is that we can support either party weighing pros and cons, or we are like Catholics in late 1800s Italy and just shouldn't engage in electoral politics. Every other position is partisan hackery. If it was Democrats saying that aborition should be left up to the states, and Republicans arguing for a total ban, Catholic Republicans would say that Democratic position was intrinsically evil and Catholics must vote Republican on pain of mortal sin.

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoJune 1, 2025 at 5:57 AM

      Tony,

      You are making very important points. I'm Brazilian, and all I can do is watch the US from outside, so to speak. I don't think that all Trump supporters are 'radical' or "enemies" like in the way that the media tries to label them. I don't believe that they are "enemies of other nations" or anything like that. I think that people voted for Trump because they are sick and tired of the Democrats and their Leftist (or, as you guys call, Liberal) politics. But, at the same time, I don't think that most of the Catholics or normal people from the US voted for Trump because they liked the guy a lot -- it was because they were stuck with him.

      You also said that "His large-scale claim about Trump and pro-life policy is mostly right but also partly off target: Trump is not, and never has been, on any pro-life platform as a matter of principle. As a result, he was always prepared to accept some abortion as legally accepted." And I think that's true, not only because he is a guy from NY backgorund or anything like that, but because he simply never was really aligned with the principles of life that the Catholics and most conservatives defend -- he just 'jumped on this boat' to raise his popularity amongst these potential voters. Btw, I also find it very disgusting and inherently wrong his views on IVF.

      Focusing now on his relations with Russia and Ukraine, I don't have a good background or capacity to judge this matter. Being a guy from outside, as I said, I need to get a better grasp before commenting on this matter. But, it's important to say that a considerable number of my Gen Z Brazilians are in favor of Russia, and I think that's appalling. Russia, or Putin, better said, violated the peace in Ukraine and started an unjust war (as I see it).

      You also said something very, very crucial: "And given the decades-long destruction of Catholic education and families, there are many millions of "Catholics" who won't vote for Catholic teaching because they don't know it and/or don't accept it, so as a result the Catholics who DO believe what the Church teaches cannot provide a large enough voting bloc to actually effect much on a national level." I couldn't agree more with you. I think that's the crucial matter that needs to be changed. I think that the major pillar that needs to be worked on is two, essentially: the Familiar structure, and the Human Body of the Church. It's a very large topic, and being quite a yapper I am, I will stop here for the sake of the reader's patience hehe. I will just finish by saying that I'm from 1998, so I grew up with close ties with my family, the Church, and I've had a very happy childhood. I just wish and pray every day that, if I have kids of my own (I wish to be a father someday), I could deliver to them the same happiness and family ties and values I had myself experienced. Unfortunately, the world of today is another whole different reality from the one I used to know as a kid (that's one of the reasons I think that the family structure and the human body of the Church are important).

      Concluding, sadly, Catholics and Conservatives are in desperate need of representatives -- Brazil is like that, too. I hope that we can change this, somehow.

      Delete
    4. bmillerJune 1, 2025 at 4:33 PM

      Tony brought up a couple points regarding the right to life that I often see overlooked wrt Trump.

      He's simply not a Catholic and so why would we expect him to have the "real" Catholic view on the matter. Certainly we should seek to persuade him, but that is made considerably more difficult by demonizing him on this issue at the same time other "Catholics" are telling him that opposing abortion is not a high priority. Maybe the best we can hope for is that Vance and Rubio can sway him by laying out the logic of the situation.

      Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Lamont went on too long and I think it hurt his argument trying to cover so many aspects. 20,000 words. I had to stop reading, at least briefly, when he argued that the Russians were the "real" Nazis.

      Please.

      Regardless of whether Putin is "really" more of a Nazi and that Ukranian Azov battalion can we just stop it with everyone accusing everyone else of being Nazis?

      Delete
    5. TonyJune 2, 2025 at 11:27 AM

      So this position is totally fine for a Catholic politician to hold, but Catholic Democrats like Biden and Pelosi can be denied Holy Communion for opposing aborition bans despite being "personally opposed", and Catholics are told that its a mortal sin to vote for Democrats.

      First, Catholics are not told that "it's a mortal sin to vote for ANY Democrat". There have been, within memory, some pro-life Democrats, and it would not be immoral to vote for another if he comes along.

      Secondly, faithful Catholics have not said people like Biden and Pelosi should be refused communion because they are Democrats, but because they espouse specific policies and vote for specific bills that in such a way that their actions directly contradict important Catholic teachings. For example, it's one thing NOT BAN abortions by law, and quite another to vote for an increase in federal funding for abortions. The Dem who votes for the latter is making himself personally responsible (in an indirect but real way) for the actual abortions that are later paid for because that bill was passed. The Church distinguishes (in assigning moral responsibility) between an action to cause an evil, and an inaction that does not prevent someone else's evil. The actual teachings of the Church on the details may take a bit of effort to grasp, but the nuanced details are in fact taught clearly by Church documents. For example, it is NOT always immoral to vote for a candidate who would, for example, vote on bills to allow abortions in cases of rape and where the mother will lose her life if no abortion is done, e.g. if (a) all other feasible candidates are even worse on this issue, and (b) this candidate has good policies on other issues that merit supporting in their own right.

      More generally, it is proper for officials to keep track of the limits of their jurisdiction to act on evils, and not exceed them. If a cop sees a non-violent crime occurring outside of his home jurisdiction, he may not have the authority to physically intervene and arrest the person. But this principle applies generally to people, we have not been charged with stopping all evils. Thus my inaction to prevent an evil doesn't imply I am guilty of cooperation with that evil, if acting to prevent is outside my range of authority: I cannot intervene in some other family where the father is doing something evil and imposing a bad decision, just because I know it's wrong. But assisting him in that evil decision, e.g. by paying for the cost of carrying it out, would make me a morally involved participant in his morally evil act. That's the difference.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousMay 31, 2025 at 8:37 AM

    "Others, such as his defunding USAID, his withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and his withdrawal from the Paris Accords on climate change, are a boon for the world in general. ... these beneficial actions, if persevered in, will do great good."

    This is pure insane evil. You'd think Catholics would recognize this. Some do! https://uscatholic.org/articles/202504/abandoning-usaid-means-abandoning-the-gospel/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill LJune 1, 2025 at 9:02 AM

      Considering that the bulk of the money controlled by USAID seems to have disappeared in the black hole of leftist NGOs with no actual benefit to the purported recipients, and that any good done by it can be done through the State Department, I would say your assertion is not supported by the evidence.

      Delete
  6. AnonymousMay 31, 2025 at 1:19 PM

    The GOP has always been the party of extremism. It reached its apotheosis with Trump.
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/09/it-didnt-start-with-trump-the-decades-long-saga-of-how-the-gop-went-crazy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnymouseMay 31, 2025 at 5:29 PM

      Yeah, like Lincoln, for example.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 5, 2025 at 8:41 AM

      Mother Jones? Really? Well, I'm certainly glad you found an objective source that makes logical arguments supported by evidence and not a loony left rag that spews ideological nonsense. Sheesh.

      Delete
  7. Bayou CatholicJune 1, 2025 at 5:10 AM

    Whether the Russian invasion was justified is completely irrelevant at this stage. There is simply no way for Ukraine to regain complete territorial integrity without dragging the US into a direct conflict with Russian. They simply don’t have the resourced to take back territory in the Donbas and are obviously outmatched. They are fighting a war of attrition, and Russia is winning. The possibility of regaining Crimea is even bleaker. I don’t think anyone believes they can regain Crimea. Crimea is effectively and island and will not be easy to invade. Look at when the Soviets regained control of the Crimea from Germany for an estimate of losses in a Crimean campaign. They would also need an air and a naval resource that they lack. The other option would be to win the Donbas and then blockade and starve the population of Crimea.

    Ukraine can’t win the war and needs to accept that and broker a deal as soon as possible. American policy should be focused on forcing them to the bargaining table. If the ware continues, they will find that Americans will not be willing to be dragged into a conflict at a later state, and they will only lose more territory. If things continue the war will end with Russia establishing a land bridge to Pridnestrovie and leaving Ukraine a tiny land-locked rump state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geeky CatholicJune 1, 2025 at 9:01 PM

      "Whether the Russian invasion was justified is completely irrelevant at this stage".

      Well if you believe in the law of the jungle I guess that's okay. But as Catholics we're held to a higher standard and YES to oppose evil (in this case the russian federation) wherever it rears its head.

      But if you're viewing this solely from a US interests perspective...... well the US's abrupt turn over the past 8 months is telegraphing to the world that when the going gets tough, the Americans wimp out like a bunch of effeminate, limp-wrists in lace panties.

      Delete
    2. Bayou CatholicJune 2, 2025 at 3:22 AM

      Establishing that Russia is wrong does nothing to return land to Ukraine. If it's even possible, there will still be a cost in about 200-300k Ukrainian casualties as well as the number of Russian combatants and civilians that will be killed in the process. I’m not even sure if there is a moral path forward to recovering lost territory given that Russia has done everything in their power to Russify conquered territory. Dr Lamont essentially treats the maximalist position as nearly cost free and presents a false dichotomy between full territorial integrity for Ukraine vs full Russian victory.

      I do not find that people willing to “fight to the very last Ukrainian” are very brave or rational people. Their opinions are reckless because they have no skin in the game. Which has been a reoccurring common problem for the foreign policy blob of the US. They move from failure to failure without ever paying any real price for their mistakes. If I’m writing on the subject, I’m going to treat it as if it were my son that I will be pressed into service and sent to his death fighting for lost territory. From that perspective, I think a better outcome is a peace deal that would cede control of conquered territories to Russia. I don’t know if that is even at all possible at this stage; we really have no idea what Putin is thinking.

      Delete
    3. TonyJune 2, 2025 at 12:09 PM

      It's one thing to say that Ukraine cannot take back the Donbas by itself and should negotiate a settlement, and another to talk about territorial integrity. The problem for Ukraine is that even if it negotiates a settlement with Putin that gives up on the Donbas, a settlement that is not based Ukrainian reliance on Western aid and support to help them, then no such settlement will mean diddly in 3 years when Putin is ready to start in on another war to take another big chunk of the Ukraine. So settlement (without Western support) does not imply territorial integrity.

      So, if (without Western support) Ukraine is is doomed to eventual loss of of itself to Russia whether they settle now or keep fighting but lose, why should they stop fighting now when (at least for the moment) they DO have Western support to a degree? They have to figure that if they throw in the towel now and just cede what Russia has grabbed, they won't ever get Western support back when, in 3 years, Putin starts it all over again.

      I don't have a problem with saying that Western (and yes, that means US) aid should come with a commitment that Ukraine work on a settlement that may include loss of at least part of the Donbas, but at the same time such western demands (to be at all useful to Ukraine) would have come with commitments to continue to support their territorial integrity as an ongoing commitment in the face of a Russian autocrat looking at more of Ukraine as an ongoing source of tasty morsels. Otherwise ceding their loss of the Donbas, now, without reliable commitment that they won't face the same hungry Russian bear again in a few years, amounts to simply accepting that might makes right and they shouldn't try to prove otherwise.

      I think that while Ukraine might be losing the war of attrition, it is probably true that a similar point can be said of Russia, who has lost far more men and materiel. Russia might have more materiel than Ukraine by orders of magnitude, but it doesn't have more than the western countries aiding Ukraine. Even if Russia has more-or-less kept its 2022-2023 grabbed areas in control, and Ukraine has not kept control of its Kursk invasion territory, Russia has done nothing since 2023 that makes it look like it is actually progressing in winning the war in terms of either land or strategic gains. If Ukraine is "losing", Russia is doing a pretty good job of "not winning".

      Delete
    4. Geeky CatholicJune 2, 2025 at 1:37 PM

      Well as someone who has trained Ukrainian Soldiers as part of Operation Interflex I very much have 'skin in the game'.

      You also operate under the delusion that putin wants peace, he doesn't. He WANTS to destroy Ukraine as an independent, functioning country.

      Ukraine doesn't have to 'win', Ukraine simply has to not loose and to hurt the Russians as they did last Sunday until the morale breaks and they buckle. They also know how to think outside the box.

      Europe clearly believes that arming Ukraine is worth its while given the investments in the Ukrainian DiB, If America decides that it doesn't want to be interested in the world outside itself anymore (save for imposing stupid tariffs that will harm the US consumer), it will find that it rapidly becomes a nation that cannot influence world affairs and has few friends willing to stick by it when its interests are under attack.

      Now take that to your Douglas McGregor and Scot 'child abuser' Ritter fan club and think about it. Do you WANT a US that has a functioning alliance system and can project power? Or a US that has the influence of the average African crap hole country ?

      Delete
    5. Bayou CatholicJune 3, 2025 at 8:54 AM

      Training Ukrainian soldiers is a very honorable thing to do- don’t get me wrong - but I disagree that it very much gives you skin in the game. There’s no chance that you will see direct combat or that military recruiters will abduct your sons and send them to the front lines. In any case I was more speaking about Dr. Lamont than anything you might have done.
      No, I think the people with skin in the game are the young Ukrainian men who will be used as the tip of the spear to weaken the Russian state. I see how that policy is to the benefit of Europe, America, pretty much everyone except the Ukrainian people. Maybe it benefits the Ukrainian upper class who stand to gain access to the natural gas fields, but the Ukrainian poor are probably willing to trade land for peace if possible.
      To bring Ukrainian leadership to the bargaining table, the US might have to signal that a change in regime is an acceptable outcome to the war. To do otherwise gives leadership immense leverage and allows them to pursue maximalist military objectives they might not otherwise pursue. Trump is not a careful leader, no doubt, but in this case, I don’t see how he can negotiate while still signaling full and unconditional support for Ukraine.
      As for winning, Dr Lamont seems to define himself out of a win by making the objectives the return of all lost territory. Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see that outcome. I just don’t think it’s at all realistic. This is the equivalent of trying to define winning as bringing lasting democracy to Afghanistan and setting yourself up to lose from the start. I think continuing to exist and securing lasting peace would be a win for Ukraine even if they lose some territory.
      I don’t think that America withdrawing from the world is the solution, but I would like to see a more restrained foreign policy. One that would have never signaled to Ukraine they could ever have a future outside of Russia’s sphere.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJune 3, 2025 at 8:14 PM

      Respect Geeky Catholic for what you do.
      Ukraine's drone attack that destroyed Russian bombers deep inside Russia was incredibly well-executed.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousJune 1, 2025 at 7:29 PM

    And this will also be the case in the future, because the peoples of Earth, due to their incompetent leaderships, will do nothing about it and, on the other hand, their leaders will be too cowardly to stand up to the USA.
    These are the resulting facts, consequently everything will remain as it has been up to now, namely that the United States of America, under the leadership of its criminal autocratic presidential leaders, can – and will also continue to – assert its behaviour and enforced influence, based on a sense of world domination, autocracy and megalomania, more and more around the world.
    And this will also be the case in the new millennium, or rather in the 3rd millennium, when yet another self-important and megalomaniac president of the United States of America imagines himself to be a powerful leader.
    At that time he will be an unpredictable man with a pathological megalomania who will behave more and more like Adolf Hitler and will be under the delusion that he is a great, invincible and unique ruler – a ruler of power before whom the entire population of the earth must kneel down and grovel in the dust.
    So he will also behave in the same threatening way as Hitler did in his time, but by doing so he will easily and stupidly force other state powers and peoples to fight back.
    - The Sfath Predictions from 1947 (June 14, 1947) given telepathically to Billy Meier

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJune 2, 2025 at 8:42 AM

    Clearly, most people commenting didn't read the 20k word article, since Lamont addresses their objections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just another opinionJune 4, 2025 at 4:12 AM

      Lamont isn't fully convincing. Consider the following claim:

      --"The assumption behind treating Russian objections to the accession of countries to NATO as legitimate is that the alliance posed some sort of threat to Russia, and hence its extension towards Russia was a hostile act. But this is nonsense. The alliance is a defensive association that only commits its members to resisting aggression, and does not enable offensive military action."--

      Even as an American, I'm bewildered that anyone knowledgeable can make such a claim.

      First, in practice, NATO is an offensive alliance, with a history of military action against nations which didn't launch a military attack on a NATO member (e.g. Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan). The only time Article 5 was ever invoked in history was for symbolic reasons after the 9/11 attacks.

      America has engaged in wars and military strikes all over the world because it claims its interests are in some way threatened, yet Russia should just shrug when an alliance that exists only to oppose it keeps adding members near its territory, including the integration of former parts of the Russian empire?

      America has been involved in toppling pro-Russian governments, including in Ukraine. The American think thank RAND, which is funded by the U.S. government, literally published an article titled 'Overextending and Unbalancing Russia' in 2019.

      He seems to be simply repeating western propaganda talking points such as 'NATO is a defensive alliance' without for a moment taking into consideration the Russian perspective.

      This isn't to say that I am without reservation pro-Russian. To the degree that Catholics are being persecuted, I strenuously oppose that. While I consider Russia to have been provoked by the west, I don't consider Russia's invasion of Ukraine to have met the conditions of a just war either.

      Delete
  10. Oktavian ZamoyskiJune 3, 2025 at 1:42 PM

    The bit about OUN/UPA is dreadful, and Lamont should have done his homework here. Shame on him.

    The UPA carried out ethnic cleansing campaigns of mind-boggling cruelty on the Poles in places like Volhynia and Eastern Galicia, killing around 100,000 civilians. They targeted men, women, and children, resorting to the most unimaginable barbarism and demonic brutality. Pregnant women bayoneted, the unborn torn out with cats put in their place. Children were impaled and torn apart by their legs. Women's breasts were cut off. Genitals were butchered. Eyes were gouged. Ears, tongues, noses were cut off. Entrails were ripped out. Heads were smashed with hammers. Children were thrown into burning houses, and people were herded into churches that were set ablaze. People, including children, were sawed in half. Women were gang raped. The list goes on. This was a demonic orgy of exceedingly unhinged violence with the OUN's stated goal of eradicating any trace of the Poles from these lands.

    Active German collaboration in an official capacity, like the SS Galizien, are completely omitted from the article as well. The brutality of this division was so great, that even the Germans viewed their viciousness with shock and disgust.

    This isn't Russian propaganda, as these historical accounts do not come from Russia, and the Poles themselves are no friends of the Russians. The Russians, as the Germans, also butchered large numbers of Poles in places like Katyn or gulags. They, like the Germans, likewise sought to decapitate the nation by first exterminating its elite.

    It is irritating, to say, the least, that Lamont either trivializes or completely omits these from his article, whitewashing the OUN, UPA, and Bandera in the process. It is, frankly, sickening. I want to presume profound ignorance on his part, but doing so does not cast his scholarship abilities in a good light as we are not speaking of some minor oversight or something tangential, but a subject matter directly broached and even presented in contradiction of the facts. And the fact remains that while Poles support the Ukrainians in this conflict, the Ukrainians are very much in denial about the horrific events in their history. To this day, streets are named after Bandera and UPA. Reconciliation cannot truly occur until the truth is recognized.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJune 4, 2025 at 9:53 AM

    One of the huge areas where Trump and Trump's team should get credit from Christians is exposing and stopping the FBI's shocking treatment of traditional Catholics and other Christians who hold to natural law rather than the critical theory DEI positions promoted by Biden. When discussing Trump and the administration let us hear that side also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormJune 5, 2025 at 9:17 AM

      If the Trump team has stopped the targetting of traditional catholics by the FBI it's a good thing but it is a very low bar to meet.

      It seems like something that Desantis could have easily done as well.

      Trump has already opposed the attempt of states governed by his own party to restrict abortion pills. Has constantly touted IVF which kills more babies then abortion.

      The Trump administration is the lesser evil but evil should always be opposed vigorously especially since the kind of evil we are dealing with is very serious in gravity even if it wasn't the worst possible outcome.

      This soft spot for Trump has to disappear.

      Delete
    2. bmillerJune 6, 2025 at 8:54 AM

      Norm,

      Maybe Desantis would have been a better president and maybe Mother Teresa would have been better than him, but we have Trump.

      IVF has been around a long time before Trump was elected and certainly it should be opposed, but I don't recall any other candidate campaigning on ending it including Desantis. Trump is not a Catholic and will be out in a couple years anyway, so maybe it's better to focus the IVF scrutiny on Desantis, if you think that will help get him elected.

      This soft spot for Trump has to disappear.

      What "soft spot"? I don't recall anyone on this forum claiming to have both voted for Trump and supports his position on IVF. I assume Catholics who are for abortion and not ignorant of the evils of IVF voted for the other candidate.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 6, 2025 at 11:59 AM

      Norm,
      The OP and Lamont mentioned praising Trump where warranted. That is what I did. I agree that Desantis would likely have gone after DEI in a similar manner to Trump. But McCain and Romney would not have, nor Haley, nor the Rubio of 2016 (the Rubio of 2025 might). It is not that low a bar. Trump's war on DEI in all sorts of areas including getting rid of USAID and other agencies, what he is doing at the Department of Education, etc needs our vocal backing because he is up against MAJOR opposition.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 6, 2025 at 12:16 PM

      Desantis, trying prove he's a real MAGA, just signed a bill that bans flouridation of water in FL. That should keep dentists busy filling cavities.
      https://www.governing.com/policy/florida-becomes-second-state-to-ban-fluoride-in-tap-water

      Delete
    5. NormJune 7, 2025 at 2:57 AM

      Hi Bmiller

      Thanks for your reply.

      The issue isn't about ending it, per se.

      It's more about the prudence of calling attention to it in the first place.

      Trump need not have said anything about it and could have just ignored it.

      The Albama Court correctly recognized the personhood of the embryos. And this too could have just been ignored by Trump.

      But some cunning and devious actors within the Trump circle decided to rake up the issue to divide pro lifers and paint consistent pro lifers as extremists so that they could portray Trump as a moderate.

      It's heartbreaking to contemplate the damage this has already done.

      Imagine Future conservative politicians trying to distance themselves from this "Father of IVF" schtick when asked about IVF. Anything other than full endorsement will be painted as extremist.

      Since Trump has already become the media's standard by which extremists are measured, they will say, "Oh, so you are to the right of Trump" ?

      I don't know, how we can move past this.

      Apart from Gender Ideology and Immigration, There's barely any semblance opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage.

      The republican party has essentially become the Conservative Party of The UK , on these social issues.

      If you aren't on twitter, you would be shocked at the amount of slander, Prof has to deal with whenever he criticises Trump from so called "conservatives".

      One prominent conservative commentator by the name of Damian Thompson even suggested that Prof appear on "The View" as a guest for his criticism of Trump. Prof has been nothing but kind to this person, regularly offering him words of encouragement even though personally I am not a fan of his writing style.

      Anon

      Thanks For Your Reply.

      DEI should be fought and vigorously. I agree.

      Like for example, instead of destroying the department of education, how about revamping it to promote classical education in a way that serves conservative interests. Now obviously the feasibility of such a proposal has to be evaluated.

      Similarly I agree that organisations that provide aid have caused a lot of problems by promoting/providing abortion ,contraception , gender ideology, gay marriage etc. That has to stop.

      But if a certain medicine for some disease has been guaranteed, it ought to be provided as a moral duty until an alternative is found.

      Prof is bringing attention to the issues of abortion and IVF because these are issues that under no circumstances can ever be permitted, or in other words intrinsically evil. It has to be condemned severely.

      Delete
    6. bmillerJune 7, 2025 at 1:53 PM

      Hi Norm,

      I agree that Trump is wrong about IVF. Not just Trump but anyone who understands that IVF destroys the unborn. I'm not sure Trump gets that though. Although he is OK with early abortions he is also for leaving decisions about abortion with the states rather than the federal government, so it doesn't seem to be consistent to push for federal action on IVF. It would make sense for pro-lifers to point out this contradiction in order to persuade him to change course. Remember, the pro-life forces were working to pass laws at the state level to overturn RoevWade via the judicial route and it eventually worked even though a lot of Catholics were (and are) lukewarm to outlawing abortion.

      Apart from Gender Ideology and Immigration, There's barely any semblance opposition to Abortion and Gay Marriage.

      But no candidate ran on federally outlawing abortion and gay marriage. Who expected Trump or anyone else to do this?

      I think people voted him in to 1) Stop the illegal immigration, 2) Improve the economy, and maybe to fight the crazy woke stuff. I doubt anyone prioritized outlawing IVF over those 3.

      It seems less than productive to me to keep complaining about his opinions on IVF rather than suggesting strategies to conteract any federal promotion of it. What exactly do you want to happen by continuing to tell everyone what a evil jerk Trump is? Do you want all Republicans that support his agenda to get voted out in the mid-terms? Do you think when Democrats run both houses of Congress they will federally outlaw IVF, abortion and gay marriage?

      The arguments I've been hearing seem to have less to do with pratical outcomes and more to do with some sort of embarrassment that our "conservative" good name is being soiled by a barbarian. Conservatives have plenty of other stuff to be embarrassed about as they've been slouching toward Gomorrah

      Let's stop crying over spilled milk (and Trump) and start discussing strategies to educate people about the destruction caused in IVF.

      Delete
    7. NormJune 8, 2025 at 3:02 AM

      Hello Bmiller

      I don't know about Federal Action.

      But atleast on IVF , he is doing precisely the opposite.

      At the very least one can ask that you don't say anything about it even if you are not going to act against it.

      Trump also took out opposition to gay marriage from the republican party platform.

      It's one thing to

      1.) Oppose something but at the same time not take any action against it.

      2) It's another thing to just remove your opposition to it.

      Trump did the second thing.

      Ofcourse I don't want the democrats to come into power because they are the worse of two evils.

      That has nothing to do with this.

      Since when does criticism of Trump entail support for Democrats.

      When anyone does something wrong they have to be criticised, that doesn't mean supporting people who are even worse.

      Just because you have to vote for the lesser evil to prevent a greater evil does not mean that you have to ignore the lesser evil. (In a swing state)

      Especially when there are grave evils involved like abortion and IVF, you have to call it out. It's not whining. It's holding them to account. For example if any republican primary candidate supports Trump's position on IVF and abortion and gay marriage, you should not vote for him in the primary, even if Trump supports him. You have to vote for the candidate who is against all that or atleast the next best option. Basically if there is some better option then whoever Trump picks, that candidate has to be chosen even if it angers Trump.

      So with Trump you have to realise, that , and as Prof said

      "There are (a) MAGA cultists and (b) pragmatic Trump supporters who see his flaws but judge him a lesser evil whose presidency can be a vehicle for doing some good things. Trouble is, the lunacies of group (a) tend to undermine the aims of group (b). It’s a marriage made in hell."

      Delete
    8. bmillerJune 8, 2025 at 1:17 PM

      Hi Norm,

      I don't know about Federal Action.

      That is all a president has power over. It's why state actions will most likely prevail over any EO a president signs. So it seems the best corrective action one can take to negate Trump's actions on IVF (other than persuading him to change his mind) would get it banned at the state level as I mentioned.

      At the very least one can ask that you don't say anything about it even if you are not going to act against it.

      Maybe I'm not making my point clearly enough. Trump thinks 1) IVF is a good thing, 2) most voters think it's a good thing (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/05/13/americans-overwhelmingly-say-access-to-ivf-is-a-good-thing/) 3) it is politically advantageous to be on the majority side of this issue and disadvantageous to oppose it. He thinks he is taking a politically smart stand on an issue that he also believes is right in his heart. What do you think would motivate him given that only 8% of voters think it's a bad thing?

      Of course I don't want the democrats to come into power because they are the worse of two evils.

      That has nothing to do with this.

      It could. That's why I asked you what your strategy is. Your example of a theoretical congressional candidate that vociferously advocates federally abolishing gay marriage, IVF and abortion is a good one. I suspect it would be unlikely he would win an election in a swing state, but even if he was elected what would be his chances of successfully implementing his agenda? Most likely, the Democrat candidate would win using these very stances against him. On the other hand, a stronger Republican candidate that opposed federal action on these issues would not be vulnerable to the same attacks. If the Republican candidate wins in either case, nothing would change wrt abortion, IVF and gay marriage, whereas if the Democrat wins there are a host of other evils to deal with.

      I take it we are in agreement about the morality of these issues and our discussion is with respect to the prudential strategy to achieve the best moral outcomes. Your criticisms of Trump's positions on these issues are well founded so we are in agreement here also. I'm 99% sure I won't vote Trump for president again if that eases your mind ;-)

      I also agree with the sentiment of your quote from Ed regarding the MAGA cultists. But that's just it. It's a just a complaint without any specific or practical call to action that I can see. Are we supposed to kick the MAGA cultists out of the party? It's also a common feature of all political parties or social groups in general and so different factions persuade, threaten, fight, ban each other etc. Our faction lost a skirmish so let's figure out how to win the next one without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJune 8, 2025 at 3:40 PM

      Norm,
      I am in agreement with you on abortion and IVF. There are ways to move Trump in the right direction and it is counter-productive not to praise Trump when he is right. Trump's strong supporters got him to do a 180 on the COVID vaccines, thankfully. They booed him when he talked about "Operation Warp Speed" but supported him on various other issues. I am strongly in favor of what RFK is doing. It is not "conservative," going after the big drug companies, but it is right. Trump is not conservative economically. His tax cuts (unlike those of Thatcher and Reagan) helped the bottom 20% more in percentage raises that it did the top 20%. The same will likely be true of the tax on tips, which conservative economists hate. I like the fact that the GOP is becoming less conservative in these ways and more a multi-racial working and middle class party. The never-Trumpers hate that.

      Delete
    10. NormJune 9, 2025 at 8:51 AM

      Hi Bmiller

      "it is politically advantageous to be on the majority side of this issue and disadvantageous to oppose it. He thinks he is taking a politically smart stand on an issue that he also believes is right in his heart. What do you think would motivate him given that only 8% of voters think it's a bad thing?"

      We have to stand by the truth even when it's unpopular. And in this case, again, he need not have said anything at all, just could have ignored it. You don't have to always adopt the popular position.

      I am not castigating you for your vote.

      The Democrats are evil, they will always try to twist things.

      I think the best strategy is always to hit them hard on their weak points, i.e gender ideology, immigration, crime etc. And it's possible to do it while avoiding compromising our principles. I know it's hard and it's easy to relent. But there are ways in which it can be done.


      Delete
    11. bmillerJune 9, 2025 at 11:57 AM

      Anonymous,

      Great point about "Operation Warp Speed". Trump was bragging about it at all his rallies and couldn't understand why he was being booed. John Rich said the he was the one that explained it to him and after that, Trump never mentioned it again.

      Delete
    12. bmillerJune 9, 2025 at 3:12 PM

      Norm,

      Agreed that we should stand for the truth even if it's not popular, but how we do that has a bearing on how effectively we can change hearts and minds.

      We have obviously not done a good job of explaining the issues with IVF. Abortion is about a 50/50 issue due in large part to the right to lifers educating the public. It follows that opinions on IVF should match those on abortion but don't. I don' t think those IVF supporters are malicious, just ignorant. Wouldn't it would be better for people of good will with the talent to make calm and logical arguments and a platform to avoid implying that the ignorant are evil and instead take the opportunity to explain why it's wrong rather than it just is wrong?

      Delete
    13. bmillerJune 10, 2025 at 12:51 PM

      Unsurprisingly, how a question is phrased has a lot to do with how people will answer the question.

      https://news.gallup.com/poll/646025/americans-back-ivf-divide-morality-destroying-embryos.aspx

      While most people claim to think IVF is morally acceptable, the percentages change dramatically when the question is whether or not destroying the frozen embryos is morally acceptable. Then we see similar results to abortion.

      So it seems pressing for consistency on federal policy regarding abortion and IVF would be a good political strategy.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousJune 5, 2025 at 8:15 PM

    Lamont has a Ph.D in philosophy, not Russian Studies, not international relations/foreign policy, and not military stategy. He is no more qualified to comment on Russia/Ukraine than he is on German operas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FreeThinkerJune 6, 2025 at 11:36 PM

      It's the same with Feser and very many other things he ventures to opine about.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 7, 2025 at 2:34 PM

      Well, it would not surprise me if Feser was knowledgeable about German opera, particularly Wagner, whose operas like "Parsifal," touch on redemption. The late English conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton, who Dr Feser has praised, actually wrote a book about Parsifal.
      https://www.amazon.com/Wagners-Parsifal/dp/0141991666

      Delete
  13. Miguel CervantesJune 6, 2025 at 3:08 AM

    The main argument here, that Catholics in the United States will suffer in the future for the support some of them give to Trump, is a good one.

    I think the discussion of the Church's internal problems was a bit weak. They're not just about Pope Francis, and go back to Vatican II. What is needed is for leadership from the clergy. It's not realistic to expect the laity to sort this out.

    A couple of points were too readily conceded to Russian and Chinese expansionism:
    Moscow the "Third Rome" is often brought up by some westerners as proof of Russia's innate expansionism and Messianism. It's also used as a banner by those Russians who really want to live out the caricature. The truth is that it only became an influential slogan in the late nineteenth century, used by Russian conservatives under the influence of modern Western ideology and philosophy. Ivan IV took up the title of Tsar because he thought he had outgrown being a grand duke, not because he thought Moscow was a Third Rome. There had been Tsars in other countries too (from the ninth century in Bulgaria). Peter I did reduce the Russian Orthodox Church to a branch of the state, but this was done in imitation of the Lutheran Swedish system.

    In the seventeenth century, when the Spanish set up a colony and missions in Taiwan (Formosa), all they found there were Austronesians, like the Filipinos, not Chinese. The Dutch subsequently encouraged Chinese settlement, and this was continued by the Qing dynasty until the Japanese took over. Technically a modern colony of China,Taiwan is hardly to be considered historically as an integral part of China, any more than Canada should be thought of a part of the UK.
    Obviously, if the only thing defining Taiwan as a new country like Canada, NZ or Australia is something as tangential to the Christian West as modern democracy, then Taiwan doesn't have much of a future. I know this article is focused on the issue of Trump and U.S. Catholicism, but it's odd to then discuss foreign policy from a Catholic point of view merely from the standpoint of defending liberal democracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JakubJune 17, 2025 at 1:48 AM

      As Pole, I find the ignorance of some Americans in this matter disturbing. Ivan IV claimed the Tsar title illegally as a sign of imperial ambition. You know what ambition it was? To hold all of the ruthenian lands under his rule, to which Moscow had absolutely no rights. First they conquered the independent ones such as Novogrod Republic. Then they turned against Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which partially consisted of Ruthenians. This imperialist policy of Moscow was used since 15th century. Saying it all started under WESTERN influence during late 19th c. is an insult to my country and its people, as we had been ereased from the map, in large part by imperialism of Moscow, by the late 18th century.

      Delete
  14. AnonymousJune 9, 2025 at 6:34 AM

    I am very sad to hear that Ed has been viciously attacked on Twitter/X. I am not on Twitter/X and do not wish to be (or on any similar platform). The medium does not lend itself easily to high discourse.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)