Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Part I

---

We are About to Find Out What Vladimir Putin Really Wants: If Putin Wants Peace, He Will Accept the Ceasefire Accepted by Ukraine as Presented by the U.S.

Big news coming out of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where American diplomats announced that a ceasefire agreement had been agreed to, and that includes officials of the United States and Ukraine. Ukraine, according to the senior US diplomats, including the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, given talks that took place there in Jeddah with the hospitality of the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince, they had led to the fact that the United States and Ukraine, we are told are now on the same page when it comes to calling for an immediate ceasefire. It would be a 30-day ceasefire, and the ball is now effectively handed to the Russians. We’ll see how serious the Russians are about ending this war or even getting to a ceasefire in order to have a reset.

Now, there is ample reason to believe that both sides might want a ceasefire. When it comes to Ukraine, the fact is that they’re being worn down by Russian advances, but frankly, both sides have been worn down. The Ukrainians have shown remarkable strength, and just about the time every time we are told that Russia is making significant short-term advantages, it turns out that the short-term turns into something far longer. Russian forces have definitely found that it is far more difficult to invade Ukraine than they had planned, and Ukrainians have fought nobly. At the same time it is really clear that this cannot go on indefinitely.

That is one of the points made by US President Donald Trump. He hasn’t always made those points with subtlety. He has made those points sometimes rather boisterously. And at this point, nevertheless, I have to say I think it’s absolutely right that this cannot go on as it is. Ukraine cannot effectively bleed out as it has indefinitely. President Trump has expressed this, and now the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has said this very, very clearly. He said that President Trump is a president who wants to be a president of peace. “His goal in this entire process has been to bring about an end to this war. It’s a terrible war, a costly war, a bloody war, and his number-one interest is in ending this war once and for all.” 

Now, let’s be clear, a 30-day ceasefire wouldn’t necessarily end the war, but something like this is going to be necessary as a first step towards bringing the war to a conclusion. And here’s where we’re going to have to talk repeatedly about this, and we’re going to have to watch the events as they unfold. There are huge issues here, and it’s at least high time that there’d be a reconsideration of many of these issues because so much of the public conversation has been artificial. And I say that with particular reference to the Biden administration. I think much of its foreign policy in this area was built on a deliberate ambiguity about the long-term prospects of how this war would turn out.

So let’s talk about the morality of this war. Here’s the most obvious morality. Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine’s a sovereign nation. Russia with aggression and with force invaded Ukraine with the stated intention at the beginning of eliminating Ukraine as a sovereign nation and toppling the government in Kyiv. So that was the plan, and we need to keep the moral categories really straight. Russia invaded Ukraine. It was a violation of all of the norms of war and international relations. On the other hand, it is clear that Russian president Vladimir Putin doesn’t care. And as a matter of fact, that’s the point he’s made over and over again. He doesn’t care.

And so this raises a question: how do you deal with a major force in the world that is clearly unaccountable to international law and to the norms of war? You have to consider a good many other things. For one thing, the way Russia looks at this war and the way Ukraine looks at this war, they’re two completely different worldviews in class here.

There’s a long history, and in this case, Ukraine actually has a longer history in terms of the Rus people even than Russia. But it is also clear that Russia is one of the most powerful nations on Earth when it comes to military. Not to economy, not to population anymore, but when it comes to military might, Russia is overinvested, a legacy of the Cold War. Russia is also basically paranoid, and it has been for centuries, and at least from one historical perspective, you could argue that Russia cannot afford to be anything other than paranoid.

And that is because even as America has extreme protections built in just as a matter of geography, oceans to the east and to the west, friendly neighbors to the north and to the south, Russia is in a very different category. Of course, we’re talking about a transcontinental nation that is at least partly in Europe, partly in Asia. It is also a transcontinental nation with so many different time zones, it would make the United States look absolutely simple.

Much of Russia is distributed oddly in terms of population. There are vast areas in which there’s nothing but some small towns and agricultural precincts. Other parts have far larger population, but the fact is that Russia has been an awkward figure on the world scene for centuries. This is not a new thing. Russia always feels vulnerable on its western flank, and that is because it has often been invaded. Just think Napoleon, think Hitler. There’s a long legacy of the fact that Russia has been invaded. There is no natural barrier to an invasion of Russia from the west to the east. There’s no great mountain range, for example, that you’d have to cross. Armies, by the way, historically find it very easy to invade Russia. The difficult part is getting out.

The other thing we have to consider is civilizational realities. These are massive. Civilizational realities are often ignored by modern people, and I think this is a huge mistake. Samuel Huntington, for example, great historian who understood the absolute urgency of thinking in civilizational forms, he pointed to the fact that Russia is in itself a civilization. It is a vast civilization, it thinks in civilizational terms. And so as you’re thinking about Russia, don’t put it in European civilization. Don’t put it in, say, Sino-Chinese civilization. You have to put it as a civilization unto itself.

It has its own religion, or at least its official religion throughout most of those centuries, which was Russian Orthodoxy. And remember that in the Orthodox world, that first word, which is national identity, means that Orthodoxy often turns into a nationalist religion, which is exactly what has happened in Russia today. You had the interregnum of Soviet Communist atheism, but that wasn’t an interregnum. However, it is still not clear exactly how many people in Russia are, say, believing adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church and how many of them see the Russian Orthodox Church as a central structure of patriotism.

The other thing to keep in mind is that when you look at the nation called Ukraine, it is itself a very interesting combination of factors. For one thing, you have Ukraine very much divided between a west and an east. The east is far more Russian than the west. The west, known as Galicia, is actually quite European, and in some ways right now, is actually more European than some European countries, and being very highly secular, morally progressive, it is not commensurate with Russia.

The eastern portions of Ukraine, however, are dominated by Russian speakers far more closely and historically identified with Russia. Or to put it another way, when it comes to Eastern Ukraine and especially the region known as the Donbas, Russia has virtually always seen it as a part of Russia.

And so the argument that comes from Ukraine is a legitimate argument. It is a moral argument stating that they’re a sovereign nation and this is within their territory. We just need to recognize that that has never really been accepted by Russia, either before the Soviet Union, during the Soviet Union, nor after. That doesn’t justify what Russia has done. It is simply to say that if you are looking at this situation as Russia sees it, it’s non-negotiable.

And so that is a part of the background of this. There is very little likelihood, and if anything, you could put that in all capital letters, VERY LITTLE LIKLEIHOOD that Russia and Russian forces that Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, is going to give up that territory that it has captured in Eastern Ukraine. That’s virtually impossible. It’s implausible. And that’s just a fact of honesty whether anyone wants to state it out loud or not. I assure you it is true.

The second thing is, is that when you look at the world as Vladimir Putin sees it, he sees the Crimean Peninsula as very much a part of Mother Russia. And by the way, as you look at that, you recognize that it actually has been a part of Russia throughout many centuries, especially going to the Russian Empire and going back to the Soviet Union. By the way, in the odd politics of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union assigned to one of its internal units known as Ukraine, the Crimean Peninsula, largely for political reasons, but it was all within the Soviet Union, so it didn’t matter. It only matters after Ukraine has an independent existence after the fall of the Berlin Wall, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But we do need to recognize that many Russians never accepted that. And as a matter of fact, you had towering figures in Russia, including Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who clearly said that it is morally wrong and politically implausible to believe that this territory would not be a part of Mother Russia. So that’s just a statement of how deeply that worldview is ingrained within Russia. 

On the other hand, one of the surprising developments at the end of the 20th century continuing through the 21st century is the extent to which Ukraine has actually emerged as a nation among other nations with a strong national identity. This has not been smooth, and you wouldn’t expect that it could be after Ukraine’s history and after it was able to separate and declare independence from the Soviet Union and thus later from Russia.

The fact is that the western portion of Ukraine, it’s pretty much like much of Western Europe. It is, as I say already, very highly secularized compared to other territories around it. It’s very socially liberal. This has been something, by the way, that has been of concern to American Christians, for example, so as you think about what was revealed, when Russia invaded Ukraine, remember that at least one of the things that was revealed is the fact that Ukraine has extremely liberal and permissive laws on things such as surrogate parenting.

And that’s one of the reasons why there’s a huge industry of surrogate parenting, surrogate mothering, we should say, there in Russia. A lot of American gay couples, for example, contracted with surrogate mothers in Ukraine. All of that became very clear with the Russian invasion.

Something else to keep in mind in terms of a civilizational understanding is that over time, civilizations tend to be far more consistent in terms of the shape of the territory than you might think. And so you might have periods in which this territory all of a sudden is made a part of that nation, or a part of that territory is assigned to another nation or another territory. The fact is, over time, the map tends to level out more than you might think.

So if you look at a map of, say, the European continent and include Russia, you look at the 18th century, you look at the 19th century, you look at the 20th century, it is different, but it’s also very much the same. As a matter of fact, the most controversial issues in this respect might not have anything to do with Ukraine, but far more to do with the Asian territories that were later breakaway republics from the Soviet Union once it had collapsed. So that’s the other side of the Soviet Union and its southeastern border rather than its western border with Ukraine. So let’s ask ourselves the question, “What would motivate Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, and his government, to agree to this kind of ceasefire for 30 days?” 

Well, number one, everybody understands whether they want to say it honestly or not, there has to be a reset. That reset’s going to require cooler heads. It’s going to require some time.

And honestly, one of the things that has become clear is that the closer these nations get to the possibility of a ceasefire, the more aggressive in particular Russia becomes in trying to press its territorial advantage to deadly effect there inside Ukraine. So the talk of a ceasefire doesn’t, this is a very interesting development, and I think in worldview terms we can understand it. We can understand it just in terms of a fallen world and the way the world works. When there is talk of a ceasefire, aggressive nations want to gain as much territory as possible before the beginning of the ceasefire. It strengthens their hand. Russia understands that. Vladimir Putin, if anything, understands that.

So in one sense, Ukraine, with the help and sponsorship of the United States, with the hosting of Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, having agreed in principle to this 30-day ceasefire has put itself in an even more vulnerable position. And the ball is now effectively handed to Russia, and we’re about to find out if Vladimir Putin has any real interest in peace. If he has real interest in ending this war, he will accept this ceasefire.

But as I say, in a fallen world, where you have this kind of aggressive force, it’s going to press its aggressive aims as far as it can to gain the maximum advantage before a ceasefire is declared. Because the political danger to both sides in a ceasefire is that they recognize that wherever the line is drawn right then, that is the status quo from which all negotiations have to begin.

I’ve been frustrated for a very long time, and that I have felt that a lot of American and European political authorities have basically been stating nonsense, living in a fairy tale and presenting it as truth when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So let’s talk in moral terms. Is there a moral cause for Ukraine to regain all of the territory Russia has invaded and seized? Yes. Let’s state this clearly. Ukraine would have a moral cause to regain all of that territory, expel all the Russians from that territory, and reestablish itself within its pre-war territorial identity.

And I think we as Christians would have to say that is what is morally right by the Christian moral structure of Christian just war theory, Ukraine would be right in doing so. The big question is, can Ukraine do so? And the answer to that is almost assuredly no, and it’s been that way from the beginning. Now, as I say, Ukraine has proved itself to be more resourceful, more vigilant, more courageous, more effective and pressing back on Russia than anyone believed, especially the Russians. It is now clear from documents leaked from Russia shortly after the invasion that they thought they would be in control of the entire nation, all Ukrainian territory, and in occupation of Kyiv, its capital, within 12 to 14 days of the invasion. Let’s just state the obvious. That did not happen, and that is a tribute to the courage of Ukraine.

Also to the fact that Ukraine has been remarkably creative in terms of its military press back on the onslaught from Russia. In particular, it has used drones like no other force has used drones in the past. And as a matter of fact, it’s used all kinds of non-human ways of advancing its aims and defending its territory in a way that other nations are simply having to watch and from which other nations are going to have to learn. This is a shift in warfare, especially in the use of drones, but also in the use of other kinds of automated weaponry.

This also shows, at least if we are observing closely, one of the reasons why Russia might be more inclined to ceasefire, might be at least willing to say that it is not going to advance in any more Ukrainian territory, and that is because it’s going to have a bit of trouble rebuilding itself on the other side of this war. And that is simply because look at what’s happened already. The Russians have had to import North Korean soldiers in order to fight this war, and it’s also really clear that in the understanding of the meaning and the value of human life, Russia has been very much willing. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who’s an autocrat, a totalitarian leader, he has been willing to push young Russian men by the untold numbers into what amounts to a meat grinder of a war.

To put it another way, in a nation that has an accountable government such as the United States of America, such a war would be impossible. Americans would not allow such a war. Americans would not allow a president or an administration to continue in office that would throw young Americans into a war like this as ruthlessly as has Russia. That might happen for a short time in terms of American politics, but by definition, it can’t happen for long.

Part II

---

Russia Will Continue to be a Threatening Force on the World Scene – For Reasons Deeply Rooted in History, Geography, and Civilizational Patterns

Now, there’s a larger background to this, and that is the fact that Russia is going to continue to be a sinister force on the world scene. And so, one of the biggest issues for Ukraine, and President Zelensky has been clear about this, and in this, we should all understand why he’s saying what he is saying, and that is that there must be security guarantees for Ukraine on the other side of not only the ceasefire, but any end to the war. And he has every reason, every moral imperative, to make that statement as his aim.

And we need to understand that this is in part much of the terror that appears to be now striking European hearts, and that’s particularly true because of some of the statements made by President Trump about Europe having to take control and responsibility for its own defense. Frankly, Western European nations are in no position to assume that responsibility because they have been increasingly weak in terms of their investment in their own national defense. They’ve counted on the defense umbrella of the United States, and President Trump has certainly shaken them up, but Vladimir Putin has also shaken them up. But what they’ll do about it, time will tell.

But it is really interesting that Vladimir Putin has made the statement that he will not allow a truce or perhaps even a ceasefire if that means that there will be European boots on the ground or troops there within Ukraine. And you ask the question, “Why? Does that mean that he intends to once again start the war and invade Ukraine all over again with new borders?” That’s possible, but it is also absolutely clear that we need to understand that Vladimir Putin has as his aim making certain that he reduces any kind of border exposure in which you have Russian troops on one side and NATO troops on the other side. He does not want that.

His own, that is, Vladimir Putin’s own political miscalculations is what has led to exactly that in some other nations to Russia’s northwest, and you’re looking at Scandinavian nations and others realigning themselves simply because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So time will tell, and there are those who will simply say, “You can’t trust Russia.” Well, you can’t trust Russia, not when it comes to this kind of issue, other than that Russia’s likely to do what’s in its own best interest according to its own calculation. But that’s where we do need to see that eventually, Russia has to come to the point in terms of its own sanity of saying it is not worth pressing this effort, this war any further.

One other civilizational matter that’s just kind of interesting here, it is clear that Vladimir Putin’s original war aim in Ukraine was to eliminate Ukraine from the map. But one of the problems that would have created for Vladimir Putin is that it would’ve incorporated that western portion of Ukraine, which frankly has been a part of other nations in Europe in times past, that he would’ve incorporated it within Russia. It’s not at all clear that that would help Vladimir Putin at all.

So at least as you think about how cultures work, Vladimir Putin might actually at this point have the incentive to try to limit the map. And so it is important to see that maybe for his own reasons and Russia’s own sense of self-interest, there might be a good reason for Russia to try to freeze the map somewhere near where it is now because he has the portion of Ukrainian territory that is most Russian.

But again, here’s the thing you can count on. Winston Churchill understood this, Ronald Reagan understood this, Margaret Thatcher understood this. Here’s the thing you can understand about Russia: Russia will do what Russia sees in its own best interest. That’s the way Russia, in its own self-consciousness, believes it has survived.

And finally, for Americans, the frightening thing for us all to recognize, the sobering reality, is the likelihood that Vladimir Putin, who is a totalitarian autocratic leader, might also at the same time truly represent Russia. That’s the scary thought.

Part III

---

Oregon Gov. Kotek Declares March 10 Abortion Provider Appreciation Day: The Culture of Death is Paraded from the Governor’s Office

Well, all right. Let’s come back to the United States, because every once in a while something happens, and you know this is a bigger story than many people are going to admit. In this case, I’m talking about a proclamation made by the governor of Oregon, and this coming from the Oregon governor’s office, says, “Today, abortion providers joined Governor Tina Kotek as she reaffirmed her administration’s commitment to maintaining access to abortion care in Oregon by signing a proclamation calling March 10 Abortion Provider Appreciation Day.”

The governor said, “Here in Oregon, we understand that abortion is healthcare, and providers are appreciated and can continue to provide care without interference and intimidation. To our providers and to the patients who live in Oregon or have been forced to retreat to our state for care, know that I continue to have your back.” Okay. So get this statistic. Last year, or at least the last completed year, for our records, that would be 2023, Oregon’s Health Authority reports that there were 10,075 abortions in Oregon. 1,661, we are told, were patients who reside out of state, a 60% increase over the prior year.

Now, when you consider the long-term impact of the Dobbs decision that reversed Roe v. Wade, the likelihood is that when you have some states that are now moving, thanks be to God, in a more pro-life direction, people in those states, women in those states who are determined to seek an abortion, they’re having to go to other states, and so you have some states turning into abortion meccas. They’re even advertising themselves that way.

Of course, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, infamously put together not only a television ad, but also a series of billboards in which messages were put in states far from California advertising just how pro-abortion California is. Oregon, in the statement made by the governor just this week, is clearly trying to make very clear they’re a blue state, and not only that, they’re a pro-abortion state. How pro-abortion? Well, just consider the language used by the governor. I mean, this is official language coming from the governor of Oregon. “We understand that abortion is healthcare.” Just full stop, notice what they said there. Abortion is healthcare.

You understand the power of that argument, the manipulation of the terms, but in a moral sense, let’s just think about the fact that this is one of those lies that is repeated loudly now, and you just state that abortion is healthcare. Killing unborn babies is healthcare. That is exactly what they’re saying. They dress it up in such a way that it’s presented as a matter of state pride in the State of Oregon, at least by the governor’s declaration.

You also have in this particular statement, a very clear political posturing to our providers and to the patients who live in Oregon or have been forced to retreat to our state for care, “Know I continue to have your back.” The “I” there is really, really interesting, “I continue to have your back.”

So here, you have the governor of Oregon declaring that she’s on the side of all those anywhere seeking abortion. She’s on the side of the abortion providers, she’s on the side even of people outside her state who are seeking abortions, women outside her state seeking abortions. She’s stating as a matter of pride, her personal pride and her personal responsibility, she is making sure that abortion in Oregon is defined as healthcare and that it is widely available and protected.

Previously, Oregon’s governor has very publicly initiated efforts to try to basically warehouse mifepristone, the abortion drug, there in the state. She in 2023 signed a law known as the “Access to Reproductive Healthcare Law” that was House Bill 2002, and we are told that that bill provides access to abortion. Again, called Reproductive Healthcare, and provides state funding to organizations that promote abortion and abortion rights. We’re also told that that same bill, “Allows minors to undergo sex reassignment surgery or obtain an abortion without their parents’ permission.” 

I just want to underline how insane this is in moral terms, how radical this is in moral terms. But we’re watching the divide in the United States on these issues grow only deeper. The chasm separating the two sides grows only wider. And here you have abortion simply championed as reproductive healthcare and made available even at state expense, and made available basically throughout the pregnancy, and made available to teenagers without any parental permission. And although, by the way, they’ll throw in with this, and this is also very revealing, they throw in with it the sex reassignment surgeries, sex reassignment treatments as they are called, that’s diabolical enough, but you’ll understand how these things do actually go together. And so it is somewhat predictable. It’s largely predictable that a governor who signs this is a governor who will sign that.

And in closing, let’s just see clearly the fact that when you deny creation order and moral reality once, you’re going to do it twice, you’re going to do it three times. You do it on this issue, then you’re going to do it on that issue. Then you’re going to release a proclamation about it and make it a matter of your state’s pride. Then you’re going to put out press releases to make sure nobody misses the point. This is the world we live in, and this is why we have to watch it carefully.