Pope Francis did not offer his customary commentary on the day's Gospel reading before praying the Angelus on Oct. 3. Instead he focused on the war in the Ukraine.
From this article on the NCR site: Pope tells Putin: Stop the war | National Catholic Reporter (ncronline.org)
"...he focused on the war and the "terrible and inconceivable wound" it is inflicting on humanity.
"While constantly calling for peace and offering prayers for the victims since the war began in late February, the pope drew attention in his talk to "the serious situation that has arisen in recent days with further actions contrary to the principles of international law," a clear reference to Putin's announcement Sept. 30 that Russia was annexing four occupied territories in Ukraine."
"The decision, the pope told people in St. Peter's Square, "increases the risk of nuclear escalation to the point of fears of uncontrollable and catastrophic consequences worldwide."
"My appeal is addressed first of all to the president of the Russian Federation, begging him to stop this spiral of violence and death, also for the sake of his people," the pope said."
"But "saddened by the immense suffering of the Ukrainian people as a result of the aggression suffered," Francis also appealed to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy "to be open" to any "serious peace proposals."
"The pope also asked world leaders "to do everything in their power to put an end to the ongoing war, without allowing themselves to be drawn into dangerous escalations, and to promote and support initiatives for dialogue."
"...And what about the fact that humanity is once again faced with the atomic threat?" the pope asked. "It is absurd."
"How much blood still must flow before we understand that war is never a solution, only destruction?" the pope asked thousands of people gathered in the square for the midday prayer."
"In the name of God and in the name of the sense of humanity that dwells in every heart," he said, "I renew my call for an immediate ceasefire."
Francis prayed for a negotiated settlement of the conflict, one that is "not imposed by force, but agreed, just and stable."
"A just solution, he said, must be "based on respect for the sacred value of human life, as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each country, and the rights of minorities and legitimate concerns."
Putin of course has upped the ante by talking of "nuclear options"
From this article in The Week: What would actually happen if Putin hit Ukraine with tactical nukes? | The Week
"The U.S. would, ideally, show Putin that the West is prepared to respond by readying air power in nearby NATO countries, Clark told CNN. "Taking out those troops, those Russian troops on the ground, is tough. We could take out Russian maritime assets, we could go after certain logistics and control points, but it would be a big, big deal for the United States."
"It's worth mentioning that Putin has threatened to use tactical nukes on various countries since at least 2014, Tannenwald notes. "Putin likes to wave about his nuclear weapons as a reminder to the West (and perhaps to himself) that Russia is still a great power." Still, for all his insinuations, "Putin did not directly articulate any new red lines or overtly threaten to use a nuclear weapon against Ukraine if Ukrainian counteroffensives continue," ISW underscores."
"Putin could reach a point of desperation where he uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, but he's most likely just saber-rattling, and "he likely incorrectly assesses that his nuclear brinksmanship will lead the United States and its allies to pressure Ukraine to negotiate," ISW assesses. "The more confident Putin is that nuclear use will not achieve decisive effects but will draw direct Western conventional military intervention in the conflict, the less likely he is to conduct a nuclear attack."
Some have said that it wasn't proper for Pope Francis to speak out on what they consider a just war, but he is pretty much speaking from Church teaching on war. Others blame Biden and leaders of other countries who have helped supply arms to Ukraine. But a victory for Putin would mean a destabilization for Europe, and a reward for his ruthless tactics. The blame boils down to one person, and that is Putin. There are no good options. I feel that the pope must have been thinking of this Scripture passage from Jeremiah 14: 17-21:
Let my eyes stream with tears night and day, without rest, the virgin daughter of my people,over her incurable wound.
18 If I walk out into the field,
look! those slain by the sword;
If I enter the city,
look! victims of famine.
Why have you struck us a blow
that cannot be healed?....
We wait for peace, to no avail;
for a time of healing, but terror comes instead."
I've also seen several articles in recent days about the likelihood of Putin going nuclear. The paradox is awful: when things are going his way with conventional weapons, he feels no need to rattle the nuclear saber, but when, as now, the Ukrainians are defeating him on the battlefield, he is being left with few/no options which are amenable to his pride and delusions of greatness.
ReplyDeleteAnd this in a larger context of Russian men, apparently by the tens of thousands, fleeing Russia to avoid being drafted, and open resistance to the draft within the country.
The cascading circles of evil unleashed by this war are astonishing.
FYI, the Daily Dispatch newsletter did a focus piece on this topic yesterday. Thought this bit may be of interest:
ReplyDelete"On Saturday, pro-Kremlin Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov said Russia needed a change of strategy, including “the use of low-yield nuclear weapons.”
"A pro-Kremlin Chechen leader calling for nuclear strikes is obviously alarming. But the mental image it conjures—a mushroom cloud leveling a massive city—is likely an inaccurate representation of how a Russian escalation would play out. If Putin takes that step—still an enormous if—he would likely deploy one or more of the roughly 2,000 “tactical” nuclear warheads in Russia’s arsenal. As veteran national security journalists David Sanger and William Broad reported this week, such weapons vary dramatically in size and delivery mechanism, but most have a “small fraction” of the power of the bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki nearly 80 years ago. Tactical nukes “might collapse a few city blocks or stop an oncoming column of troops,” the pair write. “But they would not destroy the world.”
"The primary goal of such a strike would likely not be concrete military gains, given the character of this war. “There is not much that nuclear weapons can do on the battlefield,” Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project, told The Dispatch. “There are no large concentrations of troops, there are no aircraft carriers.” With Ukraine’s forces relatively spread out, hitting an airstrip or weapons depot wouldn’t be a crippling blow, and therefore probably not worth the consequences of using a nuclear weapon.
"Why, then, deploy a weapon that hasn’t been used in warfare since 1945? To send a message. A nuclear strike would undoubtedly mark a new stage in the conflict, and represent an attempt to “shock Ukrainians into surrender,” Podvig said. Russia could, for example, detonate a bomb over a relatively unpopulated area—the Black Sea, or the highly symbolic Snake Island—opting against a mass-casualty event while signaling a willingness to kill tens or hundreds of thousands if its demands aren’t met. The radioactive fallout of a “messaging” nuke would still have disastrous consequences, of course, for both the environment and the health of all those in its range."
Several observers have noted that fallout from any nukes used in Ukraine would travel east with the prevailing winds into Russia and its satellite territories. Not that that would stop Vlad, but it would likely make him more unpopular at home.
ReplyDelete