Tag: Ukraine

Tweets I never Tweeted

I left Twitter a couple years ago, but sometimes I have pithy thoughts that are roughly the length of a 280 character Tweet. Here are some of them, in no particular order. [WARNING: As tweets, they are not very nuanced and tend to be pretty black-and-white…so please don’t read too much into them. Any intelligent person, including myself, could probably rebut every single one of these Tweets if given enough time and thought. Moreover, I myself don’t necessarily fully agree with all of them. But I think some of them are interesting and hopefully they provide some food for thought.]

  • To have CONVICTION is to affirm that everything you believe right now is true. To have HUMILITY is to realize that you’ve been wrong in the past about some things, and thus are probably wrong about some things in the present. To be a healthy pursuer of truth is to have BOTH conviction AND humility, and thus to respect those you disagree with (even if you think they’re wrong—after all, you have also been wrong in the past).
  • The invasion of Ukraine has simultaneously illustrated the benefits of local nuclear energy (more dependable than oil and gas imports) and the potential danger (intentional or accident incidents threatening to spread radiation).
  • I’m generally not a fan of how “masculinity” is defined in American culture, but even if I were, it’s strange to me why so many people view Donald Trump as such a manly man. He doesn’t drink alcohol or coffee, doesn’t exercise, wears makeup, is unfaithful to his wife, doesn’t hunt, never served in the military, rarely laughs…
  • If your theology is far more similar to the theology found among elite, educated, wealthy white American liberals than it is to that found among impoverished, oppressed, and persecuted Christians in non-Western nations, then I have some bad news about how “decolonized” your theology actually is…
  • People may wonder what a Christian pacifist view of the Ukraine war would be: What would a pacifist (such as myself) do in the situation? Well, given that ~70% of Russians identify as Christian, it can be assumed that if all the Christians in the Russian army held to Jesus’ view on violence (“love your enemies”), they would immediately throw down their arms and return home, ending the war outright.
  • There are two deep ironies to the Trump presidency. The first is that his most significant historic achievement, Operation Warp Speed, is the one accomplishment that means nothing to his most loyal supporters. The second is that his biggest legacy, the overturn of Roe v. Wade, is destined to hinder his party’s political popularity for a generation.
  • If you are unwilling or unable to understand the appeal of an ideology that you disagree with, then at best your efforts to oppose it will be ineffective, and at worst they will actually encourage it all the more.
  • When Democrats lost an important election in 2016, they knitted ‘pussy’ hats, wore black, and cried. When Republicans lost an important election in 2020, they claimed the election was stolen, bought guns, and assaulted the US Capitol. One side is clearly more likely to start a civil war than the other. (Given that fact, there’s probably not a real need to worry about a domestic civil war until liberals start buying guns. That’s when you should start to worry.)
  • The solution to the age-old Euthryphro Dilemma is similar to the solution of asking , “which side of a quarter is more important?” While the question makes sense on a logical level, the answer is to simply point out that both sides are not just equally important, but inseparable from each other. Similarly for the Euthryphro problem the answer is that ‘God’ and ‘Justice’ are two sides of the same coin.
  • The sentiment that “I have a right to sex and if I’m not getting any, it’s society’s fault in some way” is a subtly broken sentiment on several levels. While it sounds deeply progressive on the surface, it is also the sentiment at the foundation of the misogynistic and far-right “incel” movement. No one has a fundamental right to sex that must be granted to them by others.
  • Cattails seeds are like the kingdom of God. They are spread by the wind, and especially after being pecked at by others.
  • What percentage of people does “The System” have to work for for that system to be worth keeping ? (Assuming that no system can work for everyone). 99% ? 51% ? Something else? We should be cautious before throwing out a system without having a good idea of whether the system that replaces it would work any better.
  • Putins biggest mistake was not invading Ukraine while Trump was still president. There’s no way the US under Trump would have marshaled the resources that have come through for the Ukrainians in the past year.
  • I saw a tweet that said that “Any reason to get an abortion is the right one.” But I disagree; I can think of many reasons that a person could get an abortion that don’t seem like great reasons. For ex: 1. Genetic testing shows that I’m pregnant with a female. 2. My boyfriend is telling me to get an abortion or he’s going to leave me. 3. I am afraid my baby is going to be gay. 4. My job doesn’t offer parental leave. Etc.
  • There’s a loophole in Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself” in that if you don’t feel like loving them, you can just deport them somewhere else… and then they’re not your neighbor anymore!
  • The Bible is a bit like an invitation to a wedding. It contains immense value not only because of the words on the page but especially because it points to a wondrous banquet and invites one to RSVP “yes” or “no.”
  • For many Christians , Jesus is their Savior but he is not their Lord.
  • To help white people divest from white supremacy, it is not enough to simply love people of color. You must also love white people.
  • One ironic difference between an unarmed, committed pacifist and, say, one of the heavily armed Uvalde SWAT police officers (who refused to storm the school building while the shooter was inside actively shooting people), is that the pacifist is willing to risk death for the sake of their convictions, and the SWAT officers weren’t. 
  • As we see women slowly gain equality to men in society, will we see an increase in certain rates, such as female murderers, female mass shooters, etc? If not, why not? I actually think the answer really matters, because in it lies the clue for how to help modern men.
  • I think you can be a pacifist without being a universalist, however I find it hard to believe one can be a universalist without being a pacifist. If you believe no one is unworthy of being in God’s perfect presence in heaven, then how could you believe it would ever be justified to use deadly violence against them on earth? To be a universalist but not a pacifist is essentially to say: “God wouldn’t ever hold any of your sins against you-but I might!”
    • Elite liberals fixating on school shooters’ access to assault rifles as the most important topic in gun control is an example of the gentrification of an important political issue. Handguns kill far more people through gang shootings, suicides, and accidents, but those get a lot less attention than the specter of a shooter with an AR-15 in a peaceful suburban town.
    • There’s a perspective among some Christians that hell is not about burning in fire, but is merely just about being separated from God. Well, sure, I could buy that. However, if you believe that being completely separated from God‘s entire is the worst thing in the world, then that is actually worse than being in a lake of fire. If God is who He says he is, it would be far better to burn in fire with God (like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), than to live in paradise without him!
    • Arguments about arming teachers in schools are pretty hilarious to me. When I taught middle school in Baltimore, I safely and effectively broke up 22 fights between students by physically intervening. I also broke up a high school fight on my street in Carlisle two years ago. I cannot think of a single fight where the presence of a sidearm strapped to my side would have made the situation safer, and more likely it would have made it far more dangerous (e.g., if the gun had accidentally discharged, or a student grabbed it in the middle of the tussle.) I think an argument could be made for there to be one or two armed resource officers in a school, but arming teachers–even with training– is just asking for trouble.
    • There’s actually some key ways that one can use arguments from the perspective of “progressivism/CRT” (loosely defined) in order to defend certain core Christian doctrines. For example, “Oh, you don’t believe in a Judgment Day? That’s a very privileged stance, to believe that no matter what systems of oppression you participate in, that God ultimately just doesn’t care. Most marginalized and oppressed groups long for a day when God judges the righteous and unrighteous.” Or – “ oh, you believe that truth is relative and each individual should figure out what is right and wrong for themselves? That’s a very individualistic, white Western perspective on morality. Most non-white and non-Western cultures have a more group-oriented perspective that takes into consideration the needs of the entire community, and the most marginalized within it, not just whatever a privileged person decides on their own.”
    • When edgy progressivism becomes the norm and institutionalized, it ceases to feel edgy. Instead it is conservatism that begins to feel edgy. 
    • Christians–whether more progressive or conservative–who portray Jesus as entirely different from the “violent, strict, legalistic” God of the Old Testament are showing how little they understand Jesus’ teachings, and moreover are engaging in theological anti-Semitism. Jews have worshipped the “God of the Old Testament” for 5000+ years, and to simply write him off as a hateful has-been is to indict their entire religion. 
    • Republicans who think we should cut back support for Ukraine and instead “be tough on China” are hopelessly confused. China is watching carefully how the US responds to Russian aggression in Ukraine, and if we are perceived as weak in any way, that will further encourage China to attack Taiwan and other nations. In our broken world, the best way to deter a Chinese invasion is to prove to them that US weapons can defend any ally against any aggressor.

Some quick, unedited thoughts in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

A month ago, I wrote about possible responses that President Biden might take in response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine. In no particular order, here are a few of the things I’ve been learning or thinking now that Russia has actually invaded.

–My original comparison of Ukraine to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 has been apt, and if anything, understated. While Jimmy Carter publicly levied sanctions and boycotts of Russia, he only sent RPGs and anti-air Stinger missiles to Afghanistan in secret, via back channels and neutral countries. In contrast, we have seen the US and many other countries publicly commit to directly sending anti-armor weapons and munitions to Ukraine. And a little bit similar to their experience in 1980s Afghanistan…

-…Russia has so far struggled in ways that they really should have prepared for. Despite having advanced intelligence, Russia failed to destroy Ukraine’s air force and anti-air capabilities. As such, they have struggled to establish air superiority over the skies, leaving their advance units vulnerable to counter-attack by sky or air. Already, I’ve seen reports of a Ukrainian pilot shooting down 6 Russian planes in a single day, something that hasn’t happened in Europe since WWII. Beyond the air, Russian supply lines have been overextended, leaving their troops lost, out of fuel, and vulnerable.

–Russia’s timeline for the start of the invasion was fairly obvious to those who were paying attention. While on NPR and other media outlets were questioning why the Biden administration kept saying invasion was imminent day after day, it’s clear that the intelligence was spot on. Moreover, experts had long said that Russia wanted to wait to invade Ukraine until mid-February or early March, when the ground would be most frozen and allow their tanks and support vehicles to traverse the ground without getting stuck in mud. No one should be surprised that 150,000 troops weren’t just there for “exercises”; that they were there to be an invasion force. The fact that some nations, such as Germany, were indeed surprised, shows a lack of understanding of how Putin works. In retrospect the Biden administration to continue to share publicly all the intelligence about Russian activities (in order to forestall a “false flag” operation, among other things) appear to be very prescient, and most likely denied the Russians a meaningful “casus belli” (cause for war).

–This was never just about the pro-Russian breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine; instead it’s about installing a pro-Moscow leader and solidifying holds over Ukrainian resources. Ever since the Kyiv revolution in 2014 overthrew the pro-Russian president, Putin has been looking for ways to re-install a sympathetic regime in Ukraine. In fact, the day before Russia actually invaded I was texting with a friend and stated this very thing, that it seems likely that Putin’s goal is to kill Zelensky (who is pro-EU and pro-Western) and install a ruler that Russia can control. That’s why we’ve seen so many Russian saboteur units attempt to sneak into Kyiv, and a strong focus on taking that city, and it makes Zelensky’s decision to stay and fight all the more bold. He must be careful to only surround himself with the most loyal of advisors; an assassin only has to be successful 1 out of a 100 times to topple his government. Additionally, taking most of eastern Ukraine will allow Russia to control the gas, oil, and water supplies that flow through the region: I did not know this until yesterday, but the Crimean peninsula that Russia annexed in 2014 is reliant upon the flow of water that comes from central Ukraine–and it has been cut off by Zelensky in retribution for that annexation. It’s essential that Putin control either the government or the land mass of Ukraine east of the Dnieper; and preferably both.

–Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukraine by withholding military aid in 2019 seems even more odious in hindsight. Most people have forgotten the circumstances that triggered the first Trump impeachment, but it involved Trump trying to manipulate Ukraine and Zelensky into launching false, public investigation of Joe Biden by choosing to withhold military aid. (Ukraine continued to be a talking point among the right-wing media for years, to the point that many still reflexively support Putin!) Given Trump’s stated desire to pull the United States out of NATO in his second term and withdraw military support from European nations facing the guns of Russia, it’s clear that Putin thought that he could get away with a quick invasion of a country that apparently did not have the full support of the United States.

-Putin has energized Western European nations to unify and mobilize militarily in ways not seen in decades. Despite Trump’s best attempts to force Germany to increase their defense spending (like Obama before him), that country had long refused to raise military spending to the minimum goal of 2% of GDP, nor send military aid to Ukraine. Both of those things have changed in the past 7 days, with the chancellor pledging a massive increase in military spending and shipping anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Germany is not alone; many other nations in NATO and the EU have pledged unprecedented military responses to Russia. As Thucydides predicted 2500 years ago, when a powerful state begins to assert itself, even if its purpose is to increase its own security, it inevitably cause surrounding nations to rally to counter this rising threat. If Putin’s stated desire was to prevent NATO and EU from mobilizing against Russian interests, he has caused the exact opposite to happen.

–Just like the Biblical story in Judges 12 about the word “shibboleth”, Russian invaders have been vulnerable to small cultural differences including the pronunciation of certain words. While there are major linguistic similarities between the two countries, Ukrainians have been able to identify and halt Russians by asking them to pronounce “palyanitsa“, the word for a type of bread. If the Russians can’t pronounce it, they are identified as outsiders and attacked. Relatedly, Ukrainians have torn down roadsigns (or replaced them with obscene phrases) to hinder the ability of Russians to find their way around the country.

–Though they share many similarities, the religious differences between Ukrainians and Russians are important to recognize. This has not been widely discussed in the mainstream media, but Putin’s connections to the Russian Orthodox Church may be a substantial motivator for him and others seeking to conquer Ukraine. Kyiv is the historic site for the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church, but the Ukraine Orthodox community has been seeking to distance themselves from Russia and the Patriarch Kirill (who is a major ally of Putin’s). Additionally, while in Russia evangelical Christians have faced persecution and hostility, videos have emerged of evangelicals in Ukraine worshipping in bomb shelters while shells rain down from the sky.

-Speaking of shells, a surprising amount of Russian armaments have failed. I have seen over a dozen pictures and videos of unexploded Russian ordinance (rockets and shells). While that always happens a certain number of times in war, the frequency seems to indicate subpar weapons and maintenance among the Russians. Their army and air force have vastly underperformed expectations, even granted Ukrainian tenacity.

-Ukraine may be an interesting test case for the American gun debate. Many Americans have long held that citizens need to be able to own automatic assault rifles to defend against a tyrannical governmental military force. Ukraine will be an interesting test case, given how many citizens there own AK-47s and other military-style weapons. Will that be enough to repel a Russian invasion? Or is it more the case that the decider will be the presence of anti-tank weapons, and RPGs? And if it’s the second one, can we finally stop pretending that a handful of citizens armed solely with rifles can meaningfully defeat a modern-day nation state? Or will gun activists in the US decide to start advocating for the right to own RPGs?

Anyway, there’s probably a lot more I could say, but I wanted to share a few quick responses to all that’s going on. As always, these are my personal thoughts, subject to change as new information arises.

How will Biden Respond to Russian Aggression in Ukraine?

To have any sense of historical memory in America nowadays is to feel like one is slowly going insane. Objective facts, once universally accepted across society, are either completely memory-holed, or twisted to mean the exact opposite. Sometimes I wonder: Am I the crazy one? Or are we all just being gaslit by nefarious actors seeking their own personal gain?

Think back just a few years, to the first Trump impeachment (yes, there were two Trump impeachments). The reason for this impeachment was that Trump tried to violate treaty obligations and withhold military defense aid from Ukraine, a fledgling democracy trying to bolster its defenses against potential Russian military aggression. Now here we are, and Ukraine is on the verge of invasion by Russia, with 120,000 soldiers on its border. Even without Trump in the Oval Office, Putin perceives weakness on the part of Ukraine and America alike, and only he knows what may happen next.

Despite the seeming inevitability of invasion, I would caution Putin to also remember the historical record. A seemingly weak American president choosing to react strongly against a Russian invasion of a border nation? It’s happened before, in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As I wrote for one of my senior seminars in college:

“President Carter is widely derided by many as a “dove” who let foreign powers walk all over the United States. At first glance, this view may seem accurate. Under Carter, the US economy faltered, Iranian radicals took over the American embassy in Tehran, Sandinista rebels took over Nicaragua, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. However, Carter’s reaction to the latter event would surprise many: he immediately funneled immense amounts of military aid to rebel mujahedeen, threatened to boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and shut down SALT II nuclear arms reduction talks. This paper shall explore and analyze the Carter administration’s decision-making process in the wake of the Soviet invasion. Carter’s harsh line, seemingly out of character for him, can be explained when one examines the military, political, and societal forces surrounding the situation. Fearing Soviet influence over the Persian Gulf and eager to win back American opinion of his foreign policy, Carter chose to react forcefully against the Russians. Carter’s “hawkish” response to the invasion thus makes sense: the Carter administration was merely shifting in reaction to changes in the global and domestic environment.“

Nothing can unite a country like a military response to a foreign policy crisis (in political science this is known as the “rally-around-the-flag” effect). While Putin may sense an opportunity to expand Russia’s borders, the Biden administration may find that a strong response is not only militarily feasible, but politically popular. In am election year where he is (like Carter) facing inflation, deep unpopularity, and perceived weakness both at home and abroad, Biden may decide to pivot to a more muscular foreign policy in 2022.

Seem far-fetched? I invite you to read the rest of my research paper analyzing President Carter’s response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and consider: in what ways is this similar or different to a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine? How might Joe Biden respond, both publicly and secretly? What sympathy might images of Ukrainian refugees fleeing Russian aggression generate in the mass media? Post your comments and questions below.

Carters-Response-to-the-Soviet-Invasion-of-AfghanistanDownload