Friends, first of all, Happy Easter! I hope this day afforded you an opportunity to reflect on the singular demonstration of God's grace that Jesus's resurrection entails. There's so much death and suffering in this world, and so it pays to remind ourselves that the Christian message represents, first and foremost, a victory over death -- and is there any victory more fundamental or transformative than that?
Speaking of Easter, you might enjoy this story about the discovery in modern Israel of the ruins of what is surely one of the first Christian churches:
https://justthenews.com/nation/religion/earliest-known-mosaic-jesus-open-public-after-being-found-under-israeli-prison
You may also wish to read this ADVANCE COPY of my latest article, which revolves around President Biden's recent charge that Russia is guilty of genocide in Ukraine. I object, as you know by now, for a number of reasons. See if you agree with my take:
“Genocide” is Not a Throwaway
Term of Abuse, Mr. “President”
Soaring inflation
of late has left the American people battered and bruised – but not
just inflation in prices; inflation in rhetoric is also doing damage
to the fabric of our Republic.
We've
all seen it unfold with depressing regularity. President Trump was a
“fascist dictator”. The Capitol riot was a “coup” and an
“insurrection”. Climate change poses an “existential threat”
to all life on earth. And, just this past week, Wisconsin's
Democratic Governor Tony Evers declared,
when he failed to get the legislative redistricting map he wanted
from the state's Supreme Court, “At a time when our
democracy is under near-constant attack, the judiciary has abandoned
our democracy in our most dire hour”. Deary me! If you paid
attention to the non-stop apocalypto-rama on CNN and MSNBC these
days, in fact, you'd think American democracy was being dealt its
deathblow more or less every hour of every day.
Such hyperbolic, scaremongering
rhetoric is bad enough when it's used in the context of our toxic
domestic politics, but when the same loose, inflammatory talk is
injected into the practice of U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy, the
stakes rise inexorably, as do the dangers.
A
case in point: last week, our president (God help us!) accused Russia
of committing "genocide" in Ukraine. He did so offhandedly,
clumsily, and inarticulately, of course, but he did it all the same.
After a brief mention in a speech about inflation, he clarified his
position to reporters: “Yes, I called it genocide... It’s
become clearer and clearer that Putin is just trying to wipe out the
idea of even being a Ukrainian.” Not
for the first time, therefore, Biden thrust himself way out in front
of his own administration, which has not
accused Russia of genocide, perhaps because a) Russia isn't guilty of
genocide in Ukraine, and b) charging a country with genocide has
traditionally implied a moral and political imperative to intervene
directly to stop the killing. U.S. and/or NATO intervention in
Ukraine, however, would bring with it an extremely high likelihood of
sparking World War III, and thus a nuclear holocaust.
Why
do I say that Russia isn't guilty of genocide? Simple: Russia has
killed thousands of civilians in Ukraine, yes, and it may well have
committed war crimes, but that just isn't
the same thing as "genocide".
Genocide is the attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group, and,
frankly, if what's taking place in Ukraine now is "genocide",
and the bar is henceforth to be set at any military campaign that
kills thousands of civilians, then most of the wars that have been
fought since 1945 were "genocides" -- and, arguably, the
United States has committed genocide itself on numerous occasions. Of
course, that notion is absurd.
Genocide is the
most extreme, most debased, most barbaric crime that any nation can
commit, and the only reason the word is being bandied about by
Ukrainian leaders, and, now, by the U.S. president, is because of its
propaganda effect.
Not
that facts matter to Joe Biden, but, as a matter of fact, there is a
much
stronger case to be made that China is guilty of genocide than that
Russia is. Remember China? The country that, by its negligence and
dishonesty, has killed 1+ million Americans with a vicious,
bioengineered disease? It's the same country that is killing and
enslaving Uighurs on a vast scale and seems intent on, well, wiping
them out as an ethnic group. Oh yeah: it's also the country that paid
(indirectly, via Hunter Biden's dirty dealings) for Sleepy Joe's home
improvements. So hey -- forget I said anything. All is forgiven.
Joking
aside, Joe Biden hasn't just refused to punish China in any
meaningful way for its tyrannical and genocidal policies. He's
actually excused
those policies,
suggesting they were the result of “different norms” in our two
countries, and he's bragged about his close relationship with China's
dictator, President Xi. Quite a contrast!
The fact that Joe
Biden has gotten the issue of Russia's “genocide” in Ukraine all
wrong, though, isn't what should concern us. Biden gets things wrong
more often than he gets things right. What's more worrying is the
possibility that President Biden may believe his own irresponsible
rhetoric. He may believe that Russia really is a genocidal,
expansionist dictatorship – that there is no meaningful distinction
between Putin and Hitler. If so, Americans should reflect on the
possible consequences of those beliefs, because they could be
earthshattering.
As
mentioned before, when a nation is committing genocide, a very strong
argument can be made that all major powers are obligated to intervene
to stop it. Imagine if Russia really was massacring the Ukrainians en
masse, perhaps herding
them into death camps, and appeared to be working towards wiping them
off the face of the earth. Does anyone believe that the proper
response to that horror would be...economic sanctions (excluding oil
and gas, which most of the West thinks it can't do without) and
modest military aid (but no aircraft or heavy weapons) to the
soon-to-be-obliterated? No! Of course not. Genocide calls for direct
military action. Genocide calls for war. That's the implication of
Biden's inflated and inflammatory rhetoric: that virtually any
action, no matter how extreme, could be justified to combat the
unparalleled evil of Putinism.
And,
remember, this man, this buffoon, who is calling out the world's
foremost nuclear power for "genocide", is himself the
“leader of the free world”. Worse, he has sole control of
America's "nuclear football". He's the guy who can start
WWIII any old time he likes – perhaps when he's feeling ornery,
which is most of the time!
Biden's
lack of messaging discipline is scary enough. What's even scarier is
that he may believe his own nonsense, and he may want to do something
about it. And he can.
He can attack Russia directly whenever he pleases. He might do so
casually, thoughtlessly, impulsively, because that seems to be his
M.O., but, once the trigger is pulled, it can't be unpulled.
So there you go:
if you thought the world was on the brink before, Sleepy Joe just
made the situation that much worse. And we've got three more years of
his erratic leadership in store, folks. Yikes!
Dr.
Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred
and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com.
He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
***
Finally, check out this summary of the latest developments in Ukraine. President Zelensky is saying we ought to take seriously the possibility that Russia could use nuclear weapons. I agree. In fact, the worse the Russian army performs in the field, the greater the chance that Putin will use nukes. It could be the only way to salvage the situation and avoid what could be a humiliating defeat for a former superpower. Now, I don't claim that the nuclearization of the conflict is likely. For one thing, I don't believe Ukraine will be able to defeat Russia on the battlefield. Even if it could, though, Russia would have to weigh the benefits of obliterating their opponents once for all with the costs of fierce global condemnation, redoubled sanctions, and -- maybe -- a Western military response. To me, it seems virtually inconceivable that the West would take any action that would lead to direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. And, to me, it seems even less conceivable that the West would use nukes against Russia, or against Russian forces, to support its Ukrainian clients. Ergo, Putin might feel as though the West has already thrown everything it has the gumption to throw at him, and therefore there would be little to lose in going nuclear. Then again, I could be reading the situation wrongly. It wouldn't be the first time. What do YOU think?
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/zelenskyy-ukraine-donbas-russia/2022/04/17/id/1066036/
