Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (Official Thread)

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,454
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,013
Reppin
The Deep State
Chinese diplomats keeping it a buck. Putin fukked up...and made the west stronger :whoo:















Chinese-American Scholars and Sino-U.S. Rivalry: Where Do We Go From Here?
US-China Perception Monitor
February 23, 2022

The Russo-Ukrainian War is the most severe geopolitical conflict since World War II and will result in far greater global consequences than September 11 attacks. At this critical moment, China needs to accurately analyze and assess the direction of the war and its potential impact on the international landscape. At the same time, in order to strive for a relatively favorable external environment, China needs to respond flexibly and make strategic choices that conform to its long-term interests.

Russia’s ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine has caused great controvsery in China, with its supporters and opponents being divided into two implacably opposing sides. This article does not represent any party and, for the judgment and reference of the highest decision-making level in China, this article conducts an objective analysis on the possible war consequences along with their corresponding countermeasure options.

I. Predicting the Future of the Russo-Ukrainian War

1. Vladimir Putin may be unable to achieve his expected goals, which puts Russia in a tight spot. The purpose of Putin’s attack was to completely solve the Ukrainian problem and divert attention from Russia’s domestic crisis by defeating Ukraine with a blitzkrieg, replacing its leadership, and cultivating a pro-Russian government. However, the blitzkrieg failed, and Russia is unable to support a protracted war and its associated high costs. Launching a nuclear war would put Russia on the opposite side of the whole world and is therefore unwinnable. The situations both at home and abroad are also increasingly unfavorable. Even if the Russian army were to occupy Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and set up a puppet government at a high cost, this would not mean final victory. At this point, Putin’s best option is to end the war decently through peace talks, which requires Ukraine to make substantial concessions. However, what is not attainable on the battlefield is also difficult to obtain at the negotiating table. In any case, this military action constitutes an irreversible mistake.

2. The conflict may escalate further, and the West’s eventual involvement in the war cannot be ruled out. While the escalation of the war would be costly, there is a high probability that Putin will not give up easily given his character and power. The Russo-Ukrainian war may escalate beyond the scope and region of Ukraine, and may even include the possibility of a nuclear strike. Once this happens, the U.S. and Europe cannot stay aloof from the conflict, thus triggering a world war or even a nuclear war. The result would be a catastrophe for humanity and a showdown between the United States and Russia. This final confrontation, given that Russia’s military power is no match for NATO’s, would be even worse for Putin.

3. Even if Russia manages to seize Ukraine in a desperate gamble, it is still a political hot potato. Russia would thereafter carry a heavy burden and become overwhelmed. Under such circumstances, no matter whether Volodymyr Zelensky is alive or not, Ukraine will most likely set up a government-in-exile to confront Russia in the long term. Russia will be subject both to Western sanctions and rebellion within the territory of Ukraine. The battle lines will be drawn very long. The domestic economy will be unsustainable and will eventually be dragged down. This period will not exceed a few years.

4. The political situation in Russia may change or be disintegrated at the hands of the West. After Putin’s blitzkrieg failed, the hope of Russia’s victory is slim and Western sanctions have reached an unprecedented degree. As people’s livelihoods are severely affected and as anti-war and anti-Putin forces gather, the possibility of a political mutiny in Russia cannot be ruled out. With Russia’s economy on the verge of collapse, it would be difficult for Putin to prop up the perilous situation even without the loss of the Russo-Ukrainian war. If Putin were to be ousted from power due to civil strife, coup d’état, or another reason, Russia would be even less likely to confront the West. It would surely succumb to the West, or even be further dismembered, and Russia’s status as a great power would come to an end.

II. Analysis of the Impact of Russo-Ukrainian war On International Landscape

1. The United States would regain leadership in the Western world, and the West would become more united. At present, public opinion believes that the Ukrainian war signifies a complete collapse of U.S. hegemony, but the war would in fact bring France and Germany, both of which wanted to break away from the U.S., back into the NATO defense framework, destroying Europe’s dream to achieve independent diplomacy and self-defense. Germany would greatly increase its military budget; Switzerland, Sweden, and other countries would abandon their neutrality. With Nord Stream 2 put on hold indefinitely, Europe’s reliance on US natural gas will inevitably increase. The US and Europe would form a closer community of shared future, and American leadership in the Western world will rebound.

2. The “Iron Curtain” would fall again not only from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, but also to the final confrontation between the Western-dominated camp and its competitors. The West will draw the line between democracies and authoritarian states, defining the divide with Russia as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. The new Iron Curtain will no longer be drawn between the two camps of socialism and capitalism, nor will it be confined to the Cold War. It will be a life-and-death battle between those for and against Western democracy. The unity of the Western world under the Iron Curtain will have a siphon effect on other countries: the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy will be consolidated, and other countries like Japan will stick even closer to the U.S., which will form an unprecedentedly broad democratic united front.

3. The power of the West will grow significantly, NATO will continue to expand, and U.S. influence in the non-Western world will increase. After the Russo-Ukrainian War, no matter how Russia achieves its political transformation, it will greatly weaken the anti-Western forces in the world. The scene after the 1991 Soviet and Eastern upheavals may repeat itself: theories on “the end of ideology” may reappear, the resurgence of the third wave of democratization will lose momentum, and more third world countries will embrace the West. The West will possess more “hegemony” both in terms of military power and in terms of values and institutions, its hard power and soft power will reach new heights.

4. China will become more isolated under the established framework. For the above reasons, if China does not take proactive measures to respond, it will encounter further containment from the US and the West. Once Putin falls, the U.S. will no longer face two strategic competitors but only have to lock China in strategic containment. Europe will further cut itself off from China; Japan will become the anti-China vanguard; South Korea will further fall to the U.S.; Taiwan will join the anti-China chorus, and the rest of the world will have to choose sides under herd mentality. China will not only be militarily encircled by the U.S., NATO, the QUAD, and AUKUS, but also be challenged by Western values and systems.

III. China’s Strategic Choice

1. China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to be cut off as soon as possible. In the sense that an escalation of conflict between Russia and the West helps divert U.S. attention from China, China should rejoice with and even support Putin, but only if Russia does not fall. Being in the same boat with Putin will impact China should he lose power. Unless Putin can secure victory with China’s backing, a prospect which looks bleak at the moment, China does not have the clout to back Russia. The law of international politics says that there are “no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies,” but “our interests are eternal and perpetual.” Under current international circumstances, China can only proceed by safeguarding its own best interests, choosing the lesser of two evils, and unloading the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window period of one or two weeks before China loses its wiggle room. China must act decisively.

2. China should avoid playing both sides in the same boat, give up being neutral, and choose the mainstream position in the world. At present, China has tried not to offend either side and walked a middle ground in its international statements and choices, including abstaining from the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly votes. However, this position does not meet Russia’s needs, and it has infuriated Ukraine and its supporters as well as sympathizers, putting China on the wrong side of much of the world. In some cases, apparent neutrality is a sensible choice, but it does not apply to this war, where China has nothing to gain. Given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can avoid further isolation only by standing with the majority of the countries in the world. This position is also conducive to the settlement of the Taiwan issue.

3. China should achieve the greatest possible strategic breakthrough and not be further isolated by the West. Cutting off from Putin and giving up neutrality will help build China’s international image and ease its relations with the U.S. and the West. Though difficult and requiring great wisdom, it is the best option for the future. The view that a geopolitical tussle in Europe triggered by the war in Ukraine will significantly delay the U.S. strategic shift from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region cannot be treated with excessive optimism. There are already voices in the U.S. that Europe is important, but China is more so, and the primary goal of the U.S. is to contain China from becoming the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific region. Under such circumstances, China’s top priority is to make appropriate strategic adjustments accordingly, to change the hostile American attitudes towards China, and to save itself from isolation. The bottom line is to prevent the U.S. and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China.

4. China should prevent the outbreak of world wars and nuclear wars and make irreplaceable contributions to world peace. As Putin has explicitly requested Russia’s strategic deterrent forces to enter a state of special combat readiness, the Russo-Ukrainian war may spiral out of control. A just cause attracts much support; an unjust one finds little. If Russia instigates a world war or even a nuclear war, it will surely risk the world’s turmoil. To demonstrate China’s role as a responsible major power, China not only cannot stand with Putin, but also should take concrete actions to prevent Putin’s possible adventures. China is the only country in the world with this capability, and it must give full play to this unique advantage. Putin’s departure from China’s support will most likely end the war, or at least not dare to escalate the war. As a result, China will surely win widespread international praise for maintaining world peace, which may help China prevent isolation but also find an opportunity to improve its relations with the United States and the West.


 
Last edited:

Voice of Reason

Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2016
Messages
44,108
Reputation
258
Daps
124,997
Thread:



Thread by @djrothkopf on Thread Reader App
David Rothkopf
392 views

5h • 17 tweets • 3 min read
Putin likely knows he cannot win in Ukraine in the sense that he cannot take control of the country and maintain that control. He cannot make Ukraine a vassal state like Belarus. So, it seems likely that for him, the next best option is to destroy Ukraine with maximum brutality.

In so doing, he will be able to say he neutralized Ukraine's threat to Russia. He will send a warning to neighbors that this is what awaits them if he sees them as a threat. And perhaps most importantly, he will send a message to the world that he can act w/complete impunity.

What awaits Ukraine is almost certainly worse than anything we have seen to date. Re: the last point above, Putin will cross red lines to prove that he can do so. He likely believes that communicates a message of power to his people and to the world.

He also likely knows that he cannot sustain this war indefinitely, that the economic costs of war (or occupation) are high and as sanctions bite deeper they will be an ever greater challenge. That is why obliterating Ukraine is for him, preferable than trying to hold it.

He is counting on two things. One is that the West will not challenge him militarily for fear of triggering WWIII. The other is that once this is over a negotiated peace will result in lifted sanctions and a return (perhaps a slow one) to normalcy.

He is probably right on the first point. This is not the place to relitigate that argument although I'm not sure that history suggests that inaction is actually the cautious path w/a man like Putin. (What does this mean? Perhaps stepping up our own "hybrid" response.

Perhaps we need more of our own "little green men." Perhaps if red lines are crossed significant cyber responses should be considered. Perhaps this means other forms of expanded covert support.) But this will no doubt be controversial and frankly, given the stakes, it should be.

But the second point above is more important. It must be made clear to Putin that he cannot lay waste to an innocent nation and then be welcomed back into the community of nations by a world eager for peace, stability and Russian oil & gas.

Here, the West does have great options. Sanctions could be more sweeping now. European nations that have dragged their feet on energy sanctions can and should implement them. More of Putin's allies should be targeted with sanctions. Nations that aid Russia should feel the pain.

Russia should be kicked out of international institutions if it not only rejects the rule of law but flaunts the minimal levels of decency civilization requires. And the message must be that these penalties will not stop the day a cease fire goes into effect.

They must continue not only until Russia is out of all of Ukraine--including what was taken illegally in 2014--but until Russia has paid in full for its crimes. That means paying to rebuild Ukraine. That means taking whatever steps ensure this does not happen again.

Frankly, and I'm not sure even many Ukrainians agree with me on this, I think that means accepting Ukraine as part of the EU and perhaps also NATO. Because if there is one lesson of this conflict so far, it is that NATO's deterrent power works starting at its borders.

The ICC should also do its work and, if it does it properly, Russians including Putin should be held to account for the war crimes they committed. But what cannot, must not, happen is to recommit the errors that followed the Russia's actions in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia & Crimea.

That is to say we can't resend the message to the Kremlin that they will be forgiven quickly or easily. Indeed, I can see no reasonable path for Russia back into the community of nations so long as Putin remains in charge. He, no doubt, has other ideas.

History suggests he is right. But if he is willing to wage total war against 45 million Ukrainian innocents then in addition to providing them with every form of military, political and economic support we can short of actually triggering WWIII, we must wage total economic...

...and diplomatic war in response. Our goal must not be just to make them stop but to ensure that they do not start again. That will require will and leadership, real resolve and strategic clarity. In many ways it is harder than simply launching a military response.

But it is not only what justice requires, it is what the collective strategic interests of the free world demand. Without it, the idea of real European security is dead and global stability and order will forever be at risk.





Bullshyt Putins objectives have become clear within the last week he wants to cut of Ukrainian's access to the sea and annex the south.
 
Last edited:

Liu Kang

KING KILLAYAN MBRRRAPPÉ
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
13,665
Reputation
5,468
Daps
29,699
I think the weapon convoys are fair game if they are within Ukrainian borders. I dont think NATO expects its shipments to be somehow protected from bombings once they cross the Polish borders, it would be a ridiculous concept.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,454
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,013
Reppin
The Deep State
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,586
Reputation
1,164
Daps
19,177
China is already backing away from Putin, so I would expect that to accelerate.

I'm sure that China is also spooked that Russia's aggression has people like Shinzo Abe squawking about holding U.S nukes and building up an army (and if I were Chinese, I'd be spooked by people with power in Japan who are sympathetic to Imperial Japan talking that shyt, too, to be fair).

Combine that with SK electing a president who ran partially on a "fukk China" platform, and yeah, China probably needs to do something to stabilize its power in the region and look like a responsible world player.
 

jj23

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
24,754
Reputation
5,825
Daps
113,873
I think the weapon convoys are fair game if they are within Ukrainian borders. I dont think NATO expects its shipments to be somehow protected from bombings once they cross the Polish borders, it would be a ridiculous concept.
Of course, that was NATO propaganda. Same as Russia threatening Sweden and Finland.
 

jj23

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
24,754
Reputation
5,825
Daps
113,873
Chinese diplomats keeping it a buck. Putin fukked up...and made the west stronger :whoo:















Chinese-American Scholars and Sino-U.S. Rivalry: Where Do We Go From Here?
US-China Perception Monitor
February 23, 2022

The Russo-Ukrainian War is the most severe geopolitical conflict since World War II and will result in far greater global consequences than September 11 attacks. At this critical moment, China needs to accurately analyze and assess the direction of the war and its potential impact on the international landscape. At the same time, in order to strive for a relatively favorable external environment, China needs to respond flexibly and make strategic choices that conform to its long-term interests.

Russia’s ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine has caused great controvsery in China, with its supporters and opponents being divided into two implacably opposing sides. This article does not represent any party and, for the judgment and reference of the highest decision-making level in China, this article conducts an objective analysis on the possible war consequences along with their corresponding countermeasure options.

I. Predicting the Future of the Russo-Ukrainian War

1. Vladimir Putin may be unable to achieve his expected goals, which puts Russia in a tight spot. The purpose of Putin’s attack was to completely solve the Ukrainian problem and divert attention from Russia’s domestic crisis by defeating Ukraine with a blitzkrieg, replacing its leadership, and cultivating a pro-Russian government. However, the blitzkrieg failed, and Russia is unable to support a protracted war and its associated high costs. Launching a nuclear war would put Russia on the opposite side of the whole world and is therefore unwinnable. The situations both at home and abroad are also increasingly unfavorable. Even if the Russian army were to occupy Ukraine’s capital Kyiv and set up a puppet government at a high cost, this would not mean final victory. At this point, Putin’s best option is to end the war decently through peace talks, which requires Ukraine to make substantial concessions. However, what is not attainable on the battlefield is also difficult to obtain at the negotiating table. In any case, this military action constitutes an irreversible mistake.

2. The conflict may escalate further, and the West’s eventual involvement in the war cannot be ruled out. While the escalation of the war would be costly, there is a high probability that Putin will not give up easily given his character and power. The Russo-Ukrainian war may escalate beyond the scope and region of Ukraine, and may even include the possibility of a nuclear strike. Once this happens, the U.S. and Europe cannot stay aloof from the conflict, thus triggering a world war or even a nuclear war. The result would be a catastrophe for humanity and a showdown between the United States and Russia. This final confrontation, given that Russia’s military power is no match for NATO’s, would be even worse for Putin.

3. Even if Russia manages to seize Ukraine in a desperate gamble, it is still a political hot potato. Russia would thereafter carry a heavy burden and become overwhelmed. Under such circumstances, no matter whether Volodymyr Zelensky is alive or not, Ukraine will most likely set up a government-in-exile to confront Russia in the long term. Russia will be subject both to Western sanctions and rebellion within the territory of Ukraine. The battle lines will be drawn very long. The domestic economy will be unsustainable and will eventually be dragged down. This period will not exceed a few years.

4. The political situation in Russia may change or be disintegrated at the hands of the West. After Putin’s blitzkrieg failed, the hope of Russia’s victory is slim and Western sanctions have reached an unprecedented degree. As people’s livelihoods are severely affected and as anti-war and anti-Putin forces gather, the possibility of a political mutiny in Russia cannot be ruled out. With Russia’s economy on the verge of collapse, it would be difficult for Putin to prop up the perilous situation even without the loss of the Russo-Ukrainian war. If Putin were to be ousted from power due to civil strife, coup d’état, or another reason, Russia would be even less likely to confront the West. It would surely succumb to the West, or even be further dismembered, and Russia’s status as a great power would come to an end.

II. Analysis of the Impact of Russo-Ukrainian war On International Landscape

1. The United States would regain leadership in the Western world, and the West would become more united. At present, public opinion believes that the Ukrainian war signifies a complete collapse of U.S. hegemony, but the war would in fact bring France and Germany, both of which wanted to break away from the U.S., back into the NATO defense framework, destroying Europe’s dream to achieve independent diplomacy and self-defense. Germany would greatly increase its military budget; Switzerland, Sweden, and other countries would abandon their neutrality. With Nord Stream 2 put on hold indefinitely, Europe’s reliance on US natural gas will inevitably increase. The US and Europe would form a closer community of shared future, and American leadership in the Western world will rebound.

2. The “Iron Curtain” would fall again not only from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, but also to the final confrontation between the Western-dominated camp and its competitors. The West will draw the line between democracies and authoritarian states, defining the divide with Russia as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. The new Iron Curtain will no longer be drawn between the two camps of socialism and capitalism, nor will it be confined to the Cold War. It will be a life-and-death battle between those for and against Western democracy. The unity of the Western world under the Iron Curtain will have a siphon effect on other countries: the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy will be consolidated, and other countries like Japan will stick even closer to the U.S., which will form an unprecedentedly broad democratic united front.

3. The power of the West will grow significantly, NATO will continue to expand, and U.S. influence in the non-Western world will increase. After the Russo-Ukrainian War, no matter how Russia achieves its political transformation, it will greatly weaken the anti-Western forces in the world. The scene after the 1991 Soviet and Eastern upheavals may repeat itself: theories on “the end of ideology” may reappear, the resurgence of the third wave of democratization will lose momentum, and more third world countries will embrace the West. The West will possess more “hegemony” both in terms of military power and in terms of values and institutions, its hard power and soft power will reach new heights.

4. China will become more isolated under the established framework. For the above reasons, if China does not take proactive measures to respond, it will encounter further containment from the US and the West. Once Putin falls, the U.S. will no longer face two strategic competitors but only have to lock China in strategic containment. Europe will further cut itself off from China; Japan will become the anti-China vanguard; South Korea will further fall to the U.S.; Taiwan will join the anti-China chorus, and the rest of the world will have to choose sides under herd mentality. China will not only be militarily encircled by the U.S., NATO, the QUAD, and AUKUS, but also be challenged by Western values and systems.

III. China’s Strategic Choice

1. China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to be cut off as soon as possible. In the sense that an escalation of conflict between Russia and the West helps divert U.S. attention from China, China should rejoice with and even support Putin, but only if Russia does not fall. Being in the same boat with Putin will impact China should he lose power. Unless Putin can secure victory with China’s backing, a prospect which looks bleak at the moment, China does not have the clout to back Russia. The law of international politics says that there are “no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies,” but “our interests are eternal and perpetual.” Under current international circumstances, China can only proceed by safeguarding its own best interests, choosing the lesser of two evils, and unloading the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window period of one or two weeks before China loses its wiggle room. China must act decisively.

2. China should avoid playing both sides in the same boat, give up being neutral, and choose the mainstream position in the world. At present, China has tried not to offend either side and walked a middle ground in its international statements and choices, including abstaining from the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly votes. However, this position does not meet Russia’s needs, and it has infuriated Ukraine and its supporters as well as sympathizers, putting China on the wrong side of much of the world. In some cases, apparent neutrality is a sensible choice, but it does not apply to this war, where China has nothing to gain. Given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can avoid further isolation only by standing with the majority of the countries in the world. This position is also conducive to the settlement of the Taiwan issue.

3. China should achieve the greatest possible strategic breakthrough and not be further isolated by the West. Cutting off from Putin and giving up neutrality will help build China’s international image and ease its relations with the U.S. and the West. Though difficult and requiring great wisdom, it is the best option for the future. The view that a geopolitical tussle in Europe triggered by the war in Ukraine will significantly delay the U.S. strategic shift from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region cannot be treated with excessive optimism. There are already voices in the U.S. that Europe is important, but China is more so, and the primary goal of the U.S. is to contain China from becoming the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific region. Under such circumstances, China’s top priority is to make appropriate strategic adjustments accordingly, to change the hostile American attitudes towards China, and to save itself from isolation. The bottom line is to prevent the U.S. and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China.

4. China should prevent the outbreak of world wars and nuclear wars and make irreplaceable contributions to world peace. As Putin has explicitly requested Russia’s strategic deterrent forces to enter a state of special combat readiness, the Russo-Ukrainian war may spiral out of control. A just cause attracts much support; an unjust one finds little. If Russia instigates a world war or even a nuclear war, it will surely risk the world’s turmoil. To demonstrate China’s role as a responsible major power, China not only cannot stand with Putin, but also should take concrete actions to prevent Putin’s possible adventures. China is the only country in the world with this capability, and it must give full play to this unique advantage. Putin’s departure from China’s support will most likely end the war, or at least not dare to escalate the war. As a result, China will surely win widespread international praise for maintaining world peace, which may help China prevent isolation but also find an opportunity to improve its relations with the United States and the West.




Makes strategic sense. What doesn't make sense is this paper 'leaking'.
False flag to buy Russia time?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,454
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,013
Reppin
The Deep State
!!!!!



:whoo:

Russian Orthodox church in Amsterdam announces split with Moscow


Russian Orthodox church in Amsterdam announces split with Moscow
Clergy takes ‘difficult decision’ to cut ties with the Moscow patriarchate over the invasion of Ukraine
Pjotr Sauer
5212.jpg

A Russian Orthodox church in Amsterdam in 2020. More than 280 Russian Orthodox priests and church officials from around the world have signed an open letter expressing their opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Photograph: Koen van Weel/ANP/AFP/Getty Images
A Russian Orthodox church in Amsterdam has announced it is to split with the Moscow patriarchate in the first known instance of a western-based church cutting ties over the invasion of Ukraine.

“The clergy unanimously announced that it is no longer possible for them to function within the Moscow patriarchate and provide a spiritually safe environment for our faithful,” the clergy said in a statement posted on its website.

“This decision is extremely painful and difficult for all concerned.”

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, a trusted ally of President Vladimir Putin, has declined to condemn Kremlin’s decision to invade its neighbour, referring to Russia’s opponents in Ukraine as “evil forces.” In a Sunday sermon last week he also said gay pride parades organised in the West were part of the reason for the war in Ukraine.

The statement said the Russian Orthodox parish of Saint Nicholas of Myra had asked the Russian archbishop of the diocese of the Netherlands who is based in The Hague to grant the church “canonical dismissal.”

The clergy of the parish said they had requested to join the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Istanbul-based Orthodox branch, seen as a rival to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Kirill’s position on the war has led to unease among some Russian Orthodox priests who object to the invasion of a country often referred to as a “brotherly nation” in religious circles.

More than 280 Russian Orthodox priests and church officials from around the world have signed an open letter expressing their opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It warned that “eternal torment” awaits those who give “murderous orders.”

The Russian Orthodox Church in Amsterdam, which consists of four priests and a deacon – one of the biggest Russian Orthodox congregations in Holland – has been critical of Russia’s role in the war since the start of the invasion on 24 February.

It said last week it would no longer mention the name of Patriarch Kirill in their liturgy because of his backing for the invasion of Ukraine. “We as the clergy of St. Nicholas parish in Amsterdam have expressed our shock at the invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation … We distance ourselves from Patriarch Kirill’s narrative,” it wrote on its Facebook page.

The statement went against the official policy of the Russian Orthodox Church not to use the word “war” and “invasion” to describe Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

The Russian priests in Amsterdam told the Dutch outlet ND that Archbishop Elisey of the Netherlands visited their church after, warning that “Moscow was watching their actions closely.”

The Amsterdam church held a closed session on Sunday in which the head of the parish reiterated the decision to break with Moscow. “We asked our former Patriarch Kirill to stop the war. Unfortunately, this did not happen,” he said in a video address posted on the church’s YouTube page.

A Russian member of the church’s choir who was standing outside the told the Guardian she supported the decision to separate from Moscow. “Once the war started, there was only one way out of this,” she said, asking not to give her name.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also been criticised by other Christian religious leaders, including the head of Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bartholomew I of Constantinople and Pope Francis, who on Sunday issued his toughest condemnation yet of the invasion of Ukraine, saying the “unacceptable armed aggression” must stop.

Bartholomew, considered to be the spiritual leader of the world’s Eastern Orthodox Christians, earlier said that Putin had committed “a great injustice” by going to war against his “coreligionists,” and “has earned the hatred of the whole world.”

In 2018, The Russian Orthodox Church cut ties with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, seen as the spiritual authority of the world’s Orthodox Christians, after Bartholomew granted independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was previously under Moscow’s control.

“In the name of God, I ask you: stop this massacre,” the pope said addressing during his Sunday service in the Vatican.
 
Top