I think, it is not hard to understand, that from the Russians point of view, it is of the utmost importance, that they create all around Russia sufficient buffer zones in order to secure Russian borders as much as possible.
They are very powerful country now! This gives them the means for securing all their borders!
I think they are not out for any wars: They just want to b e able to keep securing all their borders!
All people, that study history objectively, should find it obvious, why the Russians, with Putin as their leader, right now act the way they do!
Hasn’t the West fed them lie upon lie? I don’t see, why they should have any reason to trust us!
Auntie, Sister. Grandmother, Great-Grandmother,
Mother and Wife of German Descent
I've lived in Australia since 1959 together with my husband Peter. We have four children, eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. I started blogging because I wanted to publish some of my childhood memories. I am blogging now also some of my other memories. I like to publish some photos too as well as a little bit of a diary from the present time. Occasionally I publish a story with a bit of fiction in it. Peter, my husband, is publishing some of his stories under berlioz1935.wordpress.com
View all posts by auntyuta
8 thoughts on “What I wrote as a comment to a blog by Dawn Pisturino on Feb. 27th/2022”
That’s true, Uta. This isn’t the Russian people who are violating Ukraine, it’s Putin. And it’s his propaganda and lies that are poisoning the people. They need to know the truth about this, and everything else that this man is doing to build his empire.
If we adhere to Cicero’s idea about the ideal statesman, Cat, then jus ad bellum is the most important. The decisions that leaders make can determine the fate of the whole nation. If they make wrong decisions out of a “selfish passion” (Stewart, 2018, pg. 15) for glory and ambition, justice has not been done, and the whole nation may suffer.
In order to justify the use of force, there must be a legitimate reason to declare war. Roman officials must have the authority (right thinking and right intention) to declare war. The decision to go to war must come as a last resort. There must be a high probability of a successful resolution. And the use of force must lead to more benefits than harm to society (Brunstetter, 2018, pg. 1).
The use of force in war will be limited to what needs to be done to defeat the other side. It must never exceed the purpose of its use. It must only be aimed at “legitimate targets” (Brunstetter, 2018, pg. 1). Discrimination in the use of force must be exercised by military leaders to achieve the objective and nothing more.
After the conflict is over, the winner must decide what to do with the survivors and post-war plunder. Can peace be restored? Has justice been done? Have grievances been resolved? The winner is responsible for restoring balance and harmony in the region and making sure that humanitarian efforts are made to help the survivors recover. This fulfills the principles of beneficence and honor (Stewart, 2018, pg. 13).
If peace cannot be restored and a nation continues to be a threat to the survival of the Roman Empire, Cicero concludes that necessity overrules justice and beneficence and complete annihilation is justified (Stewart, 2018, pg. 14-16).
Rome was a militarized society. Cicero served in the military and never discounted the inevitability of war. He believed in ius gentium (international obligations between nations) (Stewart, 2018, pg. 9). These international relations involved treaties and agreements made in “good faith” (Stewart, 2018, pg. 10). Broken treaties and other wrongs were justification for the use of force. But Cicero insisted that there were acceptable limits when following a path of revenge and retribution (Stewart, 2018, pg. 12). He believed that there were duties owed to the people who broke good faith and were defeated in battle (Stewart, 2018, pg. 13). This, for him, is what defined justice
Cicero developed three maxims:
Jus ad bellum covered the justification for the use of force.
Jus in bellum outlined the limitations imposed in the use of force.
Jus post bellum offered guidelines about how to deal with participants after a war was over.
I, Uta, wrote on the 8th of March/2022:
Dear Dawn, thank you so much for showing us what a wise man this Marcus Tullius Cicero was!
It is amazing, that so much of what he said thousands of years ago, has been preserved for us to study.
And this is Dawn Pistorino’s answer:
March 9, 2022
Thank you for sharing this, Aunty Uta! I appreciate it very much. Yes, ancient people were not as backwards as they try to lead us to believe. So much wisdom there!
I cannot understand, why our leaders feed the Russians lie upon lie, and why they refuse to see the Russian point of view about border security!
I quite like this point of view:
“Zelensky has spirit while the world seems drained of it. No wonder we’re fascinated by him.”
I remember struggling hard to make sense of Cicdero’s rhetoric in my A-level Latin classes! It didn’t endear him to me! But much remains relevant today.
Yes, Cat, when I think about it today, I am amazed, how very relevant Cicero seems to be for us! Does that mean, that in an emotional way we have hardly changed for thousands of years? – – – –
Were we did make enormous leaps, is in knowledge about ever more things. Also, all the inventions and use of technical knowledge is just mind boggling! 🙂
I couldn’t agree more with this! The Deep State have also used Ukraine as a money laundering and corruption haven. Is it any wonder they have been demonizing Russia for years. I don’t blame them for not trusting the West. For years, NATO and the West have been trying to get Russia to subscribe to the ridiculous Woke Ideology and Russia’s not having it! I don’t blame them. Wokeness is the downfall of nations!
I looked up the following in Wikipedia:
Woke as a pejorative term
Among American conservatives, woke has come to be used primarily as an insult. In this pejorative sense, woke means “following an intolerant and moralising ideology.” British journalist Steven Poole comments that the term is used to mock “overrighteous liberalism”. Romano says that on the American right, “‘woke’ – like its cousin ‘canceled’ – bespeaks ‘political correctness’ gone awry”.
Opponents of progressive social movements often use the term mockingly or sarcastically, implying that “wokeness” is an insincere form of performative activism. Such critics often believe that movements such as Black Lives Matter exaggerate the extent of social problems. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter argues that the history of woke is similar to that of politically correct, another term once used self-descriptively by the left which was appropriated by the right as an insult, in a process similar to the euphemism treadmill.
Members of the U.S. Republican Party have been increasingly using the term to criticize members of the Democratic Party, while more centrist Democrats use it against more left-leaning members of their own party; such critics accuse those on their left of using cancel culture to damage the employment prospects of those who are not considered sufficiently “woke”.
FiveThirtyEight writer Perry Bacon Jr. suggests that this “anti-woke posture” is connected to a long-standing promotion of backlash politics by the Republican Party, wherein it promotes white and conservative fear in response to activism by African Americans as well as changing cultural norms.
By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context. The term woke, along with other terms such as cancel culture and critical race theory, became a large part of Republican Party electoral strategy. Former President Donald Trump stated in 2021 that the Biden administration is “destroying” the country “with woke,” and Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley used the term to promote his upcoming book by saying the “woke mob” was trying to suppress it.
Woke capitalism and woke-washing
Main article: Woke capitalism
By the mid-2010s, language associated with wokeness had entered the mainstream media and was being used for marketing. The term woke capitalism was coined by writer Ross Douthat for brands that used politically progressive messaging as a substitute for genuine reform. According to The Economist, examples of “woke capitalism” include advertising campaigns designed to appeal to millennials, who often hold more socially liberal views than earlier generations. These campaigns were often perceived by customers as insincere and inauthentic and provoked a backlash summarized by the phrase “get woke, go broke”.
Cultural scientists Akane Kanai and Rosalind Gill describe “woke capitalism” as the “dramatically intensifying” trend to include historically marginalized groups (currently primarily in terms of race, gender and religion) as mascots in advertisement with a message of empowerment to signal progressive values. On the one hand, Kanai and Gill argue that this creates an individualized and depoliticized idea of social justice, reducing it to an increase in self-confidence; on the other hand, the omnipresent visibility in advertising can also amplify a backlash against the equality of precisely these minorities. These would become mascots not only of the companies using them, but of the unchallenged neoliberal economic system with its socially unjust order itself. For the economically weak, the equality of these minorities would thus become indispensable to the maintenance of this economic system; the minorities would be seen responsible for the losses of this system.
It seems to me too, dear Dawn, that ‘Wokeness is the downfall of nations’!
Thanks very much for commenting!