JW Insider

100%. It is the theory promoted by the Grayzone crew (Aaron Mate, Max Blumenthal, etc.) and the one that Jimmy Dore promotes along with those same guests. The idea was discussed as early as 2015, and hinted at among US politicians since then. Recall that President Biden's son was paid millions by a gas company in Ukraine (and not because he had any experience). Also what Zelensky called his first "gift" to President Biden was to cut off the TV stations in Ukraine that served Russian-speaking Ukrainians. (Also recall that while Trump was being accused -rightly- for quid pro quo politically self-serving negotiations with Ukraine, Biden had already bragged about his own quid pro quo negotiations for political gain.) Instead of pointing back to those "Dore" Youtube videos, I wanted to point to the Grayzone directly, but their own commentary tends to be more serious, and often longer. So, if people can stand Dore's style, his ability to collect the bullet points, is easier for most people to get through. I thought this one was useful: Of course, more serious discussions had been going on for years with Steven Cohen (the late Russian Expert) and John Miersheimer as early as 2015 (below), who make the direct connection to Germany: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer:

I don't necessarily agree with this man's opinions, but what he says reminds me of similar reports in recent years from Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, etc. Unfortunately, these kinds of issues do occur too frequently, and on top of the horrors (and errors) of war.

For most of my life I would never purposely watch a movie twice, and I wondered about people like my bro-in-law who proudly announces that he has seen a couple of his favorite movies about 10 times. As kids, my parents only allowed My Fair Lady and Sound of Music, episodes of My Three Sons and a couple of other G-rated Wonderful World of Disney movies, so I've watched some of those more than once. But since high school it had always kind of confused me as to why you'd try to be entertained by a movie you already saw, and you already know how it ended. Obviously, this was naive and was a product of not fully understanding how we can be swept into dramatic, or humorous, or emotional situations vicariously, and be entertained repeatedly even if we already know the story. And then, of course, there are also the deeper layers of detail in some movies that we can't always notice with a single viewing. (Spongebob Squarepants, for example. j/k) That being said (@Space MerchantTM) The Fugitive was one of the first movies I remember watching twice (the Harrison Ford version). And I'd probably watch it again someday. There are now several movies and shows in this category, partly because I am now old enough to watch two episodes of Perry Mason back-to-back, and then I'll already forget how the first one ended before second one is finished.

I agree that Joseph Smith was anything but Charles Taze Russell. But you don't have to dig very deep among early LDS to find a lot of things they should be ashamed and embarrassed about, but they seem oblivious to it. A couple of their young elders (there's an oxymoron) wanted to study with me around 1995, and I let them come back about 6 times before they tired of me. The Internet was just a startup operation then, but one of the first things I did when I discovered it was to collect a ton of info on them. Our local town library also had a small collection of anti-Mormon books. I wanted to discuss all these things with the Mormon elders, and one of them was aware of some of the claims, and he apparently mortified his partner, who stopped coming back with him on visit number 3. Normally, they give up on critics and questioners immediately, but I found that if I prefaced every criticism with "I have prayed about this question . . . " that he would sincerely try to respond. I took a job in a bank after Bethel and when the interviewer found out I was a JW, he said that they like to hire JWs, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists. (And when we were looking for a housekeeper/babysitter the agency recommended that we hire Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses, and this person did NOT know our religion.) I didn't like being classed with "competitors" but it said something about sincerity and honesty. @xero has correctly pointed out in other topics that there are many individuals in the world (and in other religions) who are often "better" in many ways. And here he has said what you quoted: "even though certain beliefs are demonstrably wrong about mormonism, the effects on them seem in many cases to be positive." Agreed.

I appreciate your perspective and @Arauna and @Thinking, too, of course, because you have all put a lot of thought and study into the application of the prophecies. I thought I would get into more hot water than I did by mentioning how arbitrary our identification can seem, and even how non-neutral it can seem. @TrueTomHarley pointed out that even the world sees the pushing between the two antagonistic world powers, US and Russia. Of course, that's what world powers will always do. It's the nature of the beast(s). I think that the GB is correct to point out that conflicts between major powers (like Russia and the US, for example) really do fit the kind of pushing that we see described by Daniel about the King of the North and King of the South. But I also don't think it matters that we think we can identify each of them specifically. It's pretty obvious to me that Daniel 11 is making a specific point about the Seleucid and the Ptolemaic empires, and how that would affect the lives of those who tried to remain faithful among Jehovah's people while "caught in the middle" -- in the Land of Decoration. There is no specific reason, imo, to try to make it any one specific modern drama between two specific powers. Jesus already made use of Daniel 11, showing how it would apply again with Rome. But I can't see what difference it should make to us if USA/UK and allies are somehow more like Rome, or if Russia and its allies are the ones more like Rome. Is Russia the current entity that is more like the Seleucid empire, or more like the Ptolemaic empire? Is that really the point? Or is it that we should keep our faithfulness when stuck in a world caught between such beasts? I think the point is that we don't take sides with either, we stay alert, use discernment, don't stumble, and we don't think of using violence: (Daniel 11:14) . . .“And the violent ones among your people will be carried along to try making a vision come true; but they will stumble. And most importantly, to know that the ultimate solution is our faith in God's kingdom as the only hope even during the worst of all tribulations: (Daniel 12:1) . . .“During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.

Whoops. I just noticed that I posted the Dore/Mate video which was only the edit of the last half of the longer video, which is the one I had watched. The longer (and better?) one is below:

I know about the first journalist --and he's very good-- but nothing of the second guy. I'll have to look him up. Absolutely to your last sentence there. And you are right about Jimmy Dore, too. The Cenk team (TYT) experimented with a few political "leanings" and was even picked up for a show on MS-NBC when those leanings went close enough to mainstream, and pro-war. His ability to switch it up tells me that part of that must be for monetary traction. Amy Goodman (D.N.) also stopped doing the journalism that was too critical to Western warmongering, and is often just another voice for U.S. imperialism, despite their claims. Jimmy Dore is often dumb, and is sometimes helped out by Grayzone's Max Blumenthal or Aaron Mate, etc. Dore is prone to exaggerate or just get stuff plain wrong. But at least he is refreshingly self-deprecating and humble enough to allow himself to be corrected by those who know the situation a little better. Of course, the Grayzone also puts on ideological blinders (looking left). But they are handling the Ukraine situation correctly. I like it that Aaron Mate admitted where he was wrong about his Ukraine expectations, and that he does NOT defend Putin, but realizes that what he is doing is highly illegal. But he puts it in proper perspective when comparing to the illegal things like it being done daily by the United States. Dore turns the basic stuff he learns from his Twitter feed and folks like these and turns them into talking points. But they often come across as disjointed, disorganized, and non-prioritized. He let Aaron Mate do his thing on a recent one, which I also thought was a quick way to get an understanding of how NATO and Natural Gas fits in. But it's also a good perspective from the US coup in 2014, Biden's pro-war complicity and corruption, and the actual more nuanced answer to the question I raised in the original question that started this topic: Aaron Mate, makes some of his best points here below, very succinctly, even though you'd have to go to his own videos and interviews to get the longer version of his perspective:

I think you are right about it being a bit sooner: mid-2015, I think. If you will restate and clarify what your position about 2022/2023 is, then I promise that I won't point out that it may have been a position already made by a poster who called himself Allen Something-or-other . . . I'd be very careful about sticking my neck out too far with any types of predictions about future dates. Remember what you just counseled under another topic: Or even in this thread, a couple of pages back, when you said:

It's just my personal opinion, but discussion can help a Christian be informed. A person might think that in order to be neutral, it would mean that we should state that the policies of India in 1948, or Peru in 1943, were just as good or bad as the policies of Hitler's Germany in 1941. Neutrality does not mean we remain so uninformed that we can't tell the difference, or that we can't distinguish good from bad, or bad from worse, or mediocre from less mediocre. Jesus called Herod "that fox." Is it really wrong for a Christian to discuss why Jesus might have called him that? In Acts, Luke discusses political corruption, a possible bribe that Felix was looking for, and a political motive for some of his actions: (Acts 24:24-27) . . .Some days later Felix came with Dru·silʹla his wife, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and listened to him speak about the belief in Christ Jesus. 25 But as Paul talked about righteousness and self-control and the judgment to come, Felix became frightened and answered: “Go away for now, but when I have an opportunity I will send for you again.” 26 At the same time he was hoping that Paul would give him money. For that reason, he sent for him even more frequently and conversed with him. 27 But when two years had elapsed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus; and because Felix desired to gain favor with the Jews, he left Paul in custody. Was Luke being non-neutral in exposing some political motives and corruption? Someone could argue, that all of those examples are history, or that the examples had a direct effect on God's people. But then again, what happened last week, even yesterday, is also history. And Jehovah's people are still being effected by world events.

Today, I heard part of an interview with her on NPR. An interesting intrigue about her grandfather, Nikita Krushchev, is that he was a Ukrainian saboteur AGAINST the Soviet Union, and for several years he was secretly supporting the Nazi party in an effort to undermine Stalin. This likely makes very little sense to most of us, but is presented by some Russian scholars to explain some otherwise inexplicable episodes under Stalin. Historically, of course, Stalin was successful in initiating the Nuremburg trials. The United States was not totally on board with this, and the US secretly and sometimes openly hired former Nazis for various government positions. It is fortunate that Stalin actually was successful in pushing for these postwar trials, in that they provide a memorable "punctuation point" to the Nazi regime.

"In the early morning hours of February 24, 2022, Russia began a military invasion of Ukraine, despite the efforts of world leaders to avoid war." That statement from the website is bland enough, as you say. Of course, that particular quote from the website could just as easily have been worded to the effect of: After world leaders had spent 8 years pushing war in Ukraine and avoiding offers from Russia for negotiations to avoid war --and while those same world leaders pumped in BILLIONS of dollars of military weapons so that Ukraine could continue to bomb citizens in its own Russian-speaking regions-- Russia finally takes military action itself and invades Ukraine. My concern goes a bit farther here. I understand why there is a need at Bethel to continue trying to identify and settle on a current candidate for the King of the North and the King of the South, but it strikes me as very arbitrary and shows a real lack of neutrality to make such statements as this in the article: "Watch the video Fulfilled Prophecy—Daniel Chapter 11 to learn why Russia and its allies can be identified as the king of the north."

This is true, and as others have pointed out, this is the basis for turning the "7 times" of Daniel 4 into 2,520 days, rather than 2,557 days (7x365.25 = 2,556.75). Of course, since we claim that nothing very notable actually happened after 2,520 days, we look to see what might have happened if we use the a "prophetic formula" found in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 to change that same number of days into years. But, according to the Watchtower's teaching on this period, we don't stay consistent with a 360-day year. We quickly switch it up to a 365.25 day year, or full calendar year. That's because if we claimed that Daniel really meant 360 day years for the prophetic fulfillment, then we would only be able to reach from 607 BCE to about 1877 CE. Even if the Watchtower started counting from the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem, it would only reach to about 1897. The Watchtower actually doesn't give a good reason for switching from 360 to 365.25 when calculating the fulfillment of the prophecy, as you can see from the article that attempts to explain it. *** w64 12/15 p. 759 Why the Changes in World Governments Since 1914? *** The year of the Jewish and Babylonian calendars varied in length from as low as 354 days to as high as 385 days. But in the Bible’s symbolic or prophetic “time,” or year, the number of days is fixed at 360. Seven of such years would be 7 X 360 = 2,520 days. This is corroborated by the statement in Revelation 12:6, 14, where it speaks of “a time and times and half a time” or three and one-half times, as 1,260 days. If we divide 1,260 by three and one-half (3.5), it gives us three hundred and sixty (360) days to a “time,” or year. As to the greater length of time that these 2,520 days pictured, we find the rule of “a day for a year” in a prophecy of Ezekiel, who prophesied contemporaneously with Daniel and who also had the matter of “bands” connected with his prophecy. Another prophecy by Daniel with respect to the first coming of the Messiah, namely, the prophecy of the “seventy weeks,” is understood by Bible scholars to apply the same rule.—Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 9:24, 25. See also Numbers 14:34, which deals with a period of punishment or disfavor. Therefore, the 2,520 days of the “seven times” would be 2,520 years in fulfillment. These years, in their fulfillment, would not be merely 360 days each, but full calendar years as we count them. For we must remember that the variation of the Jewish calendar was to adjust the lunar year to harmonize with the solar year. It could be termed a “soli-lunar” or “bound lunar” year. Days, or months, were inserted at intervals to make up the difference of approximately eleven days between the lunar and the solar year. By this means the seasons always fell in their proper place in the calendar. So their calendar would be almost exactly in line with the currently used Gregorian calendar. So the 2,520 years are to be counted as solar years. I don't think that's true. (It's possible though.) The method of counting the number of days from one month to another would sometimes be rounded off to 30, even though half the Hebrew months contained 29 days. It was easier to count a very close estimate this way rather than use the true average of a Hebrew month which was 29.5 days. There are still legacy financial systems today that use this 30 day month estimation for calculations of bank interest and "time-value" of money. That's why Microsoft added the 360-day year formula to Microsoft Excel. The Babylonians also built counting systems on multiples of 30 and 60, even though they were well aware of the need to keep adjusting their years between 354 days and 384 days to keep an average of 365. The Jews were aware of this too, which is why the apocryphal book of Enoch made so much of the fact that he lived to be 365, and Enoch gets the vision in this book about creating an ideal calendar based on 360, but with an extra day added to each of 4 "seasons" to bring a calendar close to 365. Although priestly Jews may have tried to keep an "ideal" astronomical calendar to help them know when intercalary months should be added, the actual practical calendar in use by the Jewish people always made use of the day of the month., based on watching for certain phases of the moon. This is true enough. But the Egyptians also knew that the real year contained 365.25 days. So they had a 5 day holiday every year, but didn't add a leap day every four years as we do for our modern calendar. You probably read things like this when you looked it up: https://www.infoplease.com/calendars/history/history-egyptian-calendar About 4000 B.C. they added five extra days at the end of every year to bring it more into line with the solar year.1 These five days became a festival because it was thought to be unlucky to work during that time. The Egyptians had calculated that the solar year was actually closer to 3651/4 days, but instead of having a single leap day every four years to account for the fractional day (the way we do now), they let the one-quarter day accumulate. ... In addition to the civic calendar, the Egyptians also had a religious calendar that was based on the 291/2-day lunar cycle and was more closely linked with agricultural cycles and the movements of the stars. There are a couple more 3.5 year periods that may have been seen in the first Christian century. There is nothing that definitively states that Jesus ministry was exactly 3.5 years. John evidently highlights a single year of Jesus' ministry. It's assumed to be 3.5 years as a fulfillment of Daniel's 70-weeks prophecy. There is also a potential 3.5 year period between the time of Jesus death/resurrection and the general opening up of the preaching work to the Gentiles. And there is another one possible from the time when Roman armies first encroached upon Jerusalem in 66 CE reaching up to the final destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70 CE. Some Bible commentators try to make a lot out of this period, too, in discussing the meaning of Revelation. Revelation may have also been making an allusion to a well known and necessary lesson about how earnest prayer gave the power to overcome 3.5 years of tribulation in Israel: (James 5:17) 17 E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours, and yet when he prayed earnestly for it not to rain, it did not rain on the land for three years and six months. Good question. The Jews would likely have continued using the standard Hebrew calendar that switched between 12-month years and 13-month years so that it would average 365.25 over time. They had been using this since Babylonian times or before, and Hillel says they continued to use this method even a couple hundred years after the first century.

True, but it was always a FULL month added, not a partial month. There is no such thing as inserting a partial lunar month. A lunar month always started on the day when the first new moon crescent would appear. If anyone tried to add a partial month, then every month after that could never begin on the day of the first new moon crescent. The phases would become meaningless, and no one would be able to tell for themselves what day it was, nor when to celebrate a holiday. There is no way to know exactly what method was used throughout Jewish history, but it ultimately settled into a system similar to the Babylonians, where full months were added every two or three years to make a 13 month year instead of a 12 month year. The cycle repeated every 19 solar years because that many solar years just happens to almost exactly equal 235 lunar months, always counting from new moon to new moon. if every year was left at 12 lunar months, there would only be 19 x 12 = 228 months, so they had to add 7 more full months every 19 years. Tropical year = 365.24219879 days. 365.24219879 x 19 = 6,939.602 days (every 19 years) Synodic month = 29.53058868 days. 29.53058868 x 235 = 6,939.688 days (every 235 months) The Insight book acknowledges this: *** it-1 p. 390 Calendar *** We do not find record of a definitely fixed or standardized form of Jewish calendar until the fourth century of our Common Era (c. 359 C.E.), when Hillel II specified that the leap years of 13 months should be the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 19th of each 19 years. Such a 19-year cycle is commonly called the Metonic cycle, after the Greek mathematician Meton (of the fifth century B.C.E.), although there is also evidence that such a cycle was perfected before him by the Babylonians. (See Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, pp. 1, 3, 6.)

I think I know what you mean, but just so that no one gets confused, there is no such thing as "the month of PESACH." You seem to have meant the month that contains Pesach (Passover), which is the month of NISAN. Passover (Pesach), to the Jews, starts on Nisan 15 and begins the week-long festival of unleavened bread that lasts up to Nisan 21/22. For us, we say Passover starts a day earlier, on Nisan 14, and therefore we separate it from the week-long festival. Also, I'm sure you knew this, but for others who might be interested, "Rosh Chodesh" is merely the name of the observance of every new moon, not just the one on Nisan 1, but also Iyyar 1 (Tammuz 1), Tishri 1, Heshvan 1, Adar-II 1 etc. But this has nothing to do with your original question about when the year 2023 C.E. begins in the Jewish calendar. You asked: Even though the so-called sacred calendar can be said to start a new year in the spring on Nisan 1 (not Nisan 14/15) and the so-called secular/agricultural calendar can be said to start the new year in the autumn on Tishri 1, neither of these two dates has anything to do with when the year 2023 begins. That will always be January 1st.

The link is to greatgameindia.com but this article is an exact copy from rt.com. A lot of Russian articles on RT are propaganda, but this one was about as accurate as any I have ever seen (in my opinion). Thanks. https://www.rt.com/russia/549962-peninsulas-complex-fate-how-crimea/

Just saw a Youtube episode of Jimmy Dore (below) who hits many of the same points that I (and others) have made about Ukraine. A little too defensive of Putin, and too snarky in general, but accurate on most of the points he does present. Some of the best points are about the hypocrisy of the U.S. rhetoric, a point he actually understates.

A serious question for me? You can't be serious! In the Jewish calendar, the year 2023 AD starts at midnight on January 1, 2023 in at least 24 different major time zones. (Technically, there are about 40 time zones, when you include those minor time zones in a few places that are drawn at intervals of only 30 or 45 minutes. So some purists like to give precedence to the time zone in Jerusalem.) When 2023 starts on January 1st, it will be the 8th of Tevet, 5783 in the Jewish Calendar. Tevet 8, of course, would have actually started at sundown on the evening before: December 31, 2022. If you were specifically asking when the year 2023 starts in the Jewish Calendar, then it started about Tishri 1, 1739 BCE. This could have been around the time of Hammurabi, or Joseph in Egypt. 3,760 years ago. Of course, I suspect that you were really making a reference similar to the one that early Watch Tower magazines made when they would imply that the Jewish year 1915 really starts in October 1914, or something like that. That kind of implication is not accurate. However, if that is what you meant then you may have had in mind Rosh Ha-Shana on Tishri 1, 2022 (a.k.a., September 25, 2022 after sunset). But that is technically the new year 5783, not 2023. Hope that answers your question.

Case in point: It's not just NATO pushing westward, which was a "line in the sand" that Putin has consistently held against. More directly, it's the Minsk accord(s), as agreed to by Ukraine, Russia, France, US, etc. In them, the Luhansk and Donetsk regions would be considered part of Ukraine, but would be treated as autonomous regions with their own presidents and autonomous ability to negotiate trade, etc. But right after agreeing to this, the Ukrainian military (using the plausible deniability of its rogue Nazi forces) began bombing Luhanks and Donetsk, including schools, hospitals, bridges, etc. There was no real attempt to control these "rogue" elements. After all, they are represented in parliament and other parts of the Zelensky government. Remember that many Russians are living in these regions, and it was mostly because of the antagonism against Russians that Ukraine was bombing their own regions. This bombing escalated greatly in the days just before Russia responded. In fact this is what's behind a curious bit of misinformation that immediately went viral, even though it really showed the opposite of what it was intended to show: Note the claim on this Twitter video: Although it's heartwrenching, it's a lie. It was actually posted by the mayor of Gorlovka Prikhodko on February 21, well before the invasion. But during one of the horrendous attacks while Ukraine was shelling the Donbas region. It was showing the evacuation of kids from Donbas as Ukrainian troops attacked. If you read Russian (I don't) you can actually tell that this is not Ukraine even from the Russian words on the bus that Ukraine would consider illegal. And the journalist who began posting this video under a new, false context and promote it to the tune of tens of thousands of likes? It was one of the same Syrian "white helmet" journalist who got so much Western traction by producing fake videos of supposed poisonous gas attacks to fuel Assad hatred around the world. (Not for nothing, the USA actually still occupies a huge portion of Syria due to the civil war, directly stealing oil from large sections of Syria since that time several years ago, and continues to steal the oil from Syria even today.)

Understanding some of the misleading information often requires a more detailed understanding of the overall problems. Otherwise anyone who even slightly contradicts the existing narrative in the West will just be seen as a Russo-phile or Putin puppet, etc. And then there are the American and British leftist voices who just can't stand it when US or UK intelligence services get something right, because their greatest hope (I guess) is to poke fun at the foibles of the West and pretend they knew all along that their own voices were right and big Imperialist/Capitalist voices were always wrong. It's sad and funny to watch some of these Marxists apologize for getting it wrong almost as if they were sure that Putin would only do something that would be completely defensible, or that he would show more morality than the US. Putin may have had many reasons for doing what he did, but that doesn't mean there is any reason to try to defend him. As usual, leaders like him go well beyond anything that might be considered just and moral, usually to score points for their own nationalism, home politics, personal ego, etc.

Grandma get your gun! 79-year-old Valentyna Konstantynovska takes part in basic civilian combat training organized by Ukraine’s National Guard amid warnings about Russia possibly invading further into Ukraine. Mariupol (the city near the border with Russia), 2022. Like a lot of people, I saw repeated reports about 79-year-old great-grandmother, Valentyna Konstantynovska, learning how to shoot the enemy in the event of a Russian invasion, organized by Ukraine’s National Guard. However, it has been pointed out (by Fox, Vice, etc.) that this “National Guard” is officially wearing a Nazi symbol on their uniform. And members display other Nazi and Neo-Nazi symbols on their person: The Neo-Nazi symbol used by the Azov Regiment who staged the “media event” as picked up by NBC The yellow swastika-like symbol of the Azov Regiment showed up in the news reports (NBC, MSNBC, etc.). Members of the battalion show themselves to be proud of their Nazi heritage. Some wear additional SS symbols and swastika tattoos. Ukraine is usually presented as “an embattled pro-Western seeker of liberal democracy.” So how did it also become “a haven for fascists and Nazis.” It is not only “leftists” like Mark Ames, Aaron Maté, and Max Blumenthal, who have reported on this. Writing on “The Bulwark,” Cathy Young, a reporter for Newsday, my local newspaper, includes the following sources where this story is now recognized more generally: Vice, in fact, was well aware of the Ukrainian connection to Nazis back in 2019. What the Hell Are Ukrainian Fascists Doing in the Hong Kong Protests? "Nobody here knows who they are. Nobody invited them." www.vice.com Quoting from that Vice article: The above story by Vice was meant to sound surprising, but it fits a larger pattern of similar stories (for a later time). Therefore, without getting into the reasons they were in Hong Kong for protests in 2019, it might be significant to note that the CIA has historically found that supporting groups with right-wing, nationalist ideologies is usually more effective in producing the necessary levels of “violence” to bring about coups, regime changes and civil wars. The same CIA-sponsored organizations that were caught training Hong Kong protesters had also openly trained Ukrainian protesters. Of course, Cathy Young, quoted above, and others have tried to minimize the relevance and significance of right-wing ultra-nationalists and Nazis in Ukraine. After all, the president of Ukraine is himself Jewish. Some of the right wing parties in Ukraine have lost relevance since the “coup” in 2014. And many Ukrainians themselves condemned the anti-Semitic, white supremacist speeches during the 2013 and 2014 protests. Some go so far as to say that these ideas about “Nazification” in Ukraine is just “Putin propaganda.” Still, there is a very real and relevant significance to this idea that Ukraine is often considered a haven for Fascists and Nazis. To help understand how and why, I’ll consider a quick review of major political events related to Ukraine in the next section. I’ll focus on events since 2014, but the roots go back at least to the 1930’s.

It was basically a USA and Western-sponsored coup (regime change) to put Zelensky at the helm. But the previous president was able to get a vote of support for joining NATO just before fleeing office. Not that it was ready to happen because the rest of NATO realized the embarrassment of having such a "nazified" right-wing country in NATO. NATO has to be careful because its charter basically is obsolete and could easily be dismantled on legal grounds if it isn't careful about its actions. After all, it was created to counter the spread of communism, with the agreement for member nations to combine forces to protect "Western" Europe from communism. But if it is too obvious that it is defending Nazis, more nations will get behind the push for dismantle it. True. I mention this in the article I put on Medium. Serious commentators will not usually say that Zelensky is complicit with the far right nationalist parties, which can be openly anti-Semitic, right up to top levels in his cabinet, and several members of Parliament. And he is not the only Jewish person in the Ukrainian government. But many Jewish leaders, although not anti-Semitic, have been white supremacists and have tacitly gone along with Nazi ideology and tactics. The laws passed under his leadership and several other factors are worthy of further discussion. True. But it's a far bigger problem than just the Azov Battalion. I mention in the article that some have tried to deflect from it by associating it with Putin propaganda, but it's a much more widely recognized problem. In fact I'll go ahead and just post the part about the Azov Battalion from that article, next. Before I do that I just wanted to agree with you and @Arauna about the resource and economic angle. And so right about the SWIFT repercussions.

https://medium.com/@unpolitick/ukraine-2022-true-story-true-history-5c93376e79bf

A new thread on Ukraine was not needed at all. But I wanted to discuss this point of Ukraine "Nazification" in more detail. I think it's much more important to an understanding of what is going on in Ukraine than many people will give it credit. I thought about avoiding this site [TWNM.org] for political commentary, even though I always find it best to try to write up my musings about any topic, political or otherwise. It's not to convince anyone else, but for some of the following reasons: in order to more easily see if what I understand makes logical sense when I re-read it. to see whether any challenges to my current understanding make better sense. as a kind of reference for myself about what I may have thought about something in the past, especially useful if at some point in the future I come to think of my past views as stupid To that end I decided to try writing up some of my opinions and ideas about politics on medium.com. I made up an email address for it, and call myself by the name "Geo Politicks" @unpolitick. I don't have a Twitter account or Facebook account, but I might start putting up a few more comments on medium.com. This way, maybe, I can keep comments about politics much shorter over here, where I would prefer to focus more attention on how various political situations effect our brothers and sisters. Those who don't care to read my longer ramblings (or who might even find them offensive) will be much less likely to visit a link to a blog at medium.com. At any rate, I just started it on 2/22/2022, and I posted only one article so far. I wrote up two more quick articles yesterday, too, but didn't post them yet. There is one other point to address, and that is the idea of neutrality. It will definitely be offensive to some here that any discussion of political issues is the same as breaking neutrality. However, I don't think that anyone would argue that it is wrong for a Christian to be against Nazism, and more in favor of stability. Most Christians have good reason to prefer capitalism and/or democracy over communism and socialism, especially when socialist and communist countries prove to be a hindrance to true Christian practice. And there are some nuances to neutrality that are a bit more subtle. For example, if one is quick to accept a report as true even though it was actually intended as propaganda for one side or another of a conflict, then that person has taken sides, usually without even realizing it. Being more informed of the truth or falsehood of a story intended as propaganda can actually make one more neutral, and less likely to be fooled into taking sides. ----------------------- So after all that I will share the link in the next post.

Dmitar, I just sent the following to you as a private message, but it would not go through, so I am copying it verbatim from the private messages section over to here: --------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry that I haven't been paying much attention to the conversation that included the comments I just requoted above. I have glanced at the topic now and then, mostly because of all the times you have made a reference to me. Just to let you know that I have never had a private conversation with Srecko about any topic, and neither has Srecko ever tried to initiate a conversation with me. On the point you made above, I agree that it doesn't seem to make any difference whether Russell had ever been addressed with the title "Elder." I'm sure that the instance you noted above was not the only one. And I'm not sure what Srecko's point was about thinking that Pastor Russell was not called "Elder." I didn't go back into the conversation to find out. In any case, you might want to point out to Srecko that the evidence you made use of was not from a fellow Bible Student, but from someone who opposed Russell on nearly every major doctrinal point. It was from the Russell-White debate, as I'm pretty sure you were already aware. It was from someone who would not have recognized Russell as "Pastor" in any case. This was not the only instance of Mr. White referring to Elder Russell in that debate, of course. But wouldn't it make more sense to have found an instance of a fellow Bible Student referring to Russell with the title "Elder"? Thanks, JWI

Rutherford not Russell.