East is East, and West is West? Verily I say unto you, Kipling had no prophetic powers. He didn’t foresee that, 130 years after he wrote that poem, the West would boast a pro-Russian Pope.
Pope Francis must be on an ecumenical mission to reverse the 1054 Schism. When he broaches the subject of the on-going war, he sounds exactly like the KGB Patriarch Kirill, known in some quarters as ‘agent Mikhailov’.
That means they both sound like Putin’s propagandists, and indeed Putin himself. Both try to justify the bandit raid on the Ukraine. And both certainly agree on the casus belli.
According to all such sources, Putin’s only option was to attack. He was severely provoked (“partly provoked” is how the Pope put it) by the eastward expansion of Nato, threatening Russia’s very survival.
Nato, egged on by its Anglo-Saxon members, was going to use the Ukraine as the beachhead for an offensive to smite Holy Russia. Had Vlad not struck, Abrams tanks would be rolling into Red Square even as we speak.
That idea can be expressed in many ways, and His Holiness expresses it succinctly and unambiguously, as befits a prelate. He recalls that, a few months before the war, he spoke to an unnamed head of state. That mysterious official told him, a propos of nothing, that “a wise man who speaks little is a very wise man indeed”.
Allow me to expose the incognito. The proverb that so impressed His Holiness is Russian, which gives us a clue to the identity of his interlocutor. This little discovery vindicates the book the Pope must have seen when he was younger: “Everything secret will become manifest”.
Moving right along, Putin said “…that he was very worried about how Nato was moving. I asked him why, and he replied, ‘They are barking at the gates of Russia. They don’t understand that the Russians are imperial and can’t have any foreign power getting close to them.’ ”
Nato has never made a single threat to Russia that could be described as even “whispering”, never mind “barking”. It’s not there to annihilate Russia, only to prevent Russia from annihilating others.
And what does “imperial” mean? A blank licence to pounce on any country within reach? As for foreign powers getting close, Russia already has five Nato countries on her borders – and so far those Abrams tanks have stayed put.
The Pope not only repeats those Russian lies, but he also treats them with obvious sympathy. Having vented his perfunctory regrets about the savage brutality of the Russian troops, he added that: “… the danger is that we see only this, which is monstrous, and we do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was perhaps somehow either provoked or not prevented.”
Quite. Those raped Ukrainian women and children, both male and female, have only themselves to blame. They provoked imperial Russians by wearing short skirts, tight trousers and, presumably, revealing nappies.
Anticipating the reactions of heathen vermin like me, His Holiness clarified matters: “Someone may tell me at this point, ‘But you are in favour of Putin!’ No, I am not. I am simply against reducing the complexity to a distinction between good and bad.”
God forbid. Good and bad are too complex to pinpoint accurately in any situation, and never mind the Decalogue or the Sermon on the Mount.
If I understand correctly, since the Pope isn’t supposed to be in favour of Putin, he repeats Putin’s propaganda out of his professional attachment to relativist truth in all its complexity. As long as that truth has nothing to do with good and evil.
Such relativism is odd in a Christian prelate. One feels like repeating the clichéd question: “Is the Pope Catholic?”
The more he enlarges on this subject, the more valid does that question appear. Thus he adds: “Here is no metaphysical good or bad. What is emerging is something global, involving elements that interlink.”
In other words, the Ukraine got caught between the Scylla of the West (minus Germany, France and Italy) and the Charybdis of Russia. Being imperial, Russia is genetically programmed to seek expansion ad infinitum, so she had to react to Scylla’s encroachments by bombing the Ukraine flat.
Fair enough. But what’s the West’s interest in the bloodbath?
Pope Francis is happy to elucidate: “What is before our eyes is a situation of world war, global interests, arms sales and geopolitical appropriation, which is martyring a heroic people.”
I get it now. It’s arms manufacturers who are to blame. And Nato, with its commitment to geopolitical appropriations. As for Putin, his conduct of the war is lamentable, what with so many heroic people martyred, looted, raped and left homeless. But he really had no other choice, did he?
True, some problems indeed don’t lend themselves to binary moral simplifications. But this isn’t one of them.
A horde of savage bandits attacked a peaceful country going about its daily business. Their road map highlights other destinations too, for future reference. Given half the chance, they’ll reduce all of Europe to Bucha and Mariupol.
They are unquestionably evil, while the heroes so close to the Pope’s heart are being martyred because they are defending everything that’s good in their country – and other countries, which the bandits also see as prey.
The Pope’s moral compass is going haywire. It must have been left next to an iron bar for too long.
Perhaps and somehow were the words he used.
Which Pope was it that met with some South African leader during the apartheid era and was criticized for that too. The Pope must meet with everyone on a cordial basis I guess.
Popes used to call for crusades and bless just wars. Pacifist popes are a very modern idea.
I recently read John le Carre’s last, posthumous novel. What cretinous views that man held. I cannot abide such moral equivalence between East and West, whether during the Cold War or in the present day. When exactly did MI5/MI6 murder millions of people!?
As for the Pope’s antics, it’s enough to bring out the Protestant in me.
But then you listen to Welby…
You are right about Le Carré. But I still think The Spy Who Came in from the Cold is one of the best spy novels ever. I used to toss aside books by writers whose views annoyed me, but I don’t any longer, not often anyway. I look for something that appeals to me instead. Why, I often don’t even flick to another channel when watching a left-wing film.
Surely that’s only because you’d find nothing less left-wing than a left-wing film on the other channels?
As for Le Carré, his later novels didn’t degenerate as much as the TV adaptations did. Come back Alec Guinness, please!
Pope Francis (arguably an antipope, but that’s another story) ought to mind his own business. It would be more useful for Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to meet. The schism between the Orthodox churches is one of the causes of the war, and a resolution of the schism might help to end the war. It might not help much, but any help is better than none.
Oh, dear. I hate to be disrespectful, but when will he shut up? When Pope Francis speaks on subjects outside his remit, he sounds like an idiot. Provoked? Really? I guess his anti-American and anti-free enterprise views prevent him from ever siding with the West.
“Here is no metaphysical good or bad.” Take another look, please. The Pope should be able to spot the evils of war, and warmongers, from a mile away (how far is it from the Vatican to Moscow?). Reminds me of something I read, “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.” I wonder if the pope has read that same book?
I would suggest that the pope restrict his public comments to the Catholic faith, but then again, he’s done enough damage there already.