All of us have been profoundly disturbed and dismayed by the events currently going on in Ukraine. Few of my readers will have any direct links with the country and thus many of us will have had to cram up on reading a bit of historical/political background to make some sense of the unfolding drama. I have a tiny emotional involvement with the country of Ukraine which comes from a meeting I had some years ago, when I was acting as a bank chaplain at my local hospital. There I met a remarkable Ukrainian man who was a patient. He was born in 1928, so he had lived through a succession of catastrophic episodes in the history of his country before coming Britain in the 1950s. As a small child living in the countryside, he and his family had gone through the terrible famines of the 30s, when millions starved to death. This was a by-product of Stalin’s struggle against the kulaks or prosperous peasant class. Ten years or so later, Ukraine suffered the depredations of the invading German army. This was followed three years later by the recapture of his homeland by the Soviet army. Both armies treated the ordinary people appallingly. The Soviet’s reason for persecuting the ordinary working people derived from an intense suspicion of the whole population. In 1941 some Ukrainians had welcomed the Germans initially as liberators, because the invaders were pretending to be freeing them from Stalin and the Communist yoke.
The 20th century history of Ukraine is enormously complex and, as well, has been extremely dangerous for those who live there. Nevertheless, my hospital patient had lived through much of it in his youth and was still alive in his late 80s. He was, I think, grateful to talk to someone who had an interest of the history of his former homeland. This current invasion evokes, for some, previous episodes of incursions of destructive foreign armies as they make their way across the vast flat plains of the country. We have no idea what the future will bring for this unhappy nation, but there are some grounds for feeling some hope that things may not end in complete disaster.
What are my reasons for having a modicum of hope in this dreadful situation? The first reason for feeling hope is that there is an extraordinary act of foolishness for a president to send his troops off to war without allowing them to know for what cause they are fighting. Putin has seemingly become so confident in his grasp of power over the Russian people that he has omitted to pay attention to this basic requirement of war. Soldiers always need to understand and believe in the cause for which they are fighting. Without any sense of purpose, history suggests that even the best equipped armies will be far less effective, especially when the ‘enemy’ looks and sounds very much like they are.
The second ground for hope is that the Russians army is , at the time of writing, facing stiff resistance. The cost of the war for the Russians is, apparently, some £15 billion a day. It is doubtful that the Russian war chest is big enough to withstand a prolonged conflict, especially when under economic attack from the whole of the rest of the world. But the greater challenge to the Russian cause is that the miasma of lies explaining the war to the general public is beginning to come apart at the seams. The Russian authorities have been long preparing for a war where they could be portrayed as an army of liberation, rescuing a benighted and persecuted Russian speaking minority from a ‘Nazi’ dominated government based in Kyiv. American intelligence helpfully undermined the government’s narrative, by announcing each of the ‘provocations’ or ‘false flag’ events before they actually happened. Somehow, the announcement by Moscow that Ukraine’s government was shelling their own people did not sound to be a very convincing item of ‘news’. Through the work of their intelligence services, the Americans seemed to know all about this and other forms of propaganda before they were released as ‘news’. Putin’s reasoning and justifications for the Ukraine invasion have also drawn on so many extraordinary and completely bogus historical claims that no one seems to know what the real reasons for war might actually be. Lies are hard things to manage because, when truth disappears from a narrative, it is quite difficult for all the different stakeholders to remember the version of the lie that they are supposed to be upholding.
When lies become embedded in a narrative or an institution, they make that structure very brittle and fragile. It only takes one person to see that the Emperor is not as well dressed as he was supposed to be to create a fissure in the organisation that cannot easily be repaired. Lies or the suppression of truth may work for a while in any setting, but the truth has a habit of eventually coming out. Putin’s lies as well as his paranoid behaviour will be eventually completely understood even more that they are at present. Even if the Russians overcome the Ukrainian army in the present round of conflict, the real story, the account of Ukrainian courage amidst their suffering will continue to resonate for decades and centuries to come. When we talk about the verdict of history, we are talking about something very powerful indeed. All the myths and fake propaganda coming out of Russia, will quickly be forgotten by future generations. They will demand to know the truth, free of any political garnish. The weaknesses of the Russian perspective on the war have now become so clear that few people will take the trouble even to remember what is being said as the official narrative. History will be clinically factual and brutal in its critique of the despicable power games being played by the Russian president. Can Putin do anything to reverse the impression that his only real concern in being head of the Russian people is to protect the massive amounts of wealth that he has looted from his own people over the past 20 plus years?
The Ukrainian war has already lasted four days (I am writing this on Sunday). The fact that the Ukrainian people have the will and determination to resist, in spite of the overwhelming and sophisticated weapons being used against them, is remarkable. Every act of resistance shows that the myth, that Ukrainians are desperate to be rescued from an oppressive government, is a lie. Every hour of fighting makes this particular Russian Putinesque propaganda less credible. The country has already produced its own martyrs. Individuals have given their lives defending their motherland and, no doubt, there will be many more. Among them is Vitaly Shakun who blew himself up along with a bridge he was defending, thus delaying the Russian advance. Martyrs in the Christian tradition had the power to convince the cruel and jaded culture of the Roman empire that there are other ways to live. Altruism, self-sacrifice and humble service still have power to create complete change in others. We see echoes of the early Church in the events of today in Ukraine. The one who has the political and military power (like the Roman Emperor or the Russian army) may appear to be victorious, but not in the eyes of posterity.
The fate of the Ukrainian people is still very much in the balance. The hope is that whatever their short-term suffering, the long-term result for the nation will be that the cause of truth and the triumph of honesty and integrity will have the last word. Indeed, the heroes of Ukraine shine like a bright light when compared with the cynical obsession with wealth and power that is the main concern of the real enemies, the Russian elite and the President. Although the current Ukrainian heroism is inspired by political and nationalistic factors, there is a lesson for Christians. Ukraine is not simply a reminder of something close to our tradition of Christian martyrdom; it is also a prompt to remind us that all Christians as well as their institutions stand under the judgement of history. If and when Christian institutions play fast and loose with integrity and honesty, they too will be judged harshly by the future.
The theme of this blog has meant that I, as editor, have become very sensitised to the issue of integrity in Christian institutions. Like my readers, I have looked on while the reputations of both institutions and individuals have been reassessed or even trashed by the power of the verdict of history. Like the Russian state, there are some church entities whose reputations have been sustained by wealth, power or legal protections. These have then dissolved when the truth about their activities has later emerged. No amount of money can buy off the verdict of history. Safeguarding stories lead the list of narratives that have powerfully shredded reputations. Andrew Graystone’s work on the Smyth affair has revealed how a clique of powerful churchmen has protected the institutional interests of a social religious elite over a long period of time. Another book, yet to be written, will uncover how institutions and wealth have been allowed to persecute in order to preserve privilege and power at Christ Church Oxford. In short, the professional historians of the future will, no doubt, be revealing the shame, the subterfuge and the lies that have sometimes become enmeshed in the power structures of the Church of England and other denominations that protect the interests of a few. The thing that constantly amazes those of us who get involved in the sensitive details of safeguarding scandals, is how many apparently upright individuals are prepared to sacrifice their integrity when tempted by the gratifications of power and influence. To misquote Scripture once again. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his integrity, his reputation and his honesty? President Putin has amassed the largest financial fortune that the world has ever seen, but it seems that he will end up the most despised individual of this century. How many others, even in the Church, are following him in a small way by submitting to the temptation of gaining institutional and personal power but losing their integrity in the process?
Many thanks for this. Putin may be paranoid, but he is not mad. With declining demographics and a shift towards renewables, Russia has a narrow window of opportunity to assert its great power status, not least as a buffer against future headwinds. He also wants to demonstrate Russia’s worth as an ally to China, and to make it plain to China that Russia cannot permit all of its influence in Central Asia to be lost. So what he has done is explicable, even if it is barbaric.
What he wants to do is to raise the oil/gas price high enough that it either crowds out investment in renewables and/or breaks Western public support for the transition (as in 1973, when burgeoning environmental concerns were broken on the wheel of OPEC 1). Doing so permits him to reward allies at home, provide discounted oil/gas to allies (notably China), build up financial buffers and buy more time for diversification. Having a chokehold on Ukraine also raises grain prices, which again provides higher receipts to Russia’s reformed farm sector. Thus, this is a war which will pay for itself, even if parts of the economy are sanctioned, overseas deposits are blocked or FX transactions are made harder.
What is the consequence of Western actions over the weekend? 1. Russia will use different platforms for FX transactions. 2. The UK (which depends on FDI to balance its books) will have to pay a higher premium for its current account deficits. 3. The provision of materiel will turn Ukraine into a proxy war akin to Spain in 1936-39 (500k deaths and a ravaged economy). Putin has form in this: viz. Chechnya and Syria. He will be willing to see many deaths to avoid humiliation.
He will also be happy to inflict high inflation on the West. Here I am reminded of Dr Johnson’s remarks about slave-owning Americans being most assertive in the push for ‘liberty’ in the 1770s. Likewise, many of those emitting the loudest whelps for war are those on indexed linked pensions. Liz Truss states that the West must be prepared to pay a price to preserve the liberty of Ukraine. What price exactly? Would a 20% reduction in real incomes be satisfactory? Or 30%? Maybe 50? On top of an existing standard of living crisis. Never mind the distress that rising energy and grain prices will cause in much more vulnerable countries.
Since he has threatened a nuclear strike, it seems that all options are bad. The least worst option is to give him some sort of face-saving deal, even if that means adjusting Ukraine somehow. The cardinal geopolitical fact of the 21st century is the Sino-Russian alliance, which now controls Mackinder’s ‘world island’. The West’s response to Russia aims to preserve a status quo which has been obliterated by the gravitational pull of the Sino-Russian pact. The resumption of containment will be extremely expensive and regressive.
I am not pro-Putin at all (on the contrary), but this whole debate requires less heat and more light.
Poor Ukraine. My family live in eastern Poland and will be keen to offer their support to Ukrainans. Members of my family fought in Solidarity to get rid of the Russian domination of their country and my father suffered in a Siberian gulug for a number of years. Now Ukrain’s suffering has escalated further. Gallant Ukrainians are risking life and limb and the first heroes have been announced. In the midst of this I am trying to get the “upright” in the Church of England to fight the evil in their midst. Instead of doing so and instead of acting in line with guidelines I am forced to complain and complain yet again. My Bishop has failed to give me the necessary assistance required by law because I am blind to file cdm against my Rector. I have also waited over four months in an attempt to get one Archbishop to give the necessary assistance to file cdm against my Bishop after undergoing police interviews and facing a trial simply for making my legitimate complaints. Now I have applied to the other Archbishop and made a formal complaint about the first Archbishop. I am a Slav by heritage, and, in a much more minor scale am awaiting justice just as some Slavic people’s are awaiting their ‘s. They are undergoing horror and risking life to do so. Both Archbishops have spoken out about the ongoing evil in Ukraine inflicted by Putin. Perhaps they may spare the time to fight the evil which they head up, that of ignoring complainants of abuse and at times actively protecting them by inaction.
It’s bullying on a global scale. Thanks to Stephen Parsons for a measured response.
Of the ways of getting what you want, bullying is the ugliest and arguably the least effective. With the threat of nuclear attack, you trash the whole world, so effectively your trash your own country too. I’ve lived with the possibility of this my entire life, with varying levels of threat. I’m hoping the superpowers have many levels of fail safe procedures to prevent an errant leader making an impulsive mistake against his own people’s interests. I assume there must be.
Parallels with the antics in the Church are well worth drawing out, albeit on an entirely different scale. In Oxford a few dons behaved as if theirs was the only reality. They damaged others but they trashed their own standing in the world.
Lovely misquote from Scripture. It reminds me of the song, “I can tell by the way you walk, you got soul.” Splendid.
Thank you for, as Steve Lewis says, these measured responses to a dreadful situation, and which are so much less inflammatory than the blaming of the Russian Orthodox church by Bishop Baines. I do not pretend to understand the situation in any way but I work caring for a Russian Orthodox gentleman who is understandably appalled by the war and worried for his family. Blaming and inciting hatred at this time is not helpful from a Bishop who in reverse of Froghole’s suggestion seemingly wants more heat and less light.