If he really wants to save himself from an announced and inglorious end, theWest don’t listen to Bergoglio. And mind you, when I talk about the West I mean Western civilization in its entirety, and not just theUkraine, who in any case has already taken steps to return the invitations to surrender sent by the Pontiff to the sender. Because, for those who have not yet understood, on Ukrainian soil the fate of Kiev will not only be decided. The stakes are much higher: the future of the entire Western world is at stake.
This, obviously, is not the same as saying that Ukrainians will have to sacrifice themselves at all costs in the name of the Western cause, but sadly waving a white flag certainly does not represent the ideal solution. Neither for Ukraine itself, which would effectively be swallowed up by Russia, nor for the West, which would find itself having to deal with a Vladimir Putin certainly invigorated but possibly not full. Besides, who can guarantee us that the Tsar’s expansionist aims will be limited to Ukraine, and that Kiev will be enough to appease his appetites? Nobody. Because Putin might not be satisfied. Or maybe he could, but only in the short term. And in the future? What will be Russia’s approach towards European countries after having victoriously closed the Ukrainian issue?
The only certainty at the moment is that Kiev’s eventual surrender would represent only one temporary escape route, but not necessarily a guarantee of long-term peace. To understand this, it would be enough to know the history. In fact, Ukraine’s position today resembles, in some ways, that of Czechoslovakia on the eve of the Second World War. Just like some regions of Ukraine today, large territories of Czechoslovakia also became the object of the imperialist ambitions of Hitler. As is known, the main Western democracies of the time, France and England in the lead, to avoid the risk of a European war gave in to the requests of Nazi Germany, effectively supporting the Fuhrer’s desires for annexation. It was 1938. We all know how it would end shortly thereafter. Hitler was soon disappointed by the Munich agreements and the much feared war was thus only postponed for a few months.
“They could choose between dishonor and war. They have chosen dishonor and they will have war,” she would comment shortly afterwards Winston Churchill referring to the agreements of the Munich Conference. Well, the position revealed by Pope Bergoglio in reference to the possible resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict seems to recall the appeasement policy adopted at the time by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards National Socialist Germany. A servile compliance which in fact paved the way for Adolf Hitler and did not serve to avoid the barbarity of war. Without Churchill (Chamberlain’s successor at the helm of the English government) and his policy of “tears and blood” (in stark contrast to Chamberlain’s appeasement), the whole of Europe would have become Nazi. Eighty-six years after the Munich Agreement, Western democracies once again find themselves at a crossroads. On the one hand the Bergoglian appeasement, on the other the strenuous struggle for freedom against the ferocity of Russian imperialism, in the wake of Karol Wojtyla, Bergoglio’s predecessor on the papal throne who with his courage was able to free Europe from the Soviet danger. If he does not want to succumb, the West should learn from Churchill and Wojtyla. Historia magistra vitae.
TheVermilion.com is also on Whatsapp. Simply click here to subscribe to the channel and always be updated (free).