INTERVIEW: FORMER PRESIDENT OF RUSSIAN UNION OF EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS-BAPTISTS, YURY SIPKO
Portal-credo.ru: Recently Russian television triumphantly showed a documentary film "Crimea. Path to the Motherland." In it the leading person—Vladimir Putin—openly admitted that Russian forces were involved in the action for uniting Crimea to Russia: units of the Chief Intelligence Directorate, marines and airborne troops, units of Bastion for defense of attacks by sea, and in the event of a military intervention by the West, nuclear forces were put on military alert. And Putin personally directed this special operation. A year ago this same Vladimir Putin categorically denied participation of Russian forces in the separation of Crimea from Ukraine. How do you comment on all of this, from an ethical point of view?
Yuri Sipko: This is all very sad. Both the film and the revelation by the leading figure of the film look like a malicious framing of Russia. Like a kind of episode of descent into a regular hooligan model of conduct in the international arena.
All of the steps for the return of Crimea were known for certain even without this movie. But without the movie they were the subject of verbal battles, and in the total informational flow of lies which Russian propaganda unleashed to the eyes and ears of the earth's population, and even could seem to be a slander upon pious Rus. The film tore off the masks and displayed the deep moral puddle in which our politicians, political scientists, journalists, and simple patriots were sitting. The film revealed that all those who cheered and are cheering for the "peaceful return of Crimea" were lying.
The admission by the commander-in-chief of the intent of the operation for the return of Crimea as an armed intervention with the use of the most modern weapons and the placing of nuclear forces on military alert evokes shock. The conduct of the operation, besides everything else, present to us a commander-in-chief as a man who is lying. I understand that there is a large number of people who consider a lie to be a worthy instrument in politics, but I assess all actions of both politicians, and journalists, and people of art from the position of sacred scripture. Liars will not inherit the kingdom of God. Lying is sin, which is among the most grievous sins. Lying destroys the inner peace of the person who lies; lying destroys relations among people. In essence, lying is war against God and against one's neighbor.
If one sets aside a spiritual evaluation of such actions and revelations, which the film you named presented, then it evoked in me a feeling of profound shame.
Now I have no reason to think that the war in Georgia was not initiated by Russia. Simply because yesterday the president said something and I, like the whole soviet, excuse me, Russian people, accepted it as an indisputable truth. I believed unconditionally what was said by the man who himself personifies all of our sacred state, as the national anthem declares to the whole world. Now I feel betrayed. It turns out that he is able to lie.
Everything that is happening in Ukraine now appears in a new light. And it does not seem to be unlikely that Russian boys armed with Russian weapons are continuing military actions with the blessing of the Russian authorities.
And it is completely possible to imagine that after the passage of some time a new film will describe for us how wisely the dissatisfaction of some of the Ukrainians in the east of the country activated the conduct of the struggle for the dismemberment of Ukraine.
Also the incident of the "Boeing" gives pause. Just as yesterday's lie serves as heroic truth today, it means that we have fallen into a black hole of an all consuming lie.
I was shocked, and indeed it still shocks me now, by his statement that he placed nuclear forces on alert and was ready to use them in the event that . . . Russia's nuclear doctrine does not suppose the right of Russia to first use of nuclear forces. In the situation where Russia was sending its units into Ukraine for achieving seizure of territory, that is, nobody had attacked Russia, but for support of people's militias, as we were told at length and in detail. It would be legal to put nuclear forces on alert in the event of an attack on Russia. The commander-in-chief's admission literally scared me. After all this means that he is discussing calmly the possible use of nuclear weapons for the purpose of seizing neighboring territories. If this is just a demonstration of force, a demonstration of decisiveness, in order to achieve his goals, which nobody knows, then this is yet more tragic. One person, without public discussion, without clear and precise strategy, without weighing the consequences of his unilateral decision, can push the button on his own will. Who then will watch the movie? To whom will the author of the transformation of the land into nuclear dust boast?
--In your opinion, what in general does the showing of this film signify?
--There are at least two possible versions of the explanation of the fact of showing this film.
Some sinister forces hostile to Russia and her president created this document that compromises the country as a protocol for recording the crime. All actions in the seizure of Crimea, whatever patriotic character of the people's will there may be, are nevertheless a violation of international norms and the obligations of Russia.
The second possible explanation is that the Russian authorities decided to pose an ultimatum to the world, demonstratively and using all means of intimidation. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons is nonsense in contemporary policy. There has not been anything like it since the end of World War II. The militaristic frenzy in which our society is existing at the present time is a very dangerous situation. The popular spirit of hatred is fueling the spirit of hatred for the West in government structures. An explosive mixture is arising, which could blow at any moment.
Armageddon is inescapable, but I never thought that in the final battle of good and evil, Russia would be in such a position. The universal approval of war, which today serves as the unity of the party and people, with the silent approval of the church, gives evidence of the profound spiritual and moral demise of society. This is what happened and happens when the Lord abandons the people. (tr. by PDS, posted 25 March 2015)
Interview conducted by Vladimir Oivin,
Portal-credo.ru
Editorial disclaimer: RRN does
not intend to certify the accuracy of information
presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the
accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the
articles as they appeared in news media of countries of
the former USSR.
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit
this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please
include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.