Sunday, August 31, 2025

Come On Home

 

This is the text of a sermon I gave at Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ in Monroe, Washington, USA, on August 31, 2025.

Come On Home

for

Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ

August 31, 2025

Rev. Tom Sorenson 

Scripture: Psalm 81:1, 10-16 

Let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O God, our strength and our sustainer.

 I suspect that we all know that there are books in the Old Testament named for prophets. If you didn’t know that before, you know it now. There are also prophetic voices elsewhere in the Old Testament including in the psalms like the one we just heard. This morning I want to start by asking: Just who were the ancient Hebrew prophets? What were they all about? I suspect that most people think that they were people who could predict the future. And yes, they did predict the death and destruction for Israel and Judah that actually happened, but that truly is not what they were primarily about. They were primarily about speaking God’s truth to the people and to the people’s rulers, They did that mostly in a context which, frankly, isn’t that different from our own context. They believed that the Hebrew people, who once had followed God, had turned their backs on God and on what God wanted from them. Prophet after prophet condemns them for doing it. Prophet after prophet says God condemns them for doing it. They say God condemns them for worshiping other gods and for being unjust toward those in need, especially the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, those people being among the most vulnerable among them.

But of course, falling away from God and God’s ways is hardly a problem restricted to ancient Israel, is it. Friends, we are living in a country that is, tragically, a classic example of a country falling away from God. This country has fallen away from God virtually from its very beginning. Yes, there are good things about our country, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, or at least most of it, primary among them. But that doesn’t change other facts of history like this one. Our country was founded in racism and has remained racist to this day. Europeans brought enslaved Africans to America starting in 1619, one year before the Pilgrims, our Congregationalist forbears, landed at Plymouth Rock. Race-based slavery didn’t become illegal everywhere until 1865. In the South, white supremacists did everything they could to reduce Black Americans to a status as close to slavery as they could get. It was a bit different in the North, but the North, and our Northwest, were always nearly as racist as the Jim Crow South. This racism is still very much with us, and our federal government and the MAGA movement that supports it are essentially today’s expression of white racism and white supremacy.

Racism is not the only way our country has fallen away from God. We have done it in much the same way the ancient Hebrews did. We have failed and failed massively at truly caring for the vulnerable in our midst. The social safety net of many other countries puts us to shame. We have never had an adequate social safety net, and our government today seems hellbent on making it even worse than it already is. See, for example, their drastic cuts to the Medicaid on which my badly disabled twin brother depends.

And in our country today we see other ways that we have strayed from God. Strayed, that is, not from bastardized religion like Christian nationalism but from the true God of justice and peace for all people. The powers in our country truly have turned away from God. They follow their own counsels, as our psalm puts it. They follow their own counsel into policies and practices of violence and of gross injustice. They have our federal government serve the ultra-wealthy among us and deprive the poor and needy of even the most basic social services. They seek to install themselves in power permanently through unjust voting laws and armed soldiers in the streets. Yes, folks, our country has strayed from God. Sometimes it tries to cast that straying as actually following God, but it most definitely is not following God.

Yet the MAGA movement isn’t actually the cause of our deepest problems. It is a symptom of problems much deeper than the MAGA movement itself. Problems like racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia,  and excessive, even radical, individualism. A mania about guns that shocks and appalls the rest of the world, a mania we saw the consequences of tragically on display last week in Minneapolis. A patriotism so radical that it has become destructive nationalism often covered by what its adherents call Christianity. MAGA doesn’t cause those things, it is a symptom of those things. Our country has strayed from God in many ways from its very beginning, and the movement that supports its government today strays from God in more ways than I can count.

That’s the bad news. But even in these difficult times there still is good news. We hear that good news in scripture, including from the prophets and from prophetic psalms. We can come back. We can come back to God. God may well be leaving us to our own counsels at a time when those counsels turn against God, but that doesn’t mean that God has abandoned us completely. God hasn’t abandoned us completely any more than God abandoned the ancient Hebrews completely. We hear this promise in this morning’s psalm: “O that my people would listen to me, that Israel would walk in my ways!” If they would, the psalm says, God would satisfy them with “honey from the rock.”

God was still there for the ancient Hebrews, and God is still here for us. God is calling all of us back. God calls to everyone who has strayed from God: Come on home! I will welcome you the way the father welcomes the returning prodigal son. I have not given up on you. I have not left you for good. I don’t believe that you have left me for good. So come on home! Come back to God. Folks, if our country would do that, MAGA would quickly become a distant memory not a current reality. With God’s help, we really can turn our country around and bring it closer to God than it has ever been before.

Now one enormous, necessary caveat. What I just said doesn’t mean everyone has to become Christian. It doesn’t mean we need to turn the United State into a Christian nation, something MAGA claims it is but it has never truly been. God doesn’t call just Christians to return to God. Christianity is not the only faith that preaches God’s ways of justice and nonviolence. The separation of church and state is one of the very good things about our nation.

Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t let our Christian faith guide our political views and actions. The gospel of Jesus Christ is nothing if not political. Jesus’ primary image for God’s will for God’s world is “the kingdom of God.” And “kingdom,” of course, is a purely political concept. We don’t live in a kingdom, though we may be threatened with our country becoming something very like one today. But Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God apply to us today as much as they applied to the Roman Empire in Jesus’ day.

So let’s call and help our country to do what the ancient prophets called their world to do. Return to God. And return to God doesn’t mean make the country Christian. It means steer our country back in the direction of what Jesus called the kingdom of God. Steer our country away from racism, away from radical individualism, away from guns, away from so many other problems we face. Steer it toward peace attained through nonviolence. Toward true distributive justice for the ones Jesus called “the least of these.” Toward the creation of a truly meaningful social safety net for people in need. Away from xenophobia and fear of immigrants. Away from white supremacism and Christian nationalism. All of those things, and indeed many more things about our country, contradict the gospel of Jesus Christ. They contradict the moral teachings of every great religion, and even many secular atheists advocate kingdom values.

I don’t have any magic answers to the question of how we do it, and I know that many of you are already doing what you can to help turn this country around. Here are some ways we can do it that have occurred to me. We can do it through our vote, at least for as long as we still have one. We can do it by joining mass demonstrations against the MAGA movement and the damage it is doing to our country and to God’s world. We can do it by speaking out in every way we can.

And we can do it through prayer. Prayer brings us closer to God than anything else does or can. Prayer by itself isn’t enough to turn this country around. But Pope Francis said that you pray for those who are hungry, then you feed them. That’s how prayer works. So let us pray for our country. Let us pray that she turns around. That she turns away from violence and injustice and toward God’s ways of nonviolence and radical justice for everyone. Let’s pray, and then let’s act. It is indeed what God calls us Christians to do. It is indeed what we must do if we are truly to be disciples of Christ. May it be so. Amen.

Sunday, August 24, 2025

Light in the Darkness

 This is the text of a sermon I gave at Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ in Monroe, Washington, USA, on August 24, 2025.

Light In the Darkness

for

Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ

Rev. Tom Sorenson

August 24, 2025

 

Scripture: Isaiah 58:9b-14

 

Let us pray: May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all of our hearts be acceptable in your sight, O God, our strength and our redeemer. Amen.

 

You know, I don’t get the chance to preach all that often anymore. I’m retired. I’m old. In many ways, I’m old-fashioned. But you have extended the invitation to me to preach with you today and three more times before my wife, your Pastor Jane, returns from sabbatical. And as I start to prepare a sermon these days, I find myself always running into the same tragic reality; and I usually can’t convince myself not to preach on that reality. Mercifully, scripture has hundreds of verses that confront that reality directly, so it isn’t hard to find a text on which to base a sermon. So that’s what I’m doing today. Please excuse me if you’ve heard it before, which I know you have. Our present reality as a nation is so dire that we can’t hear God’s word against it often enough.

One of the Bible passages the lectionary that I use gives us for today is the one you just heard, Isaiah 58:9b-14. In those verses, Isaiah is addressing a situation seemingly not unlike the one we face in our country today. He is addressing a society in which people speak evil. In which some people are hungry. Many people are afflicted and oppressed. Isaiah uses the image of a yoke to represent that state of his community. It is a yoke of evil that is holding the people down. Their present condition is a weight upon their shoulders, and Isaiah is addressing what they need to do about it. Folks, we are living under Isaiah’s yoke too, and boy do we need to do something about it.

Isaiah mentions several things the people need to do get out of their dire circumstances. Those things, he suggests, will lift that yoke of evil from their shoulders. Most importantly, Isaiah says something that our country is forgetting today. He says, in effect, take care of those in need. He says, “offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted.” We aren’t doing anything close to doing that, are we. Offer food to the hungry? No, we’re cutting food stamps and making food so expensive a great many people struggle to afford it.

Satisfy the needs of the afflicted? Well, hardly. Who are the afflicted among us? They are the unhoused. They are the immigrant of color documented or not. They are sexual orientation and gender identity minorities. They are people who can’t afford health care because they can’t afford or can’t get health insurance. They are people nearly in a panic about what we are doing to the only planet we have to live on.

And folks, we are doing precisely the opposite of satisfying the needs of the afflicted. Our federal government is slashing funds for food stamps and school lunches. Our leaders say they will reduce the price of food, then they do things like impose tariffs that will only drive food prices up. The federal government is slashing funds for the states to address the needs of the afflicted. We have the means to provide housing for all the unhoused, but instead of doing it we make the housing crisis worse by creating and tolerating a real estate market in many parts of the country, our part included, that makes housing simply unaffordable for a great many people. Our federal government has set out to deprive millions of Americans of health insurance who have health insurance today, leaving them to the mercy of a medical and pharmaceutical industry that makes services and drugs prohibitively expensive for nearly everyone who does not have insurance. Our federal government is virtually at war against God’s transgender and nonbinary people. It wants to throw them out of the military. It wants civil rights laws not to apply to them. Our federal government denies the reality of the climate crisis and does any number of things to make it worse. Satisfy the needs of the afflicted? Hardly.

And our federal government is afflicting something else on us. It gives us a government that does not believe in the rule of law. It thinks the president doesn’t have to obey court orders, not even Supreme Court orders. It sees the law only as an obstacle to it doing to our democracy what it wants to do to our democracy, namely, destroy it. And on the issue of law and order, our federal government is dreaming up crises of crime in “blue” cities, then sending in not more police but the National Guard. The National Guard is a military force not a law enforcement force. It’s members train for war not for patrolling city streets looking for crime that isn’t nearly as prevalent as their commander-in-chief tells them it is. We may soon all face the additional affliction of living under occupation by our own military.

A bleak picture, isn’t it. It’s easy to feel helpless and hopeless in the face of it. But here’s the thing. We are a Christian church. At least most of us here consider ourselves to be Christians. We look, or ought to look, first of all to Jesus for guidance in times like there. What did Jesus do? Minister to the wealthy? Minister to the powerful? Tell the Romans to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in the empire? No! He sought out those Isaiah calls the afflicted. The ones Jesus once called “the least of these.” The poor living at a subsistence level. The ill and physically disabled. The sinners. The seekers. And he told all of them that they are God’s special favorites.

And he tells us that we must treat all who are genuinely afflicted as God’s special favorites too. Jesus’ land didn’t have any social safety net for those folks. It left them entirely on their own. That is the system Jesus preached and acted against. And he tells us to preach and act against our system too. Sure, we have something of a social safety net, certainly more of a one than Jesus’ world did. But it has never been adequate, and now our government is obsessed with making it less adequate than it already is. Our federal government and the MAGA movement that supports it are working directly against the gospel of Jesus Christ.

We need to oppose them. We need to stop them if we can, nonviolently of course. In Isaiah, God promises us that if we do those things our “light shall shine in the darkness.” What, or rather, who is the light in our darkness? For us Christians, it is Jesus Christ. Jesus lights the ways of God, and Jesus calls us to live in that light. Both Isaiah and Jesus promise us that if we will work against systems of violence and  oppression God will be with us. God will light our way. God will, in God’s own way, lead us to the end of those diabolical systems.

That’s the promise we have. That’s the promise God calls us to follow. I know that many of you are already following it. I try, in my own very limited ways, to follow it too. So as you continue to follow it, or begin to follow it, look to the light. Yes we work in darkness, but there still is light. There is light, there still is hope because God is with us. God will guide us. God will save us. And for all of those divine truths, let all the people say, Amen.


Thursday, August 21, 2025

Once More on Russia and Ukraine

 

Once More: On Russia and Ukraine

August 21, 2025

I’ve written about the relationship between Russia and Ukraine before; but, after having disappeared from our news broadcasts for a while, Russia’s illegal and grossly immoral invasion of Ukraine is once again making our headlines. So here’s a recap of what I know about that relationship. And I’ll remind you that I have a PhD in Russian history.

First of all, let’s recognize an undeniable truth. Russians and Ukrainians are closely related linguistically and culturally. Or at least many Ukrainians are closely related to the Russians in this way. Linguists recognize Russian and Ukrainian as closely related but distinct East Slavic languages. At least in the eastern parts of the country, Ukrainians and Russians share an adherence to the Orthodox Chrisian faith. The Orthodox Ukrainians sometimes, but not always, have belonged to Orthodox churches tied to the Russian Orthodox Church. At least the eastern parts of what today is Ukraine were part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union from the late eighteenth century to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The history of today’s Ukraine, however, is quite complex. Ukraine did not exist as a distinct political entity until the early twentieth century, and then only briefly until 1991. For most of the time before the Russian Empire absorbed it, the eastern parts of today’s Ukraine were ruled at times by the Turks and at times by autonomous people usually called the Cossacks. The western parts of today’s Ukraine were ruled by western powers. Part of that land was once part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Other parts of it were occupied and ruled for years by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a major Roman Catholic western power for over two hundred years from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries.

There are several important results of this history. One is that eastern and western Ukraine are different in some important ways. Ukrainians in the western part of the country, the principal city of which is Lviv, consider themselves to be westerners. While many of them were, historically speaking, Christians of the Orthodox rite, many of them belonged to churches that recognized the authority of the Pope, which, of course, true Orthodox Christians do not. Most Ukrainians in the eastern parts of the country do not think of themselves as Russians, but they are culturally and linguistically more closely related to the Russians than are Ukrainians in the west. In eastern Ukraine, especially in the region often called the Donbas in the far eastern part of the country, the demographics are complex. The population there is mixed between Russians and Ukrainians. There is no geographic distinction between these two populations. They intermix and have lived together for centuries. Many, though perhaps not all, of the Russians in this region actually speak Russian as their primary language but consider themselves to be Ukrainians.

While some rulers or forces in the history of Ukraine allied themselves with the Russians, thereby ending up with their lands being part of the Russian Empire, no Ukrainians ever became part of any Russian political entity voluntarily. Instead, over the course of a century or more, Russia simply expanded to the south and incorporated much of what today is Ukraine. Russia took the Crimean Peninsula from the Turks, for example, in the late eighteenth century under Empress Catherine the Great. The western parts of Ukraine were not part of the Russian Empire at that time.

Throughout the last century of more of the existence of the Russian Empire, the Russians had to deal with the claim by the Ukrainians not to be Russians but to be a distinct people with their own language, culture, and history. The imperial Russian government dealt with that issue by refusing to recognize the Ukrainians as a people distinct from the Russians. The imperial Russian government never recognized Ukrainian as a language distinct from Russian. At times they outlawed the use of Ukrainian in publishing, public administration, and education. There was no distinct Ukrainian political entity in the Russia Empire. Most of what today is Ukraine was just a part of the Russian Empire the same as any other part of the Russian Empire.

The Russian Empire ended in 1917, when Tsar Nicholas II abdicated early in the year. In October, 1917 (old style, November new style) the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin staged a coup and took control of the Russian government. A protracted civil war ensure. During that war some Ukrainians briefly claimed to have established an independent Ukrainian state, but the Russians, under the Bolsheviks, quickly conquered all of Ukraine that had been part of the Russian Empire.

In 1922, the Bolsheviks, by then calling themselves Communists rather than Bolsheviks, established the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. One of the original so-called soviet socialist republics was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Communist regime of the USSR set its boundaries. I don’t know if they were aware of the demographic problem of intermingled nationalities or not, but the border they set put many Russian people, especially in the far east of the country, in the Ukrainian republic. When the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was established, it included the Donbas, but it did not include Crimea or the westernmost parts of today’s Ukraine.

Ukraine suffered horribly under the Communists, most of whom were Russians. Stalin’s murderous purging of so-called enemies of the people took place in Ukraine as it did in the rest of the USSR, but Ukraine had it worse then most of the rest of the country. In the early 1930s, Stalin, who by then had established himself as essentially the dictator of the whole nation, decided to collectivize agriculture everywhere in the country. That meant he had to get peasants who owned and farmed their own land to give up that land to a collective organization. Marxism has never dealt well with peasants. It is based on an economic model of capitalists employing proletarians, mostly in factories. Peasants don’t fit that model. Stalin wanted to make Soviet agriculture fit that model better, so he set out to eliminate private land ownership by peasants, private land ownership being taboo in a Marxist society.

Not surprisingly, most of the land-owing peasants in the USSR resisted. Resistance was perhaps particularly strong in Ukraine. Ukraine has some of the richest farmland in Europe. In the nineteenth century it was called “the breadbasket of Europe,” the Russians then being able to export so much Ukrainian grain. Most Ukrainian peasants were having none of Stalin’s collectivization, so Stalin decided to force them into submission.

He did it through mass, intentionally induced starvation. The Ukrainians call this policy the Holodomor. It didn’t apply exclusively to Ukraine, but Ukraine bore the brunt of it. Something like four million Ukrainians starved to death. Stalin made it happen. He knew it was happening, and he didn’t care. All he cared about was forcing Ukrainian peasants into collective farms, and, eventually, he succeeded.

Next came World War II, which the Russians call “the Great Patriotic War,” or “the Great War of the Fatherland,” either translation fits the Russian. Some Ukrainians so hated the Russian Communists that they were willing to ally themselves with the invading Germans against them. It is commonly thought that Hitler might have been able to defeat the USSR had he accepted the Ukrainians and other non-Russian Soviet people as allies. He, however, though all Slavic people were subhuman; and he wanted to exterminate them so he could settle their land with Germans. The Soviets, of course, defeated the Germans; and Ukraine remained part of the USSR under Russian domination.

One significant event in the history of Russian-Ukrainian relations occurred in 1954. Nikita Khrushchev was a Stalinist functionary who had worked mostly in Ukraine. By 1954, he was the head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and thus essentially in charge of the whole country. In 1954, for reasons no one is entirely sure about, he transferred the Crimean Peninsula from the Russian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Crimea had been part of Russia for well over one hundred years by that point, and the Russians mostly thought of it as theirs. After 1954, it technically wasn’t. It was part of Ukraine.

Come 1991. On December 25 of that year, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist. The powers in Ukraine had been working toward national independence for some time by then, and on that date at the latest Ukraine became a fully sovereign, independent nation. Both the Russians and the rest of the world recognized it as such.

When Ukraine became an independent nation, something like one-third of the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal was situated in Ukraine. In 1994, Ukraine agreed to give up those nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In the treaty establishing that agreement, Russia committed to “refrain from the threat or use of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” Ukraine sent all of the nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia.

On January 1, 2000, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin became the President of Russia. He was largely unknown to most of the world at that point. He had been a minor KGB officer, though Russian president Yeltsin had made him the head of the FSB, the Russia successor to the Soviet KGB. President Yeltsin then made him his Prime Minister, and, when Yeltsin resigned as president at the end of 1999, Putin became the president. He has served as the head of the Russia government either directly or indirectly ever since.

Putin has always dreamed of Russia becoming the power on the world stage that the USSR had been. He has called the dissolution of the USSR “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the twentieth century.” As he developed his rule, Putin began to adopt the old Russian imperial attitude toward Ukraine. He began to echo the old imperial contention that Ukrainian is not a language distinct from Russian. It is, he said, only a dialect of Russian. He has asserted that there really is no such thing as a Ukrainian, all so-called Ukrainians being really Russians. He began not to recognize Ukraine as an independent, autonomous nation. He began to make wild accusations against the Ukrainian government, calling it "fascist," which it definitely was not.

In 2014, Putin began to incorporate Ukraine back into Russia. He engineered a peaceful Russian takeover of Crimea and declared it to be part of Russia. The international community on the whole has never recognized the legitimacy of Russia’s takeover of Crimea. Ukraine, of course, has never recognized Crimea as part of Russia, considering it still to be part of Ukraine. The status of Crimea has long been complicated by the fact that the Crimean port of Sevastopol has long been the homebase of first the Russian, then the Soviet, then again the Russian navy. Nonetheless, the international community has never recognized Putin’s annexation of Crimea as in any way legitimate.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

Then we come to February 24, 2022. The world knew that Putin had been massing military forces on Russia’s border with Ukraine for some time. What we didn’t know was if Putin would really commit the illegal and grossly immoral act of actually invading Russia’s neighbor, one of the largest nations in Europe. Most of us were shocked and outraged when he did it. He sent massive Russian forces into Ukraine in an attempt to conquer the country, remove its democratic government, and make Ukraine once again part of Russia, as it had been in the old Russian Empire.

Frankly, I, and a great many experts with more knowledge of the matter than I had, expected Russia to defeat Ukraine militarily in a matter of weeks. We were wrong. The Russians and Ukrainians are today still engaged in a brutal, bloody war. Russia has taken some Ukrainian territory, and other parts of Ukraine have gone back and forth from Ukrainian control to Russian control and back to Ukrainian control. Estimates I have seen in the press put Russia’s casualties as high as one million soldiers killed or wounded. Russia’s vaunted machinery of war has not performed anywhere near as well as the world expected it to. The European Union and the United States have poured massive amounts military aid into Ukraine, and that aid has certainly played a major role in Russia’s inability to defeat Ukraine so far.

So what Putin is up to, illegal and immoral as it is, is not hard to understand from a historical perspective. Russia controlled Ukraine, in both the imperial period and the Soviet period, from the eighteenth century until 1991. The tsars told their people that Ukrainians were really Russians who just spoke a dialect of Russian rather than their own language. The Soviets didn’t necessarily make that claim, but, while the USSR was, to some extent, organized on ethnic lines, everyone knew that it was the Russians who ran the show. Putin is out to reestablish Russian control over a region that had been part of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. The fact that Ukraine had become an independent nation recognized as such by the whole world should have stopped Putin from invading. It didn’t. Putin’s primary agenda is the reestablishment of the Russian Empire, or at least the establishment of Russian dominance if not direct political control in all of what had been part of the Russian Empire. To do that, he has to control Ukraine, the largest and richest of the former soviet socialist republics other than Russia. So he invaded and now is stuck with a war he can’t seem to win but isn’t exactly losing either.

How will that war end? There’s no way to know. The Russians may eventually wear the Ukrainians down to the point that they have no choice to surrender. Or Putin may come to his senses and pull his forces out of Ukraine. Or Putin may lose control of Russia, with a successor either ramping up Russia’s war in Ukraine and eventually winning it or ending it by pulling out.

A compromise between the Russians and the Ukrainians is very hard to imagine. Their aims in the war are diametrically opposed to each other. One suggestion that has been made, however, is, I believe at least worthy of consideration. This solution would have Ukraine cede the Donbas and Crimea to Russia in exchange for an end to the war and security guarantees for Ukraine from Russia and perhaps the western powers as well. This solution makes some sense ethnically. There are at least substantial Russian minorities if not majorities in both Donbas and Crimea. Those eastern parts of Ukraine have a different history than the western parts of the country do. They are more aligned with Russia culturally than are the western parts of the country. This proposed compromise might actually work.

Except for one thing. Every time I have heard this solution mentioned, someone says “Chamberlain.” Someone says, “appeasement.” Someone says “Munich, 1938.) These references are, of course, to the agreement Neville Chamberlain and the French made with Hitler that allowed Hitler to invade the part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland without opposition from Britain or France in exchange for Hitler’s promise never to take any other land by military force. With historical hindsight, we all know how disastrous that agreement was. Hitler had no intention of complying with it other than by invading the Sudetenland, which he promptly did. The world called the Munich agreement appeasement, and appeasement has become a buzzword for how you do not deal with a militarily aggressive dictator.

And yes, the proposed settlement that I am considering here would, to some extent, appease Vladimir Putin. There would, however, be at least two difference between that agreement and Munich, 1938. The first is that the Czechoslovaks, whose land was to be invaded, were not even present at the Munich conference. The Ukrainians would be very much present and involved in any negotiations that led to this proposed settlement of the war. The Russians, the Europeans, and the Americans might well all pressure Ukraine to accept the deal, but Ukraine would be free to do so or not, at least technically.

The second difference is that in the Munich accords, Britain and others agreed to let Hitler start a war that he had not yet started. The Russian-Ukrainian war has, of course, most definitely been started. It has gone on for over three and a half years. It has cost an enormous number of lives on both sides. It has destroyed a lot of Ukrainian property, and the Ukrainians have also destroyed some Russian property. Allowing a war and stopping a war are not the same thing.

Do these differences make a difference? To some extent yes, but they probably don’t make enough of a difference to make this settlement of the war feasible. This settlement would indeed reward Putin for having committed the gross violation of international law  and of common human decency of invading Ukraine. It wouldn’t give him everything he had hoped to achieve by invading Ukraine, but it would give him at least part of what he had hoped to achieve. Thus, there would be significant appeasement of Russia, the aggressor and law violator in the invasion of Ukraine. It seems likely that the world would never accept such appeasement. Neither would Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said loud and clear that it will never agree to cede any Ukrainian territory to Russia. Of course, in international relations, noes like that don’t always remain noes, but that is where the Ukrainians stand today. So far, the Russians have given no indication that they would accept this settlement either.

And there’s one further problem with this settlement. Neville Chamberlain was a fool to believe anything Adolf Hitler said. Hitler was a murderous dictator with an agenda of conquering and inhabiting all of central and eastern Europe. His entire regime was based on a lie, namely, that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany’s problems. He wasn’t about to admit that his hatred of Jews was grounded in a lie, nor was he ever going to give up his desire to exterminate all Slavs, whom he considered to be non-human, and replace them with Germans. It was indeed foolhardy to believe him when he said he would stop with the Sudetenland.

Vladimir Putin is also a murderous dictator. He too has an agenda, though one quite different from Hitler’s. His agenda is to reestablish Russia as the dominant power over all of the land that was once part of the Russian Empire or of the Soviet Union. (The territorial extent of the Russian Empire at its height and the territorial extent of the USSR at its height are nearly but not quite identical.) Putin lies with impunity. He kills opponents with impunity. He has proven his willingness to use the Russian army in a way similar to the way Hitler used the German army. There very probably is no more reason to trust anything Putin says than there was to trust anything Hitler said.

So, it seems to me, that Ukraine and Russia, and indeed the whole world, are stuck with a problem to which there is no obvious solution. The histories of Russia and of Ukraine have led us to this point, and no one can understand the Russian-Ukraine conflict without knowing those histories. US president Trump is trying these days to broker a settlement between Russia and Ukraine, though he is doing it quite ineptly, as one would suspect he would. It seems unlikely that he will succeed. Putin can manipulate Trump to do anything Putin wants, which means Trump is unlikely to get the Ukrainians to agree to whatever proposals Trump makes. I wish I had a solution to the Russian-Ukrainian war. I don’t. I don’t think anyone does. Putin won’t give up, and Ukraine won’t give in. That’s what the whole world has to deal with. I wish the whole world good luck in trying to do so.