The Threat of Nuclear War: 1962 and Now

Tomorrow is the first day of October, and it was in October 1962 that the world came closest to being engulfed in nuclear war. But currently there is threat of nuclear war once again. Let’s consider the similarities and differences between the ominous threat then and now. 

The Cuban missile crisis occurred on October 16~29, 1962. What do you remember about that fateful time? Well, if you are not at least 65 years old, you don’t have any memories of it. But it was a scary time for June and me as we were in our mid-20s then.

In September 1962, I started my doctoral studies at Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and our family of four was living some 50 miles away at Ekron, Ky., where I was pastor of the Baptist church in that small town.

At that time, we didn’t have CNN or other 24/7 television news to keep us informed—in fact, we didn’t even have a television set in our home. But we kept up by the daily newspaper and radio.

In the narrow daily spaces of her five-year diary, June mentioned the crisis in Cuba on three days in a row. She wrote, “The U.S. has put a quarantine on Cuba” (10/22); “The Cuba situation is very serious” (10/23); “Our Cuban situation is so bad” (10/Oct. 24).

To cut down on driving time and to give me more time for study, on Tuesday and Thursday nights I stayed in seminary campus housing. On the morning of Thursday, Oct. 25, I went to Louisville as usual—and it was probably that afternoon when I thought seriously about going back home.

If there was going to be a nuclear attack, which seemed to be a distinct possibility, I certainly wanted to be with my family.

Fortunately, both President Kennedy and USSR Premier Khrushchev made domestically unpopular decisions and averted nuclear war. What a tremendous relief that was!*

“My Cuban Missile Crisis” is chapter 12 of Daniel Ellsberg’s book The Doomsday Machine (2017). He is seven years older than I, so that notable book was published when he was 86. (His leaked Pentagon Papers was published in 1971, when he was 40.)

Ellsberg finished his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1962, but he was already working for the RAND Corporation and was a consultant to the Defense Department and the White House. As such, he was closely involved in discussions directly related to the Cuban missile crisis.

In “Cuba, The Real Story,” his 13^th chapter, Ellsberg states, “The fact is that on Saturday, October 27, 1962, a chain of events was in motion that might have come close to ending civilization” (p. 194).

The situation in Ukraine now is not nearly as dire as it was in Cuba in 1962, mainly because Russian President Putin has threatened only to use tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic ones such as the ones central to the threat 60 years ago.

(Strategic nuclear weapons are roughly ten times more powerful than tactical ones, and it is only the former that are designed to produce “mutually assured destruction,” with the ironic acronym MAD.)

Yet, way leads on to way and there is no telling what damage might result—in Ukraine, in Europe, and even in the whole world—from even minimal use of tactical nuclear warheads.

Last week during a televised address, Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine.

Then on Sunday, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said that U.S. officials have communicated to the Russians that there will be "catastrophic consequences for Russia if they use nuclear weapons in Ukraine."

A big question now is whether Putin will be willing to lose face the way Khrushchev did in 1963.**

Let’s hope and pray he will.

_____

* For factual information about the nuclear threat in 1962, I highly recommend “The Cuban Missile Crisis Explained in 20 Minutes,” an informative YouTube video.)

** In an interview with Norman Cousins in 1963, Khrushchev said, “What good would it have done me in the last hour of my life to know that though our great nation and the United States were in complete ruins, the national honor of the Soviet Union was intact?” (cited by Ellsberg on p. 212).

The words at the end are probably those of Danish poet Piet Hein (1905~96), although there are sites on the internet that say they are from his distant ancestor, the Dutch admiral Piet Pieterszoon Hein (1577~1629), which I think is highly unlikely.

The Meaning and Importance of Lament

Recently I have been attending biweekly online prayer meetings planned and led by David Nelson, a local friend who is a retired ELCA minister. The theme of the March 19 meeting was “Lamenting with the people of Ukraine.” That started me thinking about the meaning and importance of lament. 

An online dictionary defines lament as “a passionate expression of grief or sorrow.” As a verb, “to mourn” is perhaps the closest synonym of “to lament.” It is a word to be used in reaction to deeply distressing situations.

However, I found from recent use of “Google Alerts,” that “lament” is now widely used as an expression of sadness over some things that are of no major importance, such as the loss of an athletic contest.

Properly used, though, lament is the expression of grief over great loss, such as by death, destruction, or disaster—such as experienced by so many Ukrainians since the end of February.

Here is part of the opening “prayer of lament” used at the March 19 meeting:       

We recognize patterns of privilege and systems of discrimination.

Hear our lament, O God.

We see your creation destroyed by carelessness and greed.

Hear our lament, O God.

We weep for the war in Ukraine, for victims of violence.

Hear our lament, O God.
We weep for the families forced to separate because of war. 
        Hear our lament, O God.      

And now, on a much smaller scale, we lament for the families and friends of those fatally shot in Buffalo, NY, on May 14.

The importance and prevalence of lament in the Bible is often overlooked. It is not surprising that the happy, hopeful passages are more often quoted. But, in reality, expressions of lament are frequent in the Bible.

Psalms, the hymnbook of the Old Testament, includes many psalms of lament, including Psalm 22, which Jesus quoted on the cross as he was being executed: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (v. 1).

Lamentations is one of the (little-read) books of the Old Testament. In it, the writer (traditionally considered to be Jeremiah), “paints a portrait of utter devastation and appalling suffering: starvation, disease, slaughter, rape, scavenging, looting, and the desecration of holy things.”*

The five chapters of Lamentations depressingly portray the calamities experienced by the Israelites after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. But in the midst of all the lamenting, there are two verses that many people know and deeply appreciate.

Lamentations 3:22-23 says, “It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness” (KJV).

From those verses came the much-beloved hymn “Great is Thy Faithfulness” (1923) which has been sung often for nearly 100 years now.

Also, while the word lament is not used, a closely related idea is found in the New Testament as one of the Beatitudes spoken by Jesus declares, “Blessed are those who mourn” (Matthew 5:4).

Lament is of great importance for people who are suffering substantial loss—as well as for those who suffer in solidarity with such people.

When we are experiencing catastrophic circumstances, lament is highly appropriate. We don’t need people telling us to cheer up or suggest some quick fix for our felt grief.

Even in public worship, there needs to be time for lamenting as well as for rejoicing.

It is also important to lament for others—such as for those in Ukraine and in Buffalo, as well as so many others suffering in various places around the world.

As one writer explains, “Lament is a participation in the pain of others.” And, “Lament is not only for the suffering; it is for solidarity with the suffering. We love our neighbor when we allow their experience of pain to become the substance of our prayer.”**

Even when we ourselves are happy/content, love for others obliges us to lament with those who aren’t. If we don’t often lament in times like these, doesn’t that indicate a serious deficiency in our love/empathy?

_____

* From “Lamentations: A Bottle for the Tears of the World,” a book review of Christopher J.H. Wright’s book The Message of Lamentations (2015), accessible here.

** From Five Things to Know about Lament” by Glenn Packiam.

The Long Shadow of War

It has now been 40 days since Russia invaded Ukraine—and who knows when or how that tragic war will end. From the beginning, the Ukrainian people have struggled bravely to defend their country—and have suffered great losses. But the shadow of that war is a long one. 

The Local Effects of the War

It is hard to comprehend the horrors of the death and destruction in Ukraine since February 24. According to the latest figures I could find yesterday (Apr. 4), some 24,000 people have already been killed, and the Ukrainian government claims that around 7,000 non-combatants have lost their lives.

In addition, more than 10,000,000 Ukrainians have left their homes with more than 40% of them having become refugees in other countries, primarily Poland. Twenty-three of the U.S. states have a population smaller than the number of current Ukrainian refugees (approx. 4,200,000).

Further, there is the wanton destruction of houses, factories, infrastructure, farmland, and much more. A sad, sad situation in Ukraine indeed!**

The Global Effects of the War

The shadow of the war in Ukraine is a long one, affecting many millions of people around the world. Consider just two major detrimental global effects:

** Hunger/Starvation

        “War in Ukraine could plunge world into food shortages.” This is a March 25 headline of a National Geographic article.

According to that piece, “Over the past decade, Ukraine, long known as the breadbasket of Europe, has become an agricultural powerhouse for much of the developing world.” Ukraine is “a country of 40 million people, but they produce food for 400 million.”

But sadly, Ukraine will most likely not be able to do that this year because of the war.

A March 21 post by Religion News Service warns, “Ukraine may leave millions hungry.” That was the assessment of Eugene Cho, president and CEO of Bread for the World.

It is too soon to know how intense/detrimental the long shadow of the war in Ukraine will be, but the prospect of increased world hunger/starvation is distressing.

** Poverty

In this country, the most direct effect of the war in eastern Europe is inflation, particularly seen in the dramatic rise in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. While price increases are a source of widespread complaint, it is a dire problem for those already living in or near poverty.

In the U.S., even in 2020 there were more than 37,000,000 residents who were living in poverty.

A headline on a March 29 post on Business Insider advises, “Americans should budget an extra $5,200 this year to cover rising prices.” But how can that possibly be done by households with a yearly income of less than $26,500 (the poverty level line for 2021)?

And how many more will fall into poverty because of the war?

Then there are the hundreds of millions around the world who are considerably worse off.

The future looks much darker now for nearly all of these people because of the long shadow of the war in Ukraine.

The Personal Effects of the War

If the war in Ukraine doesn’t escalate into a nuclear war—and I remain grateful that Pres. Biden has persistently and consistently sought to guard against that possibility—we who live in North America don’t have to worry about being directly affected by what happens in Eastern Europe.

Most of us Americans, though, will be affected indirectly, mostly by higher prices and perhaps shortages of some commodities. Even that will be no big problem for those of us who are able to bear the extra cost.

But the coming months are going to be a time when many people in this country, mainly those living below the poverty line, and vastly more in the poorer countries of the world, are going to need additional help to buy food and other necessities of life.

Can we—and will we—in the middle class (or above) do more to help the multitudes who are already suffering and who will be suffering more in the long shadow of the war in Ukraine? And will we also support the federal government in providing greater assistance? If not, why not?

_____

** On Sunday (4/3) the news media made public news and images about the atrocities committed against the Ukrainians in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. See, for example, this CNN article (with a video).

WWBD (What Would Bonhoeffer Do?)

The German pastor/theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo nearly 79 years ago, on April 5, 1943. He was implicated in the plot to overthrow the German government under Hitler and sentenced to die—and, indeed, he was hanged on April 9, 1945. 

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1933)

What Did Bonhoeffer Do in Germany?

On the 110^th anniversary of his birth on February 4, 1906, I posted a blog article titled “Honoring the Memory of Bonhoeffer.” Thus, this post focuses on Bonhoeffer’s activity as a part of the resistance to Hitler from 1933 until his arrest by the Nazis ten years later.

Bonhoeffer was one of the first prominent German Christians to speak out in opposition to Hitler. Two days after Hitler was installed as the German chancellor in January 1933, Bonhoeffer delivered a radio address in which he criticized Hitler.

In April of that year, he raised the first voice for church resistance to Hitler's persecution of Jews, and in the following year, he joined with Martin Niemöller, Karl Barth, and others to form what came to be known as the Confessing Church.

These anti-Nazi Christians in Germany drafted the Barmen Declaration in 1934. They sought to make it clear that Jesus Christ was the Führer, their leader and the head of the Church, not Hitler.

In 1940, Bonhoeffer became even more active in the German resistance and finally, he was arrested because of that activity. At that time, he was charged with avoiding military service, advising his students to do the same, and also for helping some Jews escape Germany.

Despite what is often said/believed about Bonhoeffer, he was not arrested for participating in any assassination attempts. The main attempt to kill Hitler came on July 20, 1944, and after that plot failed, some 7,000 people were arrested and nearly 5,000, including Bonhoeffer, were executed.

Bonhoeffer was, indeed, a part of the resistance and until his arrest worked closely with those who devised the July 20 assassination attempt, especially with his brother-in-law Hans von Dohnanyi, who was accused of being the "spiritual leader" of the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler.

It is obvious, though, that Bonhoeffer was not directly involved in the 7/20/44 assassination attempt itself, for he was imprisoned fifteen months before it occurred.*

What Would Bonhoeffer Do Now in Ukraine/Russia?

It is difficult to know what Bonhoeffer would do in Ukraine if he were living there now, for he lived, wrote, and was martyred in a country that was waging war, not one suffering from the horrors of unprovoked invasion.

Being a Christian in Ukraine now is far different from being a Christian in Germany in the 1930s. We know what Bonhoeffer did there then; we don’t know what he would do in Ukraine now.

However, I think we do know what Bonhoeffer would do if he were a Christian living in Russia today. He would undoubtedly become a part of—and likely the leader of—a resistance movement that would agree with Pres. Biden’s moral outrage: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”

It is not evident, though, that all Christians should do the same—or that we who safely live in this country should “tell” Christians in Russia what they should do. (This issue is dealt with at some length in the March 11 posting in Christianity Today: Do Russian Christians Need More Bonhoeffers?)

What Would Bonhoeffer Do Now in the U.S.?

With some certainty, we can assume that were Bonhoeffer alive in the U.S. today he would speak out strongly against those American Christians who advocate Christian Nationalism—as, thankfully, some American Christians are. (See Christians Against Christian Nationalism.)

More specifically, he would doubtlessly oppose efforts to “make America great again” and the growth of White Christian nationalism since 2015.**

Bonhoeffer’s most widely read book is Nachfolge (1937; Eng. trans., The Cost of Discipleship, 1949, and Discipleship, 2003), the theme of which is faithfully following Jesus and living by his teachings, especially as found in the Sermon on the Mount.

That, surely, is what Bonhoeffer would do here now—and what he challenges us to do also.

_____

* Bonhoeffer’s persistent pacifism is a central theme of a new book by Mennonite scholar Mark Thiessen Nation, Discipleship in a World Full of Nazis: Recovering the True Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (2022).

** White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (April 2022) by Philip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry promises to be a helpful analysis of the latter; see this interview with Gorski in the March 15 post of YaleNews.

Helping Ukraine: War without Violence?

Today is the twentieth day since the beginning of the unprovoked Russian invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine. The courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people has certainly been admirable, but their suffering has been great and their short-term future is exceedingly bleak. 

From the 3/5/22 cover of The Economist

President Zelenskyy’s Call for Help

Since the very beginning of the invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been widely praised as a courageous leader in his beleaguered country and an exemplary advocate of freedom. He will be awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award for 2022.

President Zelenskyy has repeatedly taken to the airwaves to make zealous appeals for increased military help from NATO and the U.S. He has warned that the refusal to give assistance through such means as declaring a no-fly zone over his country will result in the deaths of thousands of his citizens.

In response to that March 5 appeal, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “Let’s be cleareyed about our options: “A No-Fly Zone means sending American pilots into combat against Russian jets and air defenses—in a battle between nuclear powers that could spiral out of control quickly.”

So, how should the U.S. and NATO respond to Zelenskyy’s call for help?

Has President Biden’s and NATO’s Response been Weak?

Some in this country have used the lack of full positive response to Zelenskyy’s call as a sign of weakness on the part of President Biden.

An opinion piece in the March 11 online issue of The Christian Post is titled “The Ukrainian crisis: A catastrophic failure of leadership.” The author is Richard Land, President Emeritus of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land asserts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “so preventable,” pointing out that 62% of Americans believe that if Trump were still president, Russia would not have invaded.

Apparently, Land is among those 62%. He writes, “Putin feared Trump’s strength, whereas he holds Biden’s invertebrate weakness in disdain.”

He also asserts that “Biden’s weakness is illustrated by his apparent fear of what Putin might do.”

This same sort of criticism is expressed by Wendell Griffen, a progressive Baptist leader for whom I have great respect. I was disappointed, though, by what he wrote in a March 9 opinion piece.

Griffen asserted, “What perturbs Zelensky and delights Putin is the knowledge that world leaders lack the will to bring their arsenals, warriors and other war-fighting resources to bear against Putin.”

The opinion of Daniel Davis, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army is far better than the two divergent Baptists just cited. Davis’s article in the March 8 post of The Guardian is titled “A no-fly zone means Nato shooting down Russian jets. We must not do that” (emphasis added).

Can there be Significant Help without Violence?

The effectiveness, and even the morality, of the violent resistance of the Ukrainian people is discussed in an article posted March 7 by Religious News Service (here). It is titled “Catholic theologians question the morality of Ukraine’s violent resistance.”

While I agree with much in that significant article, here I am writing only about the morality of help for Ukraine supplied by the U.S. and NATO—and in that regard I strongly believe that the stance taken so far by the U.S. is not a show of weakness but of prudence.

The increasing level of sanctions leveled against Russia will surely in the long run lead to a cessation of violent fighting in Ukraine. Direct military action would, no doubt, be more effective in the short run—but with the distinct possibility of leading to greater escalation of violence.

Greater military help of Ukraine now, could—and perhaps would!—lead to greater suffering, more casualties, and more violent Russian warfare not only against Ukraine but also against other European countries.

Hasty, belligerent acts by the U.S./NATO could—and perhaps would!—provoke Russia to use strategic nuclear weapons. And that could well be the beginning of World War III.

Looking at the bigger picture and the potentiality of unthinkable disaster, I am deeply grateful that the U.S. and NATO are seeking to help Ukraine mostly by non-violent (=non-military) means.

Learning from the Mennonites in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has been the top news story for ten days now. This article, though, is primarily about the nineteenth-century Ukrainian Mennonites and their descendants—and about what Christians can (and should) learn from them. 

Menno Simons (1496~1561)

The Background of the Mennonites

The small Christian denomination known as Mennonites (and there are several church organizations who use that name) grew out of the Anabaptist movement that began in Switzerland in 1525.

It was 495 years ago, on February 24, 1527, during an assembly of Anabaptists in the northern Swiss village of Schleitheim that a statement of the basic principles of the Anabaptists was adopted.

That statement, usually called the Schleitheim Confession, was the first Protestant confession of faith. The more widely-known Augsburg Confession of the Lutherans dates back to 1530.

Menno Simons was a Roman Catholic priest who left the Catholics and joined the Anabaptists in 1536. Simons, who was from the northmost part of the Netherlands, became such a strong leader that the name of the more than two million Mennonites in the world today comes from him.

For quite some time now, most Mennonites have not affirmed or followed all seven of the articles of the Schleitheim Confession.

The first and sixth articles, though, are still followed by most Mennonites today: the affirmation of believer’s baptism (i.e., the rejection of infant baptism) and the affirmation of pacifism or non-resistance (i.e., the rejection of “the sword.”

The Movement of the Mennonites to, and from, Ukraine

The early Anabaptists/Mennonites were regularly persecuted in western Europe, so even in the 17th century some migrated to what was to become the USA, and many others moved east to Prussia, largely to what is Poland today.

Catherine the Great became the Empress of Russia in 1762, and most of Ukraine fell under Russian rule during her reign. She soon invited people from Prussia (and elsewhere) to move to the Ukrainian area of Russia and to farm the unoccupied lands there.

Two of the incentives the Empress offered the Mennonites for settling in Ukraine were self-government and exemption from military service. Since they were pacifists, the latter was especially appealing to them. The largest colonies formed were Chortitza and Molotschna, founded in 1789 and 1803.

When a change in the Russian government threatened to end their military exemption, a Mennonite delegation traveled to St. Petersburg in 1871 to plead their case. When their appeals failed, a third of the Mennonite population—some 18,000 people—emigrated to the U.S. and Canada.

(Although it was first published in 1986, here is the link to “Mennonites Ingrained in Kansas,” an informative article in the Los Angeles Times.) *

Learning from the Mennonites

So, what can we learn from the Ukrainian Mennonites?

Obviously, right now, following their example and moving to other parts of the world where they will not have to fight is not a viable option for most Ukrainians—although, tragically, during these past ten days there have been more than 1,200,000 Ukrainians who have fled their homeland as refugees.

Still, the Ukrainian Mennonites of the past are a good example of the importance of some Christians being leaven in the world. The Anabaptists’ consistent advocacy for pacifism, often resulting in their considerable suffering, has not been widely followed but has often caused others to question violence/war.

There are few Mennonites in Ukraine today, just over 500 adherents in 11 congregations. But they are active advocates of peace and justice.**

And, who knows, perhaps they have had some influence on the Ukrainians who recently befriended a Russian soldier as seen in the following picture from the March 3 issue of Metro, the British newspaper. 

_____

* More details of the Mennonites in Ukraine and in North America are found in my 5/5/14 blog post titled “In Praise of Ukrainian Mennonites.” In that article, I relate how many of my current church friends, as well as my daughter-in-law, have close ancestors from Ukraine.

** Here is the link to an informative article about Mennonites in Ukraine, past and present, in the 2/22/22 online article in Anabaptist World.

In Praise of Ukrainian Mennonites

The beleaguered country of Ukraine continues to be much in the news, and no one knows what is going to happen there.

In March I wrote an article titled “What about Crimea?” Of course, Ukraine was mentioned several times in that article. But this time I am writing about events in Ukraine in the 18^th and 19^th centuries and not about the current turmoil there.

In the article about Crimea, I mentioned Catherine the Great, who was the Empress of Russia from 1762 to 1796. (I mentioned her because she annexed Crimea to Russia in 1783.)

Soon after becoming Empress, Catherine issued a manifesto in 1763 inviting Europeans to move to the Ukrainian area of Russia and to farm the unoccupied agricultural lands there.

Many Europeans moved east to do just that, including many Mennonite Christians from the country we now know as Poland.

In 1787 two Mennonites from Prussia (Poland) visited Russia and were even able to meet with the Empress.

Catherine promised that if they moved to Ukraine, each family would be given 175 acres of free land and they all would be given special privileges, including religious freedom, exemption from military service, and the right to establish their own schools and teach in their own language (Low German).

That sounded good to them, so their migration to Ukraine began. In 1789, 228 families formed the first colony there, about 125 miles north of Crimea.

The second wave of migration was in 1803-04, two years after Alexander, Catherine’s grandson, had become Emperor of Russia. That colony, Molotschna, was less than 100 miles from Crimea. It became the largest Mennonite colony in Ukraine.

By 1806 there were 365 families living in Molotschna. In the years that followed, others families from Prussia joined them. During their journey there in 1820-21, one group met Emperor Alexander, who wished them well (wohl in German). Consequently, they decided to name their new village Alexanderwohl.

In 1870, the Russian government issued a proclamation stating its intention to end by 1880 all special privileges granted to the Mennonites. Alarmed at the possibility of losing those privileges, especially their military exemption, many of them decided to migrate to the United States.

Among them was the entire congregation of the Alexanderwohl church, who in 1874 migrated to Marion County, Kansas.

A couple of years ago, as June and I were driving south from Abilene to Newton, Kansas, we came upon the largest open country church building we had ever seen. It turned out to be the building of the Alexanderwohl Mennonite Church, which was constructed in 1886. (It has been remodeled and added on to at various times through the years.)

As you know, a lot of winter wheat is grown in Kansas. But you may not know that it was the Ukrainian Mennonites who first began to grow wheat there, having carried wheat seed with them when they migrated to Kansas in the 1870s.

Many of our church friends now are descendants of those Mennonites who came to Kansas from Ukraine.

Also, some of you know our oldest son Keith and his wife Brenda. Brenda’s mother was from a Mennonite family, and all eight of her great-grandparents lived in the Molotschna colony in Ukraine, although their families migrated to Minnesota rather than to Kansas.

Largely because of the strong desire to maintain their pacifistic beliefs, many Mennonites migrated to Ukraine and then later from Ukraine to the United States and elsewhere. For that reason, among others, it seems to me that the Ukrainian Mennonites are praiseworthy indeed.

What about Crimea?

The plight of Ukraine and especially of Crimea has been much in the news this month. That concern was heightened when on March 16 the people of Crimea voted to become a part of Russia and when on March 21 Russian President Putin signed the bill of accession, making Crimea a part of Russia (again).

There are legitimate concerns about the Crimean vote to secede. Were the people really free to vote as they wished? Or did many vote, and vote as they did, because of the nearby Russian military presence?

And then there is the question of how the minorities in Crimea, the ethnic Ukrainians and the Tatars, will be treated under Russian rather than Ukrainian rule.

This is the main concern, though: is Russia’s accession of Crimea just the first of further attempts of Putin and Russia to acquire additional territory, incorporating more land and people under Russian rule?

Some U.S. politicians have used the secession/accession of Crimea to criticize the President for being “weak”—just as some of the same people accused him of being weak for not taking military action against Iran and/or Syria.

Earlier this month according to CBS News “John McCain blames Obama’s ‘feckless’ foreign policy for Ukraine crisis.” At that same time, Marc A. Thiessen, an opinion writer for the Washington Post penned an article titled “Obama’s Weakness Emboldens Putin.”

In the March 16 referendum, though, an overwhelming majority voted in favor of independence of Crimea from Ukraine and of joining Russia as a federal subject. After the referendum, Crimean lawmakers formally voted both to secede from Ukraine and ask for membership in the Russian Federation.

Since we in this country generally praise democracy, deciding matters by majority vote, why is there such widespread opposition to Crimea becoming a part of Russia again?

Actually, Russia claims that in 1654 the Council of Pereyaslav approved the unification of Ukraine with Russia. Then in 1783 under the rule of Empress Catherine the Great, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire.

It was on the 300^th anniversary of the 1654 event that Nikita Khrushchev, head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964 (and whose wife was Ukrainian), transferred Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Of course, Ukraine was still within the Soviet Union. That changed in 1991, though. With the dissolving of the USSR, Ukraine became an independent state. Since 1992 Crimea has officially been the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine.

But when the referendum on the Act of Declaration of Independence was held in Ukraine in December 1991, only 37% of the electorate in Crimea voted for independence from Russia, compared to 76% for all of Ukraine (including Crimea).

After all, a large majority of the people who lived in Crimea then were ethnic Russians who spoke the Russian language. And that is even more so now: according to an article in the March 21 Washington Post, nearly 80% of the Crimeans now are ethnic Russians.

So in spite of all the worry in the West, and all of the criticism of the President in the U.S., perhaps the “loss” of Crimea is not such a serious issue—and being a part of Russian again likely seems to be a good thing to the majority of the people who live there.

Certainly it is a matter of concern that the accession of Crimea may be just the first step in Russia’s (Putin’s) annexing other lands and people. That is not likely to happen, though. At least I certainly pray that it won’t.