If people learn Ukrainian geography, how is that going to help Ukrainians?
At least with the flag you give some support, for example you give your politicians a message that helping Ukraine is an important matter to you as a citizen.
Going fighting, risking your life is the biggest commitment possible, you shouldnt expect people to give THAT much.
But really every 10$ helps.

Because as a constituent it makes them look uneducated and ignorant if they support a country they don’t even know the most basic thing about.

So instead of learning the basic geography of Ukraine or physically going over there to help.... you believe the most effective course of action is to give money to charity and trust in politicians to do the right thing?

yeah, kinda.
Ukraine economy is weak, because nobody invests their hard earned money in a country that is under regular bombardment, experiences power outages and might even fall to Russia completely oneday.
So they have workers in Ukraine, but they dont have jobs for them, and dont have money to pay them for their work.
Going there to help doesnt solve the problem, unless you go with a full car of goods (that you need money to buy).
Like what you gonna do when you get there, how you gonna help?

Painfully idealistic world view. Most charities are a scam and almost every politician is out for themselves.

Look at Los Angeles to counter your example of both charities and politicians. Currently there are no less than 9 local, state and federal institutions and charities responsible for combating homelessness. Elected and appointed politicians are entrusted to manage these in order to reduce the homelessness. The only thing is... if they solve the homeless problem they are out of a job. So they give no bid contracts to their friends and the gravy train moves along.

It's the most basic argument against communism... 99.99% of people will do what is in their best interest, long before doing what is best for the community. After the Soviets overthrew the czar, Lenin literally moved into the czars old palace lol.... (but we're all equal right?)

agreed.

He's also representative of the open question of the utility of decency and genuine humanism when its applied to geopolitics. You can be a sincere believer in uplifting the poor huddled masses, but what is the result of your ideology in action?
Its easy for critics of the pope to point to the walled vatican taking in no migrants while demanding others, but the real question is what have been the practical impacts of the west's humanitarian embrace of migrants and does it serve an overall long term good.

His hostility to patriarch kirill was definitely not from a long vision of the greater good and humanitarianism. The ukraine war won't even be a footnote in the 971 year and counting history of the schism, and he sabotaged rapprochement, at least on diplomatic if not theological or ecclesiological levels, over some short sighted spat. In a few years the ukraine war will be forgotten, but the next pope will have to be picking up the mess that francis left with his 'putin's altar boy' quips.

RIP to the most christ-like pope ever
shame that MAGA took him out

Unlike most contemporary elites, he was clearly genuine in his affection for the poor and downtrodden and not just virtue signalling to feel better about himself.

On the other hand, he was a prototypical example of elite sentiment in the 2010s: extremely willing to embrace the ever-more left-wing zeitgeist on issues ranging from gay rights over abortion to climate and migration, while being personally insulated from the adverse effects and blind to all the collateral damage these policies cause for the unwashed masses.



I would say pope Francis was a good man acting in good faith, but he was not effective at using the power of his position to actually make the world a better place.


This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 21 2025 06:28pm

Definitely one of the greatest losses we've had in a while. God bless him.