Rene's Ramblings: 03/01/2022

Between US cable news, news from European news programs (Sky UK, France 24, and DW) streaming on YouTube, and checking out think tank web pages, have been trying to get a handle on the military objectives of the Russian invasion.

Prior to the invasion, the opinion seemed to be falling into two categories: (1) Russia won't invade or (2) the invasion would be limited perhaps to just the eastern part. Some experts described what the "go big" invasion would look like but didn't think it likely they would go that far.

As we all saw, Russia went all in with a multi-pronged invasion (see map 1).

Map 1 - possible end points of invasion plan

Objective 1 was to capture, kill, or force to flee the central government of Ukraine by seizing Kyiv.

Objective 2 was to cut the country in half by driving toward the Dnieper river and potentially trapping Ukrainian army units in the east of the country.

Objective 3 was to solidify control of the disputed regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.

Objective 4 was to connect Crimea (annexed in 2014) to Russia with a direct land corridor with a north-easterly invasion.

Objective 5 was to deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea by heading north-west out of Crimea and taking the coastal port of Udesa.

How far did the Russian ground forces get? See map 2.

Map 2 - state of the invasion as of March 29, 2022

Objective 1?

Russian forces have stalled in the outskirts of Kyiv. The Ukraine government remains in charge and in place in Kyiv.

Objective 2?

Russian army has laid siege of Kharkiv but haven't advanced much beyond Kharkiv.

Objective 3?

Haven't seen much news from this region probably because Western news services aren't able to get here suggesting Russia has these areas under control.

Objective 4?

The siege of Mariupol has been the scene of tremendous destruction. If and when Russia takes control of the city, they will have their "land bridge" from Russia to Crimea.

Objective 5?

Russia has not reached Udesa and have gotten as far Kherson but does not appear able to advanced any further.

One unknown is the degree to which Russia can continue to sustain troop and equipment losses to achieve a revised limited set of aims.

On the other side, how much material resources can Ukraine continue to receive and how much military personnel do they have to effectively deploy them?

When the cost of war eventually gets too high for both sides then the two side might come to a deal of some kind. It does not appear that point has been reached. Ukraine realizes it will not be joining NATO or the EU anytime soon so it may have to make some concessions when the time for negotiation arrives. Ukraine may accept loss of territory but as long as they have a "stalemate" on the battlefield, they will not accept demilitarization. In 2014, when Crimea was annexed, Ukraine was in no position to militarily oppose the Russians so they had to sign a deal. Since 2014, they built up their army and it is paying off so far as they have extracted a high price from Russia in this war. They will want to continue to build up their forces so that Russia would not be tempted to restart the war to gain more territory.

As for Europe, NATO, and USA, they realize the line has to be drawn here so they will continue to supplies both military and economic aide to Ukraine because if Ukraine collapses the next target could be a NATO member.

#StandWithUkraine

In a typical read through the Bible plan, I know I struggle with the big chunk of material in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers that are filled with various minute details of the tabernacle, the garments, the sacrifices, and the numerous codes of conduct.

I think one perspective to keep in mind as we wade through these sections is the holiness of God. God is perfectly holy, and we are not. The laws are there to hold up a mirror to us to show us we are not holy. We not only fail to keep the letter of the law we fail to even uphold a fraction of the spirit of the law. These laws are in regard to our relationship to God. These laws are in regard to our relationship to each other. And we fall short on both fronts.

Mixed in with all these laws that are a megaphone announcing the holiness of God are the provisions for us to be made right before God. We can’t be made right using our own methods, we need to follow the way set forth by God. Thus, the over-arching theme is God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration.

As such, we need to be careful as New Testament Christians how we talk about the Old Covenant. We should not talk down upon the Old Covenant. The stories of God's people who lived and walked in the Old Covenant like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others are illustrative of the human condition. They stumbled around a lot (we do to) and it was God's mercy and grace that picks them (and us) up!

So yes, the Old Covenant was well ... a certain way at a particular time. And, yes, the New Covenant is well … new! But the message is still the same: God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration. In the New Covenant, the way is through trust and obedience to our Lord and King Jesus! The grace of God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. Abraham needed grace. We need grace.

Jesus’ critique of the religious leaders of the time was that they missed the point of the Old Covenant. These religious leaders thought they kept the letter of the Law and that their birthright as the children of Abraham was enough. Regarding the letter of the Law, they under-estimated just how holy God actually is and thought more highly of their own holiness than actually warranted. As such, they also missed the spirit of the law: God is holy, we are not, God has made a way to be restored, and we need to trust and obey God’s way of restoration.

Anyway, these handholds have been a helpful 30,000 feet perspective for me.

Keep reading!

Soli Deo Gloria!