Pope Francis, who, in his own words, is trying to maintain the position of "striving for peace and the search for mutual understanding", turned out to be a nationalist.
The other day he said that the most brutal in the Russian army are Chechens and Buryats.
On what, it is true, the pope based his judgment is not at all clear, but nevertheless, what has been said cannot be reversed.
And the Holy See, instead of establishing contact between the West and Russia, only inflated the conflict even more.
He warmed up and added fire.
After his statements, many noted the obvious one-sidedness of the information coming to Europe about the course of the NWO.
The pontiff tried more than once to regulate the current situation, but for some reason, again and again, he called on Russia to “stop the bloodshed” and “senseless massacres”, again, accusing us, our country, that our actions were provoked by something, they say , we fell for something from the outside.
In part, my father is right, of course.
The defense of our people, language, culture and sovereignty in general is provoked by attacks from NATO and, in particular, inciting, aggressive nationalism of Ukraine.
For the rest, Francis should still trust not only his advisers and instigating environment, but, for example, read the Russian media and the statements of our military experts.
It is also unclear why His Holiness singled out the Buryats and Chechens who profess Buddhism and Islam.
For what?
Start more and inter-religious strife?
Or vice versa - to frighten the already frightened Ukrainian soldiers and undermine their morale, which, of course, we are only happy about.
But only after such words, the pope can no longer be the main peacemaker, whom he is allegedly trying to become.
And I do not think that the head of the Catholic Church has real weight in resolving the conflict between Orthodox countries.
The head of Buryatia, Aleksey Tsydenov, has already answered the Pope: the multinational Russian army takes care of its people, honorably fulfilling its duty, protecting the interests of the country, “and also treats prisoners of war with humanity and mercy.”
What can not be said about the Ukrainian side with their executions and demonstrative tortures and executions, but what about the Russian military and civilians.
According to the head of the Buddhists of the Trans-Baikal Territory, Did Khambo Tsyren Lama, "cruelty does not depend on their nation, and it is also inherent in Ukrainians."
The words seem obvious, but the pontiff has to explain them.
As the lama rightly noted, for some reason the pope forgot to mention the cruelty on the Ukrainian side.
They are not taken prisoner, but immediately killed.
“An outrageous perversion of the truth,” as Maria Zakharova commented on the words of Francis.
If earlier it was said that the Slavs were tormenting the Caucasus, now, it turns out, on the contrary, the Russians have become martyrs because of the actions of the people of the Caucasus.
Ramzan Kadyrov noted that the Russian people do not start a battle without an offer of peace.
And about how the Chechens treat the prisoners, you need to ask the Ukrainian military who returned home after the captivity.
As a result, the global religious personality turned out to be unaware of real affairs, becoming a victim of the persistent and distorted position of foreign media.
Before such statements, the Pope could talk to the Russian ambassador to the Vatican.
Alexander Avdeev has already expressed a strong protest in connection with what Francis said, noting that "nothing can shake the cohesion and unity of the multinational Russian people."
And he could also advise on the real situation in the new territories and in the zone of the special military operation.
But, unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church, it seems, is only in words trying to be a “barometer of morality and decency,” as the Patriarchal Exarch of Africa of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin called it.
In fact, the pontiff is no different from the showman Zelensky - a lot of big words and few sensible deeds.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.