The New York Times still cannot condone war under any conditions, even with the complete justification that Ukraine has to defend itself.
“All across the United States, small groups of military veterans are gathering, planning and getting passports in order. Many are hungry for what they see as a fight to defend freedom against an autocratic aggressor with a conventional and target-rich army.”
What they see? What does the NYT see? The New York Times does not want to approve any kind of war under any kind of circumstance. Even when a country defends itself.
There’s a point at which one’s own moral preferences must end. Any predilection for non-violence must die when you start endangering the world by that belief.
“I don’t believe in killing.” Well, it’s not all about you, sister. There’s some other people involved.
You don’t reason or try to reform a rabid dog which is running down the street biting people. You take out a gun and shoot it.
Similarly, no tolerance can be shown for anyone who starts an unprovoked war which displaces millions, lays waste to cities, and kills still uncounted numbers of soldiers and civilians.
Jesus may hold to his beliefs and remain true. We can’t. We’re human and not a god. No matter what the NYT believes in their heart, for the good of the world, they need to clear their conscience and then help in hunting down that running dog.