Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are We the Baddies, Part 2: US Meddling in Ukraine and Crimea
I’ve been holding out on you since September when this issue of Hillsdale’s Imprimis came out: Complications of the Ukraine War, by Christopher Caldwell, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Now that I have time to clear out my tabs, you get to learn what I did back then.
If you had to give a one-word answer to what this Ukraine War is about, you would probably say Crimea. Crimea is a peninsula jutting out into the middle of the Black Sea. It’s where the great powers of Europe fought the bloodiest war of the century between Napoleon and World War I. It is a defensive superweapon. The country that controls it dominates the Black Sea and can project its military force into Europe, the Middle East, and even the steppes of Eurasia. And since the 1700s, that country has been Russia. Crimea has been the home of Russia’s warm water fleet for 250 years. It is the key to Russia’s southern defenses.
I admit, I’m not following events in Ukraine as closely as many here on Ricochet. But, as I understand it, Ukraine is committed to fighting not just to repel the Russian invasion, but to recover Crimea. This is a solid guarantee for the prolongation of the war indefinitely. Russia simply cannot — will not — let go of the all-important strategic peninsula of Crimea.
Much of the turmoil began under the Bush 43 administration — surprise! — with US election interference, and exacerbated by the Obama administration — surprise, surprise!! — by meddling in the trade deal negotiated between Ukraine and the EU, and vehemently opposed by Russia.
The previous year (2013), Ukrainian diplomats had negotiated a free trade deal with the European Union that would have cut out Russia. Russia then outbid the EU with its own deal—which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine and continued naval basing rights for Russia—and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich signed it. U.S.-backed protests broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. According to a speech made at the time by a State Department official, the U.S. had by that time spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics. And, considering that Ukraine then had a lower per capita income than Cuba, Jamaica, or Namibia, $5 billion could buy a lot of influence. An armory was raided, shootings near the Maidan left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovich fled the country, and the U.S. played the central role in setting up a successor government.
The other tidbit that stands out in this piece is this:
In a referendum in January 1991, 93 percent of the citizens of Crimea voted for autonomy from Ukraine. In 1994, 83 percent voted for the establishment of a dual Crimean/Russian citizenship. We’ll leave aside the referendum held after the Russians arrived in 2014, which resulted in a similar percentage but remains controversial.
As long as Ukraine insists on controlling Crimea and even the Russophilic eastern Ukraine, I don’t see a possible resolution to the conflict. I oppose another (Bush) forever war and believe if the US meddles further, it should be to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. For its own sake, as well as ours.
Published in General
We did meddle. To speak this truth does not make one a Putin ally. Why do you do this?
Here’s some information about our meddling.
Here’s some more.
The best that I could find was the ““Thinking Catholic” about Ukraine and the just-war tradition” article at Catholic World Report. They clearly identify Putin as being in violation of just war criteria. They make no mention of Ukraine. From what I surmise, that just war theory applies to two nations who decide to go to war. It does not apply to nations defending themselves. In fact, it states the following:
I’m pretty sure that “reasonable chance of success” does not apply to a nation or people defending itself from aggression.
Or, how about this. How about we support getting both parties to the table to hammer out a peace agreement?
Why is it so black and white with the forever war types?
The quickest way for the war to end in a just peace is for Putin to take his troops out of Ukraine and back to Russia.
I am entirely in favor of getting both parties to the table to hammer out a peace agreement like that.
I mean, I know why our government and their cronies want forever war.
I just didn’t realize how many in the citizen class have been fooled.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Is it really “for the common good” to let Putin get away with his murderous war of aggression? Doesn’t that send Xi Jinping the wrong message?
It would seem that if Ukraine loses this war, the message will be sent to people like Putin and Xi Jinping that they can do whatever they want and no one will stand up to them.
But how can there be two sides to a “just war” with both sides being “just?”
Look in the mirror
What that would imply is that one does not have a right to defend oneself. I do not think that applies to a defensive situation. It would not be reasonable otherwise.
Good point. I can visualize both sides violating just war but I can’t visualize both being just. I don’t know how that could be. All I can tell you I have not seen any Catholic in religious hierarchy supporting Russia. Just the opposite.
I’m certainly not either, but Putin did publicly complain about it well before he invaded.
It states up front it is “for legitimate defense by military force.” It may start out reasonable, but at some point the costs are too high and even surrender is preferred to save lives. Yes, even living under tyranny, which falls under “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.”
This is very uncomfortable, even for me (was WWII a “just war” under these terms?), but you have to ask yourself, do I have a limit on the killing and dying? What is the prudential judgment (and there is one, although difficult to discern due to the complexity)? And do I trust that God will save me and have me live in the freedom of the Beatific Vision one day, or do I insist on it in the here and now?
Exactly. “Just war” couldn’t really apply except in STARTING one, for just causes. Such as, arguably, the Civil War to eliminate slavery in the South. And then it might be a matter of having a reasonable chance of success.
But all of that pretty much goes out the window when it comes to defense against aggression for the sake of land or something.
The problem is that Putin defines peace as a piece of Ukraine & a piece of Poland…
Just war doctrine isn’t claiming both sides are expected to act in justice. It’s the side fighting on defense that has prudential/moral choices to make. See comment above.
You have evidence of the Polish piece? Please provide quote/link.
One problem there is that it would seem to encourage the aggressors. If they’re brutal enough, you’ll give up. How do women feel about applying that standard to rape?
And then another bigger piece of Ukraine, and another bigger piece of Poland…
Ask Saint Maria Goretti.
The point was why does anyone have any business imposing that from outside? Even the Church.
You know, you’ve never done anything to refute the information about our meddling in Ukraine except to insult me and others as being Putin-stooges. And yet I’ve refrained from just writing you off as a CIA Asset. But maybe that’s the case.
Your always respond that I am a paid agent of the someone-you never rebut any points. Perhaps you are the paid agent rather than I. Russia is clearly the aggressor & Ukraine has every right to determine its own course. The US has every right to aid victims of aggression & in this case we are wise to do so. The destruction of the Russian army will yield decades of dividends for the US & Europe. If Ukraine wins, Russia will not be in a position to threaten the US or NATO for a generation. A bargain at multiples of our current expenditures in Ukraine.
Asset? Asset?!!!
Okay, “agent.”
I’d never accuse you of being an asset
A liability?
I sure hope that I’m a CIA liability!
I’ll answer for $1000, Alex — “What is Hillary’s superpower?”