Should We Be Providing ‘Charity’ to Ukraine?

 

In a recent speech, Rand Paul gave a powerful presentation regarding the millions of dollars we are giving to Ukraine. He likened our situation to a conundrum that Davy Crockett faced when he served in Congress. (Most of us perceive Crockett as an iconic symbol of the West, but he also served in Congress from 1827 to 1835.) And Paul told a story that speaks to our continual donation of funds and military equipment to Ukraine and how it extends a long, expensive, and debilitating process of trying to be generous to other countries under the guise of national security.

Although Crockett’s original speech was not transcribed, his ideas were captured in an 1867 article written by Edward Ellis and published in Harper’s Magazine, called, “Not yours to Give.” And the conclusions that Crockett reached challenged Congress’ intention to donate charity to the widow of a distinguished naval officer. He took his position from an encounter with a citizen who called him out for a similar funding decision that Crockett made in another devastating occurrence. Crockett was credited with the following description of the situation:

Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

Later, when Crockett was out on the campaign trail, he encountered a citizen who had once supported him, but was going to withdraw future support for the recent action that Crockett had supported in Congress. The man, Horatio Bunce, shared his reasoning:

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.

Crockett took Bunce’s counsel to heart, thus denying Congress’ later efforts to provide charity to the naval officer.

*     *     *     *

To be clear, I am ambivalent about our involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. At this writing, our national debt is at $31,457,4472,102,309, or $94,292 per person. In how many different ways have we used federal funds to ingratiate ourselves to other nations, or to strengthen relationships with our allies, and managed to violate the Constitution? How many times have our intentions to be charitable to those in our own country violated the Constitution? Does our sympathy for the Ukrainians and the war inflicted on them by the Russians justify our apparent limitless funding to assist them? Is there any point where we have gone too far? Does the possibility of stricter oversight justify our borrowing even more money to fund our contributions to Ukraine?

Davy Crockett’s story begs the question: Do we know what we are doing in Ukraine?

[photo courtesy of Getty Images]

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 298 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    To my mind we are hurting Russia by hurting ourselves. As with Reagan’s build up, to which the fall of the Berlin Wall and the loss of Russian satellites are attributed, it costs money to cost to make others pay. 

    My larger concern is that an open checkbook policy for a non-ally who is being usurped is endlessly repeatable. 

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    TBA (View Comment):
    it costs money to cost to make others pay. 

    ?? Or did you mean it costs money to make others pay?

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    TBA (View Comment):

    To my mind we are hurting Russia by hurting ourselves. As with Reagan’s build up, to which the fall of the Berlin Wall and the loss of Russian satellites are attributed, it costs money to cost to make others pay.

    My larger concern is that an open checkbook policy for a non-ally who is being usurped is endlessly repeatable.

    The story is slightly different from past situations, but how often are we going to engage in other countries with no end in sight to our detriment?

    • #3
  4. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    No. 

    • #4
  5. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    Susan Quinn:

    Davy Crockett’s story begs the question: Do we know what we are doing in Ukraine?

    Susan, this is the real issue regarding Ukraine: no one can state clearly and authoritatively exactly what are the U.S.’s national strategic interests in Ukraine?

    Mr Biden hasn’t delivered a speech or address to the American public what his goals and objectives are. Likely this is due to his inability to speak coherently on any topic, but that doesn’t relieve him of the duty and responsibility.

    The Senate has a constitutional role in shaping foreign policy. Has the Senate held a single public hearing on establishing ends, ways, and means for U.S. policies vis-a-vis Ukraine? (Not to my knowledge…)

    Has the Press held either Congress or The President accountable for these failures? Nope. (Sadly, neither has the American people.)

    That leaves the Administrative State, operating on auto-pilot, doing what it does best: taxing and spending to protect its own status and interests.

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):
    Susan, this is the real issue regarding Ukraine: no one can state clearly and authoritatively exactly what are the U.S.’s national strategic interests in Ukraine?

    Very well stated, PH! What the heck are we doing? I certainly can identify with how heart-rending the situation is, how horrible it is for the Ukrainians, but these are real-world issues. Thanks.

    • #6
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    I believe that Ukrainian independence serves the interests of NATO and the United States. Vladimir imagines himself tzar. He needs to be disabused of the notion. He’s already absorbed Chechnya and installed that preposterous twerp Kadyrov as his puppet. He’s got Lukashenko ensconced in Belarus. The list no doubt includes Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland …  Putin thought he would make short work of Ukraine with President Cornpop in charge.

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I believe the Ukrainians should be supported by Europe, whether NATO is involved or not. It’s time they stepped up; if they don’t, Vladimir will be knocking on their doors next. We can no longer afford to save the world; our own survival could be at stake. 

    • #8
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    It is the best interests of the United States that Russia be defeated.  Many of the arms we are giving to Ukraine are ones that are being discontinued in the United States Military, just as FDR supplied out-dated destroyers to England under the Lend-Lease Act. 

    At times like this it is instructive to ask “What would Reagan do?”  Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, and sponsored the Strategic Defense Initiative.  He won the Cold War without firing a shot.  Reagan would have supported the people of Ukraine from Russia.  

    • #9
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Davy Crockett encountered a constituent who had not already been indoctrinated in a public education system with the process we can observe teaching our children what to think as provided by government. Rand Paul recognizes this as being the crux of the divide in America and he works to increase the knowledge of this fact. Let’s pray that it is working. I happen to believe that the climate change movement influencing government policies on energy production is the primary factor and the science does not support that. We have seen governments attach to and act quickly on false premises like what happened in the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Here’s an article explaining how this is being done:

    Getting Out of the Lifeboats…

     

    • #10
  11. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    I think it is in our interest and the interest of global peace for Russia to stay on its side of its borders.  If they had quickly been able to conquer Ukraine, I think it would just be a matter of time before they started looking at other neighboring properties that they would like to annex.

    Whether or not this spending is Constitutional is an interesting question, though.  I’d be happy to stop aid to Ukraine today, if we can also phase out spending for the million other things that are not Constitutionally authorized.

    • #11
  12. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is the best interests of the United States that Russia be defeated.

    Please elaborate on this point, @garyrobbins. It’s clear from the OP and some of the comments that it is not clear to all what those interests are, and if we have legitimate interests, if this is the best way to securing said interests.

    Merely saying, “It is in the best interests of the United States” is not an argument.

    • #12
  13. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    Davy Crockett’s story begs the question: Do we know what we are doing in Ukraine?

    Susan, this is the real issue regarding Ukraine: no one can state clearly and authoritatively exactly what are the U.S.’s national strategic interests in Ukraine?

    Mr Biden hasn’t delivered a speech or address to the American public what his goals and objectives are. Likely this is due to his inability to speak coherently on any topic, but that doesn’t relieve him of the duty and responsibility.

    The Senate has a constitutional role in shaping foreign policy. Has the Senate held a single public hearing on establishing ends, ways, and means for U.S. policies vis-a-vis Ukraine? (Not to my knowledge…)

    Has the Press held either Congress or The President accountable for these failures? Nope. (Sadly, neither has the American people.)

    That leaves the Administrative State, operating on auto-pilot, doing what it does best: taxing and spending to protect its own status and interests.

    Mr. Biden also has said that we are at the closest use of nuclear weapons since the Cuba Missile Crisis. If that is truly the case, that would be good for the public to know. Instead of a national address, the message was told to a group of Democrat donors at a campaign dinner. We only know about it because of a press story.

    We saw the Administrative State working on auto-pilot during Trump’s term. When Trump wanted to work his policy with Ukraine, a Ukrainian spy in the national security group was upset that Trump wasn’t following foreign policy. Look Fat, Trump is the chief executive. It’s his policy, not yours. Instead, the Administrative State successfully took out someone they saw as a danger.

    • #13
  14. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    At times like this it is instructive to ask “What would Reagan do?”  Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, and sponsored the Strategic Defense Initiative.  He won the Cold War without firing a shot.  Reagan would have supported the people of Ukraine from Russia.

    you forget there were two sides to Reagan. The later side of Reagan put the Richard Pearles out to pasture and was sharply criticized by the likes of George Will for getting too chummy with the Russians. What Reagan did gave the Russians the assurance that the Americans weren’t going to skewer them if they climbed down. Turns out, the Russians were wrong. As with many around here, you view Nato as being a defensive alliance creeping closer and closer to Russia’s borders and taking control of the passages through which invasions are launched against Russia. Russia is one of the countries in Europe that counts. We took no account of them. Our wise options were to make a military alliance with a weakened Russia or to make the Warsaw Pact Eastern European nations neutral on Austrian or Finland models. Instead, we pursued a revanchist policy.

    • #14
  15. Tex929rr Coolidge
    Tex929rr
    @Tex929rr

    Hang On (View Comment)

    Russia is one of the countries in Europe that counts. We took no account of them. Our wise options were to make a military alliance with a weakened Russia or to make the Warsaw Pact Eastern European nations neutral on Austrian or Finland models. Instead, we pursued a revanchist policy.

    After reading some of the previous posts I was thinking how we are reliving the 1930’s with Russia standing in for Germany and China taking the place of Japan (yet much more dangerous). But you added the point of how we placed Putin where he is by nursing his resentments, just like the treaty of Versailles.  And then we elected a nitwit with the confidence of an NFL quarterback with none of the commensurate skill set. 

    • #15
  16. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Percival (View Comment):
    I believe that Ukrainian independence serves the interests of NATO and the United States. Vladimir imagines himself tzar.

    What also serves the United States is keeping our money and having Russia as an ally against China. 

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I believe the Ukrainians should be supported by Europe, whether NATO is involved or not. It’s time they stepped up; if they don’t, Vladimir will be knocking on their doors next. We can no longer afford to save the world; our own survival could be at stake.

    I agree with this. If we, the US,  can do all that we are obviously doing without invoking any connection with NATO itself, then every nation of Europe under threat by the Russian incursion can do just as much. I don’t know the facts in place but certainly this statement is reasonable.

    • #17
  18. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    I believe that Ukrainian independence serves the interests of NATO and the United States. Vladimir imagines himself tzar.

    What also serves the United States is keeping our money and having Russia as an ally against China.

    Small problem- it is clear Russia doesn’t want to be our ally. Other than that it a great plan…

    • #18
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    It is the best interests of the United States that Russia be defeated. Many of the arms we are giving to Ukraine are ones that are being discontinued in the United States Military, just as FDR supplied out-dated destroyers to England under the Lend-Lease Act.

    At times like this it is instructive to ask “What would Reagan do?” Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, and sponsored the Strategic Defense Initiative. He won the Cold War without firing a shot. Reagan would have supported the people of Ukraine from Russia.

    Outdated begs the question because they must be replaced and that costs money. When two countries are at war and we enter on one side, the other side can consider that to be an act of war. This isn’t the same as Grenada.

     

    • #19
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Tex929rr (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment)

    Russia is one of the countries in Europe that counts. We took no account of them. Our wise options were to make a military alliance with a weakened Russia or to make the Warsaw Pact Eastern European nations neutral on Austrian or Finland models. Instead, we pursued a revanchist policy.

    After reading some of the previous posts I was thinking how we are reliving the 1930’s with Russia standing in for Germany and China taking the place of Japan (yet much more dangerous). But you added the point of how we placed Putin where he is by nursing his resentments, just like the treaty of Versailles. And then we elected a nitwit with the confidence of an NFL quarterback with none of the commensurate skill set.

    That’s a very astute comparison.

    • #20
  21. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Instead, the Administrative State successfully took out someone they saw as a danger.

    … to the Administrative State.

    • #21
  22. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    If it’s strategically inadvisable and/or unconstitutional to provide Ukraine with financial and military aid to defend itself from Russian occupation, does that not mean that every single post-WWII intervention in the defensive and/or internal affairs of other countries was equally inadvisable and/or unconstitutional?

    Is the American right going to officially denounce historical direct military interventions in countries like Korea, Vietnam, Granada, Kuwait, Iraq; the myriad covert activities to undermine other countries’ governments; and the many examples financial and military aid given to (often corrupt) governments to defend their countries from Soviet communism?

    If those interventions were and are justified, then why NOT Ukraine?

    • #22
  23. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    I believe that Ukrainian independence serves the interests of NATO and the United States. Vladimir imagines himself tzar.

    What also serves the United States is keeping our money and having Russia as an ally against China.

    Vladimir doesn’t want an ally. Yet. 

    The big push to join NATO hasn’t come from us. It has come from countries whose misfortune it is to have been part of the Russian Empire. It seems they don’t much like Russians. And no, I don’t think Estonia is planning on invading the Rodina.

    The most effective salesman for Nato membership in the last thirty years has been Vladimir himself. He made his best pitch 24 February 2022.

    • #23
  24. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    I believe that Ukrainian independence serves the interests of NATO and the United States. Vladimir imagines himself tzar.

    What also serves the United States is keeping our money and having Russia as an ally against China.

    Small problem- it is clear Russia doesn’t want to be our ally. Other than that it a great plan…

    Devil’s Advocate Mode: Just because one is not an ally it does not necessarily mean that one is an enemy. The vast majority of the countries on the planet are not allies of the USA, nor do they wish to be.

    If Russia is actually an enemy of the USA then shouldn’t its status as such not be declared officially?

    Of course, the US government hasn’t made such a declaration since WWII.

    • #24
  25. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Percival (View Comment):
    The big push to join NATO hasn’t come from us. It has come from countries whose misfortune it is to have been part of the Russian Empire.

    There’s a danger to bringing a bunch of little countries into NATO, who then decide that they can be belligerent and demand that we bail them out with our own blood and treasure.

    And no, I don’t think Estonia is planning on invading the Rodina.

    But if they did, we’d be on the hook. That’s the danger of inviting everyone and his auntie into NATO.

    • #25
  26. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Percival (View Comment):
    Vladimir imagines himself tzar. He needs to be disabused of the notion.

    The US Constitution does not grant Congress or the President the power to tell other countries what form of government they must adopt. If Russia wants to be governed by a tzar, that’s Russia’s prerogative.

    The question is whether the US (and its NATO allies) should expend blood and treasure to stop Russia from seizing the territory of its neighbours, even when the country in question is not a member of NATO.

    • #26
  27. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Is it really charity? Or are you paying the Ukrainian side of politics whose actions have a geopolitical benefit for the US?

    • #27
  28. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
    The question is whether the US (and its NATO allies) should expend blood and treasure to stop Russia from seizing the territory of its neighbours, even when the country in question is not a member of NATO.

    Yes, seems to me we could ask ourselves, the US, what would we being doing differently if Ukraine were a NATO member?

    • #28
  29. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    The big push to join NATO hasn’t come from us. It has come from countries whose misfortune it is to have been part of the Russian Empire.

    There’s a danger to bringing a bunch of little countries into NATO, who then decide that they can be belligerent and demand that we bail them out with our own blood and treasure.

    The NATO treaty does not state that NATO members commit to assist other NATO members when they initiate military action.  For example, NATO members were not obligated to help the US in Korea, or Vietnam, or Grenada, or Panama, or Iraq.

    (One could argue that NATO members were obligated to help Britain in the Falkland Islands since Argentina was the aggressor in that case. Luckily for NATO, Britain did not request such assistance, probably because they knew such assistance would not be guaranteed. I was wrong. Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that Article 5 covers only member states’ territories in Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. The Falklands do not apply. Neither do European possessions in the Caribbean or Africa. US possessions in the Pacific also do not apply, including Hawaii.)

    • #29
  30. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    The big push to join NATO hasn’t come from us. It has come from countries whose misfortune it is to have been part of the Russian Empire.

    There’s a danger to bringing a bunch of little countries into NATO, who then decide that they can be belligerent and demand that we bail them out with our own blood and treasure.

    The NATO treaty does not state that NATO members commit to assist other NATO members when they initiate military action.

    What if they’re just poking the bear over and over and over . . . and then bear decides it’s had enough. And then they come running to the Big Dog demanding we act?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.