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.
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
Correct. Estonia’s $0.3 billion to Ukraine since the start of the war pales in comparison to that of the US’s $48 billion (as of Nov ’22). In terms of percent-of-GDP, however, it is about 4 times larger: 1.1% vs 0.25%.
Source:
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/data-sets/ukraine-support-tracker-data-17410/
European and North American nations have tried engaging with Russia over the past 30 years. The problem is that the malevolent Russia keeps presenting itself, causing European and North American nations to recalibrate their policy towards Russia.
Finland is a good example of this change of heart. Prior to Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, support among Finns for joining NATO was at around 20 percent. But a few months after Putin’s invasion, support among Finns for joining NATO rose to majority levels.
The President of Finland, when announcing his support for Finland’s application to join NATO, said, “Putin, you did this!”
Similar, but less dramatic, changes in foreign policy regarding Russia have taken place in other European nations.
A degree of “freezing” of alliances/unions is necessary, to avoid socio-political-economic unpredictability/instability.
If circumstances (regional/continental/geopolitical) change sufficiently, however, such “freezing” becomes problematic, and the process of un-“freezing” can be quite wrenching, and sometimes (often?) results in socio-political-economic instability at best and, at worst, … war.
The trick is to avoid the extremes of either too little or too much “freezing”. History, unfortunately, abounds with examples of just how difficult that is to achieve.
That didn’t take any salesmanship. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were pulling down statues of Lenin right and left. They volunteered. So for that matter did Sweden and Finland – that thug Putin made that sale.
Since 1917, but on what terms?
There was economic aid. And Russia under Putin was invited to be part of the G-8.
Nothing historically illiterate about it- the East European nations had a better understanding of Russia than anybody else ( thru painful direct experience) & fully realized it would be a problem in the future as soon as the opportunity arose.
The historical literacy problem is yours- you didn’t see the history of Russian expansionism and it’s attitude towards, & treatment of, its “little Slavic brothers”.
Russia doesn’t exactly issue invitations. They just roll in.
Ukraine is a little more complicated than that.
AGAIN, …
Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic ascended into NATO in March of … 1999. More than a year before “that thug Putin” became President.
Good grief. Your PDS is really quite something. It apparently doesn’t even allow you to receive, let alone process information/data/facts the very absolute space/time nature of which makes their validity incontrovertible. Wow. Just wow.
In 1918, Ukraine declared itself independent.
In 1921, the Red Army rolled in and put an end to that.
In 1932-33, the Soviets conducted a man-made famine in Ukraine. Somewhere between three to five million Ukrainians starved to death, a fact that somehow evaded the New York Times.
The Russians have two singular talents. The first is to be intensely disliked by those who live next to them. The second is to be utterly unaware of the first.
Oh great, we have transitioned from what’s their pronoun to what’s their article.
Because the Eastern Europeans knew more about Russia than anyone else…..they didn’t need to wait for Putin to confirm their understanding of Russian proclivities-it ain’t just Putin that is the problem.
I think they just don’t care. Do you care if Mexicans like Americans or not?
What if the Treaty of Westfalia (1648) included a mutual defense agreement like NATO does. What would Europe look like today? Would those borders have held for 400 years?
I’d just as soon that they thought well of us. Apparently they do; enough of them come up here on a regular basis.
Reciprocally, …
The Russians know more about Eastern (and Middle, and Southern, and Northern/Scandinavian, etc.) Europeans and their proclivities than anyone else as well. They’ve had to learn those lessons, repeatedly, (in existential ways that, say, our country has NEVER really had to) for hundreds of years.
PS:
Not to mention the “proclivities” of the people to the East of them that they’ve had to worry about for centuries, as well. Mongols, etc.
IOW, Russia has had to find ways to survive in a mighty tough neighborhood for many centuries now, in ways that our “from sea to shining sea” country has NEVER had to.
Really they’re all acting reasonably (ie with reason), but so is the US.
Yup.
Geopolitics ain’t beanbag. Never has been, never will be.
Of course that is part & parcel of Russia’s problem- it remembers its grievances for the last 800+ years- but refuses to see those of others (that they caused) from the last 80 years……like the Bourbon’s they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing (apologies to Talleyrand)
like the Holodomar, Chernobyl, all the forced deportations of the Baltic populations (and Russian ingress)…the seizure of power in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (and murder of Masaryk) etc etc
addendum-not to forget the fact that Russia (then called the USSR-but it was Russia) that co-started WW2 as the ally of Germany…..
So what is your source? ……Still waiting….
But we’ll never know what foreign leaders know. Or, what they think they know. We should assume that diplomats and generals are covertly communicating in non-public ways. This makes it hard to judge and predict.
The simultaneous nursing of grievances against others and excusing of one’s own trespasses is an art practiced by all nations. Singling out Russia as particularly (uniquely?) susceptible to this is poppycock.
except when it is so obviously true…
A 2 hour 41 minute video?
Isn’t that like asking for a source on the claim that some governments in subSaharan Africa are corrupt, or that the Pakistanis don’t trust the Indians, or that California is interested in passing some new leftist economic policies sometime in the next couple of years?
Haha:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/21152461/putin-us-weapons-afghan-taliban/
MAD VLAD Putin plotting to ‘grab US weapons left behind during Afghan evacuation and seized by Taliban’, Kremlin insider claims
Like I said the source is Russian Telegram- -read the article-not reliable:
“Putin wants US equipment snatched from Afghanistan by the Taliban to be handed over, according to Telegram channel General SVR”
addendum- the article adds:
“Much of this equipment may have been removed by the US, may have been out of service, and may have been destroyed.”
as I noted when this topic was 1st brought up.
The article claims Putin wants to trade Russian arms for American arms left behind-which makes very little sense since Putin needs to add weapons not trade them