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
I think it’s more like bribery.
Or blackmail.
Some have asked in response to the title is our expenditure charity. Do we even know why we are supporting Ukraine? Do we have anything from Congress other than authorizing lines for expenditures in budget legislation?
That’s the question. What vital national interest of the U.S. is at stake here? A second question is if this is the best way to advance our interests (assuming there are any).
A third set of questions is what we expect from UKR in return for our generosity. Are they actually paying for these weapon systems? What are they going to do for the U.S.? Are we sending them with no strings attached? Etc.
Great questions, Mis, and I think others are better prepared to answer them than I am. But I’d say analyzing the past to learn from it, rather than trying to decide in hindsight whether we should have gone there, would be a more productive activity: how did we make our decisions to go there? Were they wise decisions? If not, why not? How can those actions guide us in the future? And I don’t have simple answers to offer. But just saying that our national security is at risk as a blanket statement, without really evaluating the truth of that statement, is lazy and unhelpful. We are in a different world and we are obligated (I believe) to assess our role in it. I’m not for a radical isolationism, but we should be able to analyze and justify any interventions.
I can maybe see the parallel between Russia and 1930s Germany, but comparing China to 1930s Japan feels like too much of a stretch.
The Empire of Japan had been invading its neighbours and expanding its territory for decades prior to the 1930s. By contrast, China hasn’t invaded any of its neighbours in over 70 years (i.e. when it annexed Tibet).
That one, yes.
I hate typing on phones.
Their other neighbours in Europe are either NATO members (or soon-to-be NATO members) or they’re already Russian client states. As such, Ukraine is the only territory in Europe that’s suitable for a hot war.
Meanwhile in Asia, their neighbours are already client states of Russia or China so why bother invading?
I’m fairly certain there were shots fired in Grenada.
I have no knowledge of what kinds of financial rules govern disposal of existing military equipment when it is declared out-of-date.
It is interesting what I think I have seen in the disposal of used equipment by civilian agencies when they no longer have use for equipment or they simply have funds in their budget for new equipment that the agency must use or lose so they frequently dispose of equipment under these circumstances that has hardly been used at all. They apparently can dispose of equipment at their discretion and only need to recover the administrative costs of the disposal. These procedures seem to require nothing in regard to the actual market value of the equipment. Government contractors apparently have an inside track to acquire equipment at these low costs.
I have seen stories reporting military equipment to have moved through Ukraine and surfaced in the hands of groups in other countries, even on other continents.
A lot happens when people are after your tax dollars.
I’ve heard that we didn’t initially request assistance after the attack on 9/11. Some of the NATO members came to the US leaders and said, “Remember Article 5? You guys thinking about invoking it?”
At the end of the day, as soon as the US stops honouring its promises to defend certain nations from invasion that’ll be the moment when all bets are off and governments with territorial aspirations will lose all their expansionist inhibitions.
Abandoning Ukraine to Russia sends a huge signal that America’s promises of protection mean nothing, thereby giving North Korea incentive to invade South Korea, giving China incentive to invade Taiwan, and giving incentive for anybody else with eyes on their neighbours’ territory to invade whoever.
That does not mean that the US has no choice but to defend Ukraine. It simply means that the US has no choice but to weigh the consequences of not defending Ukraine. Maybe a new era of widespread territorial invasions all around the planet is worth it to stop spending taxpayers’ money defending other countries from invasion.
I liked John Yoo’s arguments on the 3-Whiskey Show: We’re destroying the Russian military by arming Ukraine. That is a good thing. And Yoo went further: Even if 10 percent of the funds go to corruption, it’s still a good deal.
Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):
I think the China/Japan comparison is in fact easier than Russia/Germany. After all, Putin doesn’t need lebensraum. But both 20-30’s Japan and current China have a huge racial/national undercurrent driven by a fierce resentment of the west not recognizing their perceived cultural and technological superiority. Japan had then and China has now a huge chip on their shoulders relative to the rest of the developed world.
I’m still of the opinion that Russia would not have dared to invade if Ukraine had been a NATO member. The fact that NATO kept obstructing Ukraine’s admission, even after the annexation of Crimea, sent Putin a strong signal about the West’s (lack of) commitment to defend Ukraine directly.
People might say that it’s in the US’ interests to promote freedom and democracy everywhere.
Or that it’s in the US’ interests to hobble Russia, which is an intrinsically malevolent force in the world.
Or to stop Russian-European economic integration because then why would they need you?
Or that special interests in the US have enough institutional capture going on that they consistently turn a private profit from public expenditure on war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine….)
Or….I guess many other options.
I think you’ll find that you are.
Just sending them sets forces in motion. The US is smart enough not to depend on ‘strings’.
(Plus – there are competing interests in the US. So saying ‘the US’ or ‘Ukraine’ or even ‘Russia’ when talking about interests and agendas in this context is inherently inexact.)
As with most things John Yoo says, it’s a nonsensical argument. The Russian military isn’t being destroyed. Quite the opposite.
But are Americans entitled to hear the reasons from their elected government?
I though one of the prerequisites for NATO admission was a stable corruption free government. I’m not sure Ukraine has had this.
How the heck have NATO’s Baltic members, let alone non-NATO Ukraine, been poking Russia “over and over and over”?
It may well be argued that NATO as an organization and/or the United States have been poking the bear, but I see no evidence of Russia’s neighbours doing so.
Or is it that Nato wanted Russia to invade? Considering what Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko have said about Minsk, the shelling of the breakaway areas of Ukraine, and the slaughter of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, I’m increasingly convinced that has been the plan. It has been a passive-aggressive policy. Great way to make money for American political elite.
I’ve come late to this OP “dance”, so forgive me if this quote has already been used:
Dressing something up as “national security” when it isn’t is a classic example of NewSpeak. The Military-Industrial Complex was opposed by a very astute former General. He was the last President that may have conceivably not been limited in his Executive ability by them.
I’m not saying they have. I’m saying “what if”? And I’m saying that’s a danger in letting in every country that begs to be let in.
Just like the Iraq war was nothing but a way to funnel contracts to Halliburton?
Doing nothing to stop Russia from annexing its European neighbours strikes me as the epitome of isolationism.
Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, but I feel we gotta call a spade a spade. Abandoning Ukraine to Russian annexation would mean that Pax Americana is officially over and done with and virtually all the planet’s borders are now up for grabs (except for those of official NATO members).
We don’t need to. Putin hasn’t been able to shut his yap about Russia being opposed to the US since the late W administration. Remember Hillary and her “reset” button?
Let’s say that all wars contain the possibility of mission creep in that direction right from inception. I think that’s what happened in Afghanistan, and that’s why it went on so long. Whether it’s part of the original mission – well, probably partly at least. And to be fair, that degree probably varies from war to war. It seems prominent – to my untutored eye – in the US’ involvement in Ukraine.
Ha! You are all Palestinians now, get used to it!
Borders? Borders?! That’s such provincial thinking. In our Brave New World, there are no borders!
And we tried “soft power” by embargoing the raw materials Japan needed for their China war. So they invaded the western Pacific and bombed Pearl Harbor.
When did the U.S. promise to protect UKR? It wasn’t the Budapest Memorandum; I can’t recall a treaty requiring us to do so. When did this happen?