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
The process for the enlargement of NATO is defined by Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The only official prerequisite is the unanimous approval of all existing NATO members. That current members insist on a “stable, corruption-free government” before they will vote to accept a new member is entirely their prerogative, but it is not an official prerequisite according to the treaty.
Except for Turkey. Erdogan insists that we pretend we like him.
Which of these is a vital national interest of the U.S., and when was the debate on them held?
We have representatives in government who are supposed to come to a consensus among the competing interests. I follow the news (not as closely as some of y’all though) and can’t recall a robust debate on this in the Congress, nor can I recall an address to the nation outlining the case for supporting UKR in their war against RUS.
I think the stable, corruption free govt thing is for joining the EU.
NATO requires (de facto if not in the treaty?) that the applicant not have any territorial disputes going on.
From the website:
And from the 1995 Study:
So weirdly NATO’s involvement in Ukraine is maintaining a situation which technically precludes Ukraine from joining NATO. If the words mean anything.
Susan, you need to edit your post so that it reads “billions” – not millions.
Some critics say we have already offered up some 500 billions of dollars, which is a half trillion bucks. I suppose it depends on whether or not you count in the semi-obsolete weaponry we have given them already.
The WOKE believe that we are only providing fuel, food, medicine and other necessities.
According to this article:
“Most witnesses agree that it was the Canadian dean of NATO ambassadors, David Wright, who in a conversation with the US permanent representative, Nicholas Burns, brought the idea on the table to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter that would call for collective defence. The NATO ambassadors soon agreed on this initiative and reached back to their capitals to receive authorisation.”
Well, Russia’s neighbors dress provocatively so they probably deserve it.
I think that comes very close to violating the Ricochet CofC’s prohibition on conspiracy theory.
I’m not disagreeing, I think you are entitled to that public debate, but I don’t think you’ll ever get it. Not on Ukraine and in fact not on many areas of your foreign policy.
I’m not sure our own government is a stable corruption free government.
Arguably, Japan was mostly ticked off because the West had largely supported its military activities on the mainland up to that point. e.g. Europe and the US fought in concert with Japan to put down the Boxer Rebellion.
Indeed, one might note that the US, Britain and the Netherlands only imposed economic sanctions after China had occupied French Indochina in 1941. The sanctions were NOT about Japan’s activities in China.
I hate to agree with you on this point, Zafar, but I don’t think we’ll ever get that debate.
The NATO obligation is can be ignored at our choosing by providing trivial assistance.
That is not clear at all. I am sure we broker a deal where Russia gets some oblasts and agrees to pay to clean stuff up.
To be honest (?) it’s the end point of a period where discussion on many different issues has been essentially shut down in the public sphere – or at least so severely constrained to ‘acceptable’ opinion that it has become the norm. True across the West (the East? Fuhgedaboutit, it was always that way) – and it’s something we’ve all gone along with when the opinions being suppressed were not ones we were in sympathy with. We gave it away, incrementally.
Edited to add:
This is for much much longer than the COVID info thing. Think McCarthy, or perhaps there are examples that precede his era?
There are several countries that joined NATO that can hardly have been described as having “corruption-free” governments at the time of their admissions. Is Ukraine’s government really that much more corrupt than were those of Greece in 1952, Spain in 1982, Bulgaria in 2004, or Albania in 2009?
I wager that NATO’s hesitance about admitting Ukraine had way more to do with Ukraine’s stability than with the alleged corruption of its government. Too much of Ukraine’s own population simply could not be relied upon to join in Ukraine’s own defence.
Russia did ask to join NATO, after all.
I’m not so sure. I don’t see them agreeing to pay.
But like Ukraine, Afghanistan wasn’t a “war’ and it certainly had no defined mission. At least with Russia, the US has one stated mission, to depose Putin (and to stay in there “no matter how long it takes” or what the cost).
But do you see that for NATO it would be a whole lot of trouble to admit a country that is politically unstable?
Note: That study is only, well, a study. The treaty itself does not include any such requirement. Technically, NATO members are free to vote according to their own interests. Practically, it doesn’t even get to a vote unless there’s already unanimous agreement between the existing members. It’s a very backroom sort of process.
No, that only applies to fruitcakes.
I don’t think it’s been an issue with Turkey. I guess it’s a matter of having the country’s army in the tank.
I liked Paul in 2002, in his protests against the coming war in Iraq.
And continue to find solace in his pronouncements today:
I’ll add this: if a person is under the age of 40, in good health and patriotic enough that they feel the need to support a war with a decal of an American flag on their car, then the individual should be immediately conscripted to fight in the war which they so heroically support.
The same goes for those individuals who are supporting Ukraine with the blue and yellow flags on their homes or cars.
If not able to physically be in the military, then let them donate 2/3rds their income and wealth to support the war.
The costs of these multi- trillion dollar “investments” in war always end up being passed along to our kids and grand kids. Inflation is another offering that comes the way of the working class, due to wars we’re not really paying for yet but which demand the printing presses at US Treasury churn out these vast sums.
You realize I was referring to Rand Paul. . .
NATO isn’t involved in Ukraine. According to its website, NATO isn’t even currently conducting exercises in its Baltic or Balkan members’ territories.
Some of NATO’s members happen to be providing financial and military aid to Ukraine, but that ain’t NATO itself.
Any thinking person can find so many objections to the way the US citizenry is being led into this war against Russia via our allying with the Ukraine that it is mind boggling to realize so many support this.
I am glad you are making these statements.
The only winner in any of this are the top two nations in the world: China and India.
Both nations are staying out of the fray. Both realize that if nations Number Three and Number Four weaken each other, and destroy the actual nation of Ukraine in the process, they will be stronger.
The Boxer Rebellion was forty years before. In 1939, the embargo was for airplanes, parts for airplanes, aviation fuel, and machine tools. In 1940, that was expanded to oil, steel and iron scrap, and other stuff. In June 1941, Roosevelt froze all Japanese assets in the US. I think the UK and the Netherlands joined the oil embargo then.
Wasn’t Turkey stable when it was inducted into NATO? I don’t know but I thought is was always fairly stable, up until fundamentalist islamization.
Specifically, it’s a prohibition on conspiracy theories about fruitcakes. Big Fruitcake has got a team of lawyers like you wouldn’t believe.