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
From a tactical standpoint Russia has not been able to establish air superiority over Ukraine. It is the same problem that affected Russia’s war with Georgia, as well as the inability to prevent Israel from striking Syria with impunity as they destroy Iranian ammo depots and Iranian militia in Damascus and the Lebanese border.
Russia has had to move their Black Sea fleet further away from Crimea because their air force cannot protect Russian warships. The sinking of the Moskva is an example of this failure as there was no air cover to protect the Moskva.
Protecting supply lines and providing air support for ground troops is crucial. You can only seize ground with foot soldiers.
Ukraine has not won the war, but they have not lost the war. The one-year mark of Russia’s invasion is about a month away.
Indeed, people seem to throw the word “ally” around way too freely. To be allies means that the countries have some sort of mutual defence agreement, if not an official mutual defence treaty. It does not mean to be vaguely friendly with each other.
e.g. Switzerland and Ireland are no more allies of the United States than are Russia or China (and the US does way more business with China than with either of ’em).
Out of the 206 recognized sovereign states, only 49 are allies of the United States.
They kept having army coups, so not very stable.
Yeah. But soon you’ll be censoring comments about Big Fruitc —
At what point did Congress vote to make such a mission the official policy of the United States?
Nothing so crude as censorship. We all just think comments about Big Fruitcake are nutty. Who doesn’t like fruitcake? Only a monster!!!!
Well obviously, but…
Turkey was admitted to NATO in 1952, when it was arguably a wee bit more stable, and the North Atlantic Treaty does not include any mechanism for the suspension or expulsion of a member.
Any attempt to suspend or expel a member state would legally have to “emanate from the penumbra” of the parts of the treaty that call on member states to be good little children, such as Article 2 for example.
Official? Let’s just say that the president and others highly placed repeatedly said it. Does that count?
As long as whoever is in charge can be counted on to meet their treaty obligations, that probably qualifies as “stability” for all intents and purposes of NATO’s other member states. In Ukraine’s case, the current member states were not unanimously convinced, for whatever reason.
These are good questions, Susan.
I’m in a pretty small minority in my view of the Russo-Ukrainian War. I don’t even agree with the formulation about the Russians having “inflicted” the war on the Ukrainians. I think that it was more complicated than that.
I don’t even have much sympathy for the Ukrainians. It’s complicated, and it seems to me that the conflict with Russia resulted from rather ugly internal politics, coupled with an aggressive NATO and EU effort to bring Ukraine into our sphere of influence.
I guess that I do have sympathy for the poor people who are suffering, Ukrainian and Russian alike. It is an ugly situation. I don’t find Russia’s position to have been unreasonable in the beginning, and I tend to think that we were unreasonable in ignoring their security concerns.
I think that the most important lesson from the fighting over the past 11 months was the extent to which the military power of Russia was vastly overstated, by the Neocons and Liberal Imperialists alike.
It is probably in our interest that, since it is an adversary if not an enemy, Russia spend its resources, including the blood of its young men, on others so they will not be available for action against us and our allies.
The current president says a lot of things that bear no relation to reality.
Do these critics have any names? Any crediblity? Or are they the rants of people who use ouiji boards-like sott net?
I’m not sure but I think at least the Pentagon spokesman and the Sec Def have said it as well.
Added: And I’ve listened for what our goals are, these are the most prominent two of the only three. The third being driving Russia out of Ukraine, but this is not as frequently or as unequivocally stated.
Added #2: And at least for the first six months or so, any settlement that US officials said would be considered, firstly (and usually only) called for the removal of Putin.
This from the guy (Ron Paul) whose investment strategy was “one step short of a basement full of canned beans & 9 mm” back when he ran for president (WSJ did an investigation of all the candidate investments). One of the WSJ better articles.
Number 1&2 by what criteria? other than population they don’t rank that high in any desirable metric.
The war in Ukraine is a disaster for Russia & in many ways has benefited the USA. NATO is increasing its defense expenditures (something Trump wanted but could not get-thanks Putin). With a NATO stronger & Russia weaker our “pivot to Asia” is easier. Additionally, everyone can see our weapons are very effective & our friendship desirable-look at the Baltic states & Poland- they all want more US involvement not less. They are all ordering more US made weapons (HIMARS, javelins & M1s are selling like hotcakes). A victorious Ukraine & a wary Poland would make excellent partners in NATO for the USA.
Neocons big mad that people are questioning their grift.
Deflection? Deflection!
“Play to your strengths.”
Curious. I wasn’t aware that the government of Ukraine had officially delegated that nation’s sovereignty to the US Department of Defense. How else can the DoD claim to speak on behalf of the the government of Ukraine?
Ron Paul’s statement is in line with the analysis CarolJoy offers:
These were US officials speaking of US goals. I don’t think Ukraine has ever been calling the shots.
I would love an approach where the total tax would be set, but then people could allocate it the way they wanted. Then Govt would really have to cut its coat to the cloth the public gave them.
These days, that’s a BIG “If”
Just imagine if we had properly withdrawn from Afghanistan with the bulk of our equipment and weapons. That’s the kind of materiel we could/should be passing along to the Ukranians.
It’s not just fruitcakes. Pretty much all baked desserts are in on it.
I’m not ambivalent at all. The Ukraine is not our business. I wish them well, but the policy of arming them is dangerous. The policy of stealing yachts from Russian citizens will come back and bite us in the future.
As an aside, I would not buy, or accept as a gift, or be paid to take possession of these stolen yachts because I’m pretty sure their new owners will drown. Or worse.
The Ukraine, as most countries, is corrupt. More corrupt than most. Perhaps not as corrupt as we have become. We don’t do much business with them. We have denuded our stockpile of weapons to fight their war. It’s not even a proxy war. We are quite open about our assistance. That is an act of war, and we should be quite grateful that the USSR, er, I mean Russia hasn’t openly attacked us in response. We are fanning the flames of a world war for the sake of what has been part of Russia for hundreds of years. Russia, paranoid as always, does not take it lightly that we are trying to deprive them of their black sea access. Honestly, we’re just saving their navy from their predictable perennial embarrassment, but they don’t see it that way.
We are weaker because of The Ukraine. Our weapons are depleted. Lindsay Graham, who hasn’t seen a conflict that he hasn’t wanted to escalate and involve us in his entire career, wants us to give The Ukraine our M-1A tanks!
The responsibility to defend The Ukraine starts and ends with The Ukrainian people. We have the moral right to interfere, but not the obligation. It makes no sense and is very, very dangerous.
….if the rest of the herd really is out to get you. Exactly!!!
Much of this does not look like a benefit to me. I’m not happy about our commitment to defend the Baltic states and Poland.
It will be good if NATO starts taking care of its own defense, I think. There could be problems with a strong Germany, if they actually follow through, which seems doubtful to me.
About the “pivot to Asia,” I don’t think that the present situation helps, because Russia wasn’t a problem before, and now it is. There was a prospect of having Russian cooperation against China, which seems less likely now.
I also don’t think that you’re going to see a victorious Ukraine. I think that Ukraine has suffered enormously, and that it’s likely to get worse.
And you know, the last World War was caused by a foolish guarantee given to Poland. Not by us, but by the British and the French. We learned nothing.