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
Yes, this is an odd comment. The US acts as banker of sorts domestically to people receiving entitlement payments, and I suppose to taking Americans money and handing it to government suppliers (like the MIC) and service contractors, maybe, and when offering foreign aid or international loans (like the billion dollars to Ukraine that Biden held up to coerce Ukraine from investigating his son’s business dealings). Other than that, I suppose the “kleptocrats” could be storing their money safely with the Fed, but I doubt that’s what he means.
I suppose he means that because we use and largely control the SWIFT system, we can functionally impose our legal and political will on foreign countries and “kleptocrats”, but that’s not how the banking system and the law is supposed to be used — that is, one country simply taking the assets of another country over an international dispute — and that’s not the US acting as anyone’s banker, but actually disrupting the banking system.
I wonder what MiMac means.
It already is one of them.
Not us. No matter who wins, Russia or Ukraine, the United States has lost.
Or should I say, the citizens of the United States have lost. The Rulers, on the other hand, are cleaning up.
Still think the US can be policeman to the world. Can’t think of a quicker way to endless wars. But you’re probably in favor of that.
If you want an end to endless wars, support Putin’s defeat. What you are actually advocating is appeasement.
Anyone who doesn’t realize that Washington is all about protecting the power and the cash flow into the pockets of the establishment is naive. And anyone who doesn’t realize that the way of protecting that is through secrecy and conspiracies is naive in the extreme. With what has been happening the past few years and been revealed and acknowledged, you have to have an IQ below freezing not to realize it.
That’s a low blow. There is reasonable debate whether we should aid The Ukraine. Helping them could weaken us and make us more vulnerable to others, such as China. Not helping them might make Russia more powerful. Just because all our politics are polarized doesn’t mean there aren’t pros and cons to any part of this issue.
I can see the legitimate use for this way of thinking — equating the members of a population and their thinking with the thinking and intentions of their leaders — in certain circumstances, but I don’t think the majority of Americans are responsible for the bad actions of their leaders. We do expect better of them, and we do call them out when corruption is evident, but ultimately we have no control over what they think or do.
It’s the same way with Ukraine. I have great sympathy for the Ukrainian people who are being bombed and starved (if that’s what’s happening) but I have no sympathy or liking for the Ukrainian government, or with those who fund or encourage their people to continue to be bombed and starved in order to make money off the Ukrainians’ plight or to be able to exert external control over their government.
So, you think letting Putin take Ukraine & being the bank for kleptocrats is in the best interests of the US? Because those are the positions he is backing by default (I agree not actively nor necessarily even intentionally-but the outcome nonetheless).
Still think that coming to a compromise is appeasement? Still think that everything is Munich? Your mode of thinking is what leads us into endless wars. And lossing.
A European Parliament Vice President just got pinched for alleged bribery.
€600,000. That’s a lot of lettuce. Are we contemplating breaking off relations with those crooks?
How about the other corrupt political entities? Illinois, Rhode Island, New York, California, Louisiana? If you give people money and power, some of them will seek to convert one to the other. It’s always been that way.
Your point is odd-we aren’t pushing the Ukraine to resist, they want too, by overwhelming percentages-every poll shows massive support for the war effort by Ukrainians.. The US foreign policy elite thought they would collapse in days & therefore slow walked aid requested by Ukraine-just look at Rand Corp. et al ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/21/weapons-ukraine-russia-invasion-military/). Remember, the Obama Biden administration wouldn’t provide lethal aid-Trump was the first. Biden was slow to provide weapons & only in the weeks before the invasion, once the US was certain the Russians would attack. And the US only began to ship weapons after the Baltic states asked for permission to transfer US weapons to Ukraine (again leading from behind-reactive not proactive-following our minor allies not leading them).
The US doesn’t dictate policy to Ukraine – we support them as they choose their own course. It is Ukraine who asks for more weapons & more powerful weapons-it isn’t as if we are forcing them on them. If anything we are way too slow- we should send M1s, ATACMS, GLSDB etc. The Biden administration keeps putting them off saying the weapons are too complex- but Ukraine has demonstrated many times their adaptability & ingenuity in this war.
This shows us a very good reason to keep things from getting too big to confront and win. Local corruption offers a much better opportunity for the people to deal with.
And building guillotines helps small-scale manufacturers, too.
Assuming national or international corruption would be better or better managed (I don’t know which) is how we got the 17th Amendment.
Would you attempt to compromise with a mugger? Maybe he’ll settle for only half of your money. You should attempt to negotiate?
Is the mugger in this scenario Biden or Zelenskyy?
Yeah, sure. What do we care? The Russians are pretty incompetent at most things anyway. Russia has owned The Ukraine for centuries and we’re still here.
I am not an expert on Russia or Ukraine, this is just my barely-informed opinion. I think if Ukraine had compromised at the beginning of the invasion, it would have appeased Russia temporarily and in time Russia would come back for more territory. At this stage, though, perhaps Ukraine would be better off granting the Russian-speaking oblasts their independence. If those oblasts officially join Russia, so be it. Russia could proclaim victory publicly, but I think most Russian politicians would recognize that the price they paid was very high and might be disinclined to do future invading. These oblasts have been in a state of rebellion for several years, and Ukraine may be just as well off without them. Russia probably won’t go home with nothing. If they can claim that they accomplished something beside losing a lot of Russian soldiers and equipment, they may be satisfied to end it.
Ukraine and other Russian neighbors would be wise to arm up to provide a disincentive for Russia to start thinking about expanding their borders again in the future. But I think it is a practical question for Ukrainian politicians to ask how many more lives they are willing to risk to hold on to their rebellious provinces, now that Russia has presumably been bloodied up enough that they won’t want to do this again in the future.
Who started this? Don’t go with that sad tale about how we goaded Putin into it. Putin is a sociopath; he triggered himself. He saw what he wanted and tried to take it.
That just confuses causes with motives, they are not the same thing.
There are always going to be “sociopaths.” Russia is filled with them and has been for as long as we have histories of Russia. Who started is irrelevant. Russia did a lot of even nastier things before WWII and we armed them to the teeth. There are no easy answers and wailing about who started something has no traction.
We should help Taiwan because we do a lot of business with them. We should not help The Ukraine because the only business we do with them is to provide pig slop for Biden’s greedy, corrupt snout. Whether the Ukraine prevails or loses makes no difference to our safety.
If the government of Ukraine decides to negotiate a peace treaty, that’s their prerogative. The US DoD doesn’t get to impose conditions.
Indeed, since the end of the cold war Russia has invaded three of its neighbours, but none of ’em were NATO members. NATO works, is what I’m saying.
Except they did. Ukraine wanted to negotiate early in the conflict, and the U.S. said no.
But don’t you see? Russia’s military is simultaneously so inept they can’t take Ukraine, and so powerful they’re poised to take all of Europe and the world!
Or so the neocons would have us believe.
Technically, the United States does not have any enemies. It has competitors. A country is only an enemy when there’s an official declaration of war. Technically.
Heck, Biden is probably a sociopath as well.
From what I understand the US was from the beginning setting conditions for Ukrainian and Russian negotiations.
Then Russia comes back for another bite later. Or do you think that this is really the end of Russia’s territorial demands, like the Sudetenland was the end of Hitler’s?
Poland and the Baltic States are all as serious as heart attacks about their security. They are doing all they can for Ukraine, too. All of them know the Russians all too well.
A piece of paper with Vladimir Putin’s signature on it is devalued thereby.