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
Russian Telegram channel isn’t a good source.
Addendum:If you think Ukraine has logistical challenges with Western kit, wait until Russia tries to service Humvies…additionally the US stuff is the wrong caliber for the Russians and much of the better stuff was “demilitarized” when we left. It isn’t likely the Taliban will be able to maintain many of the weapons either.
We don’t have similar problems when sending Ukraine old Soviet weapons b/c much of it was manufactured in Ukraine & they are well acquainted with it.
I prefer English to Ukrainian.
You prefer anything to Ukrainian
True enough.
What is “correct”?
I don’t even know what that is.
that is the source of your claim that Russia is looking to buy US weapons from Afghanistan….
Nope.
then what is it?
It may be THE UNITED States, but perhaps not for long.
I think it is a dubious claim. The ammo is useful, but nobody wants an odd collection of unsupported equipment. It is probably only good for reverse-engineering, but surely China and Iran have all the good stuff already.
Who is: George Orwell!!
It’s only January. I can beat him.
Yeeaaah? :)
No, it isn’t. Makes things a bit easier.
And the US is asking countries to send their old Russian equipment to Ukraine, and it will be replaced by US equipment.
Well it makes al definite article easier.
I’m sure we’ll never need it ourselves. 🙄
The withdrawal was a year and a half ago. I’m surprised there’s anything of value left, especially given the country’s economic crisis.
This is a historically illiterate statement.
Poland, Hungary, and Czechia were invited in 1997 and ascended into NATO in March 1999, more than a year before Putin even won his first Presidential election.
The next tranche (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria) were invited in 2002 and ascended into NATO in March 2004, at a time when Putin was still focused almost exclusively on domestic matters (e.g. managing Russia’s slow climb out of the deep economic hole into which it was plunged during the Yeltsin Era).
The most effective salesman for NATO membership in the last thirty years has been … NATO. The whiff of American taxpayers’ dollars can be quite an irresistible “carrot”.
More like the whiff of Russian boot leather.
FYI-Estonia has donate-to Ukraine,over the last year, more than 4x the aid from the US for the last 4 years. Hardly like they are in NATO for US aid.
At the time during which the aforementioned countries ascended into NATO, Russia was having trouble figuring out how to provide leather for its own citizens’ boots, let alone be in a position to put them on, march back into Warsaw and force the Poles to smell their soles.
??
What do members ‘donate’ to NATO? Estonia’s military expenditure might be a higher proportion of its GDP than the US’, but it’s still probably a lot smaller in absolute terms.
Those knuckleheads managed to crash a Black Hawk a few months ago. “Technical problem” they said.
True. Technically, you should have a pilot flying that.
Joining NATO because you might need NATO could be a self fulfilling prophecy? But, given history and geography, I tend to think it’s a matter of choosing which empire (or sphere of influence) to be a part of. Or having that choice made for you?
That’s 18 months (or more, actually) without maintenance. If the Russians want that stuff I doubt it’s to use it in battle but more to take them apart, see how they work and use that knowledge in their own arms industry and also to target things more effectively in Ukraine.
Realistically, how is a nation like Estonia of 1.3 million people going to defend itself from the claws of Russia, with it’s population of 143 million?
As for choosing which empire to be part of, that’s a bit like giving a Korean a choice between living in North Korea or South Korea, giving a German a choice between living in West Berlin or East Berlin.
Choices don’t get much easier than that.
The donation was to Ukraine- members do not “donate” to NATO.
As to your second point, no NATO member should spend more than the US in absolute dollars for their defense-the US GDP is 6x higher than any other NATO country. The NATO goal is 2% and the Baltic states & Poland do so. All three Baltic states sent troops to Iraq & Afghanistan (as IIRC did the Poles). While it is clear that the many European countries need to do more (especially Germany, Italy & France-particularly since they are the largest)- but the Baltic states & Poland are not the problem- and neither will be Ukraine when it gets in. The US spends more as a percent of GDP than any NATO country save Greece (& its spending isn’t primarily oriented to NATO concerns)
there is only one that involves choice…the other not so much.
True. Hence NATO. But there’s the assumption (I think justified) that Russia wants to control the smaller states at its borders (for understandable reasons) but no thought that the West (so vague, so ambiguous) might have a similar aspiration. Which they prosecute in this instance using the EU and NATO.
It’s all of the moment.
After WWII, with a devastated Russia, it was clearly beneficial for Germany (or as much of it as could) to align with the very prosperous and undevastated United States. Ditto for the rest of Europe. NATO was one mechanism for this, but it was also a mechanism for the US to dominate Western Europe and to keep it in the US camp.
In the 2000s – with Europe recovered, and Russia recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union, the benefits of engaging with Russia (most obviously wrt energy) started to emerge – and the core contradiction of aligning economically with a large economy across the ocean at the cost of limiting engagement with Russia (which is right next door) became more apparent.
And in three decades – who knows?
It seems to me there will always be this tension for a US aligned Europe, and what would work best for Europe (as opposed to the US) will depend on the moment. Alliances and ‘unions’ freeze relations, which is why these tensions emerge and come to a head from time to time.