The Ukraine Crisis: Is It Time to Debate War?

With the Ukraine crisis, Americans have a moment to reflect on our obligations to the rest of the world. Just how far are we willing to go to protest Russia’s invasion? Are we content with extremely tight economic sanctions, or are we willing to flex the muscles a bit more?

“War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again. War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.”—Edwin Starr, 1970

Well, I personally wouldn’t go quite as far as Starr in proclaiming war to be absolutely meaningless. As we well know, in the Western tradition, just war can be a necessity from time to time. Still, from a Catholic social-justice perspective, there’s something quite powerful and tempting in imagining a world without war, especially with so many nuclear weapons pointed at one another. Yet, war is real, and, it seems, a fundamental part of the human condition.

For the last few weeks, the news media has been understandably obsessed over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia took months and months to put all of its troops in position for invasion of the former Soviet province, while constantly denying it intended to invade. Indeed, it claimed, it was merely practicing its war exercises. Then, of course, the Russians did invade Ukraine, and Vladimir Putin thought he could take over relatively easily. As it turns out, Putin miscalculated terribly, and he risks a very long, protracted, bog-mired war.

In response, much of the world, especially European and NATO countries and allies, have looked at Mr. Putin’s actions with outrage, and many of the responses—such as Poland (a NATO country) offering to give the Ukrainians planes well as a launching pad—have come incredibly close to expanding the war itself. Some American politicians have been rattling sabers as well, talking with much bravado about closing down the air space over Ukraine, thus denying access to Russia’s air force.

Given the uncertainty of it all, the Ukraine war could expand into something much bigger, either by design or by simple error and war creep, at any moment. To be sure, the West had months to prepare for this invasion, as the Russians were pretty clearly putting their troops in position for a while, even if the West wasn’t entirely sure of their intentions. Additionally, of course, NATO could have brought in Ukraine as a member sometime over the last decade or so, and the European Union could have adopted Ukraine as well.

Now, it seems, every response and threat is purely reactionary.

All of this taken together means we—especially as Americans—have a moment (should we take the moment, and I very much hope to we do) to reflect on our obligations to the rest of the world. It would be far better for us as a people to have discussed what might come rather than merely reacting to that which comes. Just how far are we willing to go to protest Russia’s invasion? Are we content with extremely tight economic sanctions, or are we willing to flex the muscles a bit more? Further, what is our end goal? Do we simply want Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine, or is there some kind of guarantee we want from the country itself?

In considering what might happen in Ukraine, it’s worth considering three things. First, the American founders—none more so than George Washington—feared any form of entangling alliances with other countries. As Washington stated rather clearly in his Farewell Address, we should enjoy economic relations with all, but political relations with none. “The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible,” Washington stated. “So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

Second, we might consider our role within NATO. After all, when we helped form NATO, we had just defeated Nazi Germany, were in the middle of rebuilding Europe, and we were worried about the threat—especially against Europe—that came from an expansionistic and aggressive Soviet Union. To what extent does America still need to belong to NATO? The world has changed dramatically since its inception, and the Europeans are wealthy enough now to protect themselves. Indeed, many European countries have continued to have historically low military budgets because, for all intents and purposes, the United States has subsidized them by laying out so much of its own budget for the military.

Third (and I think this one is especially important), we need to consider exactly what is war and how would it be waged by the United States. That is, what would we hope to accomplish and how far would we be willing to go—as a republic and as a people—to make that goal happen? Personally, I would rather not go to war with Russia, especially over Ukraine (though, I feel deeply for the Ukrainian people), but I believe strongly that the Founders gave the power to declare war to the people and the states (through the Senate), as specified in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. We, as an American people, have not officially been at war since the conclusion of World War II. Yet, due to innumerable executive actions, we have been in a constant state of war for the better part of two decades now—all of it undeclared. It would be extremely healthy for Congress to reclaim its war powers and openly debate the necessity (or not) of war.

Please don’t take me wrong: I’m not interested in getting us involved in another war. But, the Ukrainian situation is an extremely dangerous one, and every moment of fighting between Russian and Ukraine brings the world closer to a disaster, again, either intentionally or not. We as an American people—not merely a branch of the federal government—should be as prepared as possible, deciding exactly what our role on the world stage is. Perhaps it is time for us to retreat a little bit and take care of our own problems before we again involve ourselves in the problems of others. Or, perhaps, especially given the ambitions of the Chinese, we need to flex our muscles a bit. I would prefer the former to the latter, but I would also like to be constitutional about it all.

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now. 

The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.