Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Helping Ukraine: War without Violence?

Today is the twentieth day since the beginning of the unprovoked Russian invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine. The courage and resilience of the Ukrainian people has certainly been admirable, but their suffering has been great and their short-term future is exceedingly bleak. 

From the 3/5/22 cover of The Economist

President Zelenskyy’s Call for Help

Since the very beginning of the invasion of his country, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been widely praised as a courageous leader in his beleaguered country and an exemplary advocate of freedom. He will be awarded the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award for 2022.

President Zelenskyy has repeatedly taken to the airwaves to make zealous appeals for increased military help from NATO and the U.S. He has warned that the refusal to give assistance through such means as declaring a no-fly zone over his country will result in the deaths of thousands of his citizens.

In response to that March 5 appeal, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said, “Let’s be cleareyed about our options: “A No-Fly Zone means sending American pilots into combat against Russian jets and air defenses—in a battle between nuclear powers that could spiral out of control quickly.”

So, how should the U.S. and NATO respond to Zelenskyy’s call for help?

Has President Biden’s and NATO’s Response been Weak?

Some in this country have used the lack of full positive response to Zelenskyy’s call as a sign of weakness on the part of President Biden.

An opinion piece in the March 11 online issue of The Christian Post is titled “The Ukrainian crisis: A catastrophic failure of leadership.” The author is Richard Land, President Emeritus of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Land asserts that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “so preventable,” pointing out that 62% of Americans believe that if Trump were still president, Russia would not have invaded.

Apparently, Land is among those 62%. He writes, “Putin feared Trump’s strength, whereas he holds Biden’s invertebrate weakness in disdain.”

He also asserts that “Biden’s weakness is illustrated by his apparent fear of what Putin might do.”

This same sort of criticism is expressed by Wendell Griffen, a progressive Baptist leader for whom I have great respect. I was disappointed, though, by what he wrote in a March 9 opinion piece.

Griffen asserted, “What perturbs Zelensky and delights Putin is the knowledge that world leaders lack the will to bring their arsenals, warriors and other war-fighting resources to bear against Putin.”

The opinion of Daniel Davis, a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army is far better than the two divergent Baptists just cited. Davis’s article in the March 8 post of The Guardian is titled “A no-fly zone means Nato shooting down Russian jets. We must not do that” (emphasis added).

Can there be Significant Help without Violence?

The effectiveness, and even the morality, of the violent resistance of the Ukrainian people is discussed in an article posted March 7 by Religious News Service (here). It is titled “Catholic theologians question the morality of Ukraine’s violent resistance.”

While I agree with much in that significant article, here I am writing only about the morality of help for Ukraine supplied by the U.S. and NATO—and in that regard I strongly believe that the stance taken so far by the U.S. is not a show of weakness but of prudence.

The increasing level of sanctions leveled against Russia will surely in the long run lead to a cessation of violent fighting in Ukraine. Direct military action would, no doubt, be more effective in the short run—but with the distinct possibility of leading to greater escalation of violence.

Greater military help of Ukraine now, could—and perhaps would!—lead to greater suffering, more casualties, and more violent Russian warfare not only against Ukraine but also against other European countries.

Hasty, belligerent acts by the U.S./NATO could—and perhaps would!—provoke Russia to use strategic nuclear weapons. And that could well be the beginning of World War III.

Looking at the bigger picture and the potentiality of unthinkable disaster, I am deeply grateful that the U.S. and NATO are seeking to help Ukraine mostly by non-violent (=non-military) means.

27 comments:

  1. After posting this, I saw the opinion article titled "For now, Biden’s best course on Ukraine is the one he’s on," by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/14/ukraine-war-biden-best-strategy-one-he-is-on/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was with a friend last night who lamented the fact that we're going to make the Russian people suffer. They are typically fairly innocent since Russia is not a democracy, and opposition to Putin's rule risks death or imprisonment. She also felt that that was the lesser of two options--sanctions or military intervention (the no-fly zone and/or provided the Russian-made planes currently sitting in Poland). Basically, I agreed with her. But she has a point. I'm not sure we can consider sanctions, especially if they result in dire consequences for the people of Russia, as somehow nonviolent unless "violence" is narrowly defined only as direct physical harm to people. Would we claim that the coerced Trail of Tears was not a violent action against the Native-American tribes of the southeast U.S. because we didn't just simply murder them? Is encircling a city, starving its people into submission nonviolent? Closer to home--was Jim Crow really a nonviolent way to imposing white supremacy?

    Of course, history is disastrously unpredictable. Will Putin be more rational than Hitler, stopping at the nearly certain conquest of Ukraine? Is the free world simply kicking the can down the road in not calling Putin's bluff, or is it actually preventing a nuclear or a non-nuclear World War III?

    I agree with you regarding your assessment of Biden's and other free countries' decisions to do what they're doing. It is not a sign of weakness but indeed of prudence. But it appears to me we cannot yet say whether this prudence will have been a benign prescience or a malignant short-sightedness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anton, I was expecting to have thoughtful comments from you, and I was not disappointed.

      Your point about the meaning and extent of violence is well taken, and I wrestled with that issue some as I was writing the article--but went ahead and used "violence" in the narrower sense of direct physical harm to persons.

      I certainly agree that sanctions will hurt the Russian people--as well as people in other places who are dependent on Russian trade and imports. But such indirect violence, I believe, will be far less destructive than the violence of widespread warfare would be.

      Delete
  3. P.S.: Some food for thought, here are the first three paragraphs of a column by Jayson Casper in Christianity Today (March 11):
    “Ioann Burdin of Resurrection Church in Kostroma, 215 miles northwest of Moscow, was arrested for “discrediting the Russian armed forces” in his Sunday sermon.
    “His parish also allegedly shared an antiwar petition.
    "‘We, Christians, cannot stand idly by when a brother kills brother, a Christian kills a Christian,’ the statement said, as reported by the BBC’s Russian service. ‘Let’s not repeat the crimes of those who hailed Hitler’s deeds on Sept. 1, 1939.’”

    ReplyDelete
  4. A few minutes before Anton's first comments, I received the following affirmative words from Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England:

    "Thanks for your very thoughtful blog today on Ukraine. I also appreciated the recent blog Learning from Mennonites in Ukraine.


    The article by Catholic Theologians was very helpful. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And then about 10 minutes ago I received these comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "I think President Biden has acted wisely. He has far more information about the situation than we do and he relies on the counsel of some of the best military leaders. Judging by Donald Trump’s comments, he would have assisted Putin in the takeover of Ukraine."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is hard to interpret his statements otherwise.

      Delete
  6. I forgot to mention in my comments above that the article in Christianity Today is titled, "Do Russian Christians Need More Bonhoeffers"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I resonate with your estimation of Pres. Biden's approach as prudent, and with Glenn Hinson's comment. It is disconcerting that a former president, having during his term of office weakened the Department of State, our diplomacy and our alliances with free world countries, now speaks ill of our current president who not only respects the rule of law internationally but seeks to find a middle way by strengthening alliances to the benefit of all involved. I suspect Mr. Putin's brutality and willfulness comes with a good measure of irrationality and hubris. It is his lack of a middle way that amounts to bloodshed in Ukraine. Such an autocrat must be taken seriously and wisely as President Biden is doing now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Jerry, for your lucid comments. How I wish there were far more people in agreement with you, Dr. Hinson--and me!

      Delete
  8. Here are comments received this morning from a local Thinking Friend:

    "I believe President Clinton made a commitment to Ukraine early in his Presidency that we would directly support them if there was ever an invasion by Russia. We have something similar with Taiwan. They are not official treaties, but they were in good faith, much as the Balfour Declaration was. In my mind, President Biden is doing 'something,' but it seems closer to PM Chamberlain’s 'something' with Hitler. NATO is no better. If Ukraine falls, Taiwan will probably be next. Then others. If Russia and China are partnering in this, we need to take a stronger stance, or there will be dominos."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Yes, Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine was in direct violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, a key instrument assuring Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. That memorandum was signed by the presidents of the U.S. (Clinton), Russia (Yeltsin), and Ukraine as well as the prime minister of the U.K.

      2) The United States has no mutual defense treaty with Taiwan, as we do with Japan and South Korea, and it is my understanding that there is decidedly less American commitment to defend Taiwan than Ukraine.

      3) Chamberlain's "something" with Hitler was mainly concessions regarding Czechoslovakia. Far from Pres. Biden making concessions to Putin, he has taken the lead in instituting the most severe sanctions ever placed upon another country, sanctions that may not have immediate effects but which will damage/punish Russia/Putin for a very long time. The only similarity I can see between Chamberlain and Biden is in the desire to avoid war. The circumstances and means chosen were/are quite different. Chamberlain was not successful, but I pray that Biden will be. And here is a major difference: Hitler did not possess nuclear weapons; Russia (Putin) is said to have nearly 1,600 strategic warheads ready for use.

      Delete
  9. And then a few minutes ago I received these comments from local Thinking Friend David Nelson:

    Q. How do you solve a problem like a Putin? Thanks for a good summary of the situation. We must strengthen the United Nations and be willing to share the resources of the planet our home. The US must stop acting like an empire and begin working as part of the human family."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said Monday that the prospect of nuclear conflict is 'now back within the realm of possibility' after Russian President Vladimir Putin raised the alert levels of the country’s nuclear forces last month.

      "In remarks to reporters, Guterres called Putin’s move a 'bone-chilling development' and said further escalation of the war in Ukraine would threaten all of humanity. 'It’s time to stop the horror unleashed on the people of Ukraine and get on the path of diplomacy and peace,' he said.

      From https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/15/nuclear-conflict-putin-un-guterres/

      Delete
  10. At noon today, The Washington Post published this opinion article by Jennifer Rubin on their website: "Biden has the perfect answer to those calling for him to do ‘more’ on Ukraine: No World War III."

    She closes the article with these words: ". . . given the choice between Biden and those hollering for more provocative action, I’m beyond grateful the latter are not the ones making the life and death decisions. 'No World War III' seems like an awfully sound policy."

    I wholeheartedly agree.

    (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/15/biden-ukraine-russia-world-war-iii/)

    ReplyDelete
  11. About an hour ago, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent the following highly pertinent and thought-provoking comments:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for sharing your thoughts about the unprovoked tragedy in Ukraine.

    "I believe that Biden's response has been prudent. Although I do not believe that Putin would launch WWIII over Ukraine, trying to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine could lead to a wider war. The Russian military has not performed well, but it still possesses large stocks of military hardware. It lacks the manpower to occupy all of Ukraine.

    "Putin expected a quick victory (i.e., the capture of Kyiv in a few days and the installation of a puppet government), but the Ukrainians have astounded him with their tenacious resistance. I believe the war for Putin has gone from one of conquest to one of indiscriminate revenge against the Ukrainian people. Blowing up apartment buildings and targeting civilians serve no military purpose; it is simply vindictiveness.

    "Why did Putin not invade Ukraine during Trump's tenure? Trump and Putin had a secret meeting in July 2018 in Helsinki. No one knows, except for Trump, Putin, and the two translators, what was discussed. I suspect some sort of deal was made in which Trump would pull the U S out of NATO in his second term and in return, he would get business opportunities in Russia and electoral support, but it all depended on Trump winning in 2020, which did not happen. Trump did not dare to pull out of NATO prior to the election as that would have caused a firestorm, but in a second term, he wouldn't care. Putin may have agreed not to invade Ukraine until the US was out of NATO (i.e., after the election), whereby Russia would have faced much less backlash for the invasion and almost no push back from Trump. I also suspect that Trump's Big Lie is motivated in part because his deal with Putin, whatever it may have been, fell through.

    "Without Trump in the WH, Putin decided to invade anyway, especially after the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan, but he greatly underestimated Biden, NATO's response, and the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, Putin will decide that he has inflicted enough revenge to call off his idiotic war.

    "One last note. Putin is a psychopath and psychopaths seem to be very adept at gaining political power, primarily because they are ruthless and focused. I also believe Trump and Kim Jong Un are psychopaths among a few others."

    ReplyDelete
  12. In his address to our Canadian parliament, President Zelensky continued to advocate for a no-fly zone. I think it is prudent of the allied nations not to offer such an approach, since it could very well escalate the war and start WW III, even though it is most tragic that Putin continues to bomb the most vulnerable Ukrainians, the civilians.

    It is encouraging to see the number of Russian protesters who haven't been brainwashed by Putin's media propagandists. May they continue to grow and flourish, even though the consequences of their protests are severe.

    One wonders whether a combination of sanctions, and eventually the oligarchs and some Russian politicians may have enough influence on Putin to stop the war, hopefully sooner than later.

    As people of faith, here in Canada, we continue to have prayer vigil services for the people of Ukraine, and for peace in that nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Garth, for sharing your perspective as a Canandian pastor.

      Delete
  13. Leroy, once again, a very thought provoking post. Thank you for helping us think through a complex and tragic situation.

    You pose the question of whether violence is morally right. I once read a book called "Defining moments: When Managers must choose between right and right". The point I took away from this book was that while there should be a more universal view, there is often no black and white solution and views to use or not use violence can generally be morally justified depending upon which method you choose to evaluate it. (I don't know if that was really the author's point, but was what I took away.) I took this same message away from the Catholic Church's handling of the enslaving of the native people in 18th century S. America

    portrayed in the movie "The Mission" -- i.e., they could stand up against the slavery and escalate the situation to help the natives (morally good, but perhaps in the end not changing the situation) or preserve the Catholic faith by not alienating themselves from Spain and Portugal who likely would have turned their nations against Catholicism -- a la King Henry VIII.

    I also see it in Pope Francis comments on war in Fratelli Tutti where he says -- "War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy”[239] have been met." But in this case, I almost feel like Pope Francis says that we shouldn't trust ourselves and our ability to make persuasive moral arguments. Instead, regardless of the situation, we should be people of peace and no longer trust ourselves when we justify violence.

    Intellectually, I find this argument easy to embrace. When these situation happen in the real world, like they are in Ukraine, I really, really struggle standing by while the bully beats up the kid on the playground -- even if I'm going to be tough in other ways and never talk to the bully again and ask his friends to do the same thing. I do believe the Church should have taken a stand against the bullies (Spain and Portugal) to try and protect the natives -- because it was the morally right thing to do, regardless of the political costs. But that doesn't mean violence. I generally agree that the administration is pursuing the right course in trying to be united with the rest of the world against Russia in non-violent ways and as a people, we should be willing to sacrifice as well to impose the strictest sanctions on Russia.

    One parting thought. I like the comment by the other reader who questioned sanctions as being non-violent. I agree and am concerned about the possibility that incredibly harsh penalties lead to ultra extremist factions against Western ideals and democracy taking things farther in the wrong direction in the future (a la Versailles Treaty allowing Nazi's to gain power). I was also at the Auschwitz Museum and a video by Hannah Arendt struck me (and again, this is my perception as I don't have the exact quote in front of me) -- she said something about how the people in Germany weren't really surprised that Hitler rose to power, almost like that even though they would verbally denounce the extremism after the war, before it, many deep in their mind wanted to bring back the "good old days" of their past and wanted vengence as well. Not saying any of this is playing out in Russia, but I am seeing plenty of support within the country, misguided, coerced or not. And still question how one man can impose all of this without some complicity of others. ALL of this is easy for me to say sitting in my easy chair thousands of miles away. A difficult situation with no easy, black and white answers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Unknown, for your lengthy, thought-provoking comments, but I wish you had identified yourself. (I like to know who I am hearing from and responding to.)

      Delete
    2. Sorry. Not sure why it didn't identify me. Jim Koger here. It said "Reply as" and identified me, so thought it would post with that. Have a wonderful day.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Jim -- and I have no idea why Blogger didn't pick up your name. Your comments were so thoughtful and helpful that I thought the writer surely would not purposely seek to hide his identity.

      Delete
  14. Thank you as always Leroy not only for your perspective but also for identifying the crux of current issues, and that from an historical view. I have been pleased with Biden's measured response militarily and also that he has not acted unilaterally but somehow managed to galvanize and unite NATO. No small task, and that may be the silver lining that comes out of all this. The other silver lining that we might wish is--but is way too early to hardly even hope for-- that because of the regrettable hardship of sanctions, because very visible Western companies are pulling out, because of concerted efforts to get information in Russian to the people, the protests will spread and Russian people will decide they want a change internally. Clearly, Putin did not need to invade Ukraine during the Trump years because he was getting all he wanted. Trump had turned against Ukraine and against NATO. Things were progressing as Putin wanted. Likely Putin would have invaded in a second term of Trump because he would not have faced US opposition. Just as right-fringe Christians still need to answer for their support of Trump, I am waiting for any plausible explanation of supporting a Socialist, Totalitarian dictator who arrests pastors, confiscates church property, and poisons and imprisons his opponents. On a different note, Ukraine is of course getting the attention, humanitarian aid, and international outpouring of righteous indignation that it deserves. On the other hand, I was not in the US when the US invaded Iraq under completely false pretense--outright lies. The hardship we inflicted on the general population was indescribable, and Bush will have to answer for that. I protested in Japan against the US invasion. Russians are quick to point out the hypocrisy now. Is there a Super Power lesson to be learned, that if we condemn this invasion we too should stop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lydia, for your thoughtful comments; they are just what I hoped, and expected, to hear from you.

      Thanks, too, for linking the current Russian invasion of Ukraine with the preemptive war against Iraq by the U.S. The widespread, unified response of the U.S. (and most of the rest of the world) in support of Ukraine and in condemnation of Putin has been gratifying, but, in contrast, the widespread support (even by many conservative Christians) of the war against Iraq was dismaying at the time and does, as you say, seem quite hypocritical now. While in some ways the current invasion of Ukraine seems worse, that in no way exonerates what the U.S. did from 2003~11. It is hard to know how many Iraqis were killed during those years, but I just now found on what seems to be a reliable site, that more than 162,000 Iraqi civilians and combatants were killed during those years--and the number of civilians was much larger than the number of combatants.

      Delete
  15. Much could be said in comment but I will focus on one point. I am, to say the least, deeply disappointed with Richard Land, a man for whom I have previously had great respect. He argues that the "weakness" of President Biden somehow permitted Putin's despicable invasion which would have been prevented by a Trump presidency. I would call to Mr. Land's attention that Trump's initial response to Putin's unprovoked invasion was to call it an act of "genius." Go back and review the meeting between Trump and Putin: Putin arrogant, Trump his willing sycophant. At best, this is the admiration of one bully for another; at worse a public groveling. Additionally, Trump openly resented the Ukraine and its heroic leader Zelenskyy for refusing to falsify evidence against Biden’s son to impact the election in 2020 which probably explains his cheerleading for Putin. And he did his best to dismantle NATO, our only real source of allies in time of trouble. Admittedly, Trump is a master of bluster; who knows what he might have said this time, but there are absolutely no grounds for Land's position. It is at best foolish, at worst utterly ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A couple of days ago I received the following email from Thinking Friend Thomas Howell, retired history professor at William Jewell College:

      "The post from 'Unknown' on March 21 about Richard Land was mine. I have no idea how I failed to include that information. I have no desire whatsoever to make an anonymous post. If I say something, people should know and be able to judge the source. That particularly applies if I am criticizing an individual, which is the case here."

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Dr. Howell, for your original comments and then for emailing me to take responsibility for them. I agreed with your comments--and even more so now that I know they are from you.

      Delete