Tag: War

By on

Steve Witkoff, the man President Trump charged with negotiating the end to the Russian/Ukrainian war, says there are two sides to the story and we should be open to hearing Putin’s side. WTF. I mean WTF. Putin does indeed have a story. He has been telling this story for some time now. The problem is his story fails to make the case for an armed invasion of a sovereign country. Nobody is buying what Putin is selling.

Well, that is until Trump and Witkoff come along to tell us that we haven’t given poor Vlad a fair shake. Witkoff tries to remind us that traditionally the Ukraine was a part of Russia. The border areas between the Ukraine and Russia have a lot of native Russians. People in these border regions voted recently to join Russia instead of staying in the Ukraine.

So what? The Ukraine was a part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union against the will of the Ukrainians. To say that should factor in to Russia’s claim on the Ukraine seems absurdly unfair to the Ukrainians. They didn’t like it then and they don’t like it now.

The border regions between any two nations have people on both sides of the borders. There are Ukrainians on the Russian side of the border as well. Do the Ukrainians on the Russian side of the border give the Ukraine a rightful claim to parts of Russia. Borders are messy businesses. There is no way to put up a border that makes everyone happy. Somebody is going to be on the wrong side. Always.

But, then, when Putin invaded the Ukraine, he was after more than the border regions. He wanted the whole kit and kaboodle. So after invading the Ukraine, bombing Ukrainian cities, and failing to achieve his real objective — the whole of the Ukraine, he will settle for the border regions. Why should he get anything?

Trump say says the Ukrainians are unable to win this war. He might be right about that but neither can the Russians. Neither side can win the war so why is Trump asking the Ukrainians to eat the shit sandwich while Putin steals Ukrainian land and hobbles their ability to join in a larger European security network? And what does the Ukraine get in return — empty promises that they won’t invade again.

Trump will say they will get peace. Putin has already invaded the Ukraine twice, so really, this is nothing. Peace, you say. Well, not likely to be a very lasting one.

By on

Edward Luttwak suggests that declining birth rates have made countries less willing to go to war. Worldwide, families are so small that parents are unwilling to sacrifice their only child to war. Which is a startling mercenary observation to make in the continuing conservative chorus about the need for more children. If you have extra children, you won’t have to worry about losing an only child, you will always have a spare.

It isn’t because they love children and bringing more children into the world is a good thing for both parents and children. No, it is parents need to have spare children so that they won’t make a scene when their children start dying in battle. Nothing is so annoying for generals than for a bunch of parents balking at the thought of little Billy dying at the front.

Luttwak glories in Israel women who bear more than the replacement value of children. Well, yes but then is their willingness to sacrifice their children due to less then all of the than Israel is fighting for their existence. On October 7, Hamas was killing men, women and children inside of Israel. This isn’t a war of choice for them, not like, for example the Russians in the Ukraine or Macron wanting NATO troops in the Ukraine. Parents, I think rightfully, will balk at wars for no good reason.

And, isn’t that a good thing. Luttwak looks back to the past when people had more children than they could fed, and thinks isn’t it a pity that parents don’t do this any more. It is preventing armies from taking the battlefield because parents actually care if their child lives. How wonderful for both the parents and the child. If Luttwak is correct, and let’s hope he is, there will be a trickle down effect of less war in the world. Good.

By on

I am afraid the US is about to abandon the Ukraine. I would love for the Ukrainians to win but I don’t have much confidence in that happening. What they need costs too much money for the US to provide. So, people here in the United States, are rightfully asking why are we paying money on a losing cause. The bloom is off this particular flower.

Trump feels shit like this in his bones, Biden and his crew have to talk about our moral responsibility to Europe which highlights the big difference between the two positions. Biden has to explain his position and Trump is stating the obvious. Why spend billions of dollars for the Russians to win any way or, at least, grab big chunks of the Ukraine. If bad things are going to happen, you might as well get it over with. It isn’t nice but it is understandable while Biden’s position sounds like a waste of money. Billions of dollars to not exactly win but to not exactly loose either. So, the taxpayer reasonably asks, what am I paying for?

And when you try to bring up things like moral responsibility, Biden and his fellow Ukraine supporters are heading into choppy waters because well, it isn’t really a moral problem if all you are doing is giving money. The truth is we would like for the Ukrainians to win because they were invaded and their position better fits our understanding of how the world should operate. Big powerful countries shouldn’t invade smaller less powerful countries. But it isn’t so important that we should send troops. Once you put it like that, the moral calculation looses a little of its oomph. This ceases to be a moral calculation and becomes simply a preference. This a money moral problem not a troops morale problem. A big difference which the American tax payer can see without looking terribly hard. No explanation is needed.

Which means the best case scenario is the Ukraine will be cut up a little to satisfy Putin’s blood thirst and people will pat Zelenskyy on the back and say nice try and better luck next time. So, really, nothing moral about it. The Ukraine/Russian war became too expensive and there is no solution that allows both parties to come out with their dignity in tact. So Putin retains his, at least publicly, while Zelenskyy gets to eat the shit sandwich.

It is all sad but predictable. The Ukrainians will have to be satisfied with a stalemate. They proved their mettle which is a good thing for the world and for the Ukraine, they will come out of this with something tangible if not everything they deserved. The Russians couldn’t win either which is far more embarrassing. Hopefully there is some Russian intrigue going on behind Putin’s back. He wasted a lot of Russian troops, money and the world’s public standing while gaining little in return. He gets pretty much what he came into the war with, so his Russian pals might have their swords out looking for him. I suppose that is something to look forward to. Yeah, well, right?

By on

The recent recopening of war in the Middle East also reopened discussions on what is morally acceptable behavior during a war. It is a difficult topic because people’s opinions shift depending upon what war you are fighting, who is fighting it and whether you are winning. In the Catholic School I attended I received two very different messages about war from the same teacher. Sister Mira thought the Viet Cong were cowards because they hid among the Vietnamese people and fought a guerrilla war. They should fight on a battlefield like good soldiers instead of engaging in guerrilla tactics. She alao admired the ingenuity of the Minute Men during the American Revolutionary War because they avoided open warfare with the better armed British forces. They would attack the British were they could and then retreat into the vast American countryside to avoid being caught. Which sounds very much like the Viet Cong were doing. So your moral decisions about war depends on which side you are on — rebels you like can use guerrilla warfare, rebels you don’t like shouldn’t.

War is a problem ethically. War is violent. War kills innocent people. It is hard to justify killing a small child but, if there is a war going on, there is a pretty good chance that a small child is dying somewhere because of it. It is unavoidable. Now these killings can come in different ways with varying degrees of culpability. There is a difference between killing a child through dropping a bomb on his house and slitting the child’s throat in his bed. But still the child is dead in both cases. An innocent died because of the war you are waging. How do you stop someone like Hitler without killing innocent children. The truth is you can’t.

No matter how just the war is in the general sense, specific acts are going to go wrong. Should you stop fighting Hitler because you want to limit your fighting to actions that won’t kill children? Morally speaking — how many children will die if I fight Hitler and how many children will die if I fail to fight Hitler. It is a horrible choice but one that has to be made.

This is why war is to be avoided it if at all possible. It is a moral quagmire. Perhaps when a nation is considering war, instead of demonizing the future enemy, people should consider the question is this worth killing innocents to get what we want? And if the answer is yes then go into it accepting your soldiers will face this dilemma. Possibly this will make people act better but I doubt it.