George Weigel’s recent essay titled “Why Just War Theory Always Matters” underscores the abiding importance of that principle. Just War Theory (JWT) is essential to Catholic (and other) public officials seeking to operate in an ethical, principled way in the real world.
Weigel has down yeoman work in underscoring the abiding significance of JWT at a time when many ecclesiastical circles operate out of what he calls “functional pacificism”—that is, we don’t deny JWT but we also never imagine a conflict we really think might be “just”. That lack of ecclesiastical leadership has left public officials—including many Catholics—bereft of “accompaniment” when they face real questions of self-defense in a world that does not just sit around and “dialogue.”
I have benefitted from Weigel’s writings on JWT over the years, but I think there are two contemporary issues we need to address.
Ethical imbalance
By ethical imbalance, I mean what happens when one side plays by ethical rules in warfare and one doesn’t? In highlighting his problem, I am not just focusing on the sometimes strategic and/or tactical advantages that the ethical cheat gains in battle. I also want to focus on the advantages the ethical cheat acquires in propaganda, especially in a world populated by functional pacifists and useful idiots.
If one side decides to fight ethically against another that won’t, the first side’s combat is going to be that much harder and that much longer. If your unethical enemy puts human hostages in front of you as their shields, doing your best to abide by ethical principles has consequences. It will prolong the conflict. It will probably increase collateral victims (which redounds to the unethical enemy’s propaganda program). It will expose your forces to increased danger.
Now, the increase in unintended victims may be explainable under the Principle of Double Effect, but that introduces additional moral principles into the picture, principles with which many people are unfamiliar and no small number of revisionist “Catholic” moral theologians have been undermining for half a century. And although increased danger on the part of fighting forces is part of being a belligerent, it is still a reality: even belligerents don’t want to die unnecessarily because somebody else tries to stack the ethical deck against them.
And, in any event, the prolonged and intense nature of a military operation conducted in such ethical fashion is likely to cause a public whose attention span has been radically attenuated to lose sight of the initial justice in self-defense that animated that operation. (That public is probably also ignorant of the nuances of the norms for “ethical prosecution” of war and likely to boil them down simply to numbers which, paradoxically, was the faulty moral system Catholic revisionist moral theologians pedaled in the Church post-1968.)
In the end, fighting morally may in practice perhaps be self-defeating. That doesn’t deny the necessity of morality, but it is a reality that, too, must be reckoned with.
How does one counteract that unethical opponent, especially if it is only a quasi-state or a non-state actor (e.g., a terrorist organization)? How does an international community that professes commitment to ethical prosecution of war disadvantage the ethical cheat’s gain?
If this sounds a lot like the current conflict in Gaza, well, there’s plenty of room there for a real debate about what JWT entails.
The “functional pacifism” in vogue in some Church circles has caused these questions to be ignored rather than addressed. That’s irresponsible. A public official is responsible for his country’s right to self-defense against unjust aggression and needs ethical guidance, not pious fervorinos.
Nuclear War
When Weigel first started writing about war in the 1980s, the backdrop was the nuclear arms race between the USSR and the United States, epitomized then by Ronald Reagan’s decision to deploy Pershing missiles to western Europe. Weigel then rightly pointed out that nuclear war had a distortive impact on JWT: seeing war primarily through the prism of nuclear war led again to a kind of “functional pacifism” that declared all war banned. However, as Weigel noted, even conventional war was not going away: there has been no mass retreat to blacksmiths to beat swords into ploughshares. Pretending otherwise again had the practical effect of depriving real decisionmakers in the real world of real ethical principles to address reality.
Nuclear war poses particular ethical questions: there’s no denying that. But we should not let the shadow of nuclear war overshadow the reality that there are bad groups, even bad countries, that commit aggression against which victims have a right to defend themselves. We are losing sight of that truth.
Take Annie Jacobsen’s new best-seller, titled Nuclear War: A Scenario (Dutton, March 2024). It’s the latest installment of a genre dating back to the 1980s, which can be described as “make them weapons go away.” Back then it was the 1983 film “The Day After” or Jonathan Schell’s book Fate of the Earth (Jacobsen is also slated for a movie debut). The unifying thread in many of these works was de facto Western disarmament, with no discussion of how one would ensure concurrent Russian disarmament (or, today, disarmament by even worse actors). Presumably, a St. Jude novena would solve that.
Jacobsen’s book envisions a 100-minute nuclear war in a fit of pique set off in the late afternoon by North Korea, which then elicits U.S. response, Russian retaliation and, in her scenario, a stone-age type world until about AD 24000. Again, without concrete proposals how to eliminate nuclear threats, the book peddles fear.
It’s the same kind of fear Vladimir Putin has excelled at. Whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, he does a nuclear test or changes a nuclear profile in the assumption the Western world will be so cowed as to back down and concede. It’s another example of ethical cheating that makes a bad poker hand win.
Nuclear war is a particular subcategory of JWT. But even if we could verifiably eliminate every existing nuclear weapon on the planet, there’s one truth Schell points out that I don’t think has ever gotten the attention it deserves: nuclear weapons will not go away. They will not go away because even if every extant one is dismantled, the knowledge of how to build them will be there. The genie of Alamogordo isn’t going back into that bottle. So, as in conventional war, the problem also involves stopping ethical cheats in warfare.
So, any effort to cope with the reality of even nuclear war is not going to be solved by diplomacy, negotiations, treaties, or the IAEA. Those things will help, but the solution has to be ethical: it has to be a moral conversion that recognizes not that “war is bad” but that “justice must be sustained.” Neither diplomacy nor law alone will ever replace the moral underpinnings they require: that’s why the Ten Commandments underpin any just legal-political system.
Just War Theory and the dictatorship of relativism
And that kind of ethical conversion requires people to grapple with the dictatorship of relativism, because it demands a recognition that there’s not “your truth” and “my truth,” “your choice” and “my choice,” but the truth that makes a choice good or evil. This one sentence gores a lot more sacred cows than even JWT.
It also requires us to grapple with the truth that there may be values worth dying for. Values such as freedom and liberty.
While this may sound like a throwaway line, the West’s recent experiences during the COVID lockdown should be cautionary: not once did we abandon core principles in the name of “saving lives.” Letting relatives die alone. Burying them without funerals. Abridging religious liberty. Breaking down interpersonal relations (at least those less than six feet apart). Compelling people to take experimental medicines.
Four years after COVID, we still have no small number of twenty- and thirty-somethings masked on the street in the equivalent of secular burqas. Has survival become our paramount value, posing the question: will we fight—and die–for other values? Or is that something we only nostalgically remember when we invoke the memory of the boys of Pointe-du-Hoc and the kids of the Warsaw Uprising?
Justice—not peace—must be sustained at the foundation of our international discourse because it is the underpinning of our rights, including the rights of countries and peoples to freedom, sovereignty, and self-determination. Anything less yields a “peace” that is merely the peace of the grave.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Need a good laugh? Ask Hamas what they think of JWT. Or, even better, ask if they even know what it is.
Yes. Ask Hamas or better, ask Iran.
We don’t have to ask the Israelis-by their entire history and their official statements they reject the “Just War Theory” as a Christian construction which binds them not at all since they are Jews-and still “God’s Chosen People”
So, are you saying nuclear war is acceptable, so long as we feel righteous about it? What’s a few hundred million dead to uphold some sense of “values?” You seem to give politicians and generals too much trust.
Should we have used nukes in Korea or Vietnam? Shades of Dr. Strangelove. Your logic is faulty and jingoistic.
A scenario in which nuclear weapons – tactical ones – might plausibly be justified is the case where an enemy as depraved and bestial as Islamic State is at large. A relevant consideration besides the genocidal proclivities of Islamic State is the fathomless wickedness of the religion it seeks to impose by the sword and the danger to the eternal salvation of souls.
I’m asking questions. All I’m saying is that if there is unilateral (Western) disarmament, just as having law-abiding citizens surrender their guns, the only people left with guns will be the non-lawabiding.
There will be no western unilateral disarmament. But neither should there be a “First strike” scenario on our part. Your reasoning smacks of NRA claptrap. NRA posturing, taken to the level of nuclear weapons is nonsense and dangerous.
The goal is deterrence. If we actually have to use nuclear weapons, then we will have failed. Do you understand this? Or are you just parroting NRA talking points taken to a strategic nuclear level?
Love the condescending comments. Good grief.
The article is NeoCon nonsense, salted with NRA claptrap. Were Vietnam and Iraq “just wars?” How did they go? Grondelski seems to imply that they were good ideas. Condescending? You bet. The article merits it.
Yes, the goal is deterrance. But you can’t deter without the weapons. That’s my point. And there are no small number of ecclesiastical voices right now even claiming the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.
Could there possibly be two levels of morality-one for secular unbelievers and the other for believers who, because they have been given more are thus accountable for more? Just a thought!j
It is so interesting seeing someone who has very strong opinions, but no ability to reason things out.
The NRA isn’t an organization that opines on strategic weapons or war.
The art of vexatious trolling includes concealing your motivations, not using identifying slogans or displaying manifest ignorance.
Your grade: EF Epic Fail
I’m an NRA member and I don’t understand the reference either.
I don’t need approval from right wing fools.
Just a moment, Sir. The article made no mention of a first strike by an ethical combatant. Any inference to the contrary is on you, not the author. Also, as an Endowment member of the NRA, I’m taking direct issue with your falsehood about that organization. We do strongly support the United States military, but we do not advance or theorize about strategy or tactics. May I suggest, Sir, that your bias is only exceeded by your general ignorance of the topic at hand.
Well said.
Sir? I have not been addressed as “sir” so many times, since I was an officer in the Marine Corps. How quaint. Grondelski did not directly advocate a nuclear first strike, but neither did he rule it out.
Regarding the NRA, when I was young, the membership consisted of deer hunters with lever action 30/30’s or duck hunters with shotguns. Their emphasis was on firearms safety and habitat preservation. Today, the organization is overrun with right wing kooks who want to overthrow the government, armed with AR-15’s, which are not hunting rifles. Are they compensating for some shortcoming with all that firepower?
I think that I know as much about national defense as Grondelski or you,
Your continuing commentary, replete with an endless series of ipse dixits, errors and ad hominems makes me think that IF you were a Marine, you had a serious cranial injury and you have not sought treatment or the VA is failing you.
I know and have known Marines. One landed on Tarawa. They are serious and disciplined. My suspicion from your abusive bellicosity is that if you were a Marine, you were dishonorably discharged as a Private.
Of course, since real Marines don’t refer to themselves as Marines in the past tense (once a Marine, always a Marine), a reasonable inference is that your representation is stolen valor.
Did you personally ever wear the uniform? I doubt it. By the way, I was Honorably discharged as a Captain. Did you serve? Probably not. So you knows some Marines? Does that make you an expert?
“Abusive bellicosity?” Just because I don’t agree with Grondelski? Nonsense.
Do you deny that Israel has and is committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Palestine?
In a hair-trigger world where all-out nuclear war might evolve from the use of precisely targeted missiles, and therefore where the calculus of consequences is incalculable, maybe the real war now is what comes earlier—as in rhetoric and signaling…
Four possible considerations:
FIRST, Just War Theory and the rhetoric or signals that come earlier? The war of false signaling? In Ukraine, would Putin ever have crossed the line with his tanks if—based on the Afghanistan debacle?— he did not believe (a belief!) that the West would fold and that the war would be over in two weeks?
SECOND, Just War Theory and a reasonable chance for success? And yet, St. John Paul II had this of Polish resolve in September 1941: “…despite the clear inferiority of her military and technological forces. At that moment the Polish authorities judged that this was the only way to defend the future of Europe and the European spirit” (Memory and Identity, 2005). The likelihood of success? Proportionality?
THIRD, momentum has consequences. Very near the end of World War II the scientific community wrote to President Truman (the Szilard letter, July 1945, signed also by Einstein) about the pending use of the atomic bomb on Japan—that instead of marking the end of the war in the Pacific, it would trigger a nuclear arms race far into the future. But, key persons believed (a belief!) that Russia could not produce such a weapon for twenty years (instead of 1949); the letter allegedly was slow-walked to where Truman never saw it.
FOURTH, how does the long tradition in the West of Just War Theory, beginning with the 5th-century Augustine, dialogue or even match-up with the non-West? Especially, the traditional Islamic mentality of hard plus soft jihad—that peace is what happens only when the whole world is Muslim? Bushido in a turban? Or, with Chinese Marxism that claims a different inevitability as the “scientific” key to human history?
SUMMARY: Like ideas, momentum also has consequences. Rogue states now possess what General Leslie Groves (when first placed in charge of the Manhattan Project) referred to as, “Oh, that thing…” The technocracy thing will never be back to “normal.”
War can be waged without firing weapons. The prelude to the Ukraine Russia was was a suggested policy drawn by consultant Zbigniew Brzeziński that the West post collapse of the USSR had the opportunity to significantly weaken Russian capacity to expand by wresting the Ukraine from its sphere of influence by war if necessary insofar as it was already weakened, with the caveat of doing this prior to Russian recovery.
That theory was put into effect during the 2014 Maidan Revolution allegedly supported by Western interests in Ukraine in conjunction with the Brzeziński theory [student protests apparently were encouraged by Western instructors]. The West did arm Ukraine following overthrow of the Pro Russia regime with technology and weapons. The other incentive to a complete break with Russia was the prospect of Ukraine’s entry into Nato, a policy that triggered the Russia Georgia conflict. The question posed in this, is it ethically warranted to advance a sphere of influence at the cost of a nuclear superpower’s sphere of influence or that of any nation’s interests? Does the risk of nuclear war warrant the spread of a political philosophy as ethically superior, therefore ethically warranting risk of a catastrophic war. Is the philosophy that the US and its Western Allies possess the only valid form of government and have the right to project that as a foreign policy?
Otherwise, Grondelski is correct about the validity of a just war, although the conditions for such are what determines that validity. For example, John Paul II argued for Poland’s justification in its war of self defense against Nazi Germany, despite Poland’s incapacity to meet the conditions of that defensive war. John Paul I would argue had a just reason in that Poland was protecting European sovereignty besides human dignity [John Paul opposed US war on Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War, and is a standard case of an unjust, so-called preventative war]. Certainly it’s a complex matter that has to be weighed with acumen and disinterested justice.
I would disagree with your characterization (which matches Putin propaganda) that the Maidan was a Western import imposed on Ukraine. Under Soviet control, national identity in the non-Russian republics was suppressed. Consider the anemic national feelings in Belarus (at least in what’s called the Belarusian “government”). It took 25 years for Ukrainians, vaccillating between East and West, to conclude that staying in their Eastern hellhole offered no future. That’s when Ukrainians wanted to sign a free trade agreement with the EU (rather than integrate into the RUssian EEC, the “community” of the poor kleptocrats). And that’s when Putin and his puppet Yanukovych started aggression, e.g., seizing Crimea despite Russian recognition of the post-USSR borders of all republics. If the deposition of Yanukovych was illegitimate, so too was the deposition of Gorbachev (and the Communist putsch leaders of August 1991) by Yeltsin. Want to go there?
I understand you hate Pat Buchanan, but let’s step back a moment. The recognition of post-USSR states was unlikely to have come without promises on the other side, don’t you think? The idea that Crimea is non-Russian seems a little fanciful does it not?
[We must recall that all of the USA is “settler,” i.e., conquered territory]
We have a lot of “influence” throughout the Americas, in terms of government policy.
Why would one be incredulous that Russsia would want the same in the Black Sea?
The recognition of post-Soviet states first came about when Yeltsin and the leaders of Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakshstan agreed to dissolve the USSR on 12/8/91. They then ALL signed the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1992 that said the borders that were in existence were THE borders. The United States, UK, and Russia pressured Ukraine into surrendered its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of nonaggression (Budapest Memorandum of 1994). So, why are there ALWAYS excuses when Russia signs something and then reneges?
Incidentally, my purpose in this article is NOT to rehearse history, not to debate whether nuclear weapons (tactical or otherwise) should have been used in the past: they weren’t, that’s history. My purpose is rather to insist that the idea one can fight a just war and that principle MUST be protected for future statesmen charged with defending their countries. Whether that self-defense can include nuclear weapons is a separate question, which is why I wrote it up as a separate question. I would like to recenter the discussion in going forward; going backwards is generally a vain effort.
Putin is neither a saint nor an evil dictator, but he is a shrewd statesman, who like Grondelski himself, sometimes sees the need for measured force.
Here are some relevant facts before we characterize Russian actions as uprovoked, naked imperial aggression.
The US *did promise* in 1990’s not to move nato an inch eastwards. Not only did they move Nato eastward but they did so all the way to Russia’s borders–and with an expanded number of new Nato members. Granted, Russia was imprudent to accept our word and not have it put it into writing. Still that was unethical on our part–showing our bad faith.
Nato claims that it is a purely defensive alliance, but that claim was shown to be a lie in 1990s when Nato invaded and bombed (Christian) Serbia despite the fact that Serbia had not invaded any Nato member. Again, this shows the bad faith of the West.
An elected legitimate President (Yanukovich of Ukraine) has the authority to change his mind on a policy to which he was committed earlier. He does not lose the right to govern if he changes his mind. If the citizens don’t like his change of mind, they have the right to vote him out of office, or use other constitutional procedures.
For instance, UK’s Boris Johnson did not lose his right to govern as PM when US pressure forced him to cave in to US demands that he abandon trade and computer deals with Chinese firms. Likewise, Yanukovich did not lose his authority as President because he changed his mind on close economic ties with the EU/Europe and preferred a closer association with Russia.
He even agreed to a compromise solution with his opponents, a compromise which came to nought due the US-supported violence of the Maidan coup. Yanukovich had to flee or he would have lost his life. this was a US backed coup–you can even hear recordings of neocon warmonger Vicki Nuland earnestly plotting what the new government will look like. Ukraine was relegated to what it is today–a US puppet.
The actions of Crimea to detach itself from Ukraine came *after the Maidan coup,* when it became clear to the people of Crimea that their democratic choice would not be respected (that Region supported yanukovich in the election) and that the new Kiev regime, being a puppet of the US, did not believe in an independent Ukraine. Same for the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Russia’s support for the popular crimea referendum re-joining Russia was sort of a no-brainer–ethically and even “pragmatically”. Crimea had been Russian for 300 years and the Russians already, by prior agreements with Ukraine, had port and naval rights, including Naval infantry in the Crimea. Pace Grondelski, crimea’s reattachment to Russia came after the Maidan coup, not before it. It was in response to the US’s disrespect for the democratic choices and independence of the Ukrainian people.
Regarding the Donbass Republics, Russia, in her usual cautious way, declined to recognize them, hoping that Kiev would accept them as semiautonomous in a new federal arrangement. Kiev refused to negotiate and began an 8 year aggression and bombing campaign against the new Republics, killing 15, 000 people.
Moscow finally got Kiev to agree to two cease fire Minsk agreements, to cease the shelling and enter into talks with the Donbass Republics. Under US and Nato urging, however, the agreements were cynically used as cover for a Ukrainian military buildup, and the agreements were continually broken and aggressively mocked by the Ukrainian redoubling of the shelling, especially in the winter of 2021-2022.
Once again the people of Donbass (mainly Russian ethnics) appealed to Russia for help. This time Putin responded.
He has no desire to take over all of Ukraine (unless the West forces him to do so by continually supplying Kiev with the latest weaponry (esp. long range rockets) and perhaps even with troops (given the Ukie losses and flights from the country).
He may also have to take more land from Ukraine in order to create a buffer zone to protect his own civilians (in Belgorod) from Western supplied rockets launched by the Ukies.
His goals were threefold.
Recognition of Russian Crimea and independence for the Donbass republics. He has had to expand these demands due to the bad faith of the West/Ukraine and the facts on the ground. (See the russian acquisition of Zaporozhia and Kherson.) He is succeeding in these goals in the usual methodical Russian manner.
Demilitarization of Ukraine. See the huge Ukie losses in men and materiel.
De-Nazification of Ukraine. See the exposure and defeat of the Azov, Kraken, and Bandera battalions. The Nazi character of these battalions is obvious.
Putin is winning and his actions are ethically reasonable.
The current Ukie/Nato regime is coming to an end.
“…weighed with acumen and disinterested justice.” And here are two more ingredients to add to this “complex matter.”
FIRST, in 1994, and prior to the Maidan Revolution in 2014, Ukraine agreed to transfer all of its nuclear weapons in exchange for a commitment by the West for protection. (I think the transfer was completed in 1996.) So, what constitutes protection versus betrayal, and is it really true that the contest is between merely one “form of government” and another that is equally “valid?” Define government?
SECOND, as an armchair observation, my recollection is that the original Iraq strategy consisted of a pincer movement, one half from the south, and the other from the north utilizing Turkish airspace. Under such a strategy a surely much quicker occupation would have averted what became a drawn-out mess, exploited by internal Muslim sectarianism tracing back to the 7th Century.
But, the final week before the invasion, President Erdogan of secularist/Muslim (?) Turkey withdrew permission to use Turkish airspace. The other half of the broken pincer, logistically poised and moving forward, did. An unthinkable 300,000 civilians killed directly, others indirectly (how many by Muslims?). But, once we were engaged, to label as unjust the decision to then not abandon the new situation–when is this view a luxury too easily claimed at arm chair distance? Or, in the future, how can the calculus of engagement depend less upon agreements with any cosmetic nation-state apparatus floating atop the larger and seismically sectarian Islamic world?
Yes, a “complex matter,” how to exercise clairvoyance and avoid, or later to nimbly navigate a political and abruptly shifting strategic landscape?
As to nimble navigation the issue of moral legitimacy is not equal to military strategy. These are two different subjects, including the neatness of a quick pincer movement to avoid an Iraq War mess [would Shock and Awe, then, the terrorizing of the population of Baghdad captured for TV viewing in the USA be part of a nimble strategy?] .
Ukraine. Are you saying that Ukraine bargained for protectorate status [rendering Ukraine subject to Nato suzerainty] as defined by international law? And if so, is there such a document? Or was there some other official document issued by Nato committing itself to Ukraine’s defense? Or are you referencing hearsay?
As to your asking me to define government, That’s easy. Just look up the definition in Webster’s.
Peter, I agree that an accord was reached following Ukraine’s 1990 declaration of sovereignty that led to a protracted unwillingness by Ukraine to transfer it’s nuclear capabilities. Ukraine demanded retention of its nuclear armaments for security reasons. That followed by partial transfer to Russia. Finally complete transfer with protective assurances.
“1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
To solidify security commitments to Ukraine, the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances on December 5, 1994. A political agreement in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Accords, the memorandum included security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence. The countries promised to respect the sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. Parallel memorandums were signed for Belarus and Kazakhstan as well. In response, Ukraine officially acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on December 5, 1994. That move met the final condition for ratification of START, and on the same day, the five START states-parties exchanged instruments of ratification, bringing the treaty into force.
2009 Joint Declaration by Russia and the United States
Russia and the United States released a joint statement in 2009 confirming that the security assurances made in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum would still be valid after START expired in 2009” (ACA).
The conflict has its beginnings in the overthrow of Ukrainian president Yanukovych during the Maidan revolution, followed by Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
A superlative piece. Thank you.
We continually need such analytically sound JWT argumentation when there is so much fantasyland wishful thinking being peddled by authors and theologians.
Thank you
Should we have dropped some small tactical nukes on the Ho Chi Minh trail?
Absolutely imho. South Viet Nam would be a free country today instead of an atheistic totalitarian state that persecutes Catholics.
There may have been better ways to help South Viet Nam than US military involvement but war is serious business not to be trifled with by greasy politicians who will spend blood and treasure at their pleasure e.g. Ukraine.
The US could have befriended Russia after the collapse of the USSR and the world wide threat of nuclear holocaust would be much diminished. Instead of the US building a massive nuclear deterrence what might the world look like if we had used our nuke technical expertise to export small nuke power plants to all the needdy nations of the world. There is another kind of nuclear power which has been ignored…..real forein aid to directly benefit the pople with cheap electric power.
sorry for the typos.
Perhaps the real dilemma today is the conflict between the objective morality embraced by a mainly religious minority living in a secular society embracing a subjective morality. Like oil and water they will never mix. Reconciliation and compromise are impossible. Dialogue is a futile waste of time. As Christians our mission is to live and speak the truth with the aim to enlighten minds and change hearts. This must be done with great charity and humility. We are not better than they, just different. We have received a blessing (grace) , which we hope they are yet to receive . We are in the world, but not of the world. We are light to a darkened world. Our first alliance must always be to God. We must submit to the secular authorities as much as we morally are able without compromise. We must labor for the right to live separate lives in peace while contributing to the greater good as much as we can while still maintaining our convictions. If we read and re read the Gospels we will see how this can be done. We should not loose heart as we are told that things must get much worse before they can become better. The pain of birth is forgotten after the child is born.
Why would a theory (a tolerated opinion, in Catholic terms) be so important? Why not rely on dogma such as “thou shalt not kill” or “blessed be the peacemakers”. Instead of trying to weasel out of the teachings of the prince of peace with theories, why not just listen to his teachings and not be involved in killing anyone? If the Ukrainian or Palestinian governments have problems with other governments, it does not compel anyone else to be involved in the heinous sin of murder.
So, JFK would have been “unjust” to invade Cuba to stop a Soviet nuclear treat by this argument(as would our entire “Monroe Doctrine”)? Since 2005, Russia has stated they felt threatened by the march with nukes, spy bases, chemical/bio weapons factories right up to their border. They finally quit making treaties that weren’t honored by Ukraine & took a JFK-Cuba-type invasion action to protect their border. It is not “just” to act in your country’s red-line security interest?
I disagree that Vladimir Putin is particularly good at brinksmanship, and he certainly has not gotten everything he’s wanted. Actually, quite the opposite. If he had had his way, the Donbass would today be autonomous in the Ukraine, and the Ukraine pledged to neutrality. And Russia would still be pumping gas to Germany via NordStream. Despite the attempt at putting a good face on it, Russia seems to have practiced “hat-in-hand diplomacy for some time, only to be rebuffed again and again.
So I don’t think he’s bluffing at this point. Bluffing would be to threaten something, but not be willing to follow through. Regarding nuclear weapons, he has stated that, with regard to the Ukraine, Russia would not ever employ them first (but he WOULD respond). As such, only NATO could employ bluff in this regard.
Do you really believe Vladimir Putin shares your worldview of peace, equity, and economic self-interest that only NATO, for some inexplicable reason, stomped on? That the Alliance, having nothing better to do, decided to “threaten” Russia (something Moscow, whether in its Soviet or Russian incarnations has been claiming since 1949) because it had nothing else to do? That EUropean countries, most of whom are even more pacifist than the Left and pseudo-RIght in the United States, really wants to stoke conflict with RUssia?
I am not certain what is meant by peace, equity, and economic self-interest, and I am very uncertain whether they represent “my view.” As to the rest of the queries, I suppose I must confess to be guilty as charged, after a fashion. I admit that NATO reasoning seems to me somewhat inexplicable. With the fall of Communism, and its worldwide pretentions, I would be perfectly fine with Russia living its own life, with whatever socio-economic and political arrangements it saw fit. And with no threats or persecutions. Thus, suborning the Ukraine and, especially, seeking to extirpate the Russian parts of the Ukraine, again, seems to me to be especially unnecessary AND unjustifiable.
So, yes, from my perspective it seems that NATO wanted to assail Russia, for whatever reason, and arranged for provocation. So yes, it seems that someone wanted to stoke conflict with Russia. I have no idea why. Certainly not in my name.
Worldwide Communism. Worldwide Liberalism. These seem to me to be the enemies of actual Humanity. But Aquinas’ principles on Just War apply I think, regardless of the enemy. Do you know if he made a distinction?
I agree Ukraine had legitimate grievances with the former USSR and certainly merited freedom from continued Russian interference. Putin’s stated concern after the new Zelenskyy government took control was that Ukraine remain outside Nato, which precipitated the seizure of Crimea. He publicly stated that Ukraine could retain its government under Zelenskyy, retain its army and enter commerce with the EU with the assurance it would not enter Nato. When Ukraine continued to express willingness to join Nato and refused to give assurance he would not, Putin attacked.
I don’t support that attack and the war against Ukraine. Neither am I convinced that continued blood letting in that war should continue. Some in the West insist on total victory against Russia. This exceeds the parameters of reasonability for a just war. That I disagree with because it’s purposely intended to permanently cripple Russia and would likely precipitate a nuclear response. Negotiation is the only ethical response. Russia should relinquish all the territory it occupied since the war and pay some indemnity. Ukraine should offer a guarantee on non belligerency, as it is carrying on now with Western support.
Russia for a short time after the collapse of the Soviet Union, under Gorbachev and Yeltsin was prepared to associate itself with the West, although the West remained suspicious and basically hostile scuttling an agreement not to extend Nato further East.
1. Ever consider that the fact “Russia attacked” lends credence to the fact why Ukraine wanted NATO protection?
2. There was never any agreement that NATO would not extend East. NATO has always had an “open door” policy. It seems to be a basic principle of friendship on the personal level and sovereignty on the national level: country A can be a friend of country B without asking country C’s permission.
Thanks John for your responses and input. I don’t claim to have all the answers on the matter. Your last entry on friendship between nations is correct.
NATO appears to be an offensive alliance, to oppose Russia. For whatever reason, I have no idea.
Allying with weak states, that increase rather than decrease one’s military responsibilities and dangers, is not really called an “alliance.” It is called a protectorate. One hopes the Ukraine avoids that.
On the other hand, John, in 1962 when country A installed missiles on its Caribbean Island friend B, 90 miles from country C, country C came close to nuclear war with country A, regardless of A and B’s sovereignty.
My understanding is that the United States gave a verbal commitment to Russia after the unification of West and East Germany that NATO would extend no farther east than what had been East Germany.
Not sure about your understanding…
First, the agreement was at least mostly that Western missiles would be removed from Turkey. Second, the U.S. Navy Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability had a stranglehold on under-reported Soviet submarines also in Caribbean and other waters. Third, at the diplomatic level, the cover story and possibly the central truth was that Kennedy also gave Khrushchev a face-saving path for standing down. And, fourth, part of the backstory is that if the newly-elected Kennedy had not disallowed air cover to be part of the earlier Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (April 1961), the later Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962) nuclear standoff never would have happened.
I raise other complexities in my earlier response of 12:21 p.m. to Fr. Peter Morello. The airspace thing all over again…
I understand you hate Pat Buchanan, but let’s step back a moment. The recognition of post-USSR states was unlikely to have come without promises on the other side, don’t you think? The idea that Crimea is non-Russian seems a little fanciful does it not?
[We must recall that all of the USA is “settler,” i.e., conquered territory]
We have a lot of “influence” throughout the Americas, in terms of government policy.
Why would one be incredulous that Russsia would want the same in the Black Sea?
Biden deliberately provoked the war in Ukraine. I never would have happened had the 2020 election been honest and Pres Trump returned to office. The lack of a strong Catholic vote in support of Trump – I fault our corrupt bishops for misleading the ‘sheep’ – has allowed the baby killing party of death to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear conflagration. How many ethnic Russian citizens of Ukraine were killed by their own puppet government after the US instigated overthrow of their duly elected government?
The 2020 election was honest. Every Court Case confirms this. You checked every MAGA block.
From another commenter Will who may disagree with your contempt for deplorables.
Ukraine was very weak in 2014.
Putin missed the chance that is Russia now paying with thousands of lives.
Posted by: vargas | Jul 21 2024 20:55 utc | 266
Russia never wanted Ukraine.
They took Crimea because he knew the pustch leaders intended to break the Russian lease of the Sevastopol naval base and hand it over to NATO.
The breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts petitioned Moscow to be admitted to the Russian federation and Putin refused … he instead negotiated the Minsk agreements.
It was only in 2022 when the Ukrainians had a NATO trained army of 60,000 ready to retake the 2 breakaway republics by force that the Russians acted militarily and declared the breakaway republics as Russian territory.
The only reason Russia is fighting in Ukraine is because the USA took advantage of Russia’s concern for Russians living under the boot of Ukrainians. History will look back on this as a cruel and cynical piece of warmongery by the
Many thanks for an insightful article. I first encountered JWT when I was young and still a professional soldier. I found it to be a useful and practical guide to thought. War is essentially a contest of wills; defeat happens in the mind. There is no formula for victory. Like a wrestling match there is only advantage and luck. Victory usually goes to the one willing to pay the higher price. Etc, hope you get the point.
Thanks for the thoughtful article packed with insights. I first read JWT when I was young and still a professional soldier. Eventually I came to the conclusion that war is a contest of wills; the wills in question being the leadership of the warring parties. So war is primarily a personal interaction. Each side seeks to prevail by seeking advantage and exploiting luck in order to break the will of the other side. (If you are really good you can sometimes make your own luck). Dr Grondelski makes an important point about justice. The winner makes the rules and if the winner seeks justice (prudently!) then maybe peace might break out and linger for a while. Note “prudently”. This seems to be a forgotten virtue nowdays.
Thanks. Another commentator asked why we just can’t stick to “Thou shalt not kill?” It would be great if we did, but when somebody is trying to kill you, either you have a moral justification for self-defense or just brute force. Yes, you can “turn the other cheek,” but justice does not demand that Christians be dead. So, we get back to my point: the nuances of contemporary warfare being what they are (and I have not yet added the AI component), the Church does not have the luxury of pretending JWT is really irrelevant and focus instead on singing “give peace a chance!”
Dear Moderator, is it possible to contact Dr Grondelski about his piece directly by kindly passing on my name and e-mail address to him? I am doing some research in this area and would like to ask him a question. Thanks and God bless, Fr Nicholas (not for publication)