Policy on Ukraine might be rational, but is it moral?

By Clive Crook

The other night, while driving to Washington, I saw the Kennedy Center lit up in blue and yellow in honor of the Ukrainian flag. For a moment I was proud to confirm that the United States supports Ukraine. And then I remembered that, at that time, Russia was bombing residential areas and mothers and children were hiding in basements. Innocent lives were being destroyed.

Right now, the United States and its allies are feeling pretty pleased with themselves, more than they should be. Perhaps they too need to stop for a moment and reflect.

They can certainly point to some achievements. The sanctions they have crafted are far more comprehensive and effective than Russian President Vladimir Putin or anyone else ever expected.

They are arming Ukraine and the force of their resistance has pushed Russia back. Putin could fail, they tell themselves, if only the West could keep it up. It is hard work. Have you seen how much a gallon of gas costs lately? But freedom exacts its price.

Despite the blue and yellow flags, the people of Ukraine might wonder if the West’s sacrifice in the name of solidarity is up to the task.

To be sure, the allies’ moves could be rational. It may be in his interest that Putin’s invasion humiliate him and lead to his removal, but not enough to risk the lives of his own soldiers, much less risk escalating the conflict to the point of a nuclear war.

So the US and Europe help Ukraine with arms supplies (within limits) but not direct military intervention, and the world punishes Russia with sanctions, hoping to cripple its forces and increase internal opposition. towards Putin.

The concerned ethical question is whether this really helps Ukraine. Let’s do a thought experiment: imagine that the goal of the United States and Europe was to maximize the pain inflicted on Ukraine. Let us consider what policies might have better achieved that goal. Would they have been different from the ones they actually chose?

Before the conflict began, the West encouraged both Russia and Ukraine to believe that Ukraine could join both NATO and the European Union in the foreseeable future, with no serious intention of this actually happening.

This mistake put Russia and Ukraine more directly at odds. When Putin began to build up his military, the US and Europe did nothing to dissuade him and kept the proposals for Ukraine (NATO has an open door policy, etc.). So Ukraine risked being brave and Putin bet on war.

Once the invasion began, the West applied forceful and unexpected sanctions. Had they been announced earlier, they might have deterred Putin, but by applying them at this stage, they help sustain the conflict.

Meanwhile, celebrating its newfound solidarity, the West talks around the world as if it plans not only to stop Putin but to remove him from power, while continuing to rule out full military support. That makes it harder for Putin to back down as he moderates the costs of his continued attack. He could still win this war, he reasons, and he can’t afford to lose it. So he will bet on the climb.

And what about the Ukrainian incentives? Zelensky can still hope that the allies will join the war if Putin’s crimes reach the necessary level. He may start by calling for a limited no-fly zone, then a larger no-fly zone, and then gradually all-out war. Ukraine could still prevail.

All the while, the West applauds Zelensky’s determination. He received a standing ovation after his video address to the UK Parliament last week, and you can expect the same when he addresses the US Congress on Wednesday. But he does not accommodate his requests. The end result is that Ukraine is still fighting, maybe it will lose or maybe it will win. However, win or lose, further destruction of the country is guaranteed.

Actually, it goes without saying that what drove and still drives this catastrophic sequence was not calculation, but one miscalculation after another, all over the place. In war, it was always like that. But it should be sobering that events continue to tilt toward a dire outcome for Ukraine, as if this had been the West’s purpose all along.

To be sure, the United States and Europe sincerely want to help Ukraine, and indeed their actions are shocking Putin. But his stance and dithering about ends and means continues to make things worse for the main victims.

It is morally correct, of course, to want to prevent an upsurge that could cause death and destruction on a much larger scale. But it is a mistake to lead Ukraine to accept greater losses and Putin to step up his efforts unless the allies are willing to bear their full share of the consequences.

It is time for the West to decide. If you want to be a belated ally of Ukraine against Russia, you must act like one and join this fight. If you are not willing to do so, you should stop applauding your own determination and focus on making ending the war your top priority.