Many commentators simply take for granted that supplying arms to Ukraine is the right thing to do. This is by no means clear to me – even if you believe Russia is entirely in the wrong.
Of course, Western countries have already sent billions of dollars worth of weapons (including thousands of anti-tank and anti-air missile launchers) over the last few years, and especially the last few months. So a more pertinent question would be, “Was it moral to arm Ukraine?”
Let’s consider the possible consequences of sending arms versus not doing so. If we hadn’t sent arms, Russia’s invasion would presumably have had a far higher chance of success. It’s not entirely clear what Russia’s objectives are, but a reasonable worst-case scenario is that they would have annexed half the country.
This is clearly a very bad outcome from the point of view of most Ukrainians, who would prefer to live under Ukrainian rule than under Russian rule. (I’m assuming that outside Crimea and the Donbass, there isn’t much support for Russian annexation.)
But are there outcomes worse than Russia annexing half the country after a swift military victory? I think we can clearly say there are worse outcomes. Here’s one: a very bloody conflict that drags on for ten years.
As I noted in a previous post, the Syrian Civil War is now in its eleventh year, having claimed more than 400,000 lives – more than double the number who died in the extremely bloody Yugoslav wars. And one reason it has dragged on for so long is external arming of rebel groups.
Now, Bashar al-Assad may be a very bad guy. You don’t have to like him or his regime to acknowledge there can be few outcomes worse than the Syrian Civil War – worse, I mean, for ordinary Syrians. Which raises the question, “Was it moral for the US to arm rebel groups in Syria?” And it seems very plausible to me the answer is, “No.”
Returning to Ukraine, some commentators have already said the West should try to turn Ukraine into “another Afghanistan” – a protracted conflict that depletes Russia’s military and financial resources to the point where the regime collapses (or something along those lines). This strikes me as deeply immoral.
First, it’s by no means clear that regime collapse in Russia would be a good thing. Yes, Putin is a bad guy. But he could be replaced by someone just as bad or worse. Alternatively, regime collapse could lead to chaos or anarchy, which is not something we want in a state armed with thousands of nukes.
Second, a protracted conflict in Ukraine could wreak the same kind of devastation as Syria’s civil war: entire cities destroyed, and hundred of thousands killed. This has led some commentators to cynically remark that “the United States will fight for Ukraine, to the very last Ukrainian”.
There are several possible replies from those who insist we must send arms (or that we were definitely right to do so). The first is that Ukraine has a much higher chance of actually winning. This is clearly their strongest argument. Hence I would say the risk of prolonged insurgency has to be balanced against the chance of a quick Ukrainian victory.
Another reply is that the Ukrainians want to fight. But which Ukrainians? And for how long? While some young men might relish the prospect of taking up arms to defend their homeland, the same is unlikely to be true of most women, let alone elderly citizens or those with families.
And will ordinary Ukrainians be just as keen to fight if the war drags on for months or even years? Once weapons have found their way into the hands of diehard fighters on the front lines, the rest of the population may be committed to an insurgency – whether it wants one or not.
Yet another reply is that we have to stand up to Putin’s aggression. But if the effect of doing so is to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan, maybe not standing up to his aggression is the lesser evil. The West benefits from deterrence, but ordinary Ukrainians pay the price? This doesn’t seem like a very good deal for the Ukrainians.
The fundamental problem for the West is that we’re unwilling to “stand up to Putin’s aggression” by actually putting boots on the ground. And for good reason: we don’t want to risk a nuclear war. Conditional on this being the case, doing less on the military front might be better than doing more. Why not pressure both sides to negotiate?
Of course, if we lived in a world without nuclear weapons, we could enter the war on Ukraine’s side and probably achieve a decisive victory over Russia – thanks to America’s overwhelming military power. But that isn’t the world we live in. And we have to make plans based on reality.
Now, it’s entirely possible that, thanks to all the arms we’ve sent, the Ukrainians will either defeat the Russians, or will hold out long enough to bargain for a good settlement. But it’s also possible they’ll find themselves locked into a very bloody conflict that develops a momentum of its own.
The fact that Western leaders don’t seem to even be considering the latter possibility – or, like Hillary Clinton, are actively cheering it on – is not a good sign.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well yes but isn’t “bloke” a purely biological term? How can you be biologically a bloke and not a bloke in other ways?
“Called his language “intentionally derogatory and disrespectful” and “not appropriate as a Clerk in Holy Orders”.
Maker’s Handbook, page 1, Genesis 1.27 ‘So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.’.
These words repeated by Jesus too.
The bishop is on dodgy ground. Roll on the Judgment.
To play devil’s advocate, no-one (in the Church of England at least) believes that bit any more though, do they?
““I’m self-evidently a woman, but I’m glad I was once a man.”
——–
No, you’re self-evidently a man who has no understanding of basic biological facts.
I went to the psychiatrist and said “I identify as a dog. I bark and wag my tail” —–He replied “Lay on the couch for me”——–I said “Oh I am not allowed on the couch”
It’s the way you tell ’em.
Please do not mis-species me. ——–ruff ruff ruff
Honestly, the fact this fellow has made the news shows us all in a poor light. A couple of hundred years ago, one can imagine there might have been some eccentric parson in a remote area, Devon perhaps, who sometimes styled himself “Lady Amelia” and rode side-saddle to hounds, and you can imagine he might have found his way into a small locally printed pamphlet on “Curious Devon Characters”.
But he wouldn’t even have made the local press. That would have been full of important news, like stock prices at auction.
The main reason I left the C of E (many years ago) was that it seemed to behave like a big corporation (and one that had lost touch of its core ‘mission’). This is just more of the same. If Murphy worked for (say) BP and made the vlog in some way that clearly identified him as a BP employee, I’m sure the outcome would be the same. It’s just another UK institution that has failed, but it’s been failing for 30 years or more.
There are many ways of pursuing a fulfilling spiritual life.
I don’t think the C of E is much help with that these days.
“There are many ways of pursuing a fulfilling spiritual life”
Hear, hear!
Taking a long, hard look in the mirror is the best place to start. I haven’t yet progressed past that stage
The light comes from self-awareness and humility.
But we are still right and they’re all still wrong about ThePandemic™, though!
A person identifying themselves in some way or other these days trumps how other people may identify them. But ofcourse is that such a big surprise in wokeworld when ideology trumps common sense on just about everything? ——-You cannot say who stole your mobile phone. It looked like a woman but who can tell these days, when women may have a 6 o’clock shadow.
We’re building a society around the promotion of the destruction of the traditional family unit. It started with feminism and it ends with the acceptance of mental illness, which is what transgenderism is, as normal. Pit women against men, pit men and women against their own biology, pit children against their parents; destroy, destroy, destroy. What we are left with is no sense of belonging. No sense of belonging to any group other that the state. Rehashed communism has been on its way for a long time. It always hid as a bloke in a dress.
Boom
Yes, if I remember correctly Jesus said something about the importance of having an impeccable “blue file” to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I think it was in the gospel according to Matthew. Or maybe it was Luke.
Help and support the Heritage Party which champions traditional values. And because of this it is targeted by Antifa which puts them in a good light doesn’t it?
According to the linked Telegraph article, he calls himself a woman and a lesbian. So he still fancies women and also wants to dress like one. Isn’t that a transvestite? Confused – we are supposed to be.
‘He added: “You clearly recorded your vlog wearing clerical attire aware that this would give you both status and make it clear you were a Church of England priest”’
So he’s being accused of honesty.
I’m unclear which particular Canon Law can be used against a clergyman who’s already left the CofE and calls out a transgender lesbian serving as an archdeacon. But then I’m a Baptist now.
Transgender lesbian is a nonsense term. That’s bloke who – for some reason only known to him – tries to appear like a woman in public but doesn’t want to extend to his private life, where he prefers to remain a bloke, ie, someone with a habit of putting his penis into real women. That’s self-evidently his own business. But he has no right to try to force others to partake in his cosplaying show.
This is my archdeaconry. I declined to go to the visitation for church wardens and lay sidespersons for the same reason – i’m not engaging with clown world.
I’d say, with all due respect, learn to juggle, or leave!
Welby is clearly Satan’s acolyte. I attend church every week. The Church of England will undoubtedly die but Christianity will NEVER die.
Jesus said “I tell you the truth”. Rev Murphy was telling the truth.
Revd Mann’s a man, he probably should have changed his name as well as his pronouns!!