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.
Go Reform, go!
If it’s anything like their declared membership. Ignore it.
23% intend to vote Tory. Why?
It’s not clear whether the %s include those who don’t know/don’t intend to vote, but even so there is still a majority that intend to vote for woke socialist globalist “green” parties. How depressing.
Some of them will previously have intended to vote Reform until the leader of that party stood by his expressed opinion that he admired Putin.
Yeah, which gave us possibly the worst government in British history and left us with the Fake conservatives as Her Majesty’s Opposition. Great result.
You cannot seriously believe that Reform could ever have won the last election. Even they admitted that was never going to happen.
A labour victory was written in stone as soon as the lamentable Mr Johnson caved (quite possibly to Mrs Johnson) regarding lockdowns.
Mr Musk knows a thing or two. Mr Farage has many qualities but he is not and never will be Prime Ministerial material.
The only question in town is whether Mrs Badenoch is of the requisite calibre.
We will not know the answer to that for a while yet.
I didn’t “believe” Reform were going to win the election because I saw the opinion polls and I am aware that we have drifted into being a country full of people who think the “government” can/should/will solve all their problems. But why shouldn’t Reform win the election? Why the hell would any conservative vote Tory after 14 years of being lied to and let down?
I don’t get your logic about lockdowns. Labour wanted more of them.
Badenoch is less of a weasel and more conservative than Sunak or Johnson, and she has bigger balls than both of them put together (not hard) but she is an unrepentant covidian and her party is still full of wets so they can go and do one as far as I am concerned.
If you are waiting for a political leader who is “prime ministerial material” who represents a major party, I hope you are a lot younger than I am and live a lot longer.
We are screwed and will remain so until things get a lot worse or maybe never.
Yes.
If you didn’t believe Reform were going to win, who else could have won except the egregious labour party?
The voters put in the labour party based on them not being the conservative party and for no other reason.
Few outside of here had got the hang of the futility of lockdowns or, indeed, vaccines.
Mr Farage nor his Chairman convinces.
Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe both have something about them but, for the time being, Reform represent a decent protest vote, nothing more.
As for Mrs Badenoch, easy to condemn but silly.
We have not yet been given a clear view of the cut of her jib, nor will we for a couple of years.
Mr Farage looks like a one trick pony.
Mrs Badenoch may very well be better than that, but the jury is still out….
Mrs Doubtfire meets Rab C Nesbitt.
Silly? If you still think the Fake conservative party deserves power, good luck!
None of them “convince” me. Of the mainstream parties and politicians, Reform are the closest to my views and don’t cross any red lines.
Entirely correct.
Badenoch? You are having a laugh.
I thought Scotland might be the only place where men can get away with wearing a skirt and not look like they’re cross-dressing because they still manage to look masculine. That’s not going to cut it in these Woke times, according to Starmer;
https://x.com/beverleyturner/status/1883229905997136073
Bloody hell !
It’s like if Hattie Jacques and Christopher Biggins had a lovechild….
We are all just stooges in a big comedy sketch…
Putin has many admirable qualities. Hard to imagine anyone surviving for 25 years as the President of a Mafia run state unless he did. Of course some of his qualities are much less admirable, and you don’t have to like him on a personal level, far from it. I think that was what Nigel was saying, but the subtlety and nuance is lost in the MSM. Its a bit like saying Gary Lineker was a fine football striker. It is true, but not a complete summation of him and his character.
Kennedy didn’t want missiles on his border in 1961 as Putin didnt want NATO missiles on his border. Yet Kennedy was lauded as a hero. Go figure.
What the heck is an “open-book test”? And who gets to take an exam paper home??
So basically ‘cheating’ then? I can’t imagine Reform tolerating this;
“Yet again, racial minorities are being patronised by the authorities at Oxford and Cambridge.
More racist policies in the name of “progress”…
https://x.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1883213109277733126
Nice to see the Telegraph omit that just 20% of the electorate voted Labour.
The problem Reform have – other than Farage as leader – is that in trying to grow quick enough to be able to contest the May elections they are recruiting Tories with questionable views. Think RINOs in the US. We need a fresh party not a rehashed Tory one.
Our County Council Norfolk has cancelled our democracy and elections. The senior staff are rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of a bigger authority meaning higher salaries for them.
Reform and Farage may seem the best option but we are being manipulated into voting for them at a future GE. Like at the GE last year, at this rate I will again have to spoil my ballot paper. There is no one fit for purpose (ie true to God and our country) for whom I can currently vote (except perhaps for David Kurten).
Farage and Tice fully supported the Rona Fascism.
They have nothing to say about the Muslimification of this country or its destruction from ‘legal’ invasion. Focusing on the small boats which are 1-10% of the total problem.
Absolutely!
And 45% would still vote for the collection of psychopaths who have brought our formerly great Britain to its present ruinous state.
Then add in the idiots who would vote Lib Dem and Green and the answer to: are we screwed? becomes apparent.