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.
So, why the reference to 2024?
I can only think it is Labours implicit, and sick, support for a proscribed organisation, Hamas.
They are not terrorists, they just work for Hamas, as I believe one person put it.
The only people who would say Hamas aren’t terrorists are the Jew-hating, terrorism-supporting rape-apologists. Everybody in possession of a functioning moral compass has both feet firmly planted in reality.
Downtickers on your marks…
Just thinking out loud… let’s assume that this act of violence was committed not as a protest over the Middle East but for arguments sake because somebody had lost their partner to the jibby jabs, how would that change our thinking, if at all?
Stella Creasy has as far as I am aware supported the government throughout the Scamdemic so she has blood on her hands. I wonder how I would feel if someone close died because they fell for the propoganda. I suspect I would want to achieve rather more than a broken window.
MP’s happily take the money so I suggest they learn to accept the downsides. And I rather suspect similar ‘antisocial’ acts might well become more prevalent once Kneel has his feet under the table and starts to enforce his version of Agenda 2030.
No, it’s not nice.
Now, now, what is the difference between a Jew hater and a Palestinian hater? And the stories of rape and beheaded babies have long been debunked as Israeli propaganda, which does not say much for those making up such perverse stories. And more than one source has claimed that your so-called terrorists performed a purely military operation on 7th October.
But, hey, 7th October was a long time ago. How come your non-terrorist Israelis are still today bombing refugee camps and killing countless innocent civilians – 9 months on?
Was it one week ago that Israeli forces rescued 4 hostages from the hands of Hamas? Only at the cost of the lives of 3 other hostages and over 200 Palestinians, not to mention several hundred wounded Palestinians, the latter presumably being unable to access anything other than minimal medical treatment.
Do you condone such excessive and rather inhumane behaviour? I hope not.
But I am certainly against the destructive actions taken against this politician. People need to sit down together and discuss grievances, not just hit out in violence. And that applies to Israel too, in my opinion.
Oh dear, CGW, I wonder what you would think if it was your baby that was beheaded or your daughter being daily raped in Gaza. Debunked? Are you one of those people who wants to see the photos for yourself, then?
Now there are daily rapes, in among all that rubble? It depends on your source of information, does it not? I read about Israelis sexually mistreating Palestinian prisoners. I have read multiple reports of Hamas ‘terrorists’ comforting their prisoners, telling them they will not be harmed or molested because “we are muslims”. Then they were fired upon by Israeli tanks and all died except for one or two sole Israeli survivors. And pure logic dictates that fighters under attack would be more concerned about their own well-being than playing with the opposite sex or beheading babies. Have you seen the photographs of the Israelis who came up with the latter stories?
So it all depends on what you read and what you believe. And I just do not believe that Israelis have a carte blanche to go around killing thousands of civilians – with what justification, because they are Palestinians?!
You would not understand if it was explained to you using small words. Old saying, or joke; the mind is like a parachute, it works best when open.
Those who call Hamas terrorists should remember that this was also the word used to describe Nelson Mandela. I do not condone the attacks on civilians on Oct 7 but that does not mean I cannot understand what desperation can do after 80 long vile years of Zionist dislocation, ethnic cleansing and slaughter.
The only thing that cheers me about all this (apart from the fact that most people now regard Mandela not as s terrorist but as a saint) is the growing number of noble upstanding Jewish people all over the world who are joining in the condemnation of the Zionist atrocities in Gaza. Judaism does not equal Zionism.
I am not Jewish, but my wife’s father was. A week ago we took a pebble from our London garden to lay on Daddy Moishe’s grave in Brighton. We did so without any doubts that he would have agreed with our views.
What do you think Zionism is, Paul?
What makes you think he is capable of thought? The apologist for the RoP swine.
I do not want to answer for Paul but I think Zionism has resulted in what was a purely Arab area of the world being slowly but surely occupied by a foreign group of people justifying their existence on some thousand year old document or other. Please pardon my ignorance but I look at basic facts, and Israel, currently being accused of apartheid and genocide, did not exist before 1948, and the region has been one of conflict ever since the whole Zionist project started around the end of the 19th century. One can only praise Zionism for its consistency and durability.
What is RoP?
Think about it.
Mandela was a terrorist and commie, the decline in SA is all too obvious. Look at the mortality when black rule starts, increases 5% a year, that’s ppl dying needlessly mostly black ones. Now we all know SA is a corrupt crime hell hole too. Obviously none of this gets reported as it would be “racist” but Mandela is an astoundingly evil and incompetent head of state.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ZAF/south-africa/death-rate
He was.