Background
The “Just War” tradition can best be described as a set of guidelines to determine when it is morally acceptable for a nation to go to war. It is assumed to be at the center of our foreign policy decision making process. Occasionally references are made to the Just War Tradition, usually when we are about to send troops into combat. Unfortunately, during recent decades it has been distorted and misused to justify conflicts that will not be seen favorably by future generations. It is not difficult to understand the criteria for a just war, but discourses, books and articles dealing with the subject are presented in a manner that seems inclined to obscure it. It is no longer widely discussed, and when mentioned it is typically presented in a manner that makes its simple tenets seem difficult for the lay person to comprehend. Combine this with the lack of transparency of our government, and the result is that most people believe it best to simply trust that those making the decisions about military engagement know what they are doing. Trust the experts.
Recent events have led us to understand that trusting the experts does not necessarily lead to the best outcome. The “experts” may be influenced by financial considerations or political ideologies. They may be motivated by revenge or hatred. They may simply be afraid of becoming the subject of some bad press, or being seen as out of step. It’s important to review the basic tenets of the Just War Theory and so that readers can consider for themselves how it should be applied in the times during which we live.
The Just War Tradition
The basic tenets come to us from St. Augustine, who addressed the concept of war from a Christian perspective, but more specifically they are outlined in the Summa Theologicae written by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The principles are simple, but broad, and it is left to us to turn these broad principles into specific measures that apply to our century and our nation’s specific situation.
These are the principles:
Just Cause: A nation has a right to defend itself from an immediate threat. More specifically, there is an obligation to protect the innocent and vulnerable, and to conduct war with the ultimate aim of restoring peace.
Proportionality: The military force applied must be proportional to the offence that is being addressed. A nation should not employ nuclear weapons in response to the sinking of a ship or a border skirmish.
Last Resort: Military force should be used only as a last resort, when other means of addressing the conflict have failed.
Declaration by Competent Authority: The use of military force should fall under the laws governing the nation. Note that the war must be declared. In our case the War Powers Act provides the steps to be taken. The President should consult with the legislature, when possible, before committing troops to war, or else notify Congress within 48 hours. The military engagement ends after 60 days unless Congress provides a declaration of war or an authorization for the operation to continue.
Reasonable Chance of Success: If there is no chance of success, to engage in a war will result in needless bloodshed and loss of life; therefore it is immoral to do so.
Avoiding injury or death of noncombatants: The war must be waged in such a way that, to the maximum extent possible, innocent civilians are not harmed.
In fact, there were significant events leading up to this invasion. When these events are taken into consideration the picture becomes clear: that this conflict was provoked through a series of US foreign policy steps that were either blunders or deliberate provocations.
Proxy Wars, by Definition, are not Just Wars
Our involvement in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is what can be described as a proxy war. A proxy war is a situation in which Nation A is at war with Nation B, but instead of taking on Nation B directly, Nation A is paying Nation C to do with fighting for them, giving the pretense that it is a conflict between Nations B and C. St. Thomas did not address the question of proxy wars, but the same principles apply. In fact, it’s easy to conclude that this is not a just war, because it is not declared by competent authority. In fact, it is not declared at all by any authority at all, competent or otherwise. The minute that this declaration is made it is no longer a proxy war; it is a conflict between Nation A and Nation B, all parties understand who is in conflict, and it is no longer being fought pretentiously through Nation C.
False Impressions, Broken Promises and Provocations
The war in Ukraine is, in fact, a proxy war between the US and Russia. The stated goal of our efforts there is: “…to assist Ukraine in maintaining a credible defense and deterrence capability. Any future aggression or threat of aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of either Party would be a matter of grave concern to the other Party.” [1] In so many words, to assist Ukraine in the war “between Ukraine and Russia.” This gives the impression that the warring parties are Ukraine and Russia. We are assured by the corporate media and many on both sides of the aisle that Russia attacked peaceful Ukraine, unprovoked, for no good reason, and therefore we must provide military aide to Ukraine to “defend democracy.” Never mind that Ukraine is not a democracy. What are the origins of this war and who is behind it? “The experts” and those who blindly follow them without looking into the background will claim that it began with the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
In fact, there were significant events leading up to this invasion. These events are never part of the discussion, of course, in order to maintain the pretense that it is a war between Ukraine and Russia. When these events are taken into consideration the picture becomes clear: that this conflict was provoked through a series of US foreign policy steps that were either blunders or deliberate provocations.
Consider first the 1990 promise by Secretary of State James Baker that we would not expand NATO [2]. His exact words were “not one inch eastward.” This promise was broken repeatedly when it was followed up by rounds of NATO expansion during 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020, eastward every time. Having promised not to expand NATO, these expansions can easily be seen as a series of provocations.
Consider the 2014 US-directed regime change in Ukraine. The US involvement in the sequence of events that led to the regime change was barely concealed. [3] The not-very-subtle removal of a regime favorable to Russia and replacement by one favorable to the EU And NATO can easily be seen as a provocation. Subsequent referendums were held within the ethnically Russian provinces showing a vast majority desired to leave Ukraine. They were denied self-determination, which led to a civil war from 2014 to 2022 that resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. The Russian leadership, which would naturally be concerned about the conditions of the ethnic Russians in the Donbas, saw this as a provocation. Even though it was not covered extensively in the mainstream media, those directing our foreign policy were aware of the 2014-2022 conflict between the eastern provinces and Kiev.
The current situation is that young people from Ukraine and Russia are dying in a conflict over whether Kiev or Moscow will have control of some ethnically Russian provinces in the eastern part of Ukraine, but Kiev is acting on our behalf. We own this conflict.
Putin eventually took the bait and invaded in February 2022, but it was still not too late. Negotiations were ongoing until the April 6, 2022 intervention by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. According to Ukraine’s chief negotiator during the peace talks that were ongoing at the time, “Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not.” [4] In other words, it didn’t matter what Ukraine wanted to do because Ukraine is just the proxy for some other entity. That other entity is NATO, but within this alliance it is actually the US that calls the shots (and absorbs a disproportionate share of the cost). Ukraine is not a NATO member so this insistence on going to war with Russia was not based on Article 5. It was based on the desire among people in Washington DC for a war with Russia. A proxy war, with Ukraine doing our fighting.
We came close on September 14 to authorizing Ukraine to use long-range missiles, which could have potentially escalated the conflict to the nuclear level. The fact that it was US authorization that Ukraine sought tells us all we need to know about who is calling the shots.
The current situation is that young people from Ukraine and Russia are dying in a conflict over whether Kiev or Moscow will have control of some ethnically Russian provinces in the eastern part of Ukraine, but Kiev is acting on our behalf. We own this conflict.
The involvement of NATO is just a smokescreen. We should have withdrawn from this Cold War alliance at the end of the Cold War but we did not. That was a mistake. Our continued participation has provided the means by which this proxy war could be provoked through a series of expansions and other provocations. It provided the means for the Boris Johnson intervention to stop the peace talks. It provides the means for leaving the widespread impression that it is a conflict between Ukraine and Russia instead of a proxy war between the USA (using NATO as a cover) and Russia. It allows us to pressure our allies within the coalition to continue to give money to Ukraine, much of which never actually gets to the intended destination.
We are often disappointed by those we look to for expertise on how these guidelines should be applied. A typical expert, George Weigel, asserts that: “The obvious example of a just war today is Ukraine’s war for national survival against Russian aggression; Russia’s war, by contrast, is unjust in both its intention and its conduct.” [5] George Weigel has written extensively on the subject of the “Just War.” His article, The Just War Case for the War, 2003 [6] made the case for the war in Iraq based on the now-disproved notion that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction. His assertions about Ukraine/Russia are similarly misguided. There is no doubt to George Weigel’s knowledge and understanding of the theory of these moral guidelines. The problem appears to be that he has not yet discovered the extent to which the US government and their media mouthpieces lie to us. Consequently, he is applying the Just War criteria under circumstances that don’t actually exist. No, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. No, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not “unprovoked.” There were provocations, lies, and a coup and we, the USA, were not just innocent bystanders.
Assuming that events had unfolded as George Weigel seems to believe they did, our role still should have been different. It should have been to remain impartial and force both parties to the negotiating table. By aiding one side in this conflict we have become co-belligerents instead of holding the role that we should have held, one that would lead to peace. Leaving out the background of how we got here, as Weigel does, it is still our proxy war in which Ukraine doing the fighting against Russia on our behalf.
In fact, our actions have elevated the threat of a global nuclear war. On September 14 we endangered the entire world when we came close to authorizing Ukraine to use long-range missiles.
To apply the other Just War criteria in this war between us and Russia, we can note that Russia’s actions were clearly no immediate threat to anyone located in the USA, and therefore there was no Just Cause. In fact, our actions have elevated the threat of a global nuclear war. On September 14 we endangered the entire world when we came close to authorizing Ukraine to use long-range missiles. Certain pundits see no danger in this escalation. In the pages of The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum urges us to push harder: “Fear of Nuclear War has Warped the West’s Ukraine Strategy: Leaders shouldn’t give in to Putin’s nuclear rhetoric” [7] The world teeters on the brink of nuclear annihilation and she’s saying “go for it!” Obviously it’s more important to get Putin than to concern ourselves with such trivial things as destruction of the world we live in.
As for Reasonable Chance of Success, there is very little if our efforts thus far have not succeeded. The Last Resort criteria was definitely not met since “NATO,” represented by Boris Johnson, intervened to call off the peace negotiations. It doesn’t matter. None of the other criteria need to even be considered. A proxy war cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a just war. We are fighting a war against Russia that has not been specifically declared by competent authority, therefore it is not a just war. Were we to declare it, it would immediately cease to be a proxy war and it would become a declared war between the US and Russia. The lack of this formal declaration leaves this, and any other proxy war, as inherently unjust.
Conclusion
Some complain about the failure of the Just War, and lament that it is used to justify war instead of limiting it. This is like complaining that the Ten Commandments don’t always prevent murder, theft and adultery. We will not have to answer for what someone else does; our responsibility is to observe this moral standard and recognize that we will be held responsible for the deaths caused by our immoral participation in this conflict. We will not be held morally responsible for whether the eastern, ethnically Russian, provinces in Ukraine are governed by Moscow or Kiev. Our responsibility is to vote the dangerous warmongers out, whatever side of the aisle they may be on. We will all be held morally responsible for whether or not we do this.
More from David Sonnier: A Vatican-Democratic Party Alliance? (Catholics Ask Trump Administration to Investigate)
David L. Sonnier is a 1981 graduate of the United States Military Academy and he holds a MS in Computer Science from Georgia Institute of Technology. He spent twenty years as an officer in the US Army, where he served in the Infantry, Special Forces, and as a computer specialist. He was assigned to NATO in Brussels, Belgium from 1998 to 2001. In September 2001 he retired from the US Army as a Lieutenant Colonel and spent the next 23 years teaching Computer Science at Lyon College. He is now retired from teaching and lives with his wife of 40 years on a small farm in Arkansas.
Latest from RTV – LIFE AFTER TRUMP: What Happens to Us If He Loses?
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/13/bilateral-security-agreement-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-ukraine/
[2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
[4] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-war-peace-diplomacy/
[5] https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2024/07/why-just-war-theory-always-matters
[6] https://www.georgeweigel.com/the-just-war-case-for-the-war/
[7] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/russia-ukraine-nuclear-war-fear-us-policy/672020/
