Efforts by President Trump to finish the war in Ukraine have sharply polarised opinion within the Western world.
On the one hand, many have praised these efforts on the grounds that, unlike the previous American administration, President Trump and his administration aren’t simply providing open-ended political, monetary and military support as a way to enable Ukraine to maintain on fighting but are in search of to make such support unnecessary by bringing about peace between Ukraine and Russia.
On the opposite hand, there also many who’re critical of this effort, not because they don’t want to see the war between Russia and Ukraine come to an end, but because they imagine that the way in which that President Trump is in search of to attain this goal rewards Russian military aggression and runs the danger of the top of Ukrainian independence.
In this text I need to attempt to bring a Christian perspective to bear on this polarised argument by taking a look at those Christian principles which should be borne in mind when assessing the present efforts to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.
The first of those principles is the paradoxical principle that the goal of war is the achievement of peace. This point was famously made by the early Christian theologian Augustine in a letter to a Roman general called Boniface who desired to know whether, as a Christian, he could proceed to be a soldier. Augustine’s answer was ‘yes’ but with the crucial caveat that:
‘Peace must be the item of your desire; war must be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the need and preserve them in peace. For peace just isn’t sought as a way to kindle war, but war is waged so that peace could also be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that by conquering those whom you attack you could lead them back to the benefits of peace; for our Lord says ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the kids of God’’ (Matt 5:9).
In the sunshine of this principle, the will of President Trump and his administration that there must be peace in Ukraine is a legitimate one. The only good consequence of the current war in Ukraine is the achievement of peace. However, the assessment of the administration’s approach becomes more complicated if you happen to take a second Christian principle into consideration.
This principle is that war is to be fought under the authority of secular rulers for the sake of peace with justice. To put it one other way, the magistrate is named to exercise the God given power of the sword (Romans 13:4), to forestall the wicked doing harm to the innocent. Seen on this light, because the sixteenth century German Reformer Martin Luther wrote, the waging of war may be viewed as a ‘work of affection’ comparable to the actions of a physician:
‘…. doctor sometimes finds so serious and terrible a sickness that he must amputate or destroy a hand, foot, ear, eye, to save lots of the body. Looking at it from the viewpoint of the organ that he amputates, he appears to be a cruel and merciless man; but taking a look at it from the viewpoint of the body, which the doctor wants to save lots of, he’s a advantageous and true man and does and Christian work, so far as the work itself is worried. In the identical way, when I believe of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating a lot misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I believe of the way it protects the great and keeps and preserves wife and child, house and farm, property and honour and peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is; and I observe that it amputates a leg or a hand, in order that the entire body may not perish. For if the sword weren’t on guard to preserve peace, every thing on the planet can be ruined due to the lack of peace. Therefore, such a war is barely a really temporary lack of peace that stops an everlasting and immeasurable lack of peace, a small misfortune that stops an awesome misfortune.
‘What men write about war, saying that it’s an awesome plague, is all true. But they must also consider how great the plague is that war prevents. If people were good and desired to keep peace, war can be the best plague on earth. But what are you going to do in regards to the indisputable fact that people is not going to keep the peace, but rob, steal, kill, outrage women and kids, and take away property and honour? The small lack of peace called war or the sword must set a limit to this universal, worldwide lack of peace which might destroy everyone.’
The reason that this second principle complicates the assessment of the American administration’s approach is since it raises the query of whether the form of peace that the administration appears to be suggesting can be peace with justice. If the administration were to pressure the Ukrainians to conform to peace on Russia’s current terms this may indeed bring the war to an end. However, as I even have already indicated, the administration’s critics would say that the peace can be an unjust one because Russia can be rewarded for its aggression and Ukraine would probably find yourself losing its independence.
Such critics would argue that support must be given to Ukraine to enable it to maintain fighting until a just peace may be achieved involving the restoration of all of the territories that Russia has taken from Ukraine since 2014 and the punishment of Russia (or a minimum of its leaders) for having began the war in the primary place. However, at this point some on the opposite side of the argument would then invoke a 3rd Christian principle, which is that if there isn’t any realistic prospect of justice being achieved then people must be prepared to barter moderately than proceed a pointless war, this being the lesser of two evils.
For example, the contemporary American theologian Rusty Reno has recently written in an article entitled ‘Just war principles in Ukraine’ that:
‘It is immoral to unleash the violence of war when objectives can’t be achieved, nevertheless just those objectives could also be. The Ukrainian army is unable to bring an end to hostilities by achieving victory. The nations of the West are unwilling to enter the fray with sufficient force and commitment. These appear to be indisputable facts. Moral reasoning must reckon with realities. Trump’s pondering is way faraway from reflection on just war theory. But he’s acknowledging reality and taking the steps vital to place an end to a war that can’t be won. No doubt many moms and dads whose sons have died within the last two years of fruitless combat could have wished that the negotiations in Saudi Arabia had taken place in 2023.’
A superb historical example of the purpose that Reno is making is the choice made by the Finnish government in March 1940 to conform to the terms offered to it by the Soviet Union to finish the war between the 2 countries. The Soviet Union had been the aggressor and the terms it was offering involved the give up of the Finnish province of East Karelia and other territories plus the town of Viipuri. This meant that half 1,000,000 Finns would lose their homes (12% of the Finnish population). Nevertheless, the Finns accepted these terms, unjust though they were, since the Finnish commander in chief Marshal Mannerheim told the Finnish government that they’d to barter a peace deal while the Finnish army was still in a position to fight. In his words:
‘I told them that I didn’t think we should always allow bitterness over the hard conditions to blind our judgement. The Army was not defeated, and this gave us a likelihood of discussing peace. Were a military catastrophe to occur, our likelihood can be lost.’
What this third Christian principle means is that those with governmental responsibility should make a prudential judgement about whether or not they think the goals of a just war can realistically be achieved. If the reply to this query is ‘no,’ then they have to seek to finish the war on the most effective terms that they’ll, even when it seems almost unbearable to should achieve this.
The query this raises within the case of the present war in Ukraine is whether or not an identical decision now must be made there. The answer to this query depends upon the answers to 2 further questions: a) can the Ukrainians win in the long run in the event that they receive sufficient external support? b) can they rely upon that support being forthcoming? If the reply to each these questions is ‘Yes’ then by way of Christian principles it might be right to proceed the war. If the reply is ‘No’ then peace now must be sought by the Ukrainians on the most effective terms they’ll achieve.
For the Ukrainians to have the opportunity to make this sort of ethical judgement there must be honesty by the countries of the Western world in regards to the amount of support they are literally able or willing to provide. It may look good, for instance, for European leaders to say that they may stand by Ukraine, but when they can not actually give effective support, then encouraging the Ukrainians to maintain on fighting is definitely, in Christian terms, deeply immoral.
There is a haunting account by the American journalist Carl Mydans about his encounter with a Finnish colonel following the top of the war with the Soviet Union in 1940.
‘“You are an American?” he asked in clear English. Mydans nodded, noticing that the opposite two Finish officers were studiously averting their eyes. The Colonel began to scrape at his chin over again. At least you’ll tell them that we fought bravely.”
‘Mydans felt his guts knot. He whispered that he would, indeed.
‘The Colonel rigorously wiped his razor, then dabbed at himself with a towel. He had cut his cheek and there was a tiny bubble of blood swelling there. When he had taken care of that, he began to button his tunic. Mydans observed that the officer’s hands were trembling.
‘Suddenly he peered up at Mydans with an expression of anguish twisting his features. He began in a hoarse, quiet voice: “Your country was going to assist…” Then, in a louder voice: “You promised, and we believed you….”
‘Then he grabbed Mydans by the shoulders, his fingers digging in, and screamed: “A half dozen God-damned Brewster fighters with no spare parts is all we got from you! And the British sent us guns from the last war that would not even work!”
‘The other Finns turned their backs and self-consciously finished dressing. The train rattled into the station. The Finish Colonel dropped his hands, fell onto a bunk, and wept convulsively.’
From a Christian ethical standpoint what have to be avoided is a repetition of the situation Mydans describes. Either Ukraine must be given the support it must defeat Russia, or it must be encouraged to make peace as soon as possible. Letting the war drag on to no purpose is essentially the most immoral decision of all.
