The Why of War
It would be easy as a person of faith to simply claim that wars are a product of humanity’s fallen, sinful nature, and leave it at that. That this is true in a larger sense cannot be gainsaid, as we all fall short of the glory of God, as St. Paul reminds us. Yet, that seems very unsatisfying from a practical, prudential perspective. It is not terribly helpful to state this as if it is the last word on the issue. It seems that we should be sharper than that. As Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:16, “so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”. It would seem that we are to work for a world as it should be, but be aware of the world as it is. We cannot make any progress toward that better world if we wander about in a naïve haze.
As this regards the monumental issues of war and peace, we must be clear-eyed as to the why of war if we are to make any progress toward peace. So-called “just war” theory offers nations 3 reasons why they might possibly go to war. These reasons tend to mirror the three main reasons why some nations choose war. We will set aside, in this essay the fact that all wars are unjust.
What Drives the Choices of Nations
The rationale for a “just war” is to defend sovereignty, territorial integrity, and transit in international waters. If we turn this around, we see why nations go to war. Control of another nation’s course of action (sovereignty), control of another nation’s land (territorial integrity), and control of another nation’s commerce, and terms of trade (transit on the high seas). I am not saying that there might not be exceptions to this, no theory is perfect. However, this broadly captures the reasons why nations choose war.
Nations will pursue these goals vis a vie other nations until they cannot. That is, they will expand until they face a greater force than their own. Great powers expand a lot, smaller powers not so much, if at all. Much of the life of smaller nations is to try and dart in between more powerful nations, in hopes of survival and some measure of prosperity. Larger powers likely expand to the point where they have a “sphere of influence”. This is nothing but a term for an area in their near abroad that they control, or at least heavily influence. These areas are seen as critical for their survival and seen, by these nations, as existentially important. A nation with a powerful enough “sphere of interest” should be seen as a regional power or more formally a regional hegemon.
At present, there are really only three great powers or regional hegemons. Russia, China, and of course, the United States. The United States is the only power (ever in history) that has global reach and possesses aspirations for global hegemony. These various regional powers will find themselves in competition with each other for control of smaller nation’s courses of action (sovereignty), territory, and commercial advantage. This competition may, and often has, spilled into violent war.
War then occurs when a nation’s power structure thinks that its perceived benefits to that power structure (not ordinary citizens) outweigh the risks and costs of conflict. Clearly, this means that practically speaking there is rarely, if ever, a “pure defender” against a “pure aggressor”. Wars are fought between two, or more rivalrous competitors for the three main areas of control. This is one of the main reasons why there are no just wars.
The Goal is Harm Reduction
Since all actors on the international stage are miscreants, and aggressors to one degree or another, we should view the entire enterprise of international relations as criminal in nature. There are no white hats seated around the table of nations. If you want an image of what the table of nations looks like, think about the boardroom scene in the Godfather:
Since this is the case, we should never expect some type of perfection to ever come about. We should always remember that there is no perfection this side of eternity in any human endeavor. This being the case, the realistic goal (remember be as shrewd as serpents) is to seek harm reduction. This means, given what we have laid out above, that we should do all we can to reduce the chances of war breaking out, and seek to end them as quickly as possible if they do. To help us we should look at how blame for wars should be apportioned, which can then assist us in preventing and/or stopping wars.
Who Gets the Blame?
If wars are chosen for morally illegitimate reasons of expansion of power and control, then what are we to make of the claims that there are some nations that are heroic defenders of their lands. We should mostly judge these claims as propaganda. Almost invariably, to some degree or other all nations are to blame for the wars they choose. However, we can weight that blame.
Moral opprobrium always accrues heaviest upon those with greater power. Great powers and regional hegemons who seek to and in fact do dominate their neighbors always shoulder the greater blame. Those nations who seek to expand their sovereignty, territorial control, and their commercial control should always carry the greater weight of blame. This is not to say that small nations cannot be blameworthy. They may intentionally seek out alliances with other more powerful nations and seek to gain advantages this way. In the nomenclature of the Godfather, they get caught up in the rackets and get what is coming to them. That said, keep it in front of you that the rule of thumb is that the more powerful deserves the greater blame.
What happens in a situation where two or more great powers get involved in a competition that risks war, or tips over into open, or proxy, conflict? Who then should get the burden of the blame? The principle of harm reduction tells us that in the criminal world of international relations those who seek to expand into the “sphere of influence” of another regional power should bear the burden of the blame. This recognizes the immoral nature of this sphere. Yet, this is the reality of the fallen world we inhabit. Remember, harm reduction is the goal. Since spheres of influence exist and are a part of this criminal enterprise at a fundamental level, it is realistic to expect that nations will react violently when they see these spheres threatened or encroached upon. Therefore, harm reduction is enhanced when nations refrain from encroaching upon another’s sphere of influence.
What of International Law
What are we to make of the role of international law? The development of international law, widely ascribed to Hugo Grotius, was an honorable attempt at real harm reduction. It sought to lay down a universalizable set of rules to govern international relations. However, since nations are going to do what they perceive to be in their best interest, there is a serious limitation to what international law can achieve. This is not to say that it is a pointless endeavor, just that it will always be subservient to national interest.
The good it can do is to provide guardrails that can keep a competitive international situation from spiraling out of control. It can also serve as a foundation for the more rational elements within nations who seek to tamp down the expansionist tendencies inherent in the concept of nation states. It can also serve as a forum to work to resolve disputes, either before or after hostilities have broken out. International law is like many institutions in a fallen world, imperfect, but better to have it than not.
Applying the Theory: Ukraine
Now let us see how this theory is applied to one awful situation in the world today: Ukraine. How should we evaluate and understand this ongoing conflict? how should we apportion blame? The answers to these questions in light of our theory will point us toward a solution.
Ukraine is a prime example of a small nation living in the shadow of a regional power. It was once fully a part of Russia both before and during the Soviet era. Its borders have changed greatly over the years, mostly at the whim of the Tsars and Commissars. It is a corrupt nation and leans toward authoritarianism. This corrupt reality aside, Ukraine has always, and continues to be within the Russian sphere of influence. It has a deep cultural and historical connection to Russia, and as a smaller nation in the shadow of a larger one, it naturally fell into the Russian power orbit. Beginning in 2008 the United States began to insist that Ukraine should become a member of NATO. This was after significant movement eastward by NATO, in both 1999 (note, before Putin took power), and in 2004 (which placed NATO for the first time on Russia’s border). This move eastward was in violation of an agreement (granted, not a treaty) that NATO would not move eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Regardless of your position of the strength of this agreement, such a move by NATO into Ukraine would be a clear intrusion into Russia’s sphere of influence, and would be seen by Russia as a serious, if not existential threat. In fact, Russia made this clear at the time this move was suggested in 2008.
Russia made their position just as clear in 2014 when the US supported Maidan coup effectively turned Ukraine into a US client state. It was at this point that Russia responded by annexing Crimea, the home of its Black Sea fleet. Russia also began support for ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. Russia tried to negotiate a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality between 2014-2022, to no avail. In late 2021 US Secretary of State Blinken reiterated that NATO membership for Ukraine was between NATO and Ukraine and that it had nothing to do with Russian security interests. It was then that Russia planned and executed its February 2022 invasion.
Yes, a Russian spere of influence is immoral and criminal, as was its invasion. Yet, we can see that it was completely predicable, and totally avoidable. The US led NATO was obviously provoking Russia in an area it sees as key to its security, the way all powerful nations would. The corollary was 1962, and the placement of offensive nuclear weapons into Cuba by the USSR (we will set aside the possibility that this was in response to US placement of missiles in Turkey and Italy that could easily reach the Soviet Union). Neither the US response in 1962 (threatened nuclear war), or the Russian response in 2022 (invasion) is morally justified. Yet both responses were provoked by nations operating well outside their own spheres of influence and pressing in upon another’s in a clearly offensive action. Given the reality of what drives nations to fight, and what causes them to react in fairly predictable ways, the principle of harm reduction tells us that this provocation came from NATO. Ukraine is clearly of no strategic interest to the US, it does not fall within its sphere of interest, and its existence or not as an independent state does not impact the US in any way. The only reason that it is of interest is that the US does not see any area outside of its global hegemonic interest. This is what makes US imperial policy so globally dangerous. The principle of harm reduction tells us then that the best course of action is for the US to stand down and negotiate a peace that saves what is left of Ukraine and provides an opportunity for them to gain some measure of peace and prosperity. This is not the time or place to go into a response to the spurious charge that Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union or conquer Western Europe. Suffice it to say that an economy the size of Italy’s is capable of neither.
All of this ignores the other brutal reality of this catastrophe. Namely, that this was a war that Ukraine could never win without US boots on the ground and the onset of WWIII. If you know you cannot win a war, then it should never be fought. That the US pushed Ukraine into this conflict knowing full well that it could not prevail marks US policy as not only provocative, as we have shown, but also egregiously immoral.
A Shrewder Response
To be a people of faith that are as shrewd as serpents would see us demand that the US pull back, cease being an international aggressor, and stop provoking Russia deep within its spere of influence, the same way it was incumbent upon the USSR to stand down over Cuba in 1962. The US could then negotiate a peace that forswears Ukrainian membership in NATO, guarantees Ukrainian neutrality, and provides an internationally based set of security guarantees for Ukraine to rely upon. Is any of this perfect? No. It’s not really even moral. Yet, remember international relations is inherently criminal. By advocating basic harm reduction, we can push for real improvement in the lives of people presently being slaughtered, and dial back the risk of a great power war between nuclear-armed foes.
This holds out the possibility that we can erect an architecture that provides space for both nations to remain at peace, as well as generate some economic progress. This small start could give the region, and the world, the opportunity to build ever widening circles of more peaceful interactions. Of course, there are multiple other areas of the globe that would benefit from this shrewder, perspective. All this starts with a clear-eyed, realistic view of the nature of why nations act the way they do, and how to navigate this reality to build a world more aligned with how God would have His children live.
Praise Be to God
