Many people see this conflict within a different frame than you see it. Many people believe this is a war of aggression by NATO (neo liberal West) against Russia, wherein NATO is using the Ukraine people as a proxy or even a meat shield. In other words—viewed in this alternative narrative—soldiers from NATO countries aren’t dying to protect NATO’s interests, Ukrainians are dying in their place. Proxy wars are equally as effective and profitable as the overt kind, but with built-in plausible deniability. NATO countries need not take any accountability for their aggression because the blame is placed on Russia. I’m not going to argue for this point of view, I’m only saying that for people who see it this way, the moral outrage directed against Russia by the West falls flat.
I understand there are those who see the invasion of Ukraine in the way you've outlined here. And I appreciate that you aren't making this argument.
But here's the problem with the argument that the invasion of Ukraine is actually a war of aggression or a poxy war against Russia. Russia invade Ukraine not the other way around. Under the just war theory, whatever the failures and even sins of NATO and the West, none of these justify the invasion of an innocent, third party nation such as Ukraine. This doesn't necessarily mean that Russia doesn't have legitmate concerns about Western policy. But it does mean that these concerns simply does justify Russia's invasion.
Much less does it justify targeting civilians, using rape as a weapon of war, kidnap children, or targeting civiliam infrastructure.
Taken as a whole, this makes Russia's invasion immoral both in why they invaded Ukraine and the means by which have prosecuted the war.
On the other matter, for this to be a proxy war would require that NATO induced Ukraine to invade Russia. But this isn't what happened. Russia invaded Ukraine.
While not necessarily fair in every instance, the moral outrage against Russia is legitimate. Those who advance the argument you outlined are simply wrong on the morality and military facts.
That Orthodox Christians, including clergy, make this argument is every bit as scandalous as those who defend a whole range of sexual immorality.
Some time spent with the Roman Catholic philosopher Michael Hanby would be good, maybe starting with his essay "The Birth of the Liberal Order and the Death of God" (free online). Much could be said about your perspective here, but I will just note your (too easy) acceptance of Lockean Liberalism (well, at least a recent neo-liberal {i.e. "neo-conservative"} version of it) as the presupposition(s) to moral reasoning. Calling this "Christian" in any real sense is a stretch, and it certainly is not Orthodox historically unless you count the handful of late liberal thinkers in the west of the last 20 years or so.
I recall the many Orthodox who critiqued the 'Just War' theory in the build up to the second Gulf war - that neo-conservative moral imperative that turned out to be disastrous on so many levels, one of course being the broken bodies and souls of Christians (including Orthodox) who signed up and who still wonder the streets of my city today. The real spiritual, moral, and physical cost of the neo-liberal American Empire is simply too high. Christians, particularly Orthodox Christians have every reason to question and reject (to the small extent they can ) the project.
Sure, no doubt some Orthodox are really being taken in by the naked propaganda of Putin and the Russian Church. Thing is all propaganda is couched in some amount of truth - that's why it resonates. They speak the truth when they point out the moral decadence (i.e. consumerism, homosexualism, transhumanism, DEI, etc. etc.) of liberal western culture. Russiophiles who swallow this up are an insignificant number, and besides their (moral, spiritual, political) instincts are correct - why should they support (through their vote) decadent American Empire? Your moral analysis does not withstand cross examination. So called "populaism" is a necessary corrective to the moral failings of neoconservative - moral failings you don't seem to admit. As Hanby argues, these are at bottom "metaphysical" failings, the lack of anything genuinely "Christian" in Neo-conservativism/liberalism.
"Great Moral Evil's" are found everywhere and at all times. One does not need to "support" Russia's invasion to question the moral and pragmatic grounds for the American Empire's current proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. My moral duty as an Orthodox Christian does not require me to support yet-another Neo-conservative crusade - not in Ukraine, not in Europe, not in Tawain, not in Middle East, not in Africa, nor the moon or mars. Christs Kingdom is not of this world (cosmos)...
Thank you for your comment. Lockean political philosophy and the other iterations of liberalism are certainly not perfect. And, like all other political systems, they not an easy fit with the Gospel.
That said, nothing I've said here is dependent upon Locke. Nor is it a defense of liberalism or any other political philosophy as such. The Christian formulation of the JWT is firmly rooted in late antiquity and so the patristic era. In both its Christian and secular forms, it exists to limit a state's power to make war. This is even true of the pre-Christian expressions of what today we call the JWT. To quote the article to which I linked:
<<The just war tradition is indeed as old as warfare itself. Early records of collective fighting indicate that some moral considerations were used by warriors to limit the outbreak or to rein in the potential devastation of warfare. They may have involved consideration of women and children or the treatment of prisoners (enslaving them rather than killing them, or ransoming or exchanging them). Commonly, the earlier traditions invoked considerations of honor: some acts in war have always been deemed dishonorable, whilst others have been deemed honorable. However, what is “honorable” is often highly specific to culture: for instance, a suicidal attack or defense may be deemed the honorable act for one people but ludicrous to another. Robinson (2006) notes that honor conventions are also contextually slippery, giving way to pragmatic or military interest when required. Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath.>>
I think your anti-liberalism does not serve you well in this instance. The moral failings of the West doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Nor is it accurate to characterize Western aid of Ukraine as a neo-conservative crusade.
Russia began an unjust war. While you are correct that you are not obligated to support the West assistance of Ukraine, your rejection of this aid is on think moral ice.
Many people see this conflict within a different frame than you see it. Many people believe this is a war of aggression by NATO (neo liberal West) against Russia, wherein NATO is using the Ukraine people as a proxy or even a meat shield. In other words—viewed in this alternative narrative—soldiers from NATO countries aren’t dying to protect NATO’s interests, Ukrainians are dying in their place. Proxy wars are equally as effective and profitable as the overt kind, but with built-in plausible deniability. NATO countries need not take any accountability for their aggression because the blame is placed on Russia. I’m not going to argue for this point of view, I’m only saying that for people who see it this way, the moral outrage directed against Russia by the West falls flat.
Thank you, Amanda for your comment!
I understand there are those who see the invasion of Ukraine in the way you've outlined here. And I appreciate that you aren't making this argument.
But here's the problem with the argument that the invasion of Ukraine is actually a war of aggression or a poxy war against Russia. Russia invade Ukraine not the other way around. Under the just war theory, whatever the failures and even sins of NATO and the West, none of these justify the invasion of an innocent, third party nation such as Ukraine. This doesn't necessarily mean that Russia doesn't have legitmate concerns about Western policy. But it does mean that these concerns simply does justify Russia's invasion.
Much less does it justify targeting civilians, using rape as a weapon of war, kidnap children, or targeting civiliam infrastructure.
Taken as a whole, this makes Russia's invasion immoral both in why they invaded Ukraine and the means by which have prosecuted the war.
On the other matter, for this to be a proxy war would require that NATO induced Ukraine to invade Russia. But this isn't what happened. Russia invaded Ukraine.
While not necessarily fair in every instance, the moral outrage against Russia is legitimate. Those who advance the argument you outlined are simply wrong on the morality and military facts.
That Orthodox Christians, including clergy, make this argument is every bit as scandalous as those who defend a whole range of sexual immorality.
Fr. Gregory
Some time spent with the Roman Catholic philosopher Michael Hanby would be good, maybe starting with his essay "The Birth of the Liberal Order and the Death of God" (free online). Much could be said about your perspective here, but I will just note your (too easy) acceptance of Lockean Liberalism (well, at least a recent neo-liberal {i.e. "neo-conservative"} version of it) as the presupposition(s) to moral reasoning. Calling this "Christian" in any real sense is a stretch, and it certainly is not Orthodox historically unless you count the handful of late liberal thinkers in the west of the last 20 years or so.
I recall the many Orthodox who critiqued the 'Just War' theory in the build up to the second Gulf war - that neo-conservative moral imperative that turned out to be disastrous on so many levels, one of course being the broken bodies and souls of Christians (including Orthodox) who signed up and who still wonder the streets of my city today. The real spiritual, moral, and physical cost of the neo-liberal American Empire is simply too high. Christians, particularly Orthodox Christians have every reason to question and reject (to the small extent they can ) the project.
Sure, no doubt some Orthodox are really being taken in by the naked propaganda of Putin and the Russian Church. Thing is all propaganda is couched in some amount of truth - that's why it resonates. They speak the truth when they point out the moral decadence (i.e. consumerism, homosexualism, transhumanism, DEI, etc. etc.) of liberal western culture. Russiophiles who swallow this up are an insignificant number, and besides their (moral, spiritual, political) instincts are correct - why should they support (through their vote) decadent American Empire? Your moral analysis does not withstand cross examination. So called "populaism" is a necessary corrective to the moral failings of neoconservative - moral failings you don't seem to admit. As Hanby argues, these are at bottom "metaphysical" failings, the lack of anything genuinely "Christian" in Neo-conservativism/liberalism.
"Great Moral Evil's" are found everywhere and at all times. One does not need to "support" Russia's invasion to question the moral and pragmatic grounds for the American Empire's current proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. My moral duty as an Orthodox Christian does not require me to support yet-another Neo-conservative crusade - not in Ukraine, not in Europe, not in Tawain, not in Middle East, not in Africa, nor the moon or mars. Christs Kingdom is not of this world (cosmos)...
Christopher
Dear Christopher,
Thank you for your comment. Lockean political philosophy and the other iterations of liberalism are certainly not perfect. And, like all other political systems, they not an easy fit with the Gospel.
That said, nothing I've said here is dependent upon Locke. Nor is it a defense of liberalism or any other political philosophy as such. The Christian formulation of the JWT is firmly rooted in late antiquity and so the patristic era. In both its Christian and secular forms, it exists to limit a state's power to make war. This is even true of the pre-Christian expressions of what today we call the JWT. To quote the article to which I linked:
<<The just war tradition is indeed as old as warfare itself. Early records of collective fighting indicate that some moral considerations were used by warriors to limit the outbreak or to rein in the potential devastation of warfare. They may have involved consideration of women and children or the treatment of prisoners (enslaving them rather than killing them, or ransoming or exchanging them). Commonly, the earlier traditions invoked considerations of honor: some acts in war have always been deemed dishonorable, whilst others have been deemed honorable. However, what is “honorable” is often highly specific to culture: for instance, a suicidal attack or defense may be deemed the honorable act for one people but ludicrous to another. Robinson (2006) notes that honor conventions are also contextually slippery, giving way to pragmatic or military interest when required. Whereas the specifics of what is honorable differ with time and place, the very fact that one moral virtue is alluded to in the great literature (for example, Homer’s Iliad) is sufficient for us to note that warfare has been infused with some moral concerns from the beginning rather than war being a mere Macbethian bloodbath.>>
I think your anti-liberalism does not serve you well in this instance. The moral failings of the West doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Nor is it accurate to characterize Western aid of Ukraine as a neo-conservative crusade.
Russia began an unjust war. While you are correct that you are not obligated to support the West assistance of Ukraine, your rejection of this aid is on think moral ice.
In Christ,
FrG