A Realist Manifesto: Thoughts on the Russo-Ukrainian War

Day after day, news of the Russo-Ukrainian war hits the airwaves. Whether it is Tucker Carlson debating Mike Pence on this issue (C-Span 2023), using strawmen arguments saying any opposition to the war is an “idiot” (Golden 2023), or blaming America for the war that it did not start (SL Kanthan 2023); every day, thousands of people with thousands of different opinions comment on this war. With the Russo-Ukrainian War ongoing without any signs of slowing down, I feel an urge to discuss this issue particularly when my country gives so much aid to the Ukrainian government and military. I write without any apologies. I write without any sentimentality. I write for what is right in regard to the State of Nature.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the President of the United States said it was “Putin’s choice to make a totally unjustifiable war on Ukraine”, called past Russian actions “a flagrant violation of international law”, and called it “contest between democracy and autocracy” (Biden 2022). This would imply that some wars are justifiable and some are not. Furthermore, it would stand to reason, based on the President’s speech, that the justification of war stems from moral principles. Perhaps those who make this argument would say that either human rights or international law is the arbitrator in what makes a war justifiable or not. For proponents of these arguments, we have grim news. Wars cannot be justified for moral principles as outlined above. For those who argue for human rights, we must ask where these rights come from? If they argue that these rights come from nature and human rights derive from natural laws, they have failed to understand nature itself. Do we stare upon human nature and see the goodness of people? Or do we see cycles where humans treat other humans with vicious abandonment where the blood of the victims rise to the knees of the aggressors? This is not to say there are no natural laws… rather that natural laws are built within cultures and institutions of nations. For citizens of nations that do have natural laws, their natural laws extend until they reach the border. Their natural laws are only “natural” due to their nation and its government. For those who live in countries without natural laws, then such existence of natural laws is either a mirage or imagined.

For those who argue in favor of international laws, their support in these imagined laws leads to no hope for those who strive for a better world. If there were international laws, who would enforce it? Is there an international organization that enforces the law of the global order? Or do individual nations enforce the laws that they themselves agree with? If 193 nations agree on a set of laws and the 194th does not, can the citizens of the 194th country use this international law to supersede their own country’s laws? Only nations without authority or without self-respect will allow foreign laws to supersede their own. Where natural laws, when practiced, stop at a nation’s borders, countries who do not follow a specific international law also prevent that law from crossing that same border. At best, international law is an agreement made between countries wherein the laws are enforced on the national level; at worst, it is rhetoric used so the strong can force the weak to bend to their will.

The lack of universality of international laws or natural laws prevent either marker from being used to decide whether a war is just. Universality not based just on geography, but based on time itself. If the “arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” (Martin Luther King Jr.), then we would see throughout history where the rights of man overcome the evils of man. Looking throughout history, we see the despotic nature of man is more intertwined with society than benevolent beings. In fact, when we speak of natural laws regarding the human condition, we should speak of them as what would happen if nature would to take its natural course. In this event, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Thomas Hobbes).

Does this mean that no wars can be justified? On the contrary, wars can be justified as long as the war is within the interests of the State. What are those interests? It depends on the State. What right do we have to tell foreign governments what is right or what is wrong if they are acting in order to preserve their state? We may not agree with their decision. We may not like their decision. Their decision may harm our interests wherein we may need to act. If this were the case, our nation could take actions in opposition to the country who declared war. But an outside power cannot pass judgment on whether a war is justifiable. Justification of war comes from the states engaged in that war.

This is not to say the leaders of the state do not have to answer to anyone. They just do need to answer to foreign political leaders, to foreign countries, or to religious authorities. To substitute morals for the interests of the State does a disservice to the citizens of that State. The leader of the country who goes to war only answers to the people of their country. If the war was unjust based on the view of the people or the elite, they will let the leader know the error of their ways. While opposition in democratic regimes is straightforward, even in autocratic regimes opposition can be pronounced too; it usually involves more fires and pitchforks rather than ballots.

This brings me back to the Russo-Ukrainian War. If the Russian leaders, the Russian state, and the Russian people feel that their survival is at stake and this war is necessary, then this is all of the justification they need. We may disagree with their cause. We may disagree with their geopolitical goals. If their goals harm us, we may believe it would be best to thwart their goals. But for us to talk honestly about this discussion, we must understand the underlying principles a nation must make is to protect its own people. Even if we believe that decision is to the detriment of both that nation and its people.

When Russia decided to invade Ukraine, what was their interests? Looking geographically, Ukraine was, and still is, crucial for many reasons. With Russian interests in warm-water ports on the Black Sea, influence in the Caucuses, and drive to push its boundaries as west as possible, in order to give as much geographic space as possible if invaded by the West, Ukraine is crucial to Russian interests. To have Ukraine outside of Moscow’s control would be viewed as a death sentence for Russian interests. If Hitler started Operation Barbarossa in Kiev instead of Warsaw, the Soviet Union may have lost World War II. Furthermore, to have western lands to protect the homeland is a part of the Russian psyche that those in the West would have a hard time understanding. Every threat from a Western Power that eventually was tampered out due to Moscow’s ally of the Russian winter, but this strategy only worked because the geographic space between the invaders and Moscow was so large, it allowed nature to take its course. It is ingrained that having a vast space of land between the enemy and the homeland is essential for survival. For those who argued that other nations that border Russia were accepted into NATO without the Russians lashing out, there are two fundamental differences. Ukraine is materially more important than any of the earlier NATO expansions, even the Baltic states. But more importantly, between 2000 and 2004 the Russians could and were not able to stop NATO from expanding into these countries (despite the promises made to them by the West); now they are willing and can* stop this latest expansion.

With that being said, it is much more difficult to understand the American interests in Ukraine. America’s foreign policy would not be materially better if Ukraine was in NATO, it actually may be worse. America's well-being does not depend if Ukraine was in our orbit or the Russian orbit. It is in fact inconsequential in strategic planning. To support Ukraine as much as we did or as much as we want to seems to be defying logic.

Some may hope that the Russian military dies in Ukraine and that is why we must support Ukraine. But what happens if the Russian military does die in Ukraine? If a sick bear is more likely to lash out than a healthy bear, should we not be even more worried about the bear on death’s door? If Russia cannot achieve its aims outside of nuclear weapons, what will it use to achieve its aims? Others say that Russia hopes to push west even beyond Ukraine for its interests. However, any expansion into any NATO country is certainly suicide. While the Russian invasion has been condemned loudly after the Russians invaded, before the Russians invaded there was no obligation of NATO members to support Ukraine. In fact, the same President who condemned the invasion said “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do” (Khalid 2022). Even looking back at when Russia seized Crimea, the response from Europe and America certainly did not rise to the same level compared to the Russian invasion in 2022. If one was formulating policy within the Kremlin, invading Ukraine would not garner the same reaction from the West if Russia invaded a NATO member.

However, this change in American foreign policy view on Ukraine is an unwelcome change as it has its roots back into American interventionism of the post-Cold War era. To give an example, while the late John McCain was an American hero, his views of foreign policy were problematic. There was not a war that the Senator from Arizona did not like. If he were to write the Marines’ Hymn based on every country he wanted to send troops, the Marines’ Hymn would never end. Unfortunately, this mentality of being involved in every country all across the globe is embedded within each of the major political parties. This foreign policy will also lead to our doom. It will not be tomorrow; it probably will not be in the near future… but one day we will speak why America is no longer the preeminent power. Foreign policy, if unchanged, will certainly be on the list; possibly near the top. For a country to be blessed in a uniquely powerful situation that no other civilization has enjoyed, instead of having a conservative foreign policy wherein we maintain the status quo and adapt to future issues; we are more interested in destabilizing countries and removing governments. It does not serve our interests, it does not serve the destabilized countries’ interests, and it does not serve the interests of the citizens of either country.

Which brings me to Ukraine. Russia may win or lose this war depending if they meet their objectives. America probably would be unaffected regardless of how the war comes to its conclusion, except if we start WWIII wherein we will see destruction reach heights that our past thought impossible and would make our future shake in horror. Ukraine, except if by some miracle they would retake all of their lands, already lost. Tens of thousands are dead and millions have fled; its country turned into a hellscape. For those who rely on Ukraine for their grain, their land will also soon be turned into a hellscape. While we are sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause, a “just cause” is not enough to warrant a material response. While we understand the Ukrainians asking for everything and the moon in regards of their struggle, American foreign policy must be made within American interests and not Ukrainian interests. Russia views Ukraine as essential to its foreign policy. Ukraine views this war as its fight for survival and for its national sovereignty. The American view should be not to get involved in this conflict, or not get any more involved in this conflict. While only the Russians are to blame for their invasion, the West and its foreign policy set in conditions wherein Russia felt the only solution was to invade. If we were able to travel back in time, with hindsight we could have warned the policy actors in 2014 what the future holds. But, time is unchangeable and the field is set. While Bismarck may prove again to be a foreign policy prophet by saying, “preventative war is like committing suicide out of fear of death”, America should stand solemnly on the sideline, despite how we may feel.