BY : Martin Davie Christian Today
Efforts by President Trump to end the war in Ukraine have sharply polarised opinion in 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 are not simply providing open-ended political, monetary and military support in order to enable Ukraine to keep on fighting but are seeking to make such support unnecessary by bringing about peace between Ukraine and Russia.
On the other hand, there also many who are critical of this effort, not because they do not want to see the war between Russia and Ukraine come to an end, but because they believe that the way that President Trump is seeking to achieve this goal rewards Russian military aggression and runs the danger of the end of Ukrainian independence.
In this article I want to try to bring a Christian perspective to bear on this polarised argument by looking at those Christian principles which need to be borne in mind when assessing the current efforts to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.
The first of these 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 wanted to know whether, as a Christian, he could continue to be a soldier. Augustine’s answer was ‘yes’ but with the crucial caveat that:
‘Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to kindle war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that by conquering those whom you attack you may lead them back to the advantages of peace; for our Lord says ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God’’ (Matt 5:9).
In the light of this principle, the desire of President Trump and his administration that there should be peace in Ukraine is a legitimate one. The only good outcome of the present war in Ukraine is the achievement of peace. However, the assessment of the administration’s approach becomes more complicated if you take a second Christian principle into account.
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 another way, the magistrate is called to exercise the God given power of the sword (Romans 13:4), to prevent the wicked doing harm to the innocent. Seen in this light, as the sixteenth century German Reformer Martin Luther wrote, the waging of war can be viewed as a ‘work of love’ comparable to the actions of a doctor:
‘…. a good doctor sometimes finds so serious and terrible a sickness that he must amputate or destroy a hand, foot, ear, eye, to save the body. Looking at it from the point of view of the organ that he amputates, he appears to be a cruel and merciless man; but looking at it from the point of view of the body, which the doctor wants to save, he is a fine and true man and does a good and Christian work, as far as the work itself is concerned. In the same way, when I think of a soldier fulfilling his office by punishing the wicked, killing the wicked, and creating so much misery, it seems an un-Christian work completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good 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, so that the whole body may not perish. For if the sword were not on guard to preserve peace, everything in the world would be ruined because of the lack of peace. Therefore, such a war is only a very brief lack of peace that prevents an everlasting and immeasurable lack of peace, a small misfortune that prevents a great misfortune.
‘What men write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should also consider how great the plague is that war prevents. If people were good and wanted to keep peace, war would be the greatest plague on earth. But what are you going to do about the fact that people will not keep the peace, but rob, steal, kill, outrage women and children, 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 would destroy everyone.’
The reason that this second principle complicates the assessment of the American administration’s approach is because it raises the question of whether the sort of peace that the administration seems to be suggesting would be peace with justice. If the administration were to pressure the Ukrainians to agree to peace on Russia’s current terms this would indeed bring the war to an end. However, as I have already indicated, the administration’s critics would say that the peace would be an unjust one because Russia would be rewarded for its aggression and Ukraine would probably end up losing its independence.
Such critics would argue that support should be given to Ukraine to enable it to keep fighting until a just peace can be achieved involving the restoration of all the territories that Russia has taken from Ukraine since 2014 and the punishment of Russia (or at least its leaders) for having started the war in the first place. However, at this point some on the other side of the argument would then invoke a third Christian principle, which is that if there is no realistic prospect of justice being achieved then people should be prepared to negotiate rather than continue 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 cannot be achieved, however just those objectives may 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 seem to be indisputable facts. Moral reasoning must reckon with realities. Trump’s thinking is far removed from reflection on just war theory. But he is acknowledging reality and taking the steps necessary to put an end to a war that cannot be won. No doubt many mothers and fathers whose sons have died in the last two years of fruitless combat may have wished that the negotiations in Saudi Arabia had taken place in 2023.’
A good historical example of the point that Reno is making is the decision made by the Finnish government in March 1940 to agree to the terms offered to it by the Soviet Union to end the war between the two countries. The Soviet Union had been the aggressor and the terms it was offering involved the surrender of the Finnish province of East Karelia and other territories plus the city of Viipuri. This meant that half a million Finns would lose their homes (12% of the Finnish population). Nevertheless, the Finns accepted these terms, unjust though they were, because the Finnish commander in chief Marshal Mannerheim told the Finnish government that they had to negotiate a peace deal while the Finnish army was still able to fight. In his words:
‘I told them that I did not think we should allow bitterness over the hard conditions to blind our judgement. The Army was not defeated, and this gave us a chance of discussing peace. Were a military catastrophe to occur, our chance would be lost.’
What this third Christian principle means is that those with governmental responsibility have to make a prudential judgement about whether they think the aims of a just war can realistically be achieved. If the answer to this question is ‘no,’ then they must seek to end the war on the best terms that they can, even if it seems almost unbearable to have to do so.
The question this raises in the case of the current war in Ukraine is whether a similar decision now needs to be made there. The answer to this question depends on the answers to two further questions: a) can the Ukrainians win in the long term if they receive sufficient external support? b) can they depend on that support being forthcoming? If the answer to both these questions is ‘Yes’ then in terms of Christian principles it could be right to continue the war. If the answer is ‘No’ then peace now needs to be sought by the Ukrainians on the best terms they can achieve.
For the Ukrainians to be able to make this kind of ethical judgement there needs to be honesty by the countries of the Western world about the amount of support they are actually able or willing to supply. It may look good, for example, for European leaders to say that they will stand by Ukraine, but if they cannot actually give effective support, then encouraging the Ukrainians to keep on fighting is actually, 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 end of the war with the Soviet Union in 1940.
‘“You are an American?” he asked in clear English. Mydans nodded, noticing that the other two Finish officers were studiously averting their eyes. The Colonel began to scrape at his chin once more. At least you will tell them that we fought bravely.”
‘Mydans felt his guts knot. He whispered that he would, indeed.
‘The Colonel carefully 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 help…” 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 wouldn’t 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 must be avoided is a repetition of the situation Mydans describes. Either Ukraine needs to be given the support it needs to defeat Russia, or it needs to be encouraged to make peace as soon as possible. Letting the war drag on to no purpose is the most immoral decision of all.
Photo: Unsplash/Yaroslav Romanenko
About The Author
