An Invitation To War

The war in Ukraine rages on. Despite the Russian military being unmasked as an unprepared, ill-equipped, poorly maintained, and in many ways decrepit fossil, its sheer numerical superiority and Putin's apparently increasing disregard for the human catastrophe he's causing inform us that Ukraine, despite heroic efforts, will either be overrun or left in rubble. Putin clearly miscalculated - badly - in his assessment of how his "special military operation" would go, and now he's left with a grim choice: Demand some token concessions and withdraw, or engage in a "no one can have her if I cannot" business of massive destruction, seeking acquiescence. In the latter case, he'd still be looking at a forever-insurgency, one that'll be supplied by the West and fought by people who've declared that they are not will never be Russian thralls. In either case, he's set Russia back decades, economically. The outrage here is very unlikely to die off the way it did after Crimea.

With the standard caveat that every day brings fresh facts to the stew, it's apparent that he's chosen the latter path... with a twist. His escalations and provocations continue, targeting civilians individually and in clusters, violating humanitarian cease-fires, and bringing new weapons to bear in what's now a no-win situation for him and Russia. It's as if he's daring the West to increase its involvement, to crossing the line from aid and sanctions to intercession.

Last week, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy appealed directly to Congress for a continuation of aid, an escalation of sanctions... and the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Consider these three requests.

We are already providing, through both governmental and civilian channels, myriad forms of aid. We can provide more without actually becoming "involved" in the war - giving or selling stuff to a person, a group, or a nation is not an act of war.

We are also sanctioning Russia economically. While some, including members of Congress, assert that economic sanctions are themselves an act of war, a nation does have the right to choose how and with whom it interacts economically. Are tariffs an act of war? Are domestic subsidies an act of war? Neither are libertarian, but they're within the government's powers (the confiscation of private assets is a different matter, but even then we're talking about theft, not war).

The final request, however, stands apart.

What, exactly, is a "no-fly zone?" It is Western aircraft in the skies of Ukraine, which is currently a theater of war. It is Western surface-to-air missiles and other military assets in Ukraine, pointed at the sky and set up to target... Russian aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones. If any such enter Ukrainian airspace, the West would shoot them down.

That is war. To assert anything else is to bend the truth beyond its breaking point.

It's also a decision that should rightfully be put forth by Congress, not simply a decision by the President.

The power to declare war is reserved for Congress in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Furthermore the War Powers Resolution of 1973 "provides that the President can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Ukraine is not a US territory, nor are American armed forces therein. There is no national emergency, either. So, it's down to Congress to declare war, and Zelenskyy's plea was rightfully directed at Congress.

To date, Biden has resisted the hawks' and war-drummers' exhortations that he involve American military assets in the war in Ukraine.

Good Biden. While the humanitarian toll is catastrophic, there is only an emotional argument for American involvement, not a rational one. For we must remember that, while Ukraine is a friendly nation, she is not allied via treaty. Moreso, Russia has nuclear weapons. A lot of them. And a Bond villain in charge of them, a villain who cannot be presumed to any Western measure of rationality in showing restraint about using them.

In fact, I believe Putin is daring us to put boots on Ukrainian soil or jets in Ukrainian airspace. His apparent exit strategy is total war. As someone put it, "escalate to de-escalate." Direct Western involvement would serve to validate his risible assertion that NATO's eastern expansion is a provocation and a threat to Mother Russia's existence, and might help tip domestic opinion, currently and by many reports skeptical or worse, in his direction.

By all means, keep providing aid to Ukraine. Both humanitarian and war-materiel. Share intelligence - keep using all those surveillance assets we have. Continue the propaganda, cyber, and even electronic countermeasures, if such can be projected without Americans within Ukrainian borders, efforts. But a no-fly zone? That's World War III against a sociopathic megalomaniac, and we'd arguably be the instigators.

Again, circumstances can change. A Russian nuke used on Ukrainian soil that spreads fallout past her borders into a NATO nation could easily be deemed a provocation that demands a response. That hasn't happened. Let's not give Putin the excuse he's trying to goad. And, for the world's sake, let's think with our heads more than our hearts.

---

If you like this post, please share it far and wide. Scattering seeds is how we sow liberty.

If you like what I write, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends! While I share it as much as I can on social media, we all know those get filtered and you're not apt to see all shares.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.

Thank you for your support!

Yours in liberty,

Peter.