The international community remains divided over President Trump’s initiatives aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict. His approach, in contrast to previous U.S. administrations, focuses on minimizing long-term military and financial support by fostering peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, rather than extending indefinite aid.
Supporters of Trump’s strategy argue that it seeks a peaceful resolution to the conflict, aligning with the principle that war should ultimately aim for peace. This view is grounded in early Christian teachings, notably those of Augustine, who emphasized that war should only be waged to achieve peace:
‘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).
However, critics fear that Trump’s approach could inadvertently reward Russian aggression, potentially compromising Ukraine’s sovereignty. They argue that a just peace involves restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and holding Russia accountable for its actions.
Another Christian perspective highlights that war, when fought under legitimate authority, should aim for peace with justice. Martin Luther likened war to a doctor’s necessary amputation to save a life, suggesting that war, though destructive, can prevent greater harm:
‘…. 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.’
This principle complicates the assessment of whether Trump’s strategy ensures peace with justice. Forcing Ukraine to accept peace under Russia’s terms might end the conflict but could be seen as unjust, rewarding aggression and risking Ukraine’s independence.
Some argue for continued support to Ukraine until a just resolution is achieved. Yet, others invoke a third principle: when achieving justice is unrealistic, negotiations might be the lesser evil. Rusty Reno, an American theologian, suggested in his article ‘Just war principles in Ukraine’:
‘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.’
An historical parallel is Finland’s 1940 peace with the Soviet Union, where Finland ceded territories to avoid a worse military defeat, as advised by Marshal Mannerheim:
‘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.’
The application of these principles to Ukraine depends on whether victory is feasible with external support and the likelihood of such support. If both are affirmed, prolonged conflict might be justified. If not, seeking peace on the best available terms becomes necessary.
Clear communication from Western nations about their support capabilities is crucial for Ukraine’s decision-making. Without sufficient backing, encouraging further conflict would be morally questionable from a Christian perspective.
An illustrative anecdote from journalist Carl Mydans recounts a Finnish officer’s lament after the 1940 Soviet-Finnish war:
‘“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.’
Thus, from a Christian ethical standpoint, avoiding a repeat of such situations is paramount. Ukraine must either receive the necessary support to win or be advised to pursue peace promptly. Allowing the conflict to persist without purpose is deemed the most immoral choice.
This article was originally written by www.christiantoday.com
