Stand with Ukraine

Why should I?

This article can be listened to by clicking above.

Image: http://www.greaterwacoed.org/a-line-in-the-sand/

Initially published on LinkedIn on 30 May 2022.

Stand with Ukraine? Why should I? On what? LGBT rights? Sex equality? Fair pay? Selfless devotion to curing poverty? Acting as peacemaker? Welcoming the Huguenots?

The stand that Ukraine is presently taking is to defend itself against Russia’s military aggression. On that there can be little ground for disagreement. But what, then, is “standing with Ukraine”?

For the vast majority of those who vaunt the stand with Ukraine banner, it does not mean what it means in common parlance: taking up arms for the fight. For some, it does, but they are in fact few and far between. There are nations that stand with Ukraine, supplying her with arms and arms systems, intelligence, and other auxiliary services; a sort of taking-up of the fight, but short of taking up the arms on her behalf. Those nations stand with Ukraine because they favour Ukraine’s arguments in defending herself, over Russia’s in attacking her. It is a pro-Ukrainian stance. And, at an individual, and even corporate, level, there are people and businesses that reflect this sympathy for Ukraine over any sympathies they have for Russia. They stand with Ukraine, rather than with Russia, because a military act of this magnitude draws, for them, a clear line in the sand between the two countries and, to all intents and purposes, forces them to decide on which side of that line they will stand. Standing directly upon such a line is not an option, not in a modern world where a war is fought in the field and also virtually in the Internet – those who aren’t “for” are deemed to be “against”, no matter how neutral they wish to portray their stance. That was an underlying element to the latest NATO applications.

But does standing for Ukraine mean standing for all that Ukraine represents? Let us take a supposed for instance. What if Russia had made this incursion not against Ukraine but against North Korea? Would that see the observers ply their troth to Russia, rather than the party who is aggressed? To answer that question, one must decide on what principle that troth is plied.

When, many years ago, I came to hear of the place then known as “the” Ukraine, I needed to rush to the atlas to find out where it was, what it was: oh, yes, The Odessa File, by Frederick Forsythe, rang a bell. The Black Sea. Kiev. At the time, the rest was TMI. Bit by bit, enquiry was made and headlines were paid attention to. Oligarchs. Corruption. Bread basket of the world. Independent. The actor president. Ukraine was an amusing side-show at the world’s political circus. It was dirt poor and had unpronounceable placenames. And then this. And for this, for the writer, there did not need to be the slightest piece of preliminary information to know where to stand.

Because what individuals stand for is not a nation or a political system or a religious notion but a principle. And a principle is a rule that is forged by and serves as a pilot light to guide one through one’s life. Fidelity; honesty; selflessness; or to blow with the wind. These are all principles, and while we like to think of a principle as being a virtue, and a virtue as being valorous, it is Shakespeare’s Falstaff that gave us the inevitable stance that many of us take on any matter of principle, by immortally observing that discretion is the better part of valour.

Were one to see a man drowning in a river, would one first enquire as to his moral turpitude before endeavouring a rescue? Enquire of a beggar woman her gambling habits and drug consumption? Decide a scholarship application for a young boy on the basis of his parents’ rectitude in other quarters? I think not, for the worth of the request is in each case resolved on the question of the need to be met and the means to fulfil it in the moment.

For many, standing with Ukraine means little more than expressing sympathy for her plight. Ukraine is, however, corrupt. It has a president sworn to do something about that, but Ukraine is corrupt, as is Russia herself, as is Switzerland, a beacon of neutrality and civilisation, as is, I dare say, every nation on the globe’s surface; and, the nature of corruption being as it is, it is a taint hard to measure in its substantive quantity. Ukraine has done little in its 30-year independent history to cooperate with, aid or abet any other nations – in part owing to its own malaises at home, on which its attentions have been focused, if focused they were.

So, we come to a crux: why should we stand with Ukraine? Or why shouldn’t we, more to the point? The answers lie in two domains. Perhaps we side with the idea of Great Rus, or with the Russian success story or, personally, with Mr Putin. In that case, we should side with Russia, but in so doing, we need to side-step the issue of death. A military incursion causes deaths, and we must be able in our minds to deem that a negligeable factor in the current operation.

If we are unable to do that, if we wish there to be less death, then we must side with Ukraine. We may fear that a Russian victory would lend strength to the idea of Russia expanding its claims to other nations, and so siding with Ukraine means we side with the status quo ante bellum in those other countries too. We may be concerned at supplies of grain to the rest of the world, the safety of shipping in the Black Sea, or the fears of young Russians being conscripted into the Russian army. These factors all play a role in our feelings towards Ukraine and Russia but, in the end, if the preservation of life is in any way, shape or form a guiding principle in one’s life, it is hard to see that one would not feel bound by the conclusion that, for all their corruption, inefficiency and turpitude in other spheres, Ukrainians do not deserve to die.

If Russia had invaded North Korea, not one whit of the foregoing would detract me from the conclusion that North Korea had been ill-treated at the hands of its opponent, and it is firmly with North Korea that my sympathies would stand. Likewise, Ukraine’s glory may yet need some reburnishing, but it is her unwarranted suffering at the hands of her invader that, irrespective of whatever faults she may otherwise have, prompt the right-minded to stand with Ukraine.