Despite repeated warnings from the Western powers that Russia will be hit with severe sanctions if it invaded Ukraine, Russia did what it said it will do unless its demands were met. The demands were not met, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the West started implementing the promised sanctions.
It is clear to an impartial observer that each of Russia and the West
were motivated by a principle they could not violate by backing away from the
warnings or promises they made. And so, they moved to implement the “kinetic”
clashes and economic measures which are producing the hardship of rising prices
for some people, and causing a refugee problem for others.
These realities force us to ponder the question: What exactly is that
thing called “principle” which can lead to so much misery?
A principle is an artificial stance we arbitrarily consider to be inviolable
as, for example, the natural postulate (or axiom) in mathematics which goes
like this: Because 3+7=10, therefore 7+3=10. You don’t have to prove or explain
this; you take it as dogma and use it as a fundamental truth on which to build other
mathematical theorems and what have you.
Whereas the natural postulate is a universal truth that cannot be
violated for any reason, anytime by anyone, the artificial principle is usually
created to serve as rails that will guide both the creator of the principle and
those who must follow it to a predetermined goal. An example of that would be
President Kennedy proclaiming, it is an American principle that no one can
install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Violators of this principle will risk an
America inflicted nuclear annihilation. So far, this has worked as a deterrence,
but it is no guarantee it will never be violated no matter the warnings.
Because there is a divergence between the abstract and the working
definitions of the word “principle,” human beings confuse between the validity
of the two, and treat artificial principles as inviolable as mathematical
postulates. In so doing, the humans risk as much as the survival of the planet
keeping to a principle that might in the long run prove to have been a
worthless proposition.
To get a sense of how a case of this kind begins, develops and ends, we
may follow the journey of Russia’s doings and the Western responses concerning
the Ukraine issue. Three articles that came on the same day February 24, 2022
in the same publication, The Washington Examiner, tell a great deal of what we
need to know.
The first article came under the title: “Will Biden’s ‘full-scale’
response to Russian invasion succeed where his first round of sanctions
failed?” It was written by Christian Datoc. The second article came under the
title: “Biden declines to cut Russia from SWIFT payments system despite
Ukraine’s pleas,” written by Zachary Halaschak. The third article came under
the title: “Our failed policies made the Russia-Ukraine crisis possible,”
written by Kaylee McGhee.
Each of the three articles tells a little of the principle that
motivates the players in this global drama. It is one in which the fate of the
planet may be at risk if something unexpected happens, followed by an
inadvertent response that could escalate to a nuclear exchange between the two
camps.
The following is a condensed version of the compilation gathered from
the Christian Datoc article:
“President Joe Biden will announce a response from the United
States and its NATO allies after a preliminary round of sanctions failed to
stop Russian President Vladimir Putin from launching a military operation
against Ukraine. Putin explained to the Russian public how troops would
penetrate Ukraine beyond the Donbas region. Biden said in a statement
responding to the invasion: Russia alone is responsible for the death and
destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and
partners will respond in a united way. The world will hold Russia
accountable".
What is obvious in that passage, is that President Biden is responding
to the principle which says that America has the duty to stand up to someone
like Putin, who violated the order established in the aftermath of World War
II. Putin addressed his words to the Russian people who will ultimately hold
him accountable for the decisions he makes. Biden, on the other hand, addressed
his words to the whole world, to whom he believes he is accountable.
The following is a condensed version of the compilation gathered from
the Zachary Halaschak article:
“The US is bucking Ukraine’s calls to remove Russia from the
SWIFT system, opting in favor of sanctions that Biden argues are more
aggressive. While there is a divide among Western nations about whether to cut
Russia out of SWIFT, Kyiv had lobbied for Biden to do so. Instead, Biden
unveiled new round of sanctions against Moscow but declined to excise
Russia from the SWIFT network for the time being. In response to a question
about why Russia’s removal from SWIFT was not part of the sanctions package,
Biden told reporters that SWIFT it is always an option, but right now, that’s
not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take”.
It is obvious from this passage that different folks have different
principles, therefore different needs they seek to satisfy. Whereas the leaders
of Ukraine, some Americans and some Europeans wish to inflict harsh measures on
Russia, other Europeans and President Biden wish to take the more cautious
approach of gradually tightening the screws on Russia as long as Russia refuses
to back off from its decision to invade Ukraine.
The following is a condensed version of the compilation gathered from
the Kaylee McGhee opinion piece:
“Russia’s Vladimir Putin always intended to invade Ukraine and piece
together the dissolved Soviet empire. In 2008 he invaded Georgia, in 2014 he
invaded and annexed Crimea. The US and its allies made poor decisions that made
more likely Putin’s expansion. NATO’s open door to Ukraine and Georgia gave
Putin the excuse to treat his neighbors like a national security threat. Does
anyone believe the US would have reacted differently if China began arming
and forming an alliance with Mexico? Putin is responsible for the choices he
made. He is using the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as an excuse to
justify his territorial ambitions. Putin gets to run the show, as he is demonstrating
right now”.
It is obvious from this passage that the principle guiding Putin is the
restoration of the Russian empire, whereas the principle guiding the US and its
allies is to maintain the old world order.