We should not pretend that the truth is beyond our ability to discover it. We should attempt to understand the world and apply to it the principles we claim to believe it. Where an aggressor is identified, or where the desire for property rights and rule of law is identified, we should support it with words if deeds are too expensive/risky/impractical.
The case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should be treated as one would treat a neighbor who is being assaulted. Let’s not adopt a policy of non-intervention for the sake of non-intervention.
“how could any man be justly commended if he be gentle towards the wicked?” ~Archidamidas
In this case, intervention is moral. The only reasonable case against it is a practical one — too expensive, too dangerous, too undermining of my neighbor’s self-reliance. That is the case to make.
But we should not shy away from trying to understand the conflict and provide words if in fact deeds are impractical. Give Ukraine an “atta-boy” for fighting tyranny, first during the Maidan protests, and now against Russian savagery.
How would you treat a refugee who has risked his life to flee from North Korea to South Korea? Would you tell him that South Korea houses US military bases and is an American puppet? Would you draw a moral equivalence and tell him that South Korea is also a corrupt government and also engages in propaganda and oppression? This is exactly analogous to what many US libertarians are doing with regard to Ukraine.
The desire for rule of law, property rights and a better life is not a CIA / New World Order conspiracy. It is a concrete tangible quality of life. Ukraine sees a relatively law-abiding, relatively prosperous Poland to the west, and an impoverished, savage, corrupt, propaganda saturated Russia to the east. It really is that simple.
Regarding Russia’s propaganda, please see:
