America’s Immoral Proxy War in Ukraine

“Proxy wars are conflicts in which a third party intervenes indirectly in a pre-existing war in order to influence the strategic outcome in favour of its preferred faction. Proxy wars are the product of a relationship between a benefactor who is a state or non-state actor external to the dynamic of the existing conflict (for example, a civil war) and the chosen proxies who are the conduit for the benefactor’s weapons, training, and funding. In short, proxy wars are the replacement for states and non-state actors seeking to further their own strategic goals yet at the same time avoid engaging in direct, costly, and bloody warfare.” (A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations, 4th ed. 2018)

It seems to be generally acknowledged that the US is fighting a proxy war against Russia by assisting the Ukrainian military with weaponry, intelligence, etc.  Defense Secretary Austin admitted as much in his public comments on April 25.  I argue here that, while not all proxy wars are immoral, the current one fought by the US against Russia in Ukraine is immoral. The argument is based on Kant’s categorical imperative, which he held can be stated in two versions:

1)  Always act according to that maxim that you can, without contradiction, will to be a universal law.

2)  Always treat people as ends, never as means.

There has been much debate about these formulations, but something like both of them are part of a wide consensus on how actions are to be morally assessed.For example, arguments against slavery in Britain and America were based on something like Version 2. That principle also implies that proxy wars are immoral when they involve a nation A adopting as policy the use of citizens of country B to fight a war against an enemy of country A for country A's own ends.On that basis, the US is fighting an immoral war against Russia. Its strategic aim is to weakento the point where it is no longer a serious competitor for world, or at least Western hegemony., of course, not by actually taking direct part in the fighting. In the words of former ambassador Charles Freeman,USpolicy, "We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence."

AARON MATÉ:  And why does this view of Ukraine as essentially cannon fodder against Russia, why is it so prevalent in Washington?

CHAS FREEMAN:  This is essentially cost-free from the United States as long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us.  We are engaged, as Professor Cohen said, in a proxy war, and we’re selling a lot of weapons.  That makes arms manufacturers happy.  We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about.  We’re going against an officially designated enemy, Russia, which makes us feel vindicated.  So, from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie The Gray Zone.                                                  

The US has justified its assistance to Ukraine with weapons and other resources by claiming Russia’s invasion was an unprovoked aggression.  (Never mind that the US has itself carried out several unprovoked aggressions since WWII.)  In itself there is nothing wrong with assistance of that sort as long as it accords with international law.  In other words, assisting another nation at war is not necessarily a proxy war.  It becomes one when the assisting nation has a hidden or not so hidden agenda that furthers its own national interest when that aim may not align with the goals of the attacked country.  In the present crisis, Ukrainians may not care whether Russia’s military remains strong or weak after the war ends.  They just want the Russians out of their country and their captured territories restored to Ukrainian governance.

Indirect participation in a war against an aggressor can be justified only if (1) the war itself is just and (2) the aims of the assisting nation align with the aims of the nation being attacked, as was the case with the American lend-lease program for aiding its European allies during World War II prior to its own entry into the war.  In the current crisis, the Biden administration can credibly claim that it wants the same outcome as the Ukrainians—restoration of Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity — but the additional strategic aim of weakening Russia is not so easily defended.  Pursuing that goal may incline the US to prolong the war to the disadvantage of the Ukrainian people.

There is evidence that that is exactly what is happening.  From the beginning, the Biden administration has been supplying Ukraine with just enough weaponry to put up some kind of fight against the Russians on the ground— rifles, ammunition, grenades, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, etc.—but not the full array of weaponry Zelensky was constantly pleading for that would enable Ukraine to win the war.  Not only did the US refuse to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, as requested, but they also refused to supply fighter planes and even prevented Poland from sending some of its fleet of jet fighters.  [Interestingly, Russia has not been able to defeat the aging Ukrainian air force with its 10-times more units of modern jet fighter bombers Forbes.]  Only in the last couple of weeks has the US agreed to supply Ukraine the state-of-the art rocket systems, but only on condition that Ukraine not shoot them at targets in Russia.  Hard to see how Ukraine can prevail without attacking Russian bases and supply depots.

Clearly the US does not want Ukraine to win but rather to fight a long-drawn-out war of attrition to weaken the Russian military to a level deemed sufficient for US strategic needs.  That is to use Ukraine’s army as a means to an end set by the US, not by Ukraine, and that means the US is fighting an immoral proxy war against Russia.  This, of course, goes unremarked in the media, because appeals to modern norms of morality in regard to international affairs has long been considered quaint.