USA and Ukraine – What to do?

In our classes on conflict resolution, we refer to the extremes of conflict. We call this “The Conflict Continuum.” We illustrate a linear continuum (on a whiteboard or by slides). On the one side of the continuum is “Non-Engagement,” and on the other side is “War.” The latter is the total engagement in conflict – often without rules. The Russian government apparently has no problem engaging in war (total engagement in conflict). Further, they don’t seem to even adhere to the so-called Rules of Warfare. In my opinion, this term is itself an oxymoron – war by definition, is the total disregard of rules – in favor of winning.

The question for us in the United States and Canada – and other people in other democracies concerned about the presumptive battle between democracy and autocracy, is: What can we do now? Our governments are wrestling with this dilemma at this very time. Sanctions by the U.S. and other allied or friendly governments pale in comparison to news images of the valiant people of all ages in Ukraine dying and being injured by the most horrendous military campaign ever witnessed in Europe since Hitler’s rampage.

As to sanctions, there should be no exceptions to what the U.S. and the free world might impose. Good works in some cases by Oligarchs (such as Roman Abramovich with Israel’s Yad Vashem Memorial) should not allow them to escape sanctions. If they have repudiated the Russian/Putin conduct, maybe that could be a factor. On March 10, 2022, according to press reports, the U.K. has sanctioned Mr. Abramovich and other oligarchs. The British press quickly picked up the Abramovich sanctions because he (or his organization) owns the well-known British Premier League Chelsea Football (soccer) team.

Add to my own frustration at not being able to do more to save Ukraine is my own background in the military and emergency services (years ago). Like so many people, I wish we could do more. I wish we weren’t so afraid of Russia (or China, or Iran, or North Korea), but rationally I understand that we have many “decision factors” at play in this crisis.

In America, as we relate to our own domestic policing issue, we constantly see in the news how dangerous it is for police in this country to deal with someone who is both unstable AND armed. The result of that situation is too often the death of one or more people.

In Russia’s case, many people have questioned the very mental health of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Conduct of Russian soldiers in Ukraine (now – and in the past in Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, Chechnya) are warnings to us that we are dealing with an unpredictable (and well- armed) foe. In the U.S., our government has taken the “position” (a term which we, in conflict resolution, don’t like because the “p” word implies an inability to change) that Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and we don’t have a “legal right” to commit U.S. forces to the fight.

The premise of what is right or moral has not so far been enough to get the United States into the fight. What is very relevant to the calculus of war with Russia is the nuclear issue. Is it just Putin bombast, or does he mean it that he would risk everything, including nuclear retaliation, if he thought American or NATO combat forces entry into the Ukraine situation might tilt Russian goals toward a loss – and lead to one or more irrational nuclear strikes in Europe – and even at our North American homeland.

This is not a war-mongering column, as some might see it. But – there is such a thing, in my view, as doing what is right. Years ago, I wrote one of the least popular books ever written:
Ethics for Government Employees (Crisp Publications, 1993). In it, I called for standards of conduct for employees in the public sector. My wife, Bryane, and I have a book coming out called: Principled Choices: A Public and Private Sector Ethics Practice Guide (to be published by Lalo Publishing late 2022). In these books and according to many other commentators, the “public good” and the “right choice” from several alternatives is both challenging but also the moral pathway to proceed.

Following the ethics/moral test, it is hard to accept what is being done by the Russians in Ukraine as acceptable conduct by what has been thought to be a rational, thinking nation. It must be dealt with – and as soon as possible. The U.S. has had no problem stepping in with full force in the past: the “domino theory” launching Vietnam, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, the attack on the Iraqi Kurds, the war in Bosnia, and attempts at defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan – even Korea just five years in the shadow of World War 2. Why, now suddenly, are we standing by the “legal precept” of Ukraine not being a member of NATO?

According to recent opinion, including both Democrats and Republicans, 74% of Americans favor a NATO “no fly zone” over Ukraine (as reported on CBS-TV “Sunday Morning” on March 6, 2022).

Is there not an ethical, moral “public good” principle here: Defending Democracy against Tyranny?

It may be said by many Americans (and maybe others) if we don’t fight “them” there, we will have to fight them much closer to home, or indeed, even in our own collective backyards. Poland certainly believes that statement. They have offered MIG-29 aircraft and at no cost to Ukraine, but the U.S., at our press time, has quashed that offer.

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE BEFORE WE OFFER SOME REAL PROTECTION – SUCH AS A “NO FLY ZONE”!

Charles P. Lickson
Front Royal, VA

(Charles Lickson is a former trial attorney, turned mediator, writer, publisher; above excerpted from March 2022 issue of IRONING IT OUT NEWSLETTER)