Ukraine: Painful decisions about war and peace

By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Mar 07, 2025

There is no question that the war of Russia against Ukraine is a tough call. By our standards in the United States, I think most people would agree that the Russian claim to Ukrainian territory is relatively slim. So it is good for Americans that this question is not arising in the nineteenth century when we too were gobbling up territory from Native Americans, territory to which we had (if we are honest) primarily a European “let’s divide up the world” claim. But, in any case, territorial claims in any era are very strange things: Apparently possession really is nine points of the law, and so the ability to possess and control a territory counts for a great deal, both in map-making and in the “right” to “possess” the land.

Rather obviously, this is seldom a God-given claim. It is hard to think of any instance other than ancient Israel in which God determined the boundaries of a territorial possession for a particular group. So we are left, in effect, with the moral claim of being or having once been in possession, and the rejection of that claim by another party which may or may not have plausible grounds. Sadly, when it comes to both old empires and modern nation states, the claims and the lack thereof are often considered worth fighting for. And the people under each of the regimes which is attempting to make a claim tend to reflexively emphasize the justice of their own cause.

America and the Vatican

Since, among the nations directly involved, there always seem to be vested interests at stake, third parties are sometimes able to see things more clearly. Among the outsiders, I find it extremely interesting that both the American President Donald Trump and most of the spokesmen in the Vatican seem to take a similar line. Even when the Vatican has acknowledged that the Russians are the aggressors, both Pope Francis and his aides have emphasized that the price of continued war is way too high, and have generally preferred some sort of semi-rational settlement to continued carnage. In an increasingly hopeless situation, not only is that understandable; it can also be moral.

President Donald Trump has taken a similar view, though his reasons are very likely quite different. He wants the war to end, certainly because of the carnage, but also because he clearly considers it a zero-sum game, not only for the Ukrainians but also for the United States. Trump has little interest in continuing America’s role in preserving political stability in Eastern Europe. Indeed, I suspect most Americans wonder if such a role is viable for the long term, and it is probably easier for Americans to envision significant shifts in the European power structure than it is for Europeans. Even in contemporary warfare, it makes a big difference to have two oceans between oneself and any potentially aggressive neighbors.

The balance of comment on this tragic situation has shifted in a similar way in Rome. Andrea Tornielli has just criticized the European Union’s plan to provide 800 billion euros ($867 billion) in military assistance to Ukraine. Tornielli is the editorial director of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, which is hardly an authoritative platform, but perhaps he feels free to speak since Pope Francis is unavailable. In any case, Francis, Trump and even Tornielli have a point which is essential to the theory of a Just War. Here the question of how much carnage is acceptable is an important one. It is not always a moral course to fight to the death, especially over typically human (read morally mixed) issues among competing governments and competing states.

Anti-Russian sentiment and slaughter

It should not be surprising that a great many Americans (including myself) have an instinctive distrust of Russia; we also, despite the not infrequent abuse of power by our own nation, tend to have a distrust of bullies. But there is a complex history of aggression and subjugation throughout the Eastern European region, and this is a history which is very difficult for outsiders to judge. In any case, a separate question inescapably arises in war quite independently of the complex network of rights and wrongs. Again, how much slaughter is too much slaughter?

The clearly excessive slaughter of the American Civil War, for example, was almost certainly sufficient to render that war unjust all by itself. Setting the issue of slavery aside for the moment (obviously not the sole cause of the war), it became clear at a certain point that the superior fire power of the Union was simply impossible to resist; the moment came when the Confederacy realized that surrender was morally superior to continued carnage in a losing cause. So too in the present case: There is a growing sentiment among those outside the fight, and especially in the Catholic Church, that it is not a proper response to the Russian threat simply to escalate the involvement of other parties as the Ukrainians continue to hope and fight and die.

At some point, the sheer slaughter has to be brought to an end no matter who has the moral high ground. Martyrdom is not too great a price to pay for defending a just cause; but the continuing slaughter of those who have no choice really does become, at some point, too great a price. Both Pope Francis and Donald Trump (for what it is worth) favor a search for a settlement which: (a) Abandons recriminations as fruitless; and (b) Offers a better way forward for both parties.

Was this new calculus brought about by force? Certainly. That’s what wars do. But just war theory does not (because it cannot) justify political leaders “sticking to their guns” when the resulting human suffering and death is almost certainly worse than what would befall if a peace can be arranged. War changes the balance of power, and we may consider that a shame or not, depending on the powers; but a recognition of the shifting balance is an important criterion for Just War Theory. So is the danger of dragging in others to make commitments that may well increase the carnage without changing the outcome.

In attempting to wage a just war, it is not only righteousness that is important, but also prudence. Perhaps in no other circumstance can the imprudence of national leaders reach such catastrophic heights. It is at least often the case that when it comes to war, all sides have some claim to justice, however misguided. But at some point, even those with the greatest justice must take account of the consequences of the war itself. The side with the greater claim to justice does not always prevail.

Sometimes this is so because conquest is complete. But sometimes it is so because moral leaders evaluate the toll on the innocent and conclude that it is disproportionate, and so they sue for peace.