WARNING! It is to be noted that some of the sources used in this series, as well as direct quotations, display or describe in graphic detail acts of terror, rape, murder, torture, and other crimes against humanity. Extreme discretion and sensitivity are to be advised when reading such supporting material. The sources have been chosen to highlight and document the severity of these crimes and should be treated as such, as well as with the utmost sensitivity and dignity to the victims of such inhuman brutality.

This article is Part III of a series examining contemporary conflicts through the lens of the Catholic tradition of just war. Readers unfamiliar with the theological framework employed here are encouraged to consult Part I before proceeding.

Introduction

The border conflict in Ukraine presents a markedly different case to that examined in Part II. Where the Israeli war on terror involves a clear aggressor committed by charter to genocide, the geopolitical history of the Russia-Ukraine conflict does not allow for so clear a determination. One can claim Russia launched a ‘war of aggression’ in 2022 on Ukraine, and another can claim that Ukraine launched a ‘war of aggression’ in 2014 against the Donetsk People’s Republic. As such, the definition of just war in the Catholic tradition must be applied carefully, with recognition of the deep tension in the region, especially because, depending on who is legitimately fighting in defense, they must not ‘seek to impose domination on another nation.’ [1] Unfortunately, this appears to be the case with the objectives of the current regimes in both Moscow and Kyiv. This article will apply the four criteria of the Catechism, as well as the Thomistic prerequisites established in Part I, to this conflict.

Grave Suffering?

Has the ‘suffering inflicted by the aggressor […] be[en] lasting, grave and certain?’  [2] One can look at casualty statistics, but these are unreliable and come from two warring parties that do not have a history of telling the truth, and as such, in the interests of propaganda, they overestimate each side’s figures. [3] No reliable statistics exist; however, just by observation, it is clear that there is great suffering, both civilian and combatant, both Russian and Ukrainian. According to the United Nations, which is not a completely reliable source – see the reporting on the Israel – Hamas war -, the border conflict has generated 6.5 million Ukrainian refugees displaced from their homes. [4] According to Amnesty International, also not a completely reliable source – for the same reasons as the United Nations -, both sides have allegedly committed war crimes including rape, murder, and extrajudicial killings. [5] Significant in identifying who the aggressor is, however, are the alleged Ukrainian war crimes in the Donbass, as officially Russia was not involved in the conflict at this point. [6] So it would seem to fulfil the first criterion: there is undoubtedly great suffering, and the conflict is a humanitarian disaster. However, who is the aggressor? This element is not so clear, and leads to the second criterion.

Diplomacy Exhausted?

Have ‘all other peaceful means proven to be ineffective?’  [7]  While one may think this conflict started when Russia ‘invaded’ Ukraine in 2022, it really can trace its roots back to the 2014 Euromaidan coup. [8] Thus began a series of escalating skirmishes, which led to the declaration of autonomy of Crimea, and eventually the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, and a border conflict between the Ukrainians and Russian paramilitaries. As previously stated, both sides were allegedly committing war crimes, and both sides were taking aggressive military maneuvers of annexation. No real political process was fruitful, and each was often frustrated by international political agencies such as the European Union. [9] One might therefore argue that diplomacy has proved to be ineffective; however, an argument can be made that diplomacy was not pursued in good faith, and therefore was intended to fail rather than unfortunately prove to be ineffective. As such, the second criterion has not been met. Pope Francis had laudably called upon the Vatican to act as a mediator between the two countries, seeking a ‘peace, not just a truce that may only serve to rearm.’ [10] Yet the efforts of mediation from the neutral Vatican have fallen on deaf ears, with Russia and NATO pouring more weapons and more lives into the inferno.

Odds of Success and Proportionality

Are there ‘well-founded prospects of success’ using arms that do ‘not produce evils greater than the evil to be eliminated?’ [11] Unlike the war in Israel, there is no concept of asymmetry here; the conflict has descended into stalemate conditions reminiscent of the Great War. [12] Russia has significantly greater numbers of deployable troops – approximately 900,000 prior to 2022 – and has committed approximately 4% of its GDP to defense. [13] Ukraine is backed by the combined ‘might’ of NATO, and as such, no matter the damage to its infrastructure and domestic war production, still has access to the industrial war strength of some of the world’s industrial superpowers, something that, due to sanctions, Russia does not have. This allows for almost parity with Russia, with approximately 4% of Ukraine’s GDP being siphoned into the defense industry and the mobilization of up to 700,000 active duty personnel. [14] As the Ukrainian military ‘is equipped largely with Russian-origin and Soviet-era weapons systems,’ one cannot argue asymmetrical warfare here either; as both sides are using modern weapon systems that were never designed to face a similarly matched opponent, hence the high equipment attrition rates on both sides and the subsequent stalemate. [15] Therefore, there are no ‘well-founded prospects of success’ for either side, and what is even more alarming is that both Russia and the NATO alliance are capable of utilizing weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological agents. As such, the risk of escalation to an extinction-level event is markedly present, and no justification for this conflict can be made on the third criterion.

Conclusions

There can be no good in prolonging the conflict in Ukraine. As this article has shown, none of the criteria set out in the Catholic tradition of just war have been met. One side is responding to the alleged crimes of the other, and vice versa, in an increasingly depraved, cruel, and patently evil manner. All calls for peace in this region, as started by Pope Francis, are infinitely commendable, and all Catholics, in good conscience, and if they have the authority to do so, should seek an immediate end to this senseless conflict and alleviate the suffering it has generated. Aid must be given to those legitimately fleeing the war, and a humanitarian corridor must be kept open. [16] For neither Ukraine, Russia, the United Nations, NATO, Britain, nor the United States seem to be focused on the suffering of the people in this region; there are no ‘international agencies which devote all their energies to this most important work,’ and as such, we must ourselves become such in our charities and aid organizations, securing the ‘earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor.’  [17]