Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
Europes Interests and Ours
Europes Interests and Ours
Oct 31, 2025 8:51 PM

  In an essay published October 1, Paweł Markiewicz and Maciej Olchawa argue that those who desire to see an end to American military aid to Ukraine and a push for negotiations risk making the mistakes at Yalta in 1944, when the Western Allies consigned Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere of influence.

  Given their connection to Poland, it is understandable why Markiewicz and Olchawa, would be concerned about an end to US support for Ukraine and Russian foreign policy in general, but they fail to even argue, let alone argue convincingly, that there are any American national interests at stake in the situation.

  The Yalta agreement was a disaster for the Eastern European countries that had to endure the communist boot for decades. But it would be fanciful to believe that, by cooperating with the governments in exile of the region a better arrangement could have been reached. The Red Army would have hundreds of divisions in Eastern Europe and the only way they would be leaving was if the Western Allies forcibly dislodged them, no matter what any words on paper had said.

  Aside from the lack of desire to participate in the genocidal apocalyptic warfare of the Eastern Front, (which post-Hitler Nazi German leadership attempted to persuade the Western Allies to do), the USSR was also essential in bringing a conclusion to the Pacific War when it launched a blitzkrieg assault into Manchuria and Sakhalin/Karafuto and was poised to invade Hokkaido. There is good reason to believe that this surprise offensive played a much larger role in Japan’s surrender than the use of atomic weapons by the United States, as Japanese leadership sought to avoid being carved up and occupied by the Soviet Union and facing the same fate as Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe. 

  Other than complaining about a “bad deal,” it is unclear what alternative course Markiewicz and Olchawa would have had the West take. The West was not fighting a holy crusade to right the wrongs of Poland being invaded; the war was fought to stymie Germany’s second run at securing regional hegemony in the twentieth century. Given that the result of the war was replacing a great power in Central Europe with a great power that stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific, one can certainly question just how well that objective was met. But it certainly would not have been in America’s interest to continue the war against the Soviet Union then (which would have necessarily required reviving and remilitarizing the just-vanquished Germans and Japanese). 

  The authors’ arguments do not get any better when they attempt to connect Yalta to the situation in Ukraine today.

  We are told that “accession to NATO—perceived as self-atonement for Yalta—provided an invaluable security umbrella.” It is not clear what “self-atonement for Yalta” means. Self-atonement for not attacking the USSR? Self-atonement for thinking that American lives should only be expended on behalf of vital American interests and not those of foreign countries? And to whom did this destabilizing NATO expansion provide “an invaluable security umbrella”? It certainly was not the US. We are safe and secure in the Western Hemisphere whether or not Poland is in NATO, or NATO exists at all.

  The United States should allow Eastern European countries to settle disputes with Russia on their own and concern ourselves with our fraying society here at home.

  The United States is safe and secure because for 200 years we have maintained the Monroe Doctrine, which established the entire Western Hemisphere as our hegemony and told everyone else to stay out of our sphere of influence. As John Mearsheimer is fond of saying: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Yet, the idea of sphere of influence politics, as happened at Yalta, is derided as imperialism and anachronistic when it comes to Russia, with the authors going so far as to apparently criticize the Concert of Europe in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars that kept Europe more or less at peace for decades.

  Markiewicz and Olchawa warn us that Russia cannot be trusted to keep its agreements, notably pointing to the Minsk Accords as merely delaying tactics for Russia to build up its strength to attack. This is quite a claim given the fact that Angela Merkel admitted in 2022 that the Minsk agreements were a farce that she only pursued to give Ukraine time to build up its strength. 

  Moreover, mistrust is part of the very nature of international politics. Just as the West has good reason to distrust Russia, so too does Russia have good reason to distrust us. Putin has already made it clear that his trust was broken over the Minsk Accords and he has openly speculated that perhaps Russia should have invaded earlier. One might also recall events in “ancient” history like regime change in Libya and the Iraq War that similarly violated Russian trust. 

  Finally, Markiewicz and Olchawa argue that the invasion of Ukraine was merely the beginning of Russia’s grand plans of aggression against other states in Eastern and Central Europe and that this is why the US must stand firm in support of Ukraine. Why would more NATO involvement in Ukraine deter Russia, if it is apparently planning to invade NATO countries anyway? And if Putin is seriously considering a continental war with Europe, shouldn’t we take seriously the prospect of nuclear use, and not pooh-pooh it as “saber-rattling”?

  Ultimately, the arguments that Markiewicz and Olchawa make are perfectly sensible from a Polish perspective. Poland, like Ukraine, finds itself in a very bad geostrategic position, which is why both places have repeatedly faced invasion, partition, and genocide over the centuries. This is tragic, but in and of itself, it is not an argument for why the fate of Eastern Europe is of vital national interest to the United States or why Americans should risk nuclear war over them.

  States have no friends, only interests. America’s supposed European allies are all too aware of this, as even in the face of supposedly untrammeled Russian aggression they continue to free-ride on American defense and expect Americans to spend our money, and ultimately our lives for their benefit. If Markiewicz and Olchawa want “nothing about them without them” we should give that to them and the other Eastern European countries and allow them to settle these disputes with Russia on their own and concern ourselves with our fraying society here at home.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY
"The Culture of Charity"
R&L: What motivated you to write this book? What questions were you hoping to answer? Brooks: I’m an economist and I’ve been doing charitable giving research for a long time. When economists look at charitable giving now, they always ask these prosaic questions like, “what will happen to charitable giving if we decrease the death tax by a quarter?” They’re important questions, but they’re really all about economic incentives. Over the years I’ve been involved in a lot of...
Anders Chydenius
Known as the Adam Smith of the North, Anders Chydenius laid out his economic prescription for mercantilist [Sweden-Finland] in The National Gain in 1765, suggesting a concept of spontaneous order eleven years before Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations: “Every individual spontaneously tries to find the place and the trade in which he can best increase National gain, if laws do not prevent him from doing so.” For Chydenius, freedom and diligence were the foundations of an economically...
Edmund A. Opitz
God has laid down rules for us in every walk of life, including the proper organization of our economic affairs. The free economy is a system of voluntary arrangements that brings together people who have work skills, who use tools and machinery to increase their output, thus producing the incredible abundance of goods and services we enjoy as consumers. Economics … is in the realm of means, but it supplies the essential means for enriching our lives in the...
Editor's note
When the Acton Institute was first established, part of our mission was to influence future leaders. We have done that in countless way through our array of programs, but this issue of R&L highlights one particularly important example. The Reverend John A. Nunes, a Lutheran minister, is our feature interview this month. Nunes was recently appointed to head up Lutheran World Relief. Aside from the genuine pride we have that one of our colleagues has been entrusted with such...
The bottom billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it
Development remains the most pressing human question in economics. As interesting as stock market models might be or monetary policy in managing the business cycle, the most fundamental question in economics is that of growth. What leads to economic growth? And how can those who are poorest realize the benefits of growth? Every few years a es along that makes a significant contribution to our thinking about those most important questions. One thinks of the work a few years...
The works and words of Love
In July 2007, the Rev. John A. Nunes was named president of Lutheran World Relief. He es only the fourth president to lead the international development and relief organization since it’s founding in 1945. Nunes, 44, is a former research fellow at the Acton Institute and a long-time lecturer at Acton University and the Toward a Free and Virtuous Society student conferences. At Baltimore-based LWR, Rev. Nunes will lead a staff of nearly 100 people, directing projects in thirty-five...
"Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism," and the economics of growth and prosperity
The authors of Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism explain why capitalism is not a monolithic construct. Before the end of the Cold War there was a perception that capitalist economies were generally the same, due to the stark contrasts between Western economies and mand economies. Authors William J. Baumol, Robert E. Litan, and Carl J. Schramm draw out distinctions between different forms of capitalism and which models best promote growth and productivity. The four main types they identify are oligarchic...
Rafael Termes
It is true that democracy is the best of the political systems, in that it guarantees, through universal suffrage, a peaceful changeover of power. But democracy and its instrument, majority rule, is not a method to investigate the truth. Truth can be acquired with evidence, conclusive demonstration, or another's trustworthy testimony; but it must not be subject to a vote. There may be laws hereof which, although passed democratically, are ... not laws, but corruptions of the law, because...
Lord Ralph Harris of Highcross
Born in Tottenham in 1924, Lord Ralph Harris was a foremost champion for free markets in twentieth century Great Britain. After a first in Economics at Cambridge and a subsequent teaching stint at St. Andrew's University, Lord Harris became general director of the Institute for Economic Affairs in 1957 (Lord Harris would hold the post of founding director until 1987). This institute would lay the intellectual groundwork for the vast free-market reforms in late 1970s and 1980s Great Britain....
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Born on February 4, 1906, in Breslau, then part of Imperial Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer began his theological education in 1923 at the University of Tübingen. He later trained under liberal theologians Adolf von Harnack and Reinhold Seeburg. Following what he would later call a conversion experience, Bonhoeffer intensified his focus on contemporary theological problems facing the church. With the ascendancy of the Nazi party in Germany, Bonhoeffer was among the first of the German theologians to perceive the pervasiveness...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved