Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
Europes Interests and Ours
Europes Interests and Ours
May 31, 2026 4:55 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
Religion, Morality, and the Private Property Order
R&L: You have been long involved in the late-twentieth-century revival of the freedom philosophy, especially with your involvement in the Foundation for Economic Education (fee). In addition, you are a Congregationalist minister. Why do you think it is important for ministers to be grounded in sound economic thinking? Opitz: Ministers today are learned and dedicated men and women. They buy books and subscribe to serious journals, striving to keep abreast of trends that affect religion and the church. They...
Local Communities Are Charity's Resource of First Resort
R&L: What are your views on the nature of the welfare state and the need for its reform? Santorum: What we have had with our public assistance programs over the past thirty or more years is a system that was very bureaucratic, very clinical. It did not require much, if any, responsibility—in fact, I would argue that it rewarded irresponsibility. And the system did not provide much incentive or opportunity for recipients to escape public assistance programs. In most...
Judeo-Christian Tradition Best Basis for Environmentalism
R&L: Although, on its face, the environmental movement seems to be about economics and politics, you have argued that, at root, it is a spiritual movement. Describe the theology at the foundation of environmentalism. Nelson: The environmental movement, at its heart, is a nervous reaction to humankind’s new relationship to the natural world that has developed over the past three hundred years. Modern science and economics have given human beings the capacity to control nature in ways almost unimaginable...
Christianity, the Foundation and Conservator of Freedom
R&L: You have often described yourself as an arch-liberal. The word liberalism has very different meanings in the United States and Europe. Could you explain the differences of those understandings of this term? Kuehnelt-Leddihn: The term liberal in its political connotation we owe to Spain, the nation that always valued freedom most highly if not excessively, and therefore also produced a great many anarchists in the last one hundred fifty years. Resisting the Napoleonic invasion, Spain proclaimed in the...
God's gift of freedom must be used to choose the good
R&L: Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, noted that, “The individual today is often suffocated between the two poles represented by the state and the market.” You have noted that the way out of this modern dilemma is the strengthening of culture. Could you elaborate? Dulles: The political and economic orders, important though they obviously are, do not exhaust the reality of human life and human society. They deal only with particular aspects of life...
Christianity the Key to Dignity and Fulfillment at Work
R&L: It monly held that it is impossible to be both a faithful Christian and a good businessman. How do you respond to this view? Beckett: This view is mon, but it is seriously flawed. Based on that logic, we would have to assume the Apostle Paul was not a good businessman when he was making and selling tents. More likely, he was an exemplary businessman, his products high in quality, fair in price. Can you see the people...
Virtue a Prerequisite for Economic and Political Freedom
R&L: In addition to managing one of the most successful investment firms in the nation, you are also a vigorous philanthropist, regularly funding such things as Christian outreach to the inner city. How is this related to your mitment? Friess: People will sometimes ask, “Why should I get involved in trying to solve society’s problems? Why don’t I just go to my Bible study and enjoy the ‘holy huddle’? It’s safe and secure there; why venture out where I’m...
Changed Hearts, Not Politics, Prompt Social Renewal
R&L: In some Christian circles, social action has taken precedence over evangelism. I am here thinking of the way that the pursuit of social justice has taken the place of the proclamation of the Gospel. What are your thoughts on this trend? Palau: My view is this: Evangelism, proclamation of the Gospel, is social action. It is social action because it changes the core of the problem, which is, the individual out of control from God. Conversion brings the...
Good Financial Stewardship Part of God's Economy
R&L: As a Christian financial advisor, how do you understand the connection between your faith and the world of economics and finances? Burkett: I believe there is a direct link between faith and finances. In the New Testament, our Lord gives us, depending on how you count them, around thirty-four parables, two-thirds of which deal with the subject of money. I believe Jesus uses money as teaching tool to illustrate graphically this point: The way we handle financial matters...
Free Markets Best Protect the Environment
R&L: Now munism has been defeated and discredited, many see radical environmentalism as the next great threat to freedom. Do you agree with this analysis? Hodel: Yes, and I define radical environmentalism as a mechanism for permitting the collectivist mentality to feed its impulse to control society. In other words, there are very valid environmental concerns we all care about; I've never run into anybody who isn't an environmentalist. No one wants dirty air and water or wants to...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved