Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY
/
Europes Interests and Ours
Europes Interests and Ours
Dec 9, 2025 5:25 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
Thomas Jefferson and the Mammoth Cheese
On New Year’s Day, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson received a gift of mythic proportions. Amid great fanfare, a mammoth cheese was delivered to the White House by the itinerant Baptist preacher John Leland. It measured more than four feet in diameter, thirteen feet in circumference, and seventeen inches in height; once cured, it weighed 1,235 pounds. The colossal cheese was made by the staunchly Republican, Baptist citizens of Cheshire, a small munity in the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts....
Christendom, Power, and Authority
The conceptual distinction between the exercise of authority and the exercise of power provides an essential guide to understanding the present and future status of Christendom, which has not been abolished but, rather, has taken on new forms in our times. The Second Vatican Council, in its document Lumen Gentium, clarified that the Kingdom of God is not a place or a government, much less an earthly end-state arrived at through the political process. Instead, it is “established by...
The Good of Affluence
“We are going to see a revival in this country, and it's going to be led by rich people.” — Michael Novak, cited in Dinesh D' Souza's Virtue of Prosperity The title of my ing book, The Good of Affluence: Seeking God in a Culture of Wealth, might raise an eyebrow or two. Readers who are at all familiar with contemporary Christian scholarship on the subject of economic life under capitalism will immediately catch that my approach is not...
Toward a Free and Virtuous Society
It is a mentary on our times that the political and ethical cognoscenti associate freedom with licentiousness, antinomianism, atomistic individualism, and an array of similar vices antithetical to virtue. Despite this attitude on the part of many professional mon sense tells any sane person that a society that is both free and virtuous is the place in which he would most want to live. But what exactly would it mean to advocate and work toward the construction of such...
A subtle threat to freedom
Conventional understanding may tend to gloss over the distinction between the concepts munity or society and of state or government. Many in the popular media often use the munity, society, state, and government interchangeably. mon usage of these terms introduces a fallacy with potentially dire consequences. Communal or social obligations are those that all people have mon. This does not mean that every social obligation is, or should be, enforceable by the state or government. While honest debate may...
What's Right for Labor
Monsignor George G. Higgins, who died at the age of eighty-six on May Day 2002, dedicated his social ministry to improving the lives of workers. A priest with a doctorate in labor economics, he was uniquely qualified to speak on behalf of Roman Catholic social teaching concerning the dignity of the worker. Father Higgins was also a passionate defender of religious liberty in the American tradition and was very influential in the Second Vatican Council’s statement on behalf of...
Living truth for a post-Christian world: The message of Francis Schaeffer and Karol Wojtyla
To my knowledge, the evangelical Protestant Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) and the evangelical Roman Catholic Karol Wojtyla (1920-) never met. Francis Schaeffer, founder of L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland, was a Christian intellectual and cultural critic, practical theologian, author, noted speaker, and evangelist, whose ministry in the last half of the twentieth century incited worldwide study and discipleship centers. Karol Wojtyla (1920-) is a philosopher, university professor, theologian, priest, bishop, cardinal, author, noted speaker, evangelist, and, last but not least, the...
George Orwell: A Study in Trans-Political Truth-Speaking
No writer of the twentieth century has touched popular political sensibilities with as broad an effect as George Orwell. There is enduring interest in his two antitotalitarian novels, Animal Farm and 1984, which together set forth a sort of intellectual prophetic ground for the Cold War that Orwell only just glimpsed, dying as he did in 1950 of tuberculosis. But the popularity of these novels has tended to mask the rich variety and clarity of Orwell’s other writings, especially...
The Political Is Personal
The horrors of September 11, 2001, and their aftermath have so occupied our minds for the past nine months that the serious social pathologies of our urban centers have receded from our attention. The actions of a few terrorists somehow make even mugging, robbery, drug peddling, and inadequate education seem like minor troubles. These problems are not going away, however, and they may not be ignored. The difficulty, of course, in dealing with issues such as poverty, crime, race,...
Why Should Businessmen Read Great Literature?
Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. —Sir Francis Bacon Leisure without human letters amounts to death, the entombment of a living man. —Saint William Fermat Nothing makes a man more reverent than a library. —Sir Winston Churchill In every society, power must be humanized and used morally in order that free and civilized life might prosper. And in a money-based economy, businessmen and businesswomen wield great power and are frequently called...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved