Let's Revisit Just War Doctrine.

Almost exactly a year ago, on November 26, 1963, I posted:

It was never a secret that Zelensky had only up to the end of this year to win the war, and he clearly hasn't done it, with the new added factor that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is bleeding attention and resources from Ukraine. The new circumstances simply compound the general miscalculation over Ukraine's prospects. This brings me to Roman Catholic just war doctrine as outlined in CCC 2309: >

• damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the 'just war' doctrine."

What we're beginning to see is that for whatever reason, US and Western policymakers seriously underestimated Russia's capability to continue the war in spite of serious early setbacks. These only served to confirm policymakers and other influencers in their initial view, which discounted any factors warning that there simply were not serious prospects for long-term success. But this circumstance reflects back on the question of whether all other prospects for putting an end to the crisis of early 2022 had been shown to be impractical or ineffective, especially if the end state imposed by the US and NATO looks like it will be little different from a negotiated solution imposed before Russia invaded.

One reason this question is being so little discussed is that, as Signor Graziani points out, a retreat from his signature Ukraine policy would be yet another factor lessening Biden's chances in next year's election.

Remarkably little is being said about the latest development in the Ukraine war, which simply doubles down on the original bait-and-switch: that Ukraine could quickly regain the terrirories Russia had annexed in 2014 by the end of 2023. But as of April of that year, the Council on Foreign Relations had begun to have its doubts:

For any government interested in the outcome of Ukraine’s coming counteroffensive, few issues loom as large as Crimea. Kyiv’s leaders say they are determined to regain all territory lost in last year’s Russian invasion. . . . Washington policymakers routinely insist that Ukraine’s war aims are for Ukraine alone to decide, yet they suspect that such grand aims exceed the country’s military capacity. They worry too that Russian President Vladimir Putin might even be ready to use nuclear weapons to hold on to the Black Sea peninsula—his single biggest foreign policy trophy.

In recent days, with the war in a two-year stalemate and Ukraine's prospects looking increasingly grim, Biden has inexplicably initiated a last-ditch escalation:

In the last few days, Biden has removed restrictions on Ukraine’s use of the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, for long-range attacks inside Russia. Ukraine promptly fired U.S.-made missiles deep into Russian territory. At the same time, Biden has sent U.S. antipersonnel mines to Ukraine, reversing an earlier policy. Both moves were “part of a sweep of urgent actions that the lame-duck Biden administration is taking to help Kyiv’s faltering war effort,” in the words of the Washington Post. In a further escalation — and of course, there would be a response — Russia announced that it had fired a new hypersonic ballistic missile at Ukraine that could also strike U.S. facilities there.

The recent developments in Ukraine would be alarming in any context. But these events come as the 82-year-old President Biden’s apparent cognitive decline continues. Biden, of course, did not run for reelection because a secretive group of Democratic Party powerbrokers forced him out of the race, convinced that he was not up to a second term that would last until he was 86 years old.

Biden's forced withdrawal from the campaign was a no-confidence vote in his ability to serve as president at all, but the outcome of the election, based in part on Trump's campaign promise to end the war, was also a clear rejection of his Ukraine policy. The problem is Putin's response:

Russian President Vladimir Putin decided his response to the U.S-led NATO group firing missiles into the Russian Federation would be to send a message with a multi-warhead intermediate range hypersonic missile.

President Vladimir Putin said, “one of the newest Russian medium-range missile systems was tested in combat conditions, in this case with a ballistic missile in non-nuclear hypersonic edition.” The missile has a range of approximately 3,500 kilometers, below the threshold for the “Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), that’s a reach throughout western Europe and the hypersonic message is likely, ‘you have no iron dome system that can prevent this.”

Sundance at Cobnservative Treehouse concludes,

So far President Trump has remained quiet, as the provocation against our peaceful interests are ongoing. For his part, Vladimir Putin has remained reserved and careful in his response; however, as U.S/NATO missiles continue to land inside the Russian Federation, there is concern that Putin’s restrained responses may indeed escalate.

We hope there are backchannels between Moscow and Mar-a-Lago; however, without any doubt the [Intelligence Community] is looking to intercept any communication that might possibly be taking place. Everyone in/around the orbit of President Trump likely has Nat/Sec surveillance on them.

It doesn't appear that Biden ever had a realistic outlook on the Ukraine situation, especially after Zelensky's counteroffensive faltered in early 2023. But at this stage, a likely negotiated settlement that would stop the carnage while accepting the status as of late 2022 would indicate that the damage inflicted by Russia on the nation or community of nations would not be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it would not have been impractical or ineffective; there were never serious prospects of success; and continued conflict is likely to produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

It's hard to imagine what Biden has in mind, but it certainly isn't good.