People believe Vladimir Putin should not have invaded Ukraine. A recent poll revealed that only 6 percent of U.S. adults thought Putin was justified entering Ukraine. This statistic raises a crucial question: Why do the majority of Americans think Putin is wrong? Most adults only have a cursory understanding of Ukraine and Russian relations within the last two centuries. Many arguments against Putin, then, are not based in history or philosophy, but in emotion. Is Putin in the wrong because he is causing death and destruction? Or, perhaps, he is in the wrong because everyone says he is wrong?
War causes death, but not all wars are evil according to the American public. A Gallup poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly thought WWII was justified with 90 percent of adults calling it a just war. In the case of Ukraine, emotional reactions help create a global response but are fairly unhelpful when trying to explain why Putin is wrong. To explain why Putin is wrong in his invasion, one needs to find a philosophical framework. Just War Theory provides such a framework.
Just War Theory is a philosophical framework central to Western philosophy. Philosophers and historians trace the origins of the theory to St. Paul and St. Augustine, but St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is credited as the founder of the modern Just War Theory. Aquinas outright rejects complete pacifism, arguing some instances justify war.
Aquinas systematically exegetes three criteria for a war to be justifiable:
1) A sovereign authority must declare the war.
2) A just cause is required.
3) Those that declare war must have good intentions.
The first criterion describes how rulers declare war — not individuals. If an individual group declares war, then it is more likely motivated by self-interest than by what is best for the country. As Aquinas says “…it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime” (ST II-II Q.40).
Putin has fulfilled this criterion. He is the undisputed leader of Russia and has used his authority to invade Ukraine.
Aquinas’ second requirement is the necessity of a just cause. A “just cause” is a vague phrase, but Aquinas explains that a just cause is “that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault” (ST II-II Q.40 co.).
Putin has voiced two grounds for Russia’s invasion having a just cause. The first is his concern that Ukraine poses a threat to the Russian government. If Ukraine was interested in taking military action against Russia, then Putin might be justified in retaliating. Ukraine, however, has shown no indication of military action against Russia outside of its borders. Putin has tried to suggest that varying atrocities are happening in Ukraine, but he does not support any of his claims with evidence.
The second ground Putin gives for Russia’s invasion having a just cause is Ukraine’s history under the Soviet Union. Ukraine as a country, says Putin, is “an artificial construct.” He argues that Ukraine is essentially already Russian in everything but name. The problem with this argument is that although the borders of Ukraine may have changed over the centuries, Ukraine certainly had its existence before the USSR. Ukraine had and still has an identity that is distinct from Russia. Neither of these two arguments fulfills the second criterion of a just cause and are therefore not sufficient grounds for a just war.
Putin has fulfilled the first criterion of Just War Theory and failed in the second criterion. The final requirement for Just War Theory is whether or not the aggressor intends good. Aquinas says that “it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil” (ST II-II Q.40 co.).
This final criterion is critical to Just War Theory. As Aquinas continued “for it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention.” Whatever one thinks of Putin he is not evil incarnate. He is likely genuine in his belief that Ukraine under Russia is for the best. It is impossible to judge the purity of his motivations.
What can be judged are actions. Putin has launched an assault against Ukraine when there was no apparent necessity. He has endangered his own soldiers and the people of Ukraine. He must have known that the world governments would use economic sanctions against him, which negatively affects his own people. From an outside perspective, this war is nothing more than a power play to bring Westward-leaning Ukraine under Russian power. Aquinas included a “lust of power” as a motivation that negates good intentions. Like the second criterion of Just War Theory, Putin fails to provide adequate evidence that he is waging a just war.
The arguments against the Russian invasion of Ukraine are not confined to emotional reactions. By applying a moral framework that is almost as old as Russia, it is possible to see that Russia is not waging a just war but just waging war.
