“Finally, hating Trump is merely cheap virtue signaling. It is neither a method nor a plan. But if you feel better about hating Trump than you feel bad about Ukrainians getting killed with no end in sight, then you are morally bankrupt and God forbid you have any say in what happens.”
—-Military expert, commentator and Methodist minister Daniel Sensing concluding his blog post, “‘I stand with Ukraine’ means what, exactly?”
Last night, probably the smartest and most reliably reasonable of my Trump-Deranged lawyer friends published a much-loved diatribe on Facebook condemning President Trump for the Oval Office meltdown with Zelenskyy last week. He doesn’t post often, but every one recently has been to take issue with a Trump, quote, policy or action. I’ve had to wrestle my metaphorical tongue to the floor every time. It would do no good to rebut him, and all my effort would do would diminish the respect he has for me because, on this topic, his powers of reasoning are gone. If I wanted to start a stampede of unfriending on my Facebook page, I would point him to the superb post by Donald Sensing flagged this morning on Instapundit by Prof. Glenn Reynolds. My friend would never see the post otherwise, since Reynolds’ legendary blog is relentlessly conservative and my friend would sooner draw a pentagram on his kitchen floor than sample anything written there. But Sensing, whose fascinating CV is here and who is better qualified to opine on the Ukraine-Russian conflict than either of us, has provided a superb analysis with clarity and logical force.
I suppose I might be able to at least flummox my friend by posing this mind experiment: If, in the Oval Office, Trump behaved exactly like Zelenskyy did and said what he said and the Ukrainian president played Trump’s role, would you now condemn Zelenskyy rather than our President? My friend is honest, and I think he would have the integrity to admit that he would still be attacking Trump. But I digress…
Read the whole post, which I would diminish by summarizing. Here, however, is the case he makes so well:
1. “I stand with Ukraine,” waving blue and yellow flags and the rest are empty virtue signaling.
2. “There are two – and only two things “I Stand With Ukraine” can mean. There are no other choices: ONE. I want the Ukraine war to continue on indefinitely in the same way it is going now. That means that I want more and more Ukrainian military and civilian personnel to die, more Ukrainian infrastructure to be destroyed, and countless more Ukrainians to refugee out of their country. TWO. I want the combat and killing to end and an enduring peace to be achieved, even if it means the status quo antebellum is not reestablished.”
3. A result in which Russia gives back the territory that it has already taken…
is impossible without a level of U.S. involvement—that is, direct military intervention by the U.S. and Europe—is impossible.
This analysis is particularly appealing here because it embraces one of the central positions of Ethics Alarms, that advocating a result that is practically impossible is unethical no matter how admirable or seemingly virtuous that result may be in the abstract.
Sensing writes,
“Both sides have lost enormous numbers of personnel and military equipment. I would say that if Putin and co. are both willing and able to suffer even more such losses, they could push westward enough to set the terms for an armistice. That is a big if, though. As for UKR, it simply does not have the human resources to recover the occupied territories, no matter how well armed they may be in the attempt. They did attempt it in 2023, when their military was much better manned (and womaned) and they failed miserably. After four months of a weak offense against Russian positions, UKR’s army was on pace to recover the occupied territories – in 16 more years. Even Time magazine reported that UKR insiders near Zelensky said they all knew this, but that talking to Zelensky about it was a waste of time. That is the status quo, meaning both sides will continue to attack each other, but with no real changes on the map resulting. Again: this is what Zelensky stated very specifically he wanted to continue. And that is what Trump was trying to end and what Democrats also want to continue, apparently forever.”
Again, let me repeat the irony I mentioned in another post, that today’s Democrats and progressives are taking the same position the Left opposed so passionately during the Vietnam war. As seemingly nice it would have been to secure a more democratic, non-communist regime in South Vietnam, the U.S. was unwilling to do what was necessary to achieve that end because it would have risked war with China. Meanwhile, Americans were dying in the jungle, national resources were being wasted, and the nation was being divided to a perilous extent.
President Trump is a pragmatist; he doesn’t do virtue-signalling, because ethics are, if not completely alien to him, not a high priority to him either. There are times when this is—here’s another irony—a virtue in itself. It allows him to see through the fog of hopes and dreams and the lyrics of “Imagine” to policies that are realistic. If Zelenskyy and Europe are content to see the carnage continue without accepting the restraints of reality, then the United States’ responsible course is to let them, while saving U.S. resources for projects where they will benefit Americans.
And to the rebuttal that argues that it is inconsistent for the U.S. to refuse to accept the current status quo in Ukraine while continuing to support Israel, the answer should be obvious. Allowing Hamas to continue to control Gaza is unacceptable, and unlike Ukraine, Israel, with the backing of the U.S., is capable of preventing that result.
Ethics Alarms 
Remember when Congress cut off aid to South Vietnam, and the argumemts in favor of cutting off aid?
An outstanding analysis by Mr. Sensing…another outstanding commentary on the analysis by Mr. Marshall.
It is oversimplifying – though not by much – to conclude that the Left is against killing, unless it’s unborn children, rich CEOs, or Ukrainians. The Left is against the use of guns for killing…unless it’s guns used to attempt to assassinate Donald Trump or the aforementioned CEOs, or those used by Ukrainians and Russians to slaughter each other. The Left is against double standards…well…never.
If President Trump – for just one single twenty-four hour day – said he fully supported Ukraine and would do whatever necessary to insure Russian defeat (including committing air and ground assets), how many Left-wingers could we eliminate in that single day by watching their heads would explode in little clouds of pink mist?
Don’t forget it’s also permissible to kill Jews in Israel…
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Giving Trump every benefit of the doubt, assuming he’s a 4D underwater chess master, this might actually be good for Zelenskyy and allow the deal to happen relatively painlessly. After the Oval Office debacle, Zelenskyy’s polls gained 20 points in Ukraine. The opposition parties rallied around him. He’s experiencing a renaissance, of a kind. It might be enough for him to survive the deal that is almost certainly coming.
The Biden Administration’s feckless approach to Ukraine was going to be a forever war: Never supporting Ukraine enough to win, never showing them an off ramp. And to be clear, despite the protestations on either side, both of those were possible; To the former, even without boots on the ground, pumping an amount of modern American hardware into that conflict would have made a difference. To the latter, Trump is giving a demonstration of what leveraging pressure to settle looks like, and there’s no reason this wouldn’t have been possible much earlier in the conflict.
Trump isn’t interested in the former, I think he views war as wasteful and stupid, so he’s doing the latter, and the likelihood is that a deal is coming. But the Ukrainians want to fight…. And when I say “Ukrainians”, I mean close to all of them. Not just the politicians, not just the generals, the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters – They want their country back, and really… This doesn’t seem all that indecipherable: How many countries would just roll over and accept that their country is 20% smaller? Would you? What that means is that the deal that is coming is going to have to be forced on the people, and this dustup with Trump, I think, gives Zelenskyy the cover to say that the Americans are forcing it on them (which will happen to be true) and all the alternatives are worse (ditto), and come out on the other side still popular.
Good point. No country is going to simply accept – all other things being equal – the loss of one-fifth of its real estate. I wouldn’t want that for the U.S. Fortunately (at least at this point), I don’t see us getting into a conflict with any kind of “Russo-Ukrainian quagmire” potential.
But for the Ukrainians specifically, losing one-fifth of their land AND ending a war that could ultimately lead to a lost generation of men and women, economic catastrophe, and a complete weakening of the military complex such that they’re more susceptible to further incursion…?
That might be a FAR more acceptable outcome.
As my oldest friend is fond of saying, “When you have no options, you have no problem.” This is a great example.
That would be a much better deal than what South Vietnam got.
Or Mexico!
If we lost the Acela Corridor and the west coast, what percentage loss would that be?
And insofar as the twenty percent is largely populated by ethnic Russians put there by Stalin, might this not be deemed addition by subtraction? After 2014, ethnic Russian militias were fighting there against the Ukrainians, I believe.
Ish. The fighting started after Russia sent some covert soldiers into Ukraine. Russia always denied those men were Russian, but they weren’t Ukranian, and they sure spoke good Russian. But to the point, yes… Those areas were always a little more friendly to Russia than the rest of Ukraine.
In America, This would be like the Republicans letting California go.
You make the fundamental reason why there will not be a deal right now, unless the West forces something by cutting off all aid. The citizens of Ukraine fundamentally don’t want a deal. Neither does Russia, unless they can get a deal where there is a pause with zero guarantees so it is just a chance for Russia to regroup and re-arm.
I cannot stomach the plywood yellow and blue Uke flags on people’s houses in our neighborhood. It’s as if they’re rooting for a college football team by flying the college’s flag on a fall Saturday. They’re rooting for one side of a war where young people are being slaughtered. And these are people who I’m sure were “anti-war” in their youth. Now, they are pro-war! If they want to support Ukraine against Russia (you know, the country Hillary Clinton wanted to reset with, the country that was a threat only in Mitt Romney’s 1980s mind) why don’t they join a volunteer contingent and go there and fight? Or send their kids to do so. Assholes!
They were certainly anti-war whenever it involved a Republican President.
Or a compulsory draft.
The protests against the Vietnam War was almost entirely protests against the draft.
I am surprised there was not targeted violence against draft board members.
“I stand with Ukraine,” waving blue and yellow flags and the rest are empty virtue signaling.
It doesn’t have to be empty virtue signaling. If they were passionate enough, they should know that Ukraine willingly accepts foreign conscripts into their military ranks. Let them go there to join the fight, and before they know it, they’ll find themselves on the front lines. We all know none will do this, so it is indeed empty virtue signaling fueled by their reflexive TDS.
I wonder how many South Vietnamese flags were displayed on the front lawns in D.C suburbs during the 1960’s and 1970’s.
I sent the link to Sensing’s blog post to my closet communist, and retired Lutheran minister, dad (and his closet communist friends) in response to an email he sent last week linking a blog post from John Pavlovitz. (I would link the blog from Pavlovitz if I knew how; but it can be found on Substack.)
In his blog post, Pavlovitz urged parishioners to walk out of their respective churches if the message from the pulpit was not what Pavlovitz dictated it should be. (Honestly, who the hell does Pavlovitz think he is?)
I’m hoping the fact that Sensing is a Methodist minister might prompt at least some of my father’s comrades (a number of them clergy, and/or academics) to consider reading the post. I’m not hopeful. Their hatred of Trump has them unhinged.
I should have been clearer. Pavlovitz was dictating what the message should be from the pulpit regarding Trump, Putin, and Ukraine. It was, of course, that Trump is evil and has partnered with evil. You know, the usual.
Take away their tax-exempt status and assess the hell out of their real estate portfolio.
Zelensky seems to be already crawling back
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/03/04/donald-trump-congress-address-ukraine-aid-russia-war-live/
Thank you for introducing me to another good blog!
On a related note, here is an interesting comment on a Reason blog post.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/03/monday-open-thread-95/?comments=true#comment-10940562
Consider the situation: An aggressive dictator marches across an agreed-upon border to seize the territory of a democratically governed country, with ambitions of taking it all. The democratic country, while deeply corrupt, does not embrace the dictator’s ruthless “ends justify the means” ideology. Some Americans view the dictator’s conquest as another domino falling, making further warfare inevitable. Meanwhile, the victimized nation had received guarantees of aid from the U.S.—only to see those promises later revoked. Do you support the victim against the dictator?
I am, of course, talking about Vietnam. I fully understand the perspective of ardent pacifists and American isolationists who see both the Vietnam War and the war in Ukraine as examples of reckless U.S. intervention. I also understand the neoconservative position—the instinct to always hold the line against aggression when American interests are at stake. What I struggle to grasp, however, is the logic of those who once cheered on figures like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda while chanting “Give peace a chance,” yet now demand unwavering support against Putin.
For many on the left, it is an article of faith that Vietnam was an unjust war in which the U.S. had no business intervening. But is there any way to justify the stark contrast between the pacifist stance on Vietnam and the call for active defense in Ukraine—aside from sheer tribalism? I am genuinely interested in hearing from someone who holds these views and can walk me through the reasoning behind why one is a “bad” war and the other a “good” war.
Indeed.
I admire your tolerance in reading through Volokh Conspiracy comments. Since it moved to Reason, the quality of commenters has nosedived.
You should read Usenet newsgroups.
Here is an example.
https://soc.culture.israel.narkive.com/br2vvkcd/hey-gook-leave-our-country-now-or-be-hunted-down-and-deported
Thanks for posting this link to Mr. Sensing. I might have missed it, even though I am a devotee of Instapundit.
I might add that some of the staff at Instapundit are a bit less level-headed and restrained than others. Sarah Hoyt, for example, strikes me as excitable and lacking in calm sobriety. Me too, so I recognize myself as chief among sinners.
My favorite post from Sarah Hoyt is how as a school girl growing up in Portugal she was surrounded by statues of heroes and soldiers and psychopaths from historical memory. The Portuguese in charge of the country during her childhood simply left all the statues as they were, rather than tearing down the worst offenders as we view them currently.
Probably I originally discovered this fantastic blog, Ethics Alarms, from a link at Instapundit.
charles w abbott
rochester NY