Episode 63 - The Neophytes: War and Moral Obligations to Allies In recent weeks, President Trump entered into a deal with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to purchase a large amount of Russian diesel fuel. The theory, as I understand it, is that Americans will be so grateful for the cheaper(? How much cheaper?) fuel and so unbothered by its source or the arguable betrayal of Ukraine they vote for Republicans in November. I don’t find the theory particularly compelling, but, to be fair, I’m not a Republican, I’m not the president, and my car doesn’t take diesel. Ukraine, understandably perturbed by America sending significant capital to Russia more than four and a half years into an existential war, attacked Russian oil refineries. One of Elon Musk or President Trump (hey! We just bought that!) then slowed Ukraine’s access to Starlink internet enough to render many of Ukraine’s drones and defensive weapons useless; after we recorded, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump called Musk to tell him to restore higher speed access. The reality is that not everyone believes we should be helping Ukraine or looking at Russia as an enemy (or, perhaps, looking at all), and there is no indication the debate will end soon. Also in recent weeks, anti-war conservative-of-a-kind Tucker Carlson, whose affection for Russia exceeds many Americans’ affection for America, interviewed the exceptionally English Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg in London. Among those segments that went viral enough to catch my attention, Carlson questioned whether the British made the right decision in going to war with Hitler (in Rees-Mogg’s view, they did) and argued that Russia has a much larger economy than the United Kingdom because, as I understood his argument, they have far more land and resources. Rees-Mogg retorted that the fact the United Kingdom has twice the GDP with half the people and approximately 1/70th the land mass is indicative that Russia is an economic failure. Carlson also argued Russia does not jail people for their speech, which Rees-Mogg rightfully laughed at. Anyway, all of this raises genuinely interesting questions about the obligations we have to our friends and allies. We did not enter World War I until April 1917, nearly three years after it started; we did not enter World War II until December 1941, over two years after it started. The United States has with our lovely oceans and their many distances long enjoyed a privilege of mercurial isolationism far beyond that of any other country, and we go back and forth, back and forth on how involved we want to be internationally and with whom. As Channing and I discuss, if Russia were to invade Albania, a NATO ally particularly dear to my heart, the American people would likely resist, at least emotionally, our sending troops to satisfy our treaty obligations. If Russia (we figure it’s likely to be Russia) were to invade England, we’d likely come on board more quickly. The reality is that with war, easy answers may not be good and good answers may not be easy. Which is why, of course, it’s something very worth talking about. For more content and to subscribe to the Never Close the Inquiry newsletter, please visit neverclosetheinquiry.substack.com and follow on instagram @neverclosetheinquiry Please like, rate, comment, and subscribe! Get full access to Never Close the Inquiry at neverclosetheinquiry.substack.com/subscribe
