The West is not responsible for Putin’s war. But Western democracies are responsible for whether they live by the values that set them apart from the values that animate Putin’s imperial fantasy, and for whether they defend those values against attack.

The editors discuss Eric Patterson’s article about jus post bellum and war crimes, Reinhold Niebuhr’s letters from Scotland, and Mark Tooley’s remarks on regime change.

In late winter and early spring 1947, Reinhold Niebuhr visited Europe and wrote short editorials for Christianity and Crisis as he traveled. In the following correspondences, the first coming from Scotland and the second coming from somewhere in the United Kingdom, he offers brief reflections on different current events.

Jus post bellum justice provides us with two criteria: holding aggressors responsible (punishment) and providing some form of restoration to victims (restitution). The reality of our time suggests a very limited justice.

This week the editors discuss Marc LiVecche’s conversation with Rebeccah Heinrichs about the war in Ukraine, Mark Melton’s article about sudden changes in public opinion polling, and Eric Patterson’s series about the ethics of ending wars.

Before taking a look at justice, let’s take a step back and consider the explicitly Christian foundations for thinking about political order.

Once again, public opinion polls have disappointed isolationists and others who want the United States to have a minimalist foreign policy. Almost overnight, a large swath of America now wants to counter Russia, and elected officials who want to keep their jobs have responded.

The jus post bellum (the ethics of ending war and building peace) categories of order, justice, and conciliation can help us think through how the war in Ukraine should end.

This week the editors discuss Alan Dowd’s suggestion for offering Putin an off-ramp, Mike Watson’s article about the value of America’s empire of nations, and Mark Tooley’s comparison of Christian realism with cynicism and idealism.