It is Washington that has invaded Ukraine, not Russia. How come it is only Russia who is yet to invade anyone who is to be held accountable?

– Paul Craig Roberts, “Can We Trust Russophobes with Our Foreign Policy?”, January 21, 2022

That is why the US State Department is maintaining the fiction that Russia is about to launch a ground war to occupy Ukraine… That is why despite neocon/neo-liberal hype, magnified by the lock-step US media, Russia is not about to invade Ukraine. This fantasy is being pushed by those who desperately need to continue to gin up enthusiasm for a thoroughly idiotic and counterproductive imperial enterprise.

– Daniel McAdams, “Biden’s Ukrainian Albatross”, January 24, 2022

That is why House Democrats are desperately trying to ram through a massive “free weapons” bill for Ukraine before the current lapdog media-driven “RUSSIA INVASION” propaganda dies down.

Just as Big Pharma is rushing to put a new omicron variant vaccine on the market before their Covid gravy train dies out, Washington’s Democratic warmongers (with plenty of Republican fellow travelers) are rushing to send half a billion dollars in weapons to Ukraine before the casual MSM consumer learns (they’re always last to know) that the whole “Russia is about to invade Ukraine” cook-up is another lie.

– Daniel McAdams, “Bipartisanship: US House Races MASSIVE Ukraine Weapons Transfer to the Floor!”, January 26, 2022

Here we go again … the regime in Washington attempts to whip the American people into a frenzy so that they will support the latest American invasion … This time … the enemy is Russia … Joe Biden even allegedly has been more alarmist on the matter than even the Ukrainians themselves, supposedly telling the Ukrainian head of state that Kyiv would be “sacked“ … badmouthing any American ally who is unenthusiastic about starting new wars …

– Ryan McMaken, “The Usual Suspects Are Pushing War with Russia”, January 28, 2022

Ray McGovern joined Scott on Antiwar Radio this week to discuss the hysteria over a Russian invasion of Ukraine. McGovern explains why no such invasion will be taking place.

– “Ray McGovern on the Russia Invasion Panic”, February 14, 2022¹

Kiev in the main may well fall within the next 12-24 hours. Russian troops are already in the city. And Zelensky is in his bunker with fewer and fewer to take his calls. The cavalry he believed was promised him will not be coming to rescue him. Ukraine will be de-militarized and Ukraine will be neutral.

– Daniel McAdams, “Washington’s Crocodile Tears Over Ukraine’s Destruction”, February 26, 2022²

Putin is nobody’s fool, and he has decided to act decisively to free Russia from encirclement. Invasions kill people, and this is sad, but this is the way European power politics operates and has operated for hundreds of years.

– Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., “Keep US Out of War”, March 1st, 2022

“The United States and Ukraine Started the War—Not Russia”
– Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., April 9, 2022

Libertarianism, or laissez-faire, is a philosophy of Law. Its purpose is to identify what constitutes aggression and strive for a society where aggression (and aggression alone) is recognized as a crime.

It’s not about making wrong predictions. It’s not about repeating shifting propaganda lies from state media. It’s not about advising dictators on mass murder tactics. It’s not about game theory (nor lack thereof), or tactics for negotiating with terrorists. It’s not pacifism. It’s not nihilism. And it’s definitely not about its converse, encouraging or excusing, or indeed advocating for, aggressions.

Large fractions of the libertarian movement, especially following the Rothbardian tradition, have been profoundly wrong (whether factually or theoretically) on matters regarding “foreign policy”. Their reactions to the blatant aggression of Ukraine by the Russian army have made those fundamental flaws in reasoning, contradictions and pseudo-smart contrarianism more striking than ever.

In this series of articles we will explain how these viewpoints are not part of libertarianism, but are either outside of sound libertarian theory (in which case they could be either right or wrong, but with no way of knowing, and not defensible as part of libertarian theory), factually wrong, or, worse, clearly go very much against libertarian theory by promoting, excusing, or muddying aggression. Along the way, by making clear what libertarianism is not, we hope to also help solidify what it is, and clarify what a correct libertarian framework for thinking about foreign policy issues consists of.

Libertarianism is deontological, not consequentialist

Let’s start with the most basic principles, and the most staggering fallacies. Several of the latter are present in:

Jacob G. Hornberger, “Zelensky’s Call for Nuclear War”

The very title raises the obvious question: did Mr Zelenskyy call for nuclear war? No, he didn’t. Which raises a follow-up question: does Mr Zelenskyy even have the power to start a nuclear war? Incidentally, does Ukraine even have nuclear weapons?

Well no, it doesn’t. It doesn’t, in fact, because it gave them to… Russia. In exchange for a commitment by Russia to, well, not invade Ukraine:

The Russian federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

– Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Budapest, 5 December 1994

Which Russia proceeded to violate already in 2014.

That Russia invading Ukraine is an act of aggression should be obvious. Certainly one should not even need to be a libertarian to notice that. Indeed, a treaty to not commit aggressions should not even have been necessary.

Given that Mr Zelenskyy doesn’t have the power to start a nuclear war himself, nor the power to force anyone to start one, nor has expressed any desire to start one, certainly it makes no sense whatsoever to accuse him of wishing to start one. If Mr Zelenskyy is materially incapable of committing nuclear aggression, then libertarian theory has nothing further to say on that.

Libertarianism is about non-aggression

What then, did Mr Zelenskyy ask for? He asked for a “no-fly zone”, over Ukraine.

Russian bomber planes, bombing Ukrainian cities, have no business being in Ukraine. If they do, it is an obvious act of aggresion, whether in common sense, in libertarian theory, or indeed considering the Budapest Memorandum. Shooting them down is therefore pure self-defense.

Self-defense can of course be delegated. Therefore Mr Zelenskyy also has the right, as per the non-aggression principle, to invite anyone to assist Ukraine with the task of stopping Russian aggression. Anyone, of course, is free to accept or refuse. Whether it is a wise idea to accept or refuse for a given government or individual is entirely out of the scope of libertarian theory. Certainly there is no harm in asking for something that is not an aggression.

Surely the Russian government is made of people with agency and free will: no one is forcing them to commit any aggressions. No one is forcing the Russian government to invade Ukraine, to continue invading it, or indeed to keep a nuclear arsenal. The Russian leadership has, at any time, the possibility to recall their invading force, resign, apologize, and start paying reparations for their crimes³.

What is not only outside the scope of libertarian theory, but actually against it, however, is to be criticizing a victim’s scream for help, criticizing anyone who would dare help her, and not criticizing the actual aggressor. Ukraine is not threatening nuclear war, the US is not threatening nuclear war, the Russian government is. It’s astonishing that Mr Hornberger attacks Zelenskyy for requesting the peaceful transfer of planes from one country to another, while making no comment whatsoever on the invading movements of planes actually committing war crimes. Indeed, American fighter jets deployed to defend Ukrainian airspace, would not need to shoot down a single Russian plane, would not need to fire a single shot nor cause a single victim, as long as no Russian planes were trying to commit aggression against Ukrainians.

At most, from a strictly libertarian perspective, what can be considered aggression if a government decides to spend money in assisting another government’s legitimate defense operations, is the cost of it on its own taxpayers. It is perfectly legitimate, for a libertarian, to criticize the extra cost on American taxpayers of American involvement in any war, and to argue for alternatives such as selling or billing the military equipment and services instead, or financing them voluntarily through crowdfunding donations⁴.

However, if the libertarian complains loudly on that, yet stays silent on much graver aggressions committed by other governments at the same time, in direct relation to the same issue, e.g. the massive cost of the Russian invasion on hapless Russian taxpayers, not to mention Russian conscripts (not to mention the murdered Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, destroyed Ukrainian property, etc), then his libertarian consistency and intellectual integrity will appear very dubious indeed.

Libertarianism is rational

In conclusion, the libertarian case against the US helping Ukraine to enforce a no-fly zone is rather weak. On top of that, it is not happening. The libertarian case against Russia invading Ukraine, however, is very strong, and it is happening. If the libertarian, then, wishes to make an appeal to politicians to change their course of action, if the libertarian wishes to complain about a relevant event in a chain of events, surely the event they should choose is the one that is an actual aggression, and the suggested change to be that aggression not happening, or ceasing to happen.

If the libertarian thinks they have a chance of influencing someone, then the correct course of action is to ask the aggressor to stop aggressing (or indeed actively stop them from aggressing), not to ask the victim to stop asking for help, nor to ask third parties to refrain from helping.

The Russian leadership can, and should, at any time, the sooner the better, recall their invading force, resign, apologize, stand trial and start paying reparations for their crimes.

continued in “Libertarianism is against aggression (2)”