continued from “Libertarianism is against aggression (3)”
Today’s Russia is an extremely oppressive regime, the dismal continuation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It should be obvious to any libertarian, that, like for all socialist, authoritarian and totalitarian states, the less people it is allowed to oppress, the better.
We also wrote earlier that:
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.
But what if they don’t? Libertarianism, obviously, has something to say on that too.
Libertarianism is the right to defense: Ukraine has the right to defend itself against aggression
They are fighting for our future, not just their own. And they deserve all our support. And they will win.
– Vera Kichanova (Вера Алексеевна Кичанова), “My family are from Russia and Ukraine, here’s what I think about this war”, March 7, 2022
Have you noticed that libertarian support for Russia increases in proportion to how far the libertarian lives from Russia? Libertarians from Finland to Ukraine are all appalled at the betrayal. Libertarians in Russia (those who dare speak) feel similarly. Here is an appeal by the Libertarian Party of Russia.
– Roman Skaskiw, “The Latest Libertarian Shillery for Russia”
This holds true even for Mises, Lviv born, who “by the age of 12, spoke fluent German, Russian, Polish and French, read Latin and could understand Ukrainian”, writing from Austria (before moving to Geneva and then the US), compared to Rothbard, writing from the US (we found no indication anywhere that Rothbard ever lived outside the US or spoke any language besides English).
the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him
– Friedrich Hayek, “The Use of Knowledge in Society”
In a somewhat Hayekian way, the closer to the issues people are, the better they understand them and know what’s best for them. More on that later.
Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign policy.
– Murray N. Rothbard, “A Soviet Foreign Policy: A Revisionist Perspective”, 1978
Nur ein grosses Volk gibt es heute, das unentwegt an dem militaristischen Ideal festhält: die Russen.
Gewiss gibt as auch im russischen Volk Elemente, die der Denkungsart, die in ihrem Volke vorherrscht, abhold sind; das Bedauerliche ist nur, dass sie sich unter ihren Volksgenossen nicht durchzusetzen wussten. Seit Russland auf die europäische Politik einen Einfluss auszuüben in der Lage ist, steht es zu Europa immerfort in der Stellung des Räubers, der sprungbereit auf den Augenblick wartet, in dem er sich der Beute bemächtigen kann. Niemals haben die russischen Zaren eine andere Grenze für die Ausdehnung ihres Reiches anerkannt als die, die ihnen durch den Zwang der Verhältnisse diktiert worden ist. Nicht um ein Haar anders ist die Stellung der Bolschewiken zu dem Problem der räumlichen Ausdehnung der russischen Herrschaft. Auch sie wissen es nicht anders, als dass man soweit in der Eroberung gehen darf und gehen muss, als man es im Hinblick auf seine Kräfte wagen darf. Der glückliche Umstand, der die Zivilisation vor der Vernichtung durch die Russen gerettet hat, war der, dass die europäischen Staaten so stark waren, dass sie dem Ansturm der russischen Barbarenhorden mit Erfolg standhalten konnten. Die Erfahrungen, die die Russen in den napoleonischen Kriegen, im Krimkrieg und im türkischen Feldzug 1877-1878 gemacht hatten, zeigten ihnen, dass ihre Armee trotz grosser Zahl der Streiter nicht fähig sei, die Offensive gegen Europa zu ergreifen. Der Weltkrieg hat das bestätigt.
[Today there is only one great nation that steadfastly adheres to the militaristic ideal, viz., the Russians.
Of course, even among the Russian people there are some who do not share this attitude. It is only to be regretted that they have not been able to prevail over their compatriots. Ever since Russia was first in a position to exercise an influence on European politics, it has continually behaved like a robber who lies in wait for the moment when he can pounce upon his victim and plunder him of his possessions. At no time did the Russian Czars acknowledge any other limits to the expansion of their empire than those dictated by the force of circumstances. The position of the Bolsheviks in regard to the problem of the territorial expansion of their dominions is not a whit different. They too acknowledge no other rule than that, in the conquest of new lands, one may and indeed must go as far as one dares, with due regard to one’s resources. The fortunate circumstance that saved civilization from being destroyed by the Russians was the fact that the nations of Europe were strong enough to be able successfully to stand off the onslaught of the hordes of Russian barbarians. The experiences of the Russians in the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, and the Turkish campaign of 1877-78 showed them that, in spite of the great number of their soldiers, their army is unable to seize the offensive against Europe. The World War merely confirmed this.]
– Ludwig von Mises, Liberalismus [ Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition ], 1927
Eastern Europeans know all too well the dangers of Russian imperialism. And they know all too well their options, and the only way to stand up to it. “Libertarians” – or shall we say kremlintarians – especially American ones, don’t.
The myth of neutrality
Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries.
– Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
According to Hoppe, neutrality is the solution:
And in order to achieve this goal and avoid war or minimize the risk of war, there is only one promising recipe: neutrality. One does not interfere in the internal affairs of the great power, and one does not threaten or provoke it. Even a great power cannot simply invade another country. For this always requires justification to its own population, which has to bear the burden of a war. And the smaller a state, the more difficult it is to portray its behavior as a threat or a provocation. (Who feels threatened by Liechtenstein?!) And this imperative of neutrality applies all the more when, as in the case of Ukraine, you are faced with two major powers with rival claims at the same time and taking the side of one means an additional threat for the other. The current war is the result of multiple violations of this rule by the government of Ukraine. If the government that came to power in a US-orchestrated coup in 2014 had expressly refrained from joining NATO and the EU, like Switzerland did, and the two then breakaway Russian-speaking provinces in the east of the country would have been let go instead of bullied and terrorized, the potential threat to Russia would have been reduced and the present catastrophe would almost certainly not have occurred. Under sustained US pressure, combined with their own audacity, the Ukrainian ruling clique did nothing of the sort and continued to demand NATO membership. This would have extended the US military presence right up to the borders of greater Russia, which had been declared an enemy state. Therefore, no one could doubt that the behavior of the Ukrainian government would be perceived by the Russian side as a tremendous provocation and a serious threat. The actual result of this provocation, which is now available, was not foreseeable, but it was quite foreseeable that one’s own behavior would also make a Russian reaction like the one that actually took place more likely.
– Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Decentralized and Neutral”
Hoppe… what if reality doesn’t fit your childishly naive theory? Well, you alter the facts, throw in a lot of hypothetical “if”s of which you don’t know anything, pull an “almost certainly” out of thin air, and voilà: you were right all along!
In another similar article, Hoppe suggests for Europe to split into thousands of micro-states, which, of course, should be neutral:
Therefore, one must advise small states to pursue a strict policy of neutrality.
– Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “My Dream Is of a Europe Which Consists of 1,000 Liechtensteins”
There are, of course, several issues with this:
- The first is, of course, the reliance on falsehoods regarding the actual reasons and “provocations” for the invasion (the usual false claims about U.S.-orchestrated coup, NATO threat, etc., more on that below). Also, didn’t Putin himself change his tune on that since then? Perhaps Hoppe should investigate how Russia grew to its current size: are we to assume none of the victims of the expansion of Ivan the Terrible, Peter “the Great”, or, earlier, Genghis Khan, were neutral? All had “provoked” the greater power? Also, never mind that Ukraine was pretty much neutral before Russia invaded it – except for a Russian base on its soil;
- Second, even assuming Ukraine were a threat, and it being a threat were the reason for the invasion (again, many ifs), why would a great power not invade other, smaller nations just because it can? What guarantee would Ukraine have had even were it no threat to anyone? Naive, misinformed, or dishonest Hoppe seems to be entirely unaware that “might makes right” is precisely the official policy of the Russian regime (and that even if it were not, no one could guarantee Ukraine that it would not change, or that some other ill-intentioned state would not threaten it);
- Third, the very notion of “perceived threat” relies on two elements on which the average citizen has very little control: his “own” government’s actions, and their perception by every other state on earth.
So basically if you are a citizen of one of those thousand Liechtensteins, you need to pray every day that your government doesn’t say something silly, or worse, doesn’t say something that a bigger state will perceive as such. Ukraine was in no way a threat to Russia, but regardless of the veracity or not of the accusations, imagine your Liechtenstein at risk of being invaded every day whenever a bigger state proclaims that your President started taking drugs, or that your Jewish and Native-Russian-speaking President is a threat to Native-Russian-speakers and a Nazi, or that a hypothetical future membership in a defensive alliance, which could have been prevented in any number of other ways, suddenly makes you a legitimate target… What exactly are you supposed to do?
Conversely, a citizen of a big state can be pretty safe that their government can do any number of wrong things without an invasion happening. In fact their government can make any number of outrageous claims and demands and many will be bending over backwards to accomodate it – e.g. a surprising number of people seems to consider perfectly reasonable that the largest state on earth (again, by what mysterious process did it become such?) “needs” more Lebensraum, err, “neutral” states “buffer zone” around it just to be safe (as if its nuclear deterrence were not enough…). Interestingly, no one ever considers any similar concerns from any other states (say Poland’s right to a neutral Belarus).
Do we even need to comment on “justification to its own population, which has to bear the burden of a war”? Is Hoppe not aware of the amount of Russian oppression and propaganda, and the penalties for dissenting from it? Is he not aware of the huge financial cost of the war, the lack of prospect of any benefit from it for the average Russian, and yet it happened?
Also, Switzerland (and Austria) can happily enjoy being “neutral” while (together) 100% encircled by NATO (large, nuclear-armed states) and thus enjoying free security against any other big states, while spending less than half of the NATO’s 2%-GDP-baseline on military… that might not be the best example to prove how neutrality alone ensures safety from invasion.
As a sidenote, “had explicitly renounced joining NATO and the EU, as Switzerland did,” is not even accurate, as for EU Switzerland applied in 1992 and cancelled the application in 2016 (would we be threatened if we hadn’t?), and there’s no commitment not to reapply or apply to NATO. Indeed, while we would still oppose joining the EU, joining NATO would be a good idea, and public opinion might be warming up to it:
So spricht sich eine Mehrheit – 56 Prozent – für eine «engere Zusammenarbeit» mit der Nato aus.
This follows a similar shift in public opinion in traditionnally neutral Finland and Sweden.
We, Switzerland, are not safe because we’re “neutral”. We’re safe because we’re armed (more on that below), and, because we’re actually surrounded by NATO. Yes, we are, Russia is not.
If Putin was worried about NATO expansion, he just created his own problem.
As for Switzerland, it is not safe from Russia because it’s neutral. Obviously, when Lew Rockwell blabbers on about Russia’s “encirclement” by NATO (“the US and its NATO satellites had Russia surrounded”, “… to free Russia from encirclement”, “…end its encirclement of Russia and disband NATO”... )… it’s obvious he’s never seen a map of Eurasia. It seems also that even German-born Hoppe, while being interviewed by a Swiss MP, has no clue about where Switzerland is… the fact that it’s at a safe distance from Russia, and the fact that it’s 90% surrounded by NATO, in fact entirely surrounded together with Austria…. Isn’t it nice that we can free-ride on the safety offered by NATO, while happily keeping our military spending below 1% of GDP? Maybe Russia should wish for more borders with NATO, not less: “The growing transatlantic alliance kept the peace in Europe for decades and actually made Russia safer.”
Ah, neutrality! Whole lot of good it did to neutral Iran, for instance:
The invasion was a surprise attack described by Allied forces as rapid and conducted with ease … Following the invasion, Sir Reader Bullard and Andrey Andreyevich Smirnov, the British and Soviet ambassadors to Iran, were summoned. The Shah demanded to know why they were invading his country and why they had not declared war. Both answered that it was because of “German residents” in Iran. When the Shah asked if the Allies would stop their attack if he expelled the Germans, the ambassadors did not answer. The Shah sent a telegram to US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, pleading with him to stop the invasion. As the neutral United States had nothing to do with the attack, Roosevelt was not able to grant the Shah’s plea but stated that he believed that the “territorial integrity” of Iran should be respected.
– Wikipedia, “Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran”
Ah yes, where did we hear that last one before?
The hopelessly naive Hoppe doesn’t understand that “neutrality” is no guarantee. Switzerland is not safe because it’s neutral, but because it is, horresco referens, surrounded by NATO.
Indeed the only real solution that Hoppe himself suggests is: “The other variant is that small states enter into a series of alliances with the possibility of acting together against an enemy.”
It does appear that Hoppe just made the case for either big states, or being part of NATO (as libertarians, we prefer the latter). In fact, obviously, if it’s an alliance of 1,000 states as small as Liechtenstein, for logistical reasons it would probably need a single common army, probably making it much more unified than NATO states are – again, the current setup of independent states joined in a loose defensive alliance seems as the more libertarian alternative.1
The madness of surrender
Ukraine will not surrender, because when the choice is between dying in combat and being slaughtered like pigs, any nation will choose the first course of action
We wrote early on that surrender was not a good option. Well, everyone should be aware now that it was and is simply not an option:
The Ukrainians, with their past experience of Russian invasions, were painfully aware of it. The hopelessly naive Hoppe still doesn’t get that basic fact:
Nevertheless, if you know there is no chance to win a war against a foreign power, you have to consider surrendering, because you see that only one corrupt gang is exchanged for another corrupt gang.
Because, of course, in his naive mind (or shall we say: spoiled, privileged? more on that later), nothing worse can happen to you than one corrupt gang replacing another. Just pray again that the new gang is merely corrupt, and not genocidal as well, and you’ll be fine. In fact, that assumes somewhat naively the suprisingly strong claim that all corrupt gangs are equally oppressive (see below).
Bear in mind, on top of that, that Hoppe advocates for micro-states, who, of course, would stand no chance against larger ones. Neutral Switzerland is too big for Hoppe already. His model being Liechtenstein (a mere 40,000 souls), which doesn’t even have an army. So according to genius Hoppe, Europe’s relatively small states should split into tiny, undefensible micro-states… which should then simply surrender the moment a bigger state invades them (and why wouldn’t it!), thus resulting… in big state(s) again? Smart.
A Russian libertarian translated Hoppe’s “Nationalism and Secession” into Russian (“Национализм и сецессия”). This is what she had to say about Hoppe’s “surrender” suggestions:
Хоппе заявил, что у украинцев «нет шансов победить в войне» с превосходящей по силе российской армией, поэтому им лучше «сдаться» … Высказывания же Хоппе в очередной раз вызывают, мягко говоря, недоумение и стыд.
– “Что говорят ведущие либертарианские теоретики о войне, которая идет в Европе уже почти три месяца?”
Speaking of shame...
And the Alt-Right also laughs off as hopelessly naïve the programmatic motto [“Peace, Love, and Liberty”] of so-called libertarians such as the Students for Liberty (which I have termed the “Stupids for Liberty”)
– Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Libertarianism and the ‘Alt-Right’” (transcript)
Well:
we will strive for the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,” Putin said during an address on state television… Putin urged Ukrainian servicemen to “immediately put down arms and go home.”
– “Attacking Ukraine, Putin calls for ‘denazification’ of country with a Jewish leader”, February 24
According to Hoppe, they should have listened and surrendered. According to Students for Liberty, they were right in fighting:
What is not surprising to me, though, is the bravery which Ukrainians show as they react to the invasion. Ukrainians are now doing the job that we started over ten years ago — trying to put an end to probably the ugliest regime Europe has seen since 1945. They are fighting for our future, not just their own. And they deserve all our support. And they will win.
– Vera Kichanova (Вера Алексеевна Кичанова), “My family are from Russia and Ukraine, here’s what I think about this war”, March 7, 2022
According to Ukrainians themselves:
I’m in touch with one of the last defenders of Mariupol. He’s wounded. After Bucha massacre, he says, “surrender is not an option.” He feels their stand accomplished its mission. They tied up so much Russian firepower it gave other cities a chance to survive.
Now who’s the hopelessly naive here? Perhaps Hoppe should create his own organization, Stupids for fascism, with the motto “surrender, hatred, serfdom”.
NATO expansion is a good thing
We can insist our own state stop provoking other regional powers through blunders like continued North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion.
– Ryan McMaken, “Yes, the US Has Its Own ‘Sphere of Influence.’ And It’s Huge.”
Isn’t it fascinating, how, for American Kremlintarians, NATO “expansion” is a purely american act of will? It’s like none of us poor devils in the rest of the world have any agency, at all. The Russians don’t have agency, they get “provoked” into senseless wars, no matter how counter-productive and self-destructive, like a mindless “bear” being poked (sic). And the citizens of the 30 NATO members don’t either – if the US decides they shall be part of NATO, that’s it, they get swallowed by it! And the Ukrainians... More on that later.
Nevermind the years of begging from those countries to join, nevermind their referenda. Nope: in the Kremlintarian, American-centric-yet-American-hating fantasy world, it all comes down to Joe Sixpack, Mises-dot-org or Antiwar-dot-com writer, to decide the fate of the world by ordering his Joe Biden President what to do.
The Russian regime view potential Ukraine membership in NATO as a real threat to Russian sovereignty. Consider, for example, how the US would react if the Mexicans signed a mutual defense pact with China.
– Ryan McMaken, “The Usual Suspects Are Pushing War with Russia”, January 28, 2022
Again, viewed from Switzerland, how exactly is your neighbors’ joining NATO a threat to your sovereignty? And what is his point, would he support American invasion of Mexico in that case? Incidentally, yet again, are they really totally unable to grasp the difference of degree between criminal dictatorships and relatively liberal democracies? Being a country in NATO is not the same as being a country in “Union State”. Being a non-NATO country neighboring NATO ones (or indeed being encircled by them, such as Switzerland and Austria) is not the same as having a Union State member as a neighbor. The inhabitants of those countries get it – American Kremlintarians don’t.
Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, all have an issue with NATO expansion… and its very existence:
American [sic] should end its encirclement [sic] of Russia and disband NATO.
Decent men hope for … NATO to stop its ceaseless march to the east.
NATO kept creeping, sometimes jogging, in an eastward direction
– Walter Block, “Nuclear War?”
Again, “march to the east”? “jogging”? Do these people have any awareness at all of what NATO even is?
The fact is that NATO should never have been established in the first place.
– Jacob G. Hornberger, “Terminate NATO”
NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.
– Ron Paul
Who goes as far as to proclaim: “NATO Expansion Is Aggression”. Some libertarian.
Ron Paul is not just against NATO expansion, he’s not just against NATO still existing after the end of the Soviet Union, he’s not just against US being in NATO, he’s against NATO itself (nevermind the opinions of the 29 other member states). Consistent in his ignorance, he makes it clear he’s as wrong about Russia and NATO in the past as he is about them in the present.
As he reminds us, NATO was created in 1949. As he forgets, in 1949, the Soviet Union was ruled by Stalin. 1949, that’s a mere 10 years after 1939, when that same Soviet Union, under that same Stalin ruler, started WW2, allied with Nazi Germany, by together invading Poland. Five years after the Warsaw Uprising, in which that same Stalin deliberately tricked Poles and let 250,000 of them be massacred by his former Nazi allies. Poland was finally allowed to join NATO in 1999. Complete mystery why they would be interested.
Not just that: Germany was not supposed to have a large army nor airforce after WWI. It was the Soviet Union who secretly helped Nazi Germany rebuild its army, thus making WWII possible. That same Stalin, ruling the same Soviet Union, is also responsible for the Shoah-scale (4-7 million dead) genocide through famine of Ukrainians. Is it so surprising that Ukraine, unlike Russia, does not miss the Soviet Union all that much…?. Up to this day, Russia openly embraces its Soviet Socialist legacy, including statues of Lenin. Lenin, also responsible for a starvation-genocide against Ukrainians. Really surprising why Ukrainians want to join NATO instead of being occupied by Russia again.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were all invaded by the Soviet Union in 1940. They joined NATO in 2004 (incidentally, they should and would have been founding members were it not for the Soviet occupation). Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1968. They joined NATO in 1999 (Czechia) and 2004 (Slovakia). Hungary was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1956, they joined NATO in 1999, by a 85.3% yes in referendum.
Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939. It shall join NATO, let us hope, in 2022.
Now somehow we are supposed to believe that creating NATO to defend against that very Soviet Union, in 1949, was a bad idea, and that those same countries invaded by it, joining NATO as soon as they could, while being threatened by the very regime that succeeded the Soviet Union and laments its end, constitutes “aggression”? A regime whose politicians, generals and pundits/propagandists, on government media, regularly threaten another invasion of those same countries it invaded previously? A regime who raises flags and statues of that same Soviet Union in invaded territories?
I think people should reflect on the debate on why is it that Russia’s neighbours, time and again, want membership of NATO to get security guarantees?
– Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general 2009–2014, “Unless Russia stopped, Putin will reach Baltic states, says NATO’s former chief”
As for Walter Block… he’s merely repeating word for word the errors of Rothbard here… with even less excuse for it.
Walter Block, in this bizarre article, seems (if we understand this mess correctly at all), to merely repeat Rothbard’s blatant mistake:
Suppose that Brazil had invaded a relatively peaceful United States several times in the last century… Apart from some missiles placed in Cuba, at a time when the US surrounded Russia in many places, the latter country has confined itself to protecting itself from yet another invasion emanating from west of it.
Again, the phantasmagoric claim of Russia being “surrounded” by NATO…
We already mentioned this strange article from Block… Through some sheer rewriting of history, he puts blame of the invasion on NATO: “where lies the primary blame for this unhappy occurrence? Obviously, with the US and NATO.”
Yes, the USSR, was not a nice place, internally. Russia, too, has its problems in this regard, as do many other nations. However, all too many commentators who really should know better deduce from this fact that this country is expansionist, externally…. Great Britain was for many years one of the best countries to live in … Yet, to say it was intent upon world domination … would be a vast understatement.
the exact same argument as Rothbard:
Many dictatorships have turned inward, cautiously confining themselves to preying on their own people. … On the other hand, such an indubitable democracy as Great Britain spread its coercive imperialism across the globe during the 19th and earlier centuries.
Worse, Block:
Apart from some missiles placed in Cuba, at a time when the US surrounded Russia in many places, the latter country has confined itself to protecting itself from yet another invasion emanating from west of it.
Thus, while imperialist and deplorable, Soviet foreign policy is basically cautious and defensive; Russia has been invaded three times from Eastern Europe in this century, and therefore its concern with avoiding anti-Soviet governments there is understandable.
What are these “invaded three times from Eastern Europe in this century”/“yet another invasion emanating from west of it”? Napoleon, in 1812? In the 20th century (when Rothbard was writing), there is the Nazi one, but surely that was not unrelated to a not-so-cautious foreign policy… World War I, maybe?
Wikipedia (a source of information unavailable to Rothbard, but surely not so to Block) lists dozens of conflicts Russia was involved in both this and the previous century… How many of them were mere defense against invasion?
Going forward, the good news is everyone seems to have got the message now, even the majorities in previously “neutral” countries like Finland and Sweden: join NATO as soon as possible. Everyone, that is, except the useful idiots “libertarians”.
Lastly, if Russia really wanted to stop NATO expansion… it could simply have asked nicely. Every new admission requires approval of the now 30 states (For instance, currently: “Turkey threatens to block Finland and Sweden Nato bids”.). Surely Russia could have convinced one of them, through either open or covert bribes, to veto the expansion, for a fraction of the cost of its war of aggression. Or indeed, the even simpler solution: be nicer to its neighbors and offer them real security guarantees, instead of regularly threatening them.
Biden says that Putin is about to invade Ukraine. We can’t let this happen because that would be “aggression.” … But the neocons who control American foreign policy are the real aggressors … If Ukraine does get a pro-Russian government, this would not be Russian “aggression.”
– Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., “Why Die for Ukraine?”, January 31, 2022
So in Mr Rockwell’s world, an invasion is not “aggression”… What is “real aggression” then?
we have expanded NATO towards Russia’s border. Make no mistake—Russia considers the expansion of NATO as a direct military threat.
Apparently Mr Rockwell is so incompetent as a libertarian, that he cannot recognize blatant aggression himself (such as an invasion) but must base his assessment of what constitutes aggression on what “Russia considers” as such instead. Of course: why think for yourself and apply libertarian principles when you can just ask the Russian government.
What else? “The United States promised not to expand NATO”… Ah yes, so apparently (it’s far from proved2) one politician made a verbal promise to another (neither of which are still in power), thirty years ago, and that somehow should bind the whole world, provide valid reasons for breaking actual signed treaties, committing invasions and war crimes, committing aggressions against people who have nothing to do with either of the supposed parties? Seriously? And that’s coming from… a libertarian? (What would Spooner think of that…)
a US-backed coup overthrew a government friendly to Russia
More on that below. Besides, is Mr Rockwell aware that this was eight years ago and that Ukraine has had several elections since then? Or does he believe these were all bought as well?
it should make absolutely no difference to us whether Russia controls Ukraine
“apathy, selfishness” indeed... And it’s not even rational selfishness. The US, as a neighbor of Russia, is of course part of those it directly threatens:
- ‘Alaska Is Ours!” Billboards Appear in Russia After Threat to Reclaim State
- Russian House Speaker Threatens to ‘Take Back’ Alaska
- Russian cadets vow to grab Alaska from the US and say they’re ‘ready to die for Putin’ in propaganda video (video)
That would of course be bad enough, but… does it really make no difference to him? Or would he actually prefer for Russia to control Ukraine?
If Biden doesn’t want Putin to invade Ukraine, he should remove the NATO bases around Russia and take away the missiles. If he won’t do this, a Russian invasion can still be stopped. All that’s required is that a pro-Russian government take power in Ukraine.
“around Russia” ? “the missiles”? What parallel world does Mr Rockwell live in?
NATO ballistic missile defence is not directed against Russia and cannot undermine Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. It is designed to protect European Allies against missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.
The Aegis Ashore site in Romania is purely defensive. The interceptor missiles deployed there cannot be used for offensive purposes. The interceptors contain no explosives. They cannot hit objects on the Earth’s surface – only in the air. In addition, the site lacks the software, the hardware and infrastructure needed to launch offensive missiles.
That’s not that reassuring actually… They should be directed against Russia, obviously.
Turkey is hosting a US BMD radar at Kürecik; Romania is hosting a US Aegis Ashore site at Deveselu Air Base; Germany is hosting the command centre at Ramstein Air Base; and Poland is hosting another Aegis Ashore site, whose construction is nearing completion at the Redzikowo military base.
– NATO, “Ballistic missile defence”
Nonetheless, the fact remains: a few missile defenses in Romania and (not even ready yet) in Poland hardly constitutes “the missiles” or “NATO bases around Russia”.
“The United States and Ukraine Started the War—Not Russia” By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., April 9, 2022
Linking to CovertAction Magazine.
In which article we will learn for instance that “Because Kyiv knows NATO has their back and they want to remove Russian-speakers from Ukraine.”
Zelensky being, of course, a native Russian speaker. As for Kyiv?
Russian is used at home by 43–46% of the population of the country … Russian language dominates in informal communication in the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv … 83% of Ukrainians responding to a 2008 Gallup poll preferred to use Russian instead of Ukrainian to take the survey
Wikipedia, “Russian language in Ukraine”
Well… The bigger the lie… Ukrainians are of course mostly bilingual Russian-Ukrainian.
The article can’t even seem to decide whether the conflict in the Donbass is a civil war, or an Ukrainian invasion of a foreign country. But of course, no explanation as to what exactly started the conflict in the first place (surely Russia could not be involved… must be a purely Ukrainian decision to start waging war on part of their own country for no reason!)
Oh, and remember in part 3, Rothbard’s involvement with the leftist Students for a Democratic Society? Well, here is the author of this beautiful piece:
Richard was a founding member of the Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Maryland, College Park. He accumulated ten arrests for equal accommodations with the Congress of Racial Equality and was resident printer for the D.C. Black Panther Party.
Richard, Richard, Richard… Black Panther Party? “The Black Panther Party (BPP), originally the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, was a Marxist-Leninist black power political organization”. Aha. There we go again: marxists peddling Russian propaganda, rothbardians swallowing it hook, line and sinker, surprise, surprise.
Logically, the same website published an article by “A Socialist In Canada”: “Calls By Western Socialists For A Russian Retreat From Ukraine Amount To De Facto Support For NATO Aggression”.
(Not sure if those brave socialists actually understand how socialist Russia is, or are merely defending it out of habit for their beloved Union of Soviet Socialist Republics…)
An article being indignant at those socialists who dare show some sort of consistency by opposing both “east or west” imperialisms… No, even daring to speak of “Russian imperialism” is an outrage for “A Socialist In Canada” (if only he were the only one there indeed…)… (Would he prefer “Russian Colonialism”? We’re fine with either term…). The term “Trotskyist” being dropped more and more frequently in the article raised our suspicions (the article is mainly about a French communist postman, who actually “eschews the Trotskyist label: ‘I’m neither Trotskyist nor Guevarist or Luxemburgist, I’m a revolutionary. And revolution needs to be reinvented, for no revolutionary experiment has ever succeeded. Some of them ended up as bloody caricatures.’”)… until the author links to an article on his own website, “The myth of ‘Russian imperialism’: In defense of Lenin’s analyses.”. Aha. Hence the “Trotskyist”. (The article’s concluding title is “Conclusion: the necessity for Leninist analysis”.)
It’s always “fun” to follow Rockwell’s links: one never knows whether one will end up in a cesspool of antisemitism, of calls for holy war, of employees of terrorist organizations, or of hard-core Leninist communism. Either way, plan for hazmat suit and decontamination shower after your dip.
The exact same errors are repeated on Antiwar.com, unsurprisingly:
the US and NATO continued to surround Russia with the most threatening weapons, placing antiballistic missile bases
“antiballistic missiles” are obviously not “the most threatening weapons”, and a dozen of them in Romania and Poland is certainly not “surrounding” the largest country on earth (yet again, they should start by learning some basic geography…).
removal of US and NATO troops and missiles from Ukrainian soil
Of course, there are no US troops in Ukraine, as the few dozens US advisors that were there earlier were all recalled on February 12: “Pentagon orders departure of U.S. troops in Ukraine as Russia crisis escalates”. The article is from March 16. Missiles? Well, yes, if one counts the anti-tank missiles that started flowing into Ukraine after the invasion started…
Russia’s imperialism and support for other dictatorships and terrorist regimes (Syria, Iran…) is a global threat. A Russia allowed to conquer Eastern Europe is surely more of a threat to US security, directly or indirectly, than a Russia with neighbors protected from its aggressions by NATO membership. A strong NATO is good for the US and good for the world.
Providing military aid to Ukraine is right
… badmouthing any American ally who is unenthusiastic about starting new wars …it’s once again Paris and Berlin who are trying to defuse the potential for a wider war… Germany’s sin, it seems, has been to purchase natural gas from Russia and to resist calls for facilitating weapons transfers to Ukraine.
– Ryan McMaken, “The Usual Suspects Are Pushing War with Russia”, January 28, 2022
Yes, that is Germany’s sin, and the article referred to as “attacking the German government for being insufficiently bellicose toward Russia” is in fact, unfortunately, still accurate four months later: “Is Germany a Reliable American Ally? Nein”. As for Paris (he means Macron – this Mises Institute writer really has trouble with some Misesian basics), well, let’s just say Ukrainians have come up with a new verb based on Macron’s name. Incidentally: Merkel defends 2008 decision to block Ukraine from NATO. (Someone should tell Walter Block because he seems a tad misinformed regarding Germany and Russia, to put it politely...)
Beyond mere defense, what about just wars? What about “interventions” by other states? What about merely providing weapons?
In short, libertarians and other Americans must guard against a priori history: in this case, against the assumption that, in any conflict, that state which is more democratic or allows more internal freedom is necessarily or even presumptively the victim of aggression by the more dictatorial or totalitarian state.
– Murray N. Rothbard, “A Soviet Foreign Policy: A Revisionist Perspective”
Rothbard, as usual, misses the point: by definition, any victory of the state that “allows more internal freedom” will mean that more people will enjoy more freedom. Conversely, any victory of the state that allows less internal freedom, means by definition an expansion of oppression. Therefore any invasion, any expansion, by the less free state is always wrong. Any invasion, any expansion, conversely by a freer state against a less free one, is by definition ambiguous: some people will be liberated, but some people will get killed. How to solve this (or not) is outside of our scope here. But what is unambiguous, is that an invasion by a less libertarian regime against a more libertarian one, can unequivocally be condemned by libertarians, and defense against it can be unambiguously supported. And in any ongoing war, historical or other considerations pale in comparison to the question of which regime is freer – and whose victory, therefore, will be a gain for liberty.
More generally, the legitimacy of an action is a somewhat different question than that of the means used to finance it:
У потребителей этих услуг нет выбора компании, которая бы оказала их за добровольную плату, дешевле и качественнее. Реальный выбор сейчас в том, будет ли оказана какая-либо услуга вообще или нет. Монополия не позволяет гражданам делать или покупать танки и отправлять их в Украину самостоятельно, точно так же как она не позволяет им полноценно заниматься самообороной.
Surely government schools, hospitals, and policemen, perform good deeds everyday. A thief can use the stolen money to either do a good action, a neutral action, or an evil action. National defense, should, of course, be financed voluntarily. Whether it is or not, it is, in itself, a legitimate service. Likewise, saving Ukrainians from invasion, and ensuring a weaker Russsia (that is, a safer world from Russian aggression), is a legitimate end, both from a selfish (it is good for me if the world is safer, wealthier, freer) and moral (it is good to save others’ lives and help them live safer, wealthier, freer lives) perspective:
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has transformed into a grinding war of attrition with no meaningful peace deal in sight, the US and its allies have begun to convey a new, longer-term goal for the war: to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such an attack ever again.
– “Austin’s assertion that US wants to ‘weaken’ Russia underlines Biden strategy shift”
It should be acknowledged that the Russian regime is a threat and that it is wrong to ignore that. As the Heritage Foundation summarizes:
- First, Putin’s Russia is a regime that combines a lack of respect for political, civil, and economic rights with a dysfunctional economy.
- Second and most dangerous for the United States, Russia poses a series of worldwide strategic and diplomatic challenges, including buildup of its nuclear arsenal and military.
- Third, Russia poses threats to discrete U.S. friends, allies, and interests around the world.
- Fourth, Russia’s cooperation with bad actors and its increasing tendency to play a spoiler role pose another set of threats.
Foreign policy matters
Incidentally, those very libertarians so very wrong on foreign policy are those who claim foreign policy is the most important. By their own standard, we can therefore hardly consider this a minor disagreement.
Block, for instance:
of the three, foreign policy, economic policy and person liberties, the former is the most important. As Murray Rothbard and Bob Higgs have demonstrated over and over again, US foreign policy determines what occurs in economics and in the field of personal liberties … And, very importantly, who is the one candidate who went out of his way so as to not antagonize Russia and Premier Putin? It is the Donald, that is who.
– Walter E. Block, “Libertarians for Trump”, March 15, 2016
(Amazing that they make this connection… Which they so happily deny for other states, see above)
Speaking of whom:
what we have now appears to be an impeachment process largely driven by the desire to punish a president for not provoking a war.
– Ryan McMaken, “This President Was Impeached for Being Insufficiently Pro-War”, December 31, 2019
Isn’t their logic fascinating? The same authors who correctly defend the libertarian position on gun rights… Now seem to imply that a country being armed for defense… is “provoking a war”. Is it that hard to comprehend that, in the same way as more guns, less crime holds true, had Ukraine been more armed, had Ukraine been in NATO, the Russian criminal regime would have thought harder before invading it? How can they be advocating such a childishly naive (let’s be charitable) form of pacifism?
Incidentally, this story wouldn’t be complete without, of course, the usual connection to the common thread, socialism:
However, I confess, I find “Libertarians for Bernie” intriguing. Were Donald not in the race, I would choose Bernie over any of the other Republican contenders … I supported Barack Obama against John McCain in 2008 … Similarly, I was in favor of our Nobel Peace Prize President in 2012, vis a vis Mitt Romney
– Walter E. Block, “Libertarians for Trump, Revisited”, March 29, 2016
As usual. (And is he actually being unironic about Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize??)
Incidentally, even Bernie is smarter than Block. And that’s saying something.
Oh, by the way, here’s Block two years later:
I’m disappointed, mainly, in your foreign policy … Please reverse your course in all these matters.
– Walter E. Block, “Is Donald Trump a disaster for libertarianism? Open Letter to the Donald”, January 31, 2018
You can’t make these people up. Poor Donald must have trouble sleeping at night knowing that Walter is disappointed by his foreign policy.
Note, also, that this disappointment did not prevent Mr Block, two years later, from calling “stupid” libertarians who dared vote for the Libertarian Party instead of for his dear Donald.
Regime change is a good thing
После неминуемого поражения путинизма именно эти силы при активном взаимодействии и содействии всего международного сообщества заново учредят Россию как правовую демократическую страну и неотъемлемую участницу диалога цивилизованных стран и народов.
– Либертарианская партия России (ЛПР), “Правда и свобода — на стороне мира”
One should also recall here the position of Ayn Rand (Алиса Зиновьевна Розенбаум), a Russian who emigrated to the United States and advocated, in politics, for minarchist libertarianism in all but name (she called it “capitalism”: “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned”):
What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II …
Certainly.
… And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?
Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?
Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.
Would you favor U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?
Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons; I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.
Would you advocate severing diplomatic relations with Russia?
Yes.
– “Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand”, 1964
Not caring about totalitarian dictatorship A invading liberal democracy B, is not (just) selfishness, certainly not in the Objectivist sense. It’s insanity.
In the Czech movie Tmavomodrý svet, a German officer comments on the Czechoslovak surrender and German overtaking of their equipment following the infamous Munich Agreement:
Prohlédli jsme si ty vaše pevnosti. Perfektní. Jak jste je mohli opustit bez výstřelu? Tomu jako voják nerozumím. […] Rád bych viděl letadla.
We had a look at your border fortifications. Perfect. How could you abandon them without a shot? As a soldier, I can’t understand this. … Now, I’d like to see the planes.
Indeed, History should teach us:
But what if the British and French had held firm at Munich? Two basic responses were possible. The less interesting answer is that Hitler actually preferred a war over Czechoslovakia to a diplomatic settlement, that the Germans had a detailed plan—Case Green—for such a war, and that if Chamberlain and Daladier had rebuffed Hitler, he would probably have executed that plan. But this prospect terrified Hitler’s senior generals, who believed that Germany was not yet ready for a major war. In all probability they were correct. The Czech army alone could have fielded 19 active and 11 reserve divisions against 37 active German divisions. Assuming that the British and French launched a full-scale assault against German defenses along the Siegfried Line, which in 1938 barely existed, the result would have been a prompt defeat for Germany. Even a more limited military response by the Western Allies would have resulted in a war of attrition that Germany would have eventually lost. To military historians this result is practically self-evident, which is why it is less interesting.
The more interesting answer centers on what would have occurred if Hitler had held off on executing Case Green: more interesting because good counterfactuals illuminate aspects of a historical event that might otherwise be overlooked. In this scenario, Hitler would have continued to rearm, wary of launching Case Green until the Wehrmacht could defend western Germany successfully while overrunning Czechoslovakia. The problem, Hitler would have discovered, was that Germany lacked the financial, economic, and military resources to rearm to the level that it historically reached by September 1939 (the campaign in Poland) and May 1940 (the invasion of the Low Countries and France).
This is because historically, the March 1939 occupation of Czechoslovakia made a pivotal difference in German rearmament. Historian Williamson Murray forcefully argues this case in his 1984 book The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938–1939: The Path to Ruin. Financially, Hitler acquired $28.3 million in gold when he overran Czechoslovakia. Economically, in combination with the March 1938 annexation of Austria, the absorption of Czech industry raised Germany’s percentage of world industrial production to 15 percent, equal to that of the United States. Militarily, Germany also acquired two major arms complexes, particularly the world-renowned Skoda Works.
Czech arms plants began to churn out weapons for the Wehrmacht, and by occupying Czechoslovakia, Germany acquired 1,502 aircraft, 469 tanks, 500 antiaircraft guns, 43,000 machine guns, a million rifles, three million rounds of artillery ammunition, and a billion rifle rounds. In theory this was enough to equip 30 German divisions, though in practice the Germans sold much weaponry to countries such as Romania, further enriching themselves.
Even so, Murray estimates that “approximately 10 German divisions received either a portion or all of their arms as a direct result of the occupation of Czechoslovakia.” The Germans also dismantled Czech fortifications for reuse in the Siegfried Line and, later, to augment the Atlantic Wall.
The de facto annexation of Czechoslovakia thus made the difference between a Nazi Germany with the resources to win decisively against Poland and the western Allies—as it did historically between September 1939 and June 1940—and one able to achieve, at best, limited gains on a path to defeat. The failure to stand firm at Munich was thus even more calamitous than most students of World War II appreciate.
– “What If: Britain and France Had Not Appeased Hitler in 1938?”
For Lew Rockwell, chairman of the Mises Institute (poor Ludwig...) conversely, stopping Hitler was wrong:
Should we have stayed out of World War II? The answer is clear. Yes, we should have, and in seeing why, our best guide is the great Murray Rothbard.
Note that this is the same author who enthousiastically approves Russia invading Ukraine... because of the Nazis there. Of course!
Moral high ground is neither necessary nor likely
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
– Mark Twain
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
– H. L. Mencken
Of course, every state on earth violates the rights of its citizens. In fact, actual libertarians (unlike Rand) know that a state violates them by definition. And in most of the world, people are not even surprised at states acting like gangs of thugs. This is obvious, most likely, to a lot of plain-sense people around the world too, especially in corrupt-poor countries who don’t expect the government to be anything but a gang of thugs. Has anyone actually believed they can, do and should be anything else, ever since starry-eyed Ayn Rand (“the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world.”)?
All states are criminal, it is only a matter of degree, but that degree matters
Most people around the world, mostly, don’t care about the moral difference. What they do care about is the difference of degree, because it’s huge. And American libertarians, such as Hoppe (see above) and others, seem to not understand this, at all.
A more correct analysis, therefore, would focus on the relative degree of oppression. Some criminal gangs are worse, much, much worse, than others. Living in North Korea is not the same as living in South Korea. Differences of degree matter. And again, non-libertarians voting with their feet or begging for a less evil, albeit imperfect, regime, understand that.
Libertarians know that all governments are inherently wrong. A libertarian, therefore, should not expect a government to have the “moral high ground” or to be perfect. That government X also did something is irrelevant for judging government Y. South Korea does not need to be perfect for any territorial gain over North Korea to be a good thing. Ukraine does not need to be perfect, nor the US, for the Russian invasion to be wrong and the US being right in helping Ukraine to resist it. NATO does not need to be flawless for Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians etc. to wish to join it and have every right to do so.
Likewise, we mentioned the strange attacks on Ukraine’s conscription, as if this were somehow a world novelty (viewed from Switzerland: it is not).
Yes, states are criminal organizations. They are corrupt, infefficient, lying, etc. But there are differences of degrees. And these differences are huge, a life or death matter for millions of people.
Just because the government police is committing the war on drugs does not mean we can’t call the police to stop a murder. Just because Liechtenstein has an income tax doesn’t mean you should not emigrate there from North Korea.
Hypocrisy of governments is irrelevant
US posturing today seems to China wildly hypocritical and nakedly self-serving: having gotten what we want, we want to call the game … the unpleasant fact is that when the US was in Beijing’s relative geostrategic position, it behaved no differently than Beijing is now behaving and would behave no differently were the situation reversed.
– Joseph Solis-Mullen, “US Foreign Policy Has Always Been Aggressive”
But perhaps the most important first step from the American perspective is to stop deluding ourselves about the US being some sort of uniquely virtuous nation that would never, ever stoop to imposing its own sphere of influence on its neighbors.
– Ryan McMaken “Yes, the US Has Its Own ‘Sphere of Influence.’ And It’s Huge.”
Likewise, what are we to make of libertarians still writing as if they were somehow disappointed in governments and politicians? Case in point: “Joe Biden, what the hell?”.
Joe Biden, of all people? Seriously? What exactly can a libertarian expect from Joe Biden? What is more pathetic, Sheldon Richman expressing disappointment at Biden’s actions, or Lew Rockwell systematically insulting him? And yet both somehow write as if the man were reading them and would alter his behavior accordingly? (“Oh no Sheldon Richman is sad at my speeches! Oh no Lew Rockwell doubts my intelligence! What now?”)
Is this naivete? Arrogance?
For once, a good quote by Rothbard:
If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.
– Murray Rothbard
Too bad he didn’t practice it himself. Indeed, if States are criminal bands, then we should not care about their consistency or hypocrisy. It is irrelevant. Ayn Rand made the same mistake, but the most extreme form seems to be the childish, brainless contrarianism of the current “Libertarian” Party, after its hostile takeover by the “Mises” Caucus:
The world is full of blood-soaked, war-making tyrants that must be stopped, say US politicians who shamelessly backed their own wars of aggression overseas.Following in the tradition of Ron Paul and Harry Browne, we oppose their hypocrisy and promote military non-intervention!
Spheres of influence are neither equal nor sacred
Second, if NATO expansion was a manifestation of American empire, it was a remarkably benign and consensual form of empire. When Clinton decided to pursue enlargement, he did so at the urging of the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians. The Baltic countries and others were soon banging at the door. The states of Eastern Europe and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were desperate to join America’s sphere of influence, because they were desperate to leave Moscow’s.
Indeed, all spheres of influence are not equal. Which ones had higher standards of living, more individual rights, etc? Which one would be chosen in free elections? Surely it should not be a surprise that now that those same countries, finally given the chance to choose, chose NATO over Russia? And surely it should not be hard to understand, for a libertarian, that the US expanding its “sphere of influence” to the detriment of one dating back to Stalin is a good thing?
Czechoslovokia (not even in the percentages agreeement between Churchill and Stalin at the source of all this), and partially liberated by the US, would certainly have been better off had Patton finished the job. In 1968, even Czech communists (two months before the Russian invasion) started to openly notice that communism was a lie: “the workers” were much better off under capitalism!
Furthermore, state boundaries are not sacred either – in fact they don’t mean anything, except in the obvious case where crossing them equals massive rights violations, such as an invasion. And to be clear (why does this even need clarifying, especially for anti-state libertarians, is astonishing), immigration for instance, is not an invasion – another topic where LVMI, LRC etc choose nationalism over libertarianism). And definitely not, either, is financing think tanks in another country:
At first glance, $5 billion is a hefty sum of money – but is it hefty enough to buy an entire revolution? The money flowed from 1991 to 2014. Most of it from the U.S. State Department, which handles foreign affairs, and its development arm USAID … The agency’s funds come from the U.S. federal budget. In 2016, USAID will have $22.3 billion to spend worldwide … America has supported many projects with the money since then with the intention of helping strengthen democracy: Anti-corruption groups, election monitoring, parliamentary expertise. Much more money was spent on health projects, environmental projects and economic development.
But the expenditures have decreased substantially over the years. It was still $195.6 million in 2011, but that had shrunk by 2014 to just $86.1 million. Only in 2015 did that figure rise a little.
Could such amounts have led to people risking their lives during the long weeks of struggle at Maidan?
Mr. Putin seems to think so. He sees the foreign money as interference in the domestic affairs of a country. That’s why NGOs in Russia that receive money from abroad are now subject to the country’s foreign agent law. American NGOs are no longer allowed to operate there. The foundation of the U.S. investor George Soros had to shut down its HIV and methadone projects, helping contribute to Russia’s increasing HIV infection rate.
“Haben die Amis den Maidan gekauft?” [ “Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?” ], Die Zeit, Nr. 19/2015, May 17, 2015
You read that right: the US spent 5 billion dollars over 23 years. And it spent them on financing some pro-democracy think tanks. Spending a few billions, over 23 years, towards pro-democracy think tanks: This is what gets called “invasion” or “sweeping in and taking Kyiv” or “a US-Backed Coup” on The Lew Rockwell Cesspool and the Mao Tse Tung Institute:
The proximate cause of the coup was Yanukovych’s taking of what was essentially a large Russian bribe to eschew an EU association agreement. In a country ranked 122nd in corruption [in transparency], literally the most corrupt country in Europe [nope, that would be Russia, surprise], none of this was a surprise. But what was a surprise was the US move to sweep in and take Kyiv—something US foreign policy insiders publicly bragged about in the immediate aftermath.
The “bribe” in question being “Russia reaches deal with Ukraine on $15 billion bailout”. Frankly, if Russia can’t maintain its sphere of influence with a 15 billion bribe in one go, while the US expands its with a mere 5 billion over 23 years, several other conclusions could be drawn from this (even if the US “interference” somehow magically were the reason for the spontaneous protests of 400,000–800,000 Ukrainians), such as:
- Seems someone’s much better at this…
- one could wish the US had been willing to spend as much as the Russians then: if revolutions can be bought at a 5 billion apiece bargain nowadays, they should have bought Russia and Belarus too… Indeed, were it accurate, it would be a shame the US government had not been equally successful in financing a direly needed regime change in Russia and Belarus as well.
Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has invested heavily in a number of NGOs meant to increase Russia’s influence abroad since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Starting in 2012, $130 million has flown each year into organizations operating in post-Soviet countries and the Balkans, but particularly in Ukraine.
The overall amount is growing, according to a soon-to-be-released study from the respected London-based think tank Chatham House, which is predominately funded by international corporations. The study shows a huge network in service of Russian interests using fear-mongering and manipulation to influence a country’s populace and attempt to bias it against the West. The biggest difference to the American soft power concept is that Russia isn’t trying to win anyone over with the attractiveness of its own model, but rather makes use of economic pressure and political intimidation.
“Haben die Amis den Maidan gekauft?” [ “Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?” ], Die Zeit, Nr. 19/2015, May 17, 2015
Again: not all spheres of influence are equal. Why do Western “libertarians” have such a hard time getting that?
… The Americans, however, are hesitant. They want to avoid at all costs any semblance of meddling. …
Because Mr. Obama wants to avoid an escalation of the conflict, he’s continued to speak out against arms shipments. Anyone supplying weapons would simply fuel the logic of an arms race. Mr. Putin wouldn’t watch idly, he would send more weapons into eastern Ukraine. That’s why Mr. Obama has up until now ignored those in Washington demanding a more hawkish course of action against Russia.
“Haben die Amis den Maidan gekauft?” [ “Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?” ], Die Zeit, Nr. 19/2015, May 17, 2015
Well, surprise: far from being involved too much, the US was not involved enough. If you wish to blame the US for something, blame them for that – or indeed, be more specific, and blame Obama:
 |
Lavrov: “ha ha ha, all is forgiven? well, we’ll do it again then!” Clinton: “ha ha, yes, we’re that stupid!” See for instance: Natia Seskuria,“Russia Is Reenacting Its Georgia Playbook in Ukraine”, February 22, 2022 (!) (archive). Note that the “reset” was right after the Russian invasion of Georgia. |
Besides... how exactly is any of this relevant, when a dictatorship simply decides to expand its territory?
13 years later, the same Lavrov:
Нет, Россия не белая и не пушистая. Россия такая, какая она есть. И мы не стыдимся показывать себя такими, какие мы есть
Russia is not squeaky clean. Russia is what it is. And we are not ashamed of showing who we are.
– Сергей Викторович Лавров, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, “Меня глаза Запада не интересуют вообще”, [“Lavrov: Russia is not squeaky clean and not ashamed”]
What should happen now?
Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last. All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear-I fear greatly-the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar, ever more loudly, ever more widely.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. … The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. …
But though not much interested in the ‘theory’ of pacifism, I am interested in the psychological processes by which pacifists who have started out with an alleged horror of violence end up with a marked tendency to be fascinated by the success and power of Nazism. Even pacifists who wouldn’t own to any such fascination are beginning to claim that a Nazi victory is desirable in itself.
– George Orwell, “Pacifism and the War”, 1942
Situation extérieure. Allemagne. Vous la connaissez. – Je la résume. – Par les victoires foudroyantes des armées allemandes en France, les Puissances de l’axe sont maîtresses de la situation. Demain, ce sera l’attaque de l’Angleterre. Celle-ci ne peut plus reculer sans abdiquer du même coup sa puissance impériale. Elle lutte aujourd’hui contre l’omnipotence hitlérienne comme jadis contre l’impérialisme napoléonien. Elle devra lutter jusqu’au bout, jusqu’à la victoire ou la catastrophe. [Et après ce sera nous, sous une forme ou sous une autre: exigences politiques, pression économique et militaire. Il y a quelques jours le Führer, répondant à des journalistes, disait avec un geste énergique: « Ne me parlez pas de la Suisse, son tour viendra ! »] …
Notre seule sauvegarde est notre volonté de nous défendre jusqu’au bout …
Préparation morale. On ne se rend pas assez compte dans le pays de la gravité de la situation. L’armistice n’est pas la paix, ce n’est qu’un épisode de la guerre. …
Impressionnés par les récits que nous rapportent les témoins des batailles livrées à l’étranger, beaucoup se demandent: « A quoi bon résister? » et ils concluent: « Quoi que nous fassions, nous ne serons pas en mesure de nous défendre ! »
Raisonner ainsi, c’est faillir au devoir, c’est méconnaître notre raison d’être. C’est méconnaître la force naturelle du Pays, la possibilité de résistance incomparable que nous offrent notre terrain boisé, accidenté, riche en obstacles et en couverts, notre réduit national en particulier.
Le seul moyen d’être respecté, c’est d’affirmer notre volonté de nous défendre jusqu’au bout et de vendre chèrement notre peau. Voilà ce que notre peuple doit comprendre, ce qui fera hésiter notre adversaire éventuel. …
Je me séparerai sans hésitation désormais, de tous les officiers, quel que soit leur grade, qui se laisseront aller à des propos défaitistes, faisant ainsi le jeu de la propagande étrangère d’intimidation.
Il y a, en effet, deux formes de défaitisme:
celui qui vise ouvertement à saper la force de résistance, et qui est le fait de nos ennemis, extérieurs ou intérieurs ;
celui qui s’exprime par cette question: « À quoi bon nous défendre? Nous avons beau faire : nous ne tiendrons pas plus de quelques jours. »
Cette allégation est fausse et, si nous le voulons, nous pouvons offrir une résistance qui soit efficace, digne du pays et de nos traditions. Ensuite, j’affirme que même si notre défense devait être désespérée, elle se traduirait par un sacrifice qui, [un jour ou l’autre,] s’avérerait plus tard comme un succès.
– « Rapport d’Armée (projet de discours) Au Rütli, 25 juillet 1940. » (« Il y a 80 ans, le général Henri Guisan s’adressait aux officiers de l’Armée suisse lors du Rapport du Grütli. », « Vor 80 Jahren: General Guisan hält den Rütli-Rapport », « 80 anni fa il generale Guisan tenne il “Rapporto del Grütli” »
Surrender is not an option, and resistance is to be encouraged, no matter how desperate: the longer it takes Russia to conquer Ukraine, or any part thereof, the bigger the Russian losses, the harder it will be for them to threaten anyone else. And of course, if the invasion is a total failure and the Russian army is decimated, the whole world should be safe from Russia for a while. A Russian defeat is in everyone’s interest. Every Ukrainian effort, every act of resistance, no matter how desperate, is a favor done to the rest of the world.
Hoppe writes: “Large states, on the other hand, which emerged from successful earlier small wars, are generally more warlike and wage not only small but also larger wars against large opponents.” Yet he still doesn’t get that this is exactly how Russia got there, and why it must be stopped?
- Sergey Radchenko, “Why Russia needs to be humiliated in Ukraine”
- Anne Applebaum (the author of Gulag: A History, of course gets it), “The War Won’t End Until Putin Loses”
How could the invasion really have been avoided?
Meanwhile, he [Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO’s secretary-general 2009–2014] said the alliance made a mistake during the 2008 summit in Bucharest that paved the way for Russia’s wars against Georgia and Ukraine. By stating that the two countries would become members of the alliance but not providing the so-called roadmap NATO “sent the wrong message to Putin, who attacked Georgia a few months after in August 2008”.
– “Unless Russia stopped, Putin will reach Baltic states, says NATO’s former chief 69“
From a real libertarian perspective, the problem isn’t that NATO was expanding too much… the problem is that it wasn’t expanding fast enough.
The help that NATO countries are providing Ukraine is welcome, but it’s still too little, too late:
A few months ago, the Ukrainians asked the United States for tanks and missile defense systems. They received instead 300 American military advisors, off-road vehicles and night-vision equipment. That was all the help for a country at war. Anyone attempting to measure the gap between the Ukrainian wishes and American response will see that there hasn’t been anything more than gestures and symbolism so far.
“Haben die Amis den Maidan gekauft?” [ “Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?” ], Die Zeit, Nr. 19/2015, May 17, 2015
Were Ukraine already a member of NATO, there would probably not be a war right now. In fact NATO should have rushed their membership, or made some sort of partnership with Ukraine, and stationed troops and defenses there to prevent this war. There should have been stronger reactions after the 2014 invasion.
And the US should have made clear its own “redlines” – instead of doing the exact opposite.
And Ukrainians should have better armed themselves.
Libertarianism is the right to keep and bear arms: Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves against aggression
Как потом в лагерях жгло: а что, если бы каждый оперативник, идя ночью арестовывать, не был бы уверен, вернется ли он живым, и прощался бы со своей семьёй? Если бы во времена массовых [[посадок]], например в Ленинграде, когда сажали четверть города, люди бы не сидели по своим норкам, млея от ужаса при каждом хлопке парадной двери и шагах на лестнице, - а поняли бы, что терять им уже дальше нечего, и в своих передних бодро бы делали засады по несколько человек с топорами, молотками, кочергами, с чем придется? Ведь заранее известно, что эти ночные картузы не с добрыми намерениями идут - так не ошибешься, хрястув по душегубцу. Или тот вороно’к с одиноким шофёром, оставшийся на улице - угнать его либо скаты проколоть. Органы быстро бы не досчитались сотрудников и подвижного состава, и несмотря на всю жажду Сталина - остановилась бы проклятая машина!
Если бы… если бы… Не хватало нам свободолюбия. А еще прежде того - осознания истинного положения. Мы истратились в одной безудержной вспышке семнадцатого года, а потом СПЕШИЛИ покориться, С УДОВОЛЬСТВИЕМ покорялись. (Артур Рэнсом описывает один рабочий митинг в Ярославле в 1921 г. Из Москвы от ЦК к рабочим приехали советоваться по существу спора о профсоюзах. Представитель оппозиции Ю. Ларин разъяснял рабочим, что профсоюз должен быть защитой от администрации, что у них есть завоёванные права, на которые никто не имеет права посягнуть. Рабочие отнеслись совершенно равнодушно, просто НЕ ПОНИМАЯ, от кого еще нужна им защита и зачем еще нужны им права. Когда же выступил представитель генеральной линии и клял рабочих за их разболтанность и лень, и требовал жертв, сверхурочной бесплатной работы, ограничений в пище, армейского подчинения заводской администрации - это вызывало восторг митинга и аплодисменты). Мы просто ЗАСЛУЖИЛИ всё дальнейшее.
[ And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur-what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
If … if … We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more-we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! (Arthur Ransome describes a workers’ meeting in Yaroslavl in 1921. Delegates were sent to the workers from the Central Committee in Moscow to confer on the substance of the argument about trade unions. The representative of the opposition, Y. Larin, explained to the workers that their trade union must be their defense against the administration, that they possessed rights which they had won and upon which no one else had any right to infringe. The workers, however, were completely indifferent, simply not comprehending whom they still needed to be defended against and why they still needed any rights. When the spokesman for the Party line rebuked them for their laziness and for getting out of hand, and demanded sacrifices from them-overtime work without pay, reductions in food, military discipline in the factory administration-this aroused great elation and applause.) We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward. ]
– Александр Солженицын, Архипелаг ГУЛаг, “Часть первая. Тюремная промышленность”, “Глава 1. Арест” [ Chapter 1: Arrest ]
the call to arms should come from the people and not from their government.
If there is a real danger, the danger is one which the citizens will recognize. Having recognized it, they will do what they can to defend themselves.
Our problem is not to find a way to compel men to defend themselves. This they will always do gladly and voluntarily if defense is truly needed.3
– Robert LeFevre, “The Nature of Man and His Government”
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash – for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything – without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.
– L. Neil Smith, “Why Did it Have to be … Guns?”
Der Staat hat nicht zu fragen, warum jemand eine Waffe will.
– Simonetta Sommaruga, former Swiss President
I need ammo, not a ride
We will give weapons to anyone who wants to defend the country. Be ready to support Ukraine in the squares of our cities.
A Jew must learn to defend himself. He must forever be prepared for whenever threat looms.
– “Menachem Begin on the Lessons of the Holocaust”, May 1981
“As a German I don’t understand what guns have to do with freedom” – Sidney W.
– “As a Jew, I do.” – David Harsanyi
– “As a Ukrainian, I do.” – Melaniya Podolyak
Zelensky – who is Jewish4 – should have pushed for this much sooner.
We’ve stated this many times, and so have libertarians in Ukraine and elsewhere:
- Stephen P. Halbrook, “Ukraine War Reintroduces U.S. Politicians to the Second Amendment”, The Washington Times, March 29, 2022
-
Jan Krepelka, “Les armes sont dangereuses là où elles sont interdites”, Bilan, July 26, 2006; “Plus jamais ça”, May 11, 2017; and more on “Droit des armes”
Ukraine should have done that much earlier. And it should not be registering the guns:
When Nazi Germany overran France in 1940, Nazi military officials posted notices that all who failed to turn in their firearms within 24 hours would be executed. French police had gun registration records, making it convenient for the Germans to find the “legal” gun owners. But many Frenchmen had not registered their guns and, despite daily reports of executions, hid them. The arms would be used by the Resistance.
I can’t be sure if Mr. Putin’s invaders have been posting similar notices, but now would be a good time for Ukrainian police to burn their gun registration records.
– Stephen P. Halbrook, “Ukraine War Reintroduces U.S. Politicians to the Second Amendment”, The Washington Times, March 29, 2022
More generally, government registration, census, etc, are inherently dangerous:
German officials identified Jews residing in Germany through the normal records created by a modern state. They used census records, tax returns, synagogue membership lists, parish records (for converted Jews), routine but mandatory police registration forms, the questioning of relatives, and from information provided by neighbors and municipal officials.
In territory occupied by Nazi Germany or its Axis partners, Jews were identified largely through Jewish community membership lists, individual identity papers, captured census documents and police records, and local intelligence networks. Germany’s racial laws identified a “Jew” as anyone with three or more Jewish grandparents, regardless of their religious identity or practice. Conversions to Christianity were pronounced illegitimate going back two generations, formalizing and instituting Nazi racial theories.
– “How did the Germans know who was Jewish?”, “About Holocaust”, World Jewish Congress
See: Stephen P. Halbrook, “Registration: The Nazi Paradigm”.
An armed population, with no gun registration, is necessary for at least three reasons:
- Deter an invader by making an invasion more costly;
- Actually fight an invasion, were it to happen regardless;
- Were it to be successful, actively resist occupation.
- Ukraine is getting it now.
- Taiwan is getting it now.
- Poland is getting it now.
- Lithuania is getting it now.
- Czech Republic gets it. (“Občané České republiky mají právo nabývat, držet a nosit zbraně a střelivo k naplňování úkolů uvedených v odstavci 2.”)
Libertarianism is against nuclear terrorism
Anastastia Radina, another member of Ukraine’s parliament, said that Ukraine is looking for “workable security guarantees and not just another Budapest Memorandum.” “Let me just remind you that under the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine destroyed parts of our nuclear arsenal, but quite a bit has been passed to Russia,” Radina said. “Where did that get us? Hearing now that the world can do nothing to Russia because it has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. But we were pushed to contribute to that arsenal.”
– “The US and its allies are weighing security guarantees for Ukraine, but they’re unlikely to give Kyiv what it wants”, April 1st, 2022
Or any kind of terrorism, for that matter.5
Ideally, no State should have nuclear weapons. But especially not Iran, nor (its ally...) Putinist Russia (who only has them because it inherited them from the Soviet Union, who only had them because it stole both the technology and the uranium: the uranium needed to build them was stolen from Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc., the technology to build them was stolen from the US).
No state should ever have had nukes, from a libertarian perspective. We should pause for a moment to consider that: this incredible threat is only possible through the existence of states. In the long run, libertarians should strive to address this huge issue. See our “Transhumanism: the next step of civilization”, section 2.4.1: “Life vs mass murder”. States, especially socialist, totalitarian ones, are pure destruction, of men, of nature. That is the the main danger to mankind.
Given that there are nuclear weapons, we should at least strive to not have them in the hands of terrorist regimes. And no, giving in to nuclear terrorism is not acceptable: negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea. Wrong from a deontological perspective, it is also wrong from a consequentialist one, as it would merely encourage further terrorism. If your philosophy consists of merely obeying the most dangerous criminal, call it what it is: nihilism, cowardice, etc. Not libertarianism.
-
Françoise Thom, “Putin: Flirting With Armageddon”
-
“Qui est Maria Katasonova, la fan N°1 de Marine Le Pen en Russie?”
-
“Russia warns it will deploy nukes near Finland, Sweden if they join NATO”, April 14, 2022
Washington has no more a “right” than Moscow to dictate what kind of missiles or bombers are hosted by Cuba. Yet this is just typical great power politics exercised by all states in the usual fashion.
– “Yes, the US Has Its Own ‘Sphere of Influence.’ And It’s Huge.”
This is certainly an interesting question especially for libertarian theory. What constitutes aggression, at what point does it start, whether it’s your neighbor or neighboring state? One could argue that deliberately stationing nuclear missiles near a border does constitute a threat – depending on the regime that does it.
However it’s disingenuous to equate Russia’s demands to the Cuban missile crisis. Ukraine was nowhere near about to join NATO, let alone have nuclear missiles there (NATO did not station them in any of other recent joiners, either, contrary to the lies spread by Rockwell and others, see above). If it was hosting any foreign army before Russia started annexing its territory, in 2014, it was… Russian (!), not US troops, the Sevastopol Naval Base, leased until… 2042.
Indeed, asking for no nuclear missiles near one’s border could be a reasonable demand. Of course, in exchange, Russia could agree to do the same on its side.
And indeed: “US offered disarmament measures to Russia in exchange for deescalation of military threat in Ukraine”, El Pais, February 2, 2022
Conversely: “Belarus approves hosting nuclear weapons, Russian forces permanently”
Libertarianism is creation, not destruction, life, not death, existence, not void. Libertarianism is a necessity for the prosperity and survival of mankind. Libertarianism recognizes the absolute right to self-defense, both group and individual. Libertarianism is not pacifism6. Libertarianism is, ultimately, about arming individuals while disarming all states, not about giving in to terrorist threats from the worst ones of them. Libertarianism is definitely not submission to might makes right. Libertarianism is the most consistent philosophy of human rights: libertarianism is the only non-nihilism.
continued in “Libertarianism is against aggression (5)”
