Where Libertarians Are Wrong: Ukraine

 After Vladimir Putin launched his invasion into Ukraine, the U.S. Libertarian National Committee issued their position on the matter. After providing several paragraphs summarizing past exchanges between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., as well as the run-up to the First Russo-Ukrainian War of 2014, the LNC stated the following:

“. . . A fundamental question must be asked here – are we willing to risk World War III over this conflict in Eastern Europe?

‘It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.’ That was declared by George Washington in his farewell address at the end of a bloody revolution for independence. In his inaugural pledge, Thomas Jefferson opined clearly on foreign policy saying, ‘Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.’” (emphasis in the original)

It then goes on to declare that the U.S. should cut its ties with NATO and concludes with the following statement:

“Our position is clear: non-interventionism is the answer to the Ukrainian crisis, and all future crises, because when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

The LNC’s position, at first glance, appears to be based on the Founding Father’s well known position of non-interventionism and the Monroe Doctrine – positions which, without context, this author believes to be correct.

However, the LNC’s position is wrong when attempting to apply this position to the Second Russo-Ukrainian War (the one currently raging). The fundamental error made is the implication that Russia is neutral towards the U.S. The facts hold otherwise.

It has been well documented, particularly in the “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election” (aka the “Mueller Report”) that the Federal Russian Government engaged in a campaign of propaganda to promote their favored candidates and political party in the U.S. (in particular one Donald J. Trump). It has also been well documented that not only did the Russian government do this, but they also actively hacked into voter registration systems in nearly two dozen states.

This is not a case of a Russian private citizen wishing to promote their political ideology in another country. Rather, this was funded by Russian taxpayers, without their consent, through government-force in a manner to promote Russia’s influence in the world; arguably to install an administration favorable to Putin, which would withdraw the U.S. from NATO, and open the doors to more invasions of former Soviet states, in order for Putin to “re-live” the “glory” days when the U.S.S.R. was an empire.

In addition to violating the rights of their own citizens, such actions by Russia are openly hostile towards the sovereignty of the U.S. and risk violations of the individual rights of U.S. citizens. While there is no evidence that information within voter registration systems were modified, these attacks were exercises so that Russia is prepared, in the future, to attempt to modify the outcome of American elections when they desire, against the will of U.S. voters (e.g., removing twenty to forty thousand of voters from registration databases in heavily Democratic counties in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin in 2020 could have given Trump the election, by denying such voters the right to cast their vote).

Why these facts do not matter to the LNC (and, from my own experience, among libertarians in general) is very telling of their true beliefs. If the roles were switched, and the U.S. had used taxpayer funds to promote any one of Russia’s political parties during their last Presidential election, as well as using the CIA to hack into Russia’s voter registration systems, the LNC would unequivocally condemn such actions as interventionism and an attack on Russia’s “sovereignty.”

This segues into the next fallacy of the LNC’s position, which is the implication that Russia is a “sovereign” nation. The LNC forgets one of the fundamentals of a legitimate government, which is that a government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. When such consent is not obtained; when a body uses its power to abuse the rights of its citizens and prevents them from peacefully choosing those who govern them, it is not a government, but a body of abductors. As such, it has no right to sovereignty whatsoever.

At a bare minimum, to be considered a sovereign country, it must have established four of the basic pillars necessary to allow its citizens to peacefully transfer power from one governing body to another:

• The composition of its legislative body must be directly and freely elected by the country's citizens;

• Political parties with different ideologies must be permitted to exist (so long as such parties are peaceful and do not use violence for political ends);

• No government censorship of the expression of political ideas; and

• An independent judiciary, for objectively enforcing the laws established by the representatives of the country's citizens.

Contrast this with Russia, which fits Ayn Rand’s four characteristics “which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule [Putin’s “United Russia” Party maintains super-majority control of the Duma through sham elections] – executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses [Putin’s political rivals – and sometimes friends – are frequently assassinated] – the nationalization or expropriation of private property [not as bad as during the Soviet era, but one could hardly call modern Russia a bastion of private property rights] – and censorship [e.g., journalists risk jail-time for criticizing the Putin administration].” (The Virtue of Selfishness, ch. 13)

Ukraine, while far from being a perfect country (corruption in the government is legendary), does at least have the four basic pillars for being a sovereign nation. From a moral perspective, when viewing the Second Russo-Ukrainian War, a person who values individual rights cannot conclude anything other than the sovereign rights of the Ukrainian citizens have been grossly violated, by an illegitimate government led by the dictator Putin – especially since Putin’s “justifications” for an invasion are laughable (e.g., NATO has existed for over 70 years and has not once invaded and conquered another country – why the potential for Ukraine to join this mutual defense alliance is suddenly a threat to Russia is beyond reason).

By taking a neutral position on this war, like in morality, the LNC is sanctioning the evil (Putin) and condemning the good (Ukraine), since only the former obtains anything of value by such neutrality (a lack of condemnation). In essence, the LNC’s neutrality favors Putin’s despotic regime over the somewhat free nation of Ukraine.

Such “morally neutral” positions serve to encourage illegitimate governments to continue violating the sovereignty of free nations and the rights of all citizens impacted. Eventually, this includes those of nations who took “morally neutral” positions. These were lessons which should have been learned from World War II, but have apparently been forgotten through the passage of time.

Left uncheck, Putin will invade other countries (we have already seen him do this, after tepid opposition to his invasion of the Republic of Georgia and his first invasion of Ukraine). It would not take long for him to test NATO’s will and invade the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), who are members of NATO. Such an invasion would trigger a nuclear war, even if the U.S. did as the LNC requests and leaves NATO. A nuclear war in Europe will not be contained just to Europe, even if the U.S. did attempt to stay neutral (among other things, nuclear powers like communist China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea would have a precedent to follow), and the LNC’s posited question about starting World War III via supporting Ukraine would seem cute in retrospect.

Between Russia’s attacks against U.S. sovereignty, as well as that of Ukraine, the U.S. is under a moral obligation to the individual rights of its citizens to support Ukraine during this war. While the LNC leans heavily on our Founding Father’s non-interventionist foreign policies for justifying their position, they are ignoring another part of such policies, which are that a country must fight to protect itself:

“These swords are accompanied with an injunction not to unsheathe them for the purpose of shedding blood, except it be for defense, or in the defense of their country and its rights; and in the latter case, to keep them unsheathed, and prefer falling with them in their hands to the relinquishment thereof.” (George Washington; Last Will and Testament, Fitzpatrick 37:288 [1799])

“The lamentable resource of war is not authorized for evils of imagination, but for those actual injuries only which would be more destructive of our well-being than war itself.” (Thomas Jefferson; Bergh 10:249 [1801])

“When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.” (Jefferson; Bergh 11:282 [1807])

It should go without saying that our Founders would never have tolerated the British interfering in U.S. elections (they would not even tolerate the British pressing sailors into the Royal Navy). There is no reason why Americans should tolerate Russia in so doing.

This is not to say that the U.S. and the rest of NATO should declare war and risk a nuclear apocalypse over Russian propaganda and hacking (note the first quote from Jefferson directly above). What it does require, though, is that the U.S. should be morally and financially supporting Ukraine, condemning Russia, and selling military equipment to Ukraine, without sending U.S. soldiers over to be killed (as things now stand).

For the most part, the Biden Administration’s efforts have followed this pattern, though military aid and finances should have been loaned to Ukraine, with generous repayment terms (to Ukraine), rather than given (and such loans could be paid back by any reparations obtained from Russia, which should be obtained from those who initiated this war and not from the Russian citizenry).

The sanctions upon Russia (which is not run by a legitimate government) should be substituted for an enforceable embargo. A full one is not possible or practical, considering China, Iran, and North Korea, but the Russian economy must be devastated to bring this war to as fast and successful of an end as possible. It will require life to become so unbearable that even the police in Russia will rise to overthrow the Putin regime.

Such support from the U.S. should continue until the war has ended. The conditions for that end? From the U.S. perspective, it should be when its sovereignty and the rights of its citizens are secured. This would include Ukraine retaining 100% control over its territory, as it existed at the onset of the First Russo-Ukrainian War. Also, that Putin be removed from office (while not a 100% guarantee, it will do much to ensure Ukraine’s sovereignty in the future), that Ukraine be allowed to join the EU and NATO (if it wishes), and that reparations be paid to cover the destruction caused by Russia (again, only to be taken from Russian leadership).

While these conditions are definitely those which should be sought by Ukraine, they also coincide with America’s interests, as such conditions would deter both Russia and any other country from attempting these types of actions again. Removing Putin and (hopefully) causing a complete reformation of Russia’s government (which favors the individual rights of its citizens) will also help to ensure that Russia does not meddle into U.S. elections ever again.

Most importantly, for libertarians, a free Russia would also remove the last remaining necessity for America’s involvement in NATO, leaving our country free to leave the alliance without negative repercussions.

Note: While this article is directed towards libertarians, it could just as easily been applied to the alt-right of the Republican Party, as represented by Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Matt Gaetz, the Trumps, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and others. However, unlike the alt-right, libertarians are honest in applying political principles and are not seeking power for the sake of power, thus they are a more worthy opponent to critique.