Contra Glenn on Ukraine

And... the rest of the world too

1.

There’s a Pompous And Weirdly Pseudonymous Substacker I like who calls himself

Glenn

. He’s gay, runs fast and far, has really great insights into Jeff Tiedrich and the history of libertarianism, and also lots of really awful insights into geopolitics.

Now, I should note—he’s a sort-of real academic in international relations, and I’m a dumbass high schooler who takes a Global Politics class. Also, the one time I was brave enough to comment about my disagreement with one of his posts, I pretty much got smoked (thread).

So I’m out of my depth in many ways!

But after the disgusting spectacle in the Oval Office last Friday afternoon, Glenn came out with such a stupendously shitty take that I can’t help but try to respond. His note, posted on Sunday, read:

Apparently it’s a moral duty to “help the Ukrainians fight.” Even if you prolong the war and get more of them killed, it’s “pro-Ukrainian” because that’s what they want to do.

How many of the Ukrainians who are fighting actually signed up for it? Thousands are deserting every month. Somewhere around half the population wants to negotiate instead of fight. If the government didn’t have conscription, they wouldn’t have a military. (And that’s to say nothing of the civilians. How many of them signed up to die?)

There is a Ukrainian state and there are Ukrainian people. I find it very odd that the putatively “liberal,” “pro-democracy,” “anti-fascist” position is to regard the state’s interests as superior.

---

2.

Glenn is mostly a pretty run-of-the-mill libertarian Caplanite pacifist. He thinks war is bad and almost never justified.

And he also thinks that the US is way too eager to fight. So eager, in fact, that we tend to invent excuses for going to war. This is his primary theory for our involvement in the Iraq War—not mistaken intelligence or national anger over 9/11, but national pride. National self-esteem.

America Goes to War for Its Self-Esteem

Glenn also strongly believes that China, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea are mostly rational actors, and we shouldn’t be terribly worried about a new Cold War or the Iranian nuclear program. In short, he objects to narratives proposed by the likes of

Noah Smith

that talk about a fundamental struggle between American and European forces and the “New Axis” of China, Russia, and Iran.

He adopts something near to the view of Russian propagandists (and John Mearsheimer, who maybe isn’t one) in explaining the invasion of Ukraine: Putin was simply worried about NATO influence! And has no intentions to go any further, even if we let him! And also doesn’t have enough troops to! And also has no domestic incentive to want to, because “Putin has actually maintained his legitimacy in Russia by cultivating a reputation as a restrainer toward the West.”

He argues further that “With the exception of the status quo in Taiwan, China is largely satisfied with the international order and supports most of the post-1945 international norms and institutions.”¹

Japan, South Korea, and Poland Don't Need Nukes

And on Iran? Glenn thinks they’re “pretty clearly a rational actor that's not hell-bent on nukes and can be negotiated with.”

To summarize pretty uncharitably: Glenn believes that American foreign policy is shaped primarily by brutish ignorance and bravado, and that our adversaries are generally rational actors who just want to be included in the international system, and also we’re all so racist for pretending that’s not the case.

I’m not prepared to fight every object-level point he’s made, but will say: this seems pretty silly! Why would we expect the worst intentions of ourselves and the best of our enemies? I think this attitude probably causes Glenn to weigh all the evidence very selectively—looking only for the evils of American foreign policy, and for the redeeming features of the New Axis.²

---

3.

This is the lens through which Glenn views the Russia-Ukraine War. America and Europe and NATO are aggressively brandishing their massive guns, encouraging Ukraine to keep fighting, while the Russians innocently defend themselves from the schoolyard bullies of the international order.

And that’s why he’ll say things like:

Apparently it’s a moral duty to “help the Ukrainians fight.” Even if you prolong the war and get more of them killed, it’s “pro-Ukrainian” because that’s what they want to do.

Glenn is operating on the assumption that the primary motivation for American hawks is “we want to beat up on the bad guys,” and that any other spoken justification is simply a facade.

He gives little credence to ideas like “it’s bad for the international order when we let Russia take Ukraine’s land,” but somehow maintains credence in the belief that American “‘neoimperial’ foreign policy would undermine the basic sovereignty norms and multilateral institutions that had helped maintain the groundwork for international peace and prosperity.”

On the view that the Iraq War undermined international peace and prosperity, would Glenn have pressed a button that gave the Iraqi government lots of money and manpower to the point that the American invasion would’ve been rebuffed?

Of course, the analogy isn’t perfect—instead of a widely-unpopular, rogue dictator, Ukraine is governed by a democratically-elected president that would love nothing more than to integrate deeply into our international institutions and agreements.

Ah, but Glenn objects!

How many of the Ukrainians who are fighting actually signed up for it? Thousands are deserting every month. Somewhere around half the population wants to negotiate instead of fight. If the government didn’t have conscription, they wouldn’t have a military. (And that’s to say nothing of the civilians. How many of them signed up to die?)

Well, this point is firmly founded in his libertarian pacifism. Glenn dislikes the draft and he dislikes harm done to non-combatant civilians.

In essence, Glenn is claiming that the Ukrainian state isn’t actually free enough to be worth saving. Its strong central government, with draconian measures that force men into military service, is a blight!

So… what? What does Glenn want us to do here?

As unfortunately statist as the Ukrainian draft is, it’s a necessary evil! Glenn isn’t thinking about his philosophy modally—what would happen if Ukraine didn’t institute a very-draconian-and-statist draft? Well, they’d lose the war! To Putin’s Russia! Not an extremely free place.

Probably Ukraine would become much less free. And, perhaps more importantly, Putin’s authoritarianism would be proven right. It would look to the world like restricting your citizens’ freedoms is a really great way to expand your territory and riches and influence.

What happens then? Do we have a freer world?

Finally, Glenn gets a little petty:

There is a Ukrainian state and there are Ukrainian people. I find it very odd that the putatively “liberal,” “pro-democracy,” “anti-fascist” position is to regard the state’s interests as superior.

A few things—”the people” will not always act in their own best interest. Especially not in cases with as clear a coordination problem as fighting a war! This is the one thing government is supposed to do—to align citizens to an important common goal (defending their country) even though each individual citizen is incentivized to defect (desert or flee).

If the government wasn’t doing this alignment, sure, some Ukranian people would be better off. They’d make it out in one piece, live in a Polish refugee camp for a while, and eventually gain asylum somewhere.

But a lot more of them would be much worse off. Living under Putin’s thumb.

And we don’t only have the Ukrainian people to think about! We have all the people of the world—Russians, Lithuanians, Poles, and so on. Again, if you let Russia win this war, lots more people will suffer!

The Russian regime will be strengthened if we stop defending the Ukrainians. The Russian sphere of influence will be strengthened if we stop defending the Ukrainians. And the Russians will be much less averse to invading other countries that Putin considers “an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space.”

---

4.

Ok, one more problem I have with Glenn’s response.

It’s just so fucking callous.

Doesn’t he feel at all sorry for President Zelensky?

I mean, this guy was dragged in front of national media, first berated for his military attire—meant to show solidarity with his soldiers—by some hapless Trump-sycophant journalist, and then forced to sit through ten minutes of insults and cruelty from the most powerful man on Earth.

Set aside the war for a moment—this was entirely disgraceful in its own right.

Richard Hanania

thinks Zelensky was asking for it in the earlier parts of the meeting:

In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump asked a question, it was always “we'll see.” Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that Russians were the invaders.

I’m willing to admit that Zelensky played his cards somewhat porly. He could’ve been more cooperative, could’ve put up with more of Trump’s bullshit.

But the truth is this: the brave, heroic President of Ukraine was forced to sit through 40 minutes of criticism and “fair” negotiation from the live-action turd we elected. A turd who’s repeatedly and unequivocally expressed his affinity for the brutal dictator who invaded Zelensky’s homeland and began slaughtering his countrymen.

And as soon as Zelensky showed any sign of irritation, our duly elected President and Vice President pounced on him savagely. How shameful, how embarrassing.

Also! He is hot. Let’s all be very honest and forthcoming and admit it.

---

Lukethoughts

(Lucas is returning from his wild Spring Break adventure! But I guess he used up all the wild, because, uh, his thoughts are just kinda lame today. Sorry.)

• “I’m back in Michigan! Didn’t miss my flight this time.” (Ed. note: Wow! We’re all so proud.)

• “I have this superpower of being able to sleep ANYWHERE at ANYTIME no matter how rested or uncomfortable I am.” (Ed. note: That’s pretty impressive, I’m the opposite way. I sleep only under very certain conditions.)

• “I was made for Michigan weather, Miami was too much heat for me.” (Ed. note: I sympathize, very much. It’s March! The temperature should not be above 50 degrees.)

1. It’s beyond the scope of this piece, but I think this objection sort of misses the point—international norms and institutions are controlled by the UN, which counts each state’s vote equally. Meaning that China, with all of its little Belt-and-Road minions, can pretty easily warp those norms to satisfy its existing priorities. And the US and her allies will be left totally high and dry.

That’s why the Chinese adopt international frameworks “often with more consistency than the United States”—because the frameworks are increasingly shaped around their interests! In fact, this is why Smith argues a second Cold War is impending—the Chinese power bloc is growing, and its interests are misaligned with ours.

And! China’s objection to the status quo in Taiwan is kind of a huge fucking deal. In the age of AI, control of TSMC might become extremely valuable. China’s continued denial of Taiwanese independence is a clear and present threat to some of the most important US interests.

2. Ok, let me go object-level a little bit.

When Putin invaded Ukraine, he called it “an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space.” That’s obviously imperialist rhetoric that could very easily extend to the Baltic States, or even Poland.

See note 1 for China discussion.

And Iran is full of lots of crazy political forces that could absolutely act irrationally and hawkishly and pro-nuclear-ly. For example, the second-largest party in parliament (and one with heavy influence in the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps), the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, were described as “Shia supremacists who oppose any kind of compromise with anyone inside or outside Iran.”

Why does Glenn ignore evidence like this? Because he wants very badly to squeeze the international order into his tidy model of “America crazy, enemies rational.”