71 Comments

I read Hanania, but I don't like him much. While he does have some good analysis, I think he falls into three traps:

1: Reflexive contrarianism. Reversed stupidity is not intelligence, and I think his anti-social-desirability-bias reflex leads him astray as he thinks it is inherently good.

2: Arguing from aesthetics. He states in his latest piece that a lot of his politics is based on “I just hate X, and like Y.” That shouldn't be part of politics! I think the biggest problem we have in the US is we have decided to make many matters of personal preference matters of law, so we have to fight about everything. I wish Hanania would realize that was bad and stop doing it. Additionally, it is a pointless argument to make; if he and I disagree on whether we like something, he isn't going to convince me by saying "I just like this, and you should too" over and over. I have noticed that represents a lot of his argument style when he receives pushback, however.

3: Sloppy thought processes and motivated reasoning. I think this is linked strongly to 1 and 2. He just doesn't apply his own ideas consistently, and can't seem to integrate new arguments or counter points into his thought process. People point out a gap or other issue with his reasoning and he tends not to explain how that fits into his argument, but instead dismisses them.

In short, he presents a lot of the flaws of most pundits and politically driven academics. I still have a free subscription to his Substack, but I don't like him much. He's more like a right wing Freddie de Boer: some interesting points and ideas, but hardly a role model for the modern thinker.

Expand full comment
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022

Importantly, "banish Hanania" is the most idiotic thing here.

I mostly disagree with him about Ukraine, but still am a huge fan.

even if someone is not a fan, shouldn't we all agree that Hanania adds multiple very interesting points to think about?

it's damning evidence of how those lack a minimal appreciation of the value of ideas

Expand full comment

Self defense and initiating violence are different morally. I've always opposed military adventurism, but there's a big difference between invading a country and giving someone weapons to defend themselves. I think the distinction between "rational" violence and "irrational" violence is irrelevant. If someone breaks into your house and is trying to kill you, you don't care at all about their motivations. Maybe they are just trying to kill you and steal your stuff. Maybe they are trying to kill you because of a blog post you made. Morally, it does not matter. You have the right to defend yourself. Ukraine is not trying to annex Russian territory or make any demands whatsoever on the Russian government other than "stop killing us".

You can't appease someone intent on genocide. If all they want is wanton slaughter of someone based on their ethnicity, they simply have to be met with force. To appease them and let them kill all Ukrainians just means in a few years, they'll try to kill all Lithuanians or all Poles, or all.... forever. How many millions would the West have had to let Hitler kill before his bloodlust was sated? There is no number.

Expand full comment

No, Hanania points are not great. They make no sense at all.

The ¨at least until those in favor of being involved have to answer for Iraq, Syria, Libya, and the other disasters that have characterized American foreign policy over the last several decades¨ part is akin to say that the US cannot condemn any genocide in the world ¨until those in favor of being involved have to answer for the extermination of native Americans¨... obviously a total nonsense.

The best world is a world with no foreign interventions, but a world with interventions on Iraq, Syria and Libya, but not in Ukraine is better that a world with interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya AND Ukraine. The fact that some of us make mistakes does not mean that a world where more mistakes are made is a better one.

The artificial pedantic argument about neighbors A and B is another total nonsense. Is akin to say that the US should not have armed and supported European countries fighting WWII, since the US faced no threat from those closest to it and prolonging WWII while ¨watching the two sides killing each other¨

Pure intellectual show off at play.

Expand full comment
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022

You give him more credit than I do. He lost me around 'cultural genocide'. You can make a lot of claims, but requiring schools to teach your national language, laws to be in your national language, and books to be printed in your nation's language isn't cultural genocide.

The Soviets used to do this same thing -ask any older Ukrainian. They would require that books, laws, schooling, and all other public communication be in Russian, and effectively stamped out Ukrainian language -which made sense, as Ukraine was part of the USSR. It wasn't 'cultural genocide' then, and it isn't now: it's just common sense. Is it cultural genocide of Mexican-Americans if we require laws in border towns to be in English, and schools to teach in English? (even if we allow them to have their own Spanish translations, as Ukraine does with Russian) Some whackjobs will say yes, but I say no: it's keeping things consistent and efficient.

Arguing otherwise in the case of Ukraine suggests that you have some severe bias. I don't really care to hear arguments from severely biased people, not when it's on a topic I'm not deeply familiar with, to the point of being able to come to sound conclusions on my own.

Sadly that essay was one of the first things I read by Hanania. Big turn-off.

Expand full comment

Putin believed that the ultimate goal of the US government was to sponsor a color revolution that overthrew him. This assessment seems very plausible.

The situation in Ukraine was also not sustainable for Russia. NATO would have gotten more and more involved with Ukraine over time, including eventual membership. Crimea had no water. The LPR/DPR obviously couldn't hold out forever.

If anything not invading in 2014 was a mistake on Putin's part.

"I fear the answer this time was, “Probably not.”"

Appeasement is unpopular with your friends, so you are against it. If Kiev fell in a day you'd have a different opinion. This is all Overton Window social desirability bias.

Obviously appeasement could have worked. It can still work. It may be the only thing that prevents us all from dying in a nuclear fire.

In our case simply declaring that we will no longer support Ukraine would end the war tomorrow. Without Western assistance there is no war. Ukraine will sue for peace terms and that will be it.

To think this is a bad idea you have to conjure up fantasy scenarios of Putin responding to this by invading Poland next summer. I hope we are grown up enough to realize how ludicrous that idea is.

"We’ll probably avoid nuclear war over Ukraine, but it’s hard to believe that the risk hasn’t multiplied tenfold this year."

Ukraine has no nuclear weapons. The only way we could end up in a nuclear war is if the west starts one.

Many western leaders are calling for war with Russia with the goal of regime change, including our president (who also recently endorsed official military protection of Taiwan). Mitt Romney has an op-ed in the times calling for war with Russia if a nuke is used (how this doesn't turn into a nuclear conflict is pure fantasy). Others are calling for a naval fleet to violently enter the Black Sea and force open trade to Odessa. Ukraine has already attacked territory inside Russia.

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/theyre-just-outright-telling-us-that?s=w

Senator Manchin, who I think is a good stand in for mainstream elite opinion, thinks the war should not end in a treaty. But a total defeat of the Russia army pushing it all the way out of every inch of Ukraine (including Donbass and Crimea) and the overthrow of Putin.

All of this is fun and game "acting tough" until we all die in a nuclear fire.

I'm against Putin's invasion for what its worth (in the sense that I'm against war), but I don't think its irrational. Nor do I think Ukraine's resistance is irrational. I think both sides did bad things to end up where we are (Putin exploiting the Donbass rather then helping it, Ukraine for persecuting its Russian citizens).

But the only irrational actor in this case is the West. Why does it care about Ukraine? Why is it involved? Why is it openly seeking to escalate the conflict? Why is it making regime change in Russia its stated war goal?

None of this shit makes any sense.

The correct western stance on Ukraine should be non-involvement. At most it should operate in the same rule set we did during the many Cold War proxy conflicts.

We remain uninvolved in so many global conflicts. Why did we choose this one to give a shit about?

I don't think there are any good reasons. I think Hanania's reasons (both participants are white, Putin is evil because he doesn't love the gay) are the ones that make sense.

Expand full comment

One reason for the invasion that you don’t address is color revolutions. Putin rationally believed that allowing Ukraine to drift into the Western camp increased the chances of agitation that could eventually bring him down despite his nukes. He also gambled that his near gas monopoly would be enough to keep the West divided. I still think he miscalculated and could have gotten most of what he wanted through threats and negotiations. We’ll see whether his gamble on gas works. I think that chapter has yet to be completed.

Expand full comment
May 26, 2022·edited May 26, 2022

Based on these excerpts, which is all I have read of him, Hanania completely misunderstands and mischaracterizes US foreign policy and his assertion that the US and Russia are morally equivalent is ignorant. Since the end of WW2, the US has been the world's hegemon. In this period, the USSR was defeated and the world has witnessed an unparalleled improvement in life expectancy, living standards, reduction in dire poverty, etc. This is the result of making the world safe for peaceful trade, investment, travel, and so forth. In our role as hegemon we have made many mistakes, as is natural under conditions of great risk and uncertainty. But unlike Putin and numerous other dictators, we have never in this era fought a war of conquest. In the absence of US hegemony, we would not all be sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya, but would be experiencing hegemony by one or more ugly substitutes. This is not an original argument on my part, but is made eloquently Professor Teson here: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=334104065093093122020110075123103123039036077022086085028001091070094019120090110026035041039045052104054115124112079002113105102013037042081114065125115028074108034002005090099064076086088084014127113015084091104075081002107006026070024027103096116&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

Expand full comment

"The “Nazi Ukraine” story is transparently silly."

You know nothing about the conflict.

"I fear the answer this time was, “Probably not.”"

Retarded:

https://eharding.substack.com/p/why-donald-trump-is-primarily-responsible?s=w

"Nuclear weapons aside, Russia’s invasion is now very likely to push Finland and Sweden into NATO."

These countries were already de facto NATO members. It doesn't matter if a country is a de jure member of NATO or not. It does matter a great deal if it is a de facto one.

Also, see the history of SEATO. It expanded early in the Vietnam war, and collapsed when North Vietnam won.

"refuses to even deliver a public ultimatum clearly stating his demands."

'cmon. There were plenty of Russian demands.

"But actually invading Ukraine has greatly multiplied the chance of Putin’s own demise. "

Because....??? His approval rating has spiked.

"Furthermore, once sanctions come on, they almost never come off."

Yeah; that's the point. Putin correctly calculated further sanctions were inevitable regardless of what Russia did (see the Trump admin), and the only way to make the sanctions go away at any future point was to destroy Ukraine as a state.

Expand full comment

Not to justify Russia but the US invaded Iraq because they were suspected of heaving weapons of mass destruction which they never did

Expand full comment

Simple question Bryan.

Do you support the war in Ukraine?

To clarify, current mainstream actions, rhetoric, and likely future actions/outcomes of that policy/rhetoric.

If you were in charge, would you do anything different?

You're an American, so you should be primarily focused on American foreign policy in this case. Let's try to shrink the question down to something reasonable.

If America stops supplying Ukraine with aid/weapons and/or punishing Russia with sanctions, then the war will end very quickly. Ukraine would come to terms quickly if we cut them off.

Endorsing the status quo is essentially pro-war.

Maybe you want to elaborate. "I would cut Ukraine off if they didn't agree to the following terms." That's fine, lay it out. Perhaps something simple like "current front lines become new international borders" or whatever else you want. Keep in mind if they aren't terms Russia could reasonably accept, that is pro-war as well.

I find Russia and Ukraine sane in this war, though particular groups within those countries are insane (and making it hard for the sane people to come to terms).

I don't find the western response sane.

Do you?

Expand full comment

I appreciate you setting things right.

But I agree with your friends that you're way too kind with Hanania here.

Saying things like ...

"I can at least understand why (...) he would not want a neighbor to engage in cultural genocide against his fellow Russians."

or ...

"From the early days of the Syrian Civil War, anyone who knew anything about the region could understand that the only meaningful opposition to the government had always been Islamist."

puts him somewhere between the loony side and the highly negligent side of of DC pundits that is severely lacking in epistemic humility.

Expand full comment
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022

I read the above mentioned Hanania's piece shortly after he posted it and was compelled to write a lengthy comment highlighting why he was wrong in his analysis from a prospective of a Russian speaking Ukrainian whose whole family lived there until the war broke out. I rarely comment on anything I read. Could not agree more with your opinion. Hanania is a great writer and has certainly written some thought provoking pieces in the past, but this particular one was not one of his best, to put it mildly.

Expand full comment

To be clear, I oppose war, which includes the present war between Ukraine and Russia.

From 2014-2022, Russia and Ukraine were in a hot and then cold war. None of the disputed territories had been resolved: Ukraine still claimed Luhansk, Donetsk, and Crimea. Ukraine also never implemented the Minsk Agreement and openly violated it. These are facts.

What would happen to this ongoing conflict if Ukraine joined NATO? (NATO said they wanted Ukraine to join, and Ukraine said it wanted to join.) If Ukraine then invaded Luhansk and Donetsk with its full military--and Russia then sent troops into these regions for their defense--would Russia's action trigger Article 5? If Ukraine sent troops to Crimea--its "territory" as it has always said--and Russia reacts, would this trigger Article 5?

The very fact that these hypotheticals can even be entertained is an absolute failure of diplomacy and negotiation. We never tried appeasement. Rather, we armed the Ukrainians and continued to give all indications that we intended Ukraine to join NATO without resolving/ending the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian cold war. We never moved one inch towards trying to restore the Ukraine-Russia relationship to the pre-2014 antebellum configuration.

Expand full comment

What I've noticed here in Europe (especially here in Italy) is that analysts of any kind who say Putin isn't all that much worse than Western leaders, are also people who claim Putin's Russia is much stronger than it actually is. They really give the impression they fear Putin so much that they won't speak badly of him, even though one other explanation seems more likely: a lot of "geopolitics schools" are - at least here - funded by pro-Kremlin organisations of some kind.

This is not necessarily true of Hanania, of course. Actually, I do not think it is the case. But today I found out he has previously tweeted the following (how ironic):

> US foreign policy has been based on delusions. Here are the fundamentals realities that every analysis must start with

1) Russia has overwhelming military power

2) The west has no political will for extreme sanctions much less war

3) Whatever Russia takes, it’ll never give back

> If you see anyone with a take that ignores any one of these realities, their analysis can be discounted. Sometimes you have to accept that things you don’t want to be true are actually true. Wishful thinking and hot air is how we got here.

Seriously, everybody: please stop saying the West is too weak to confront Russia. You'll end looking more stupid than you are.

Expand full comment

>Russia’s armed forces have always had massive conventional superiority over Ukraine’s.

>Russia’s conventional superiority is stable, because Russia has a far larger population and GDP per capita.

So why isn't Russia winning?

Expand full comment