10 ms·

I didn't expect anything from Chomsky (notorious Khmer Rogue apologist) and he didn't disappoint: >“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguo

I didn't expect anything from Chomsky (notorious Khmer Rogue apologist) and he didn't disappoint: >“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.” No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.

spurgu 5y ago
What? Unless I give it to you in written, my word accounts for nothing?
TaupeRanger 5y ago
You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand. Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
    - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
      That is a different question.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- qsort 5y ago
  It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest. Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    > NATO is a defensive alliance Like bombing Libya? (there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
  - causi 5y ago
    Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
    - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
      Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie. NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
      - scotty79 5y ago
        No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade. NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
        DaltonCoffee 5y ago
        How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again? It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Baker doesn't set NATO policy for all time.
- _ZeD_ 5y ago
  But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO
  - axiomsEnd 5y ago
    From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
    - qsort 5y ago
      Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
      - axiomsEnd 5y ago
        I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    >>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge apologist. It's a well documented fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
- timeon 5y ago
  Anyway it is not Russia's business where sovereign countries are going to do outside of Russia's borders.
  - CapricornNoble 5y ago
    I think the entire point of the past ~6 weeks has been to demonstrate that such a sentiment is clearly false. Something the world forgot after the US demonstrated it in 2001...and again in 2003.....and again in 2011 (Libya, after taking over from France's lead). Next we'll be waiting for the Chinese to remind everyone, probably 2025-2030 (after they finish taking notes on Russia's experience and incorporating lessons learned).
  - yucky 5y ago
    This is naïve. If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"? We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.
- tptacek 5y ago
  I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so. https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o... This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another. He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now. At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face. Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic. It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon. Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    > he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
    - kasey_junk 5y ago
      That’s a highly contended assertion. We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea. There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
    - 5y ago
- legohead 5y ago
  If there's nothing written down, there's nothing. The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
- BuckRogers 5y ago
  So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation. This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it. Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened. Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.
speeder 5y ago
Is this site pro-russian propaganda one? (I am not familiar with it, I found it by googling your text) https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
- MrMan 5y ago
  yes HN is rife with Russian propaganda, and has been for years.
spupe 5y ago
The issue is not as straightforward as you describe. The promise was made and several actors confirm it [1]. That it was not put in a treaty does not contradict what Chomsky said. NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
- mc32 5y ago
  Unfortunately these episodes of history currently sit in the crossfire of propaganda from both sides, some will claim it's current Russian propaganda to minimize its significance and the Russians will claim this is an outsized broken promise that excuses their behavior. The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.
  - spupe 5y ago
    Exactly. It bothers me immensely that we cannot have an adult conversation about topics such as these, because people who only have a superficial understanding try to pick a certain phrase or argument as proof that you are on "the other side". It's actually part of the problem of why we cannot have reasonable public opinion a the moment, as journalists and intellectuals have also adopted this way of thinking.
  - nkingsy 5y ago
    I was very confused why Russia felt the need to meddle in US politics reading coverage of 2016. If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle. Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time. Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.
nimbius 5y ago
Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved. History remembers a broken promise differently... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  > Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities. As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too. Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  And yet, nearly 2 years later, at the end of '91, Yeltsin said the long-term goal of Russia was to join NATO[1]. And they were slowly moving in that direction through the aughts. If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error. The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
dmead 5y ago
Can you source the khmer rouge accusation? that sounds wrong.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom... TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
  - dmead 5y ago
    ah thanks. im not super surprised that he didn't admit when he was wrong... just disappointed.
purple50 5y ago
slicedsalamist 5y ago
> but it was never written down in any treaty Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us... - For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics) At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items) There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both. Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
- kaba0 5y ago
  That’s an absolutely meaningless story/analogue when it comes to international treaties. As mentioned, they were not between two parties who would even have a “right” to enforce it (it’s like your friend offered a house he didn’t even owned), and it simply doesn’t work like that at this scale. Is “make America great again” a binding offer?
- 6thaccount 5y ago
goto11 5y ago
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made. On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
- jacobsievers 5y ago
  The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit. Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not. Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
ogogmad 5y ago
The promise was made with the USSR, and not the Russian Federation. The former was a much bigger country than the latter, and Ukraine was a part of it just like Russia. I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus. >>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy. When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
323 5y ago
No written promise was made, but there were verbal promises. > Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
incomingpain 5y ago
>No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it. Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it. I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic. If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none. If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Breaking the Budapest memorandum was far more dangerous, now everyone knows that you need nukes to not be attacked.
VictorPath 5y ago
> notorious Khmer Rogue apologist After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed. So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government? > No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward". So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
> No such promise was made, ever This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links: https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/ https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/
whatshisface 5y ago
>notorious Khmer Rogue apologist I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons: 1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense. 2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent. His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:" > As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
- tptacek 5y ago
  He rolled back his factual claims long after more evidence came in, and to this day hasn't acknowledged the misinformation he spread about the Khmers. It was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, and his role in it was to sow doubt about it in the West. I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    I think his reluctance is best understood as that of a proud man slow to admit he was wrong rather than that of someone trying to improve the posthumous image of Pol Pot in the west.

spurgu 5y ago

What? Unless I give it to you in written, my word accounts for nothing?

TaupeRanger 5y ago

You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand. Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    That is a different question.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
qsort 5y ago
It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest. Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > NATO is a defensive alliance Like bombing Libya? (there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
- causi 5y ago
  Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
  - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
    Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie. NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
    - scotty79 5y ago
      No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade. NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
      - DaltonCoffee 5y ago
        How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again? It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 5y ago
Baker doesn't set NATO policy for all time.
_ZeD_ 5y ago
But do this promise makes sense? NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it. No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO
- axiomsEnd 5y ago
  From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
  - qsort 5y ago
    Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
    - axiomsEnd 5y ago
      I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake. What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal. And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
cuteboy19 5y ago
Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge apologist. It's a well documented fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
timeon 5y ago
Anyway it is not Russia's business where sovereign countries are going to do outside of Russia's borders.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  I think the entire point of the past ~6 weeks has been to demonstrate that such a sentiment is clearly false. Something the world forgot after the US demonstrated it in 2001...and again in 2003.....and again in 2011 (Libya, after taking over from France's lead). Next we'll be waiting for the Chinese to remind everyone, probably 2025-2030 (after they finish taking notes on Russia's experience and incorporating lessons learned).
- yucky 5y ago
  This is naïve. If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"? We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.
tptacek 5y ago
I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so. https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/chombookrev.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o... This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
- scotty79 5y ago
  I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another. He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now. At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face. Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic. It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon. Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  > he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
  - kasey_junk 5y ago
    That’s a highly contended assertion. We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea. There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
  - 5y ago
legohead 5y ago
If there's nothing written down, there's nothing. The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
BuckRogers 5y ago
So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation. This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it. Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened. Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.

speeder 5y ago

Is this site pro-russian propaganda one? (I am not familiar with it, I found it by googling your text) https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...

MrMan 5y ago
yes HN is rife with Russian propaganda, and has been for years.

spupe 5y ago

The issue is not as straightforward as you describe. The promise was made and several actors confirm it [1]. That it was not put in a treaty does not contradict what Chomsky said. NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...

mc32 5y ago
Unfortunately these episodes of history currently sit in the crossfire of propaganda from both sides, some will claim it's current Russian propaganda to minimize its significance and the Russians will claim this is an outsized broken promise that excuses their behavior. The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.
- spupe 5y ago
  Exactly. It bothers me immensely that we cannot have an adult conversation about topics such as these, because people who only have a superficial understanding try to pick a certain phrase or argument as proof that you are on "the other side". It's actually part of the problem of why we cannot have reasonable public opinion a the moment, as journalists and intellectuals have also adopted this way of thinking.
- nkingsy 5y ago
  I was very confused why Russia felt the need to meddle in US politics reading coverage of 2016. If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle. Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time. Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.

nimbius 5y ago

Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved. History remembers a broken promise differently... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
> Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities. As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too. Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
spamizbad 5y ago
And yet, nearly 2 years later, at the end of '91, Yeltsin said the long-term goal of Russia was to join NATO[1]. And they were slowly moving in that direction through the aughts. If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error. The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...

dmead 5y ago

Can you source the khmer rouge accusation? that sounds wrong.

cuteboy19 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom... TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
- dmead 5y ago
  ah thanks. im not super surprised that he didn't admit when he was wrong... just disappointed.

purple50 5y ago

slicedsalamist 5y ago

> but it was never written down in any treaty Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us... - For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics) At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items) There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both. Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.

kaba0 5y ago
That’s an absolutely meaningless story/analogue when it comes to international treaties. As mentioned, they were not between two parties who would even have a “right” to enforce it (it’s like your friend offered a house he didn’t even owned), and it simply doesn’t work like that at this scale. Is “make America great again” a binding offer?
6thaccount 5y ago

goto11 5y ago

> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made. On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.

jacobsievers 5y ago
The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit. Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not. Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...

ogogmad 5y ago

The promise was made with the USSR, and not the Russian Federation. The former was a much bigger country than the latter, and Ukraine was a part of it just like Russia. I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus. >>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy. When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).

323 5y ago

No written promise was made, but there were verbal promises. > Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...

incomingpain 5y ago

>No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it. Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it. I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic. If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none. If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Breaking the Budapest memorandum was far more dangerous, now everyone knows that you need nukes to not be attacked.

VictorPath 5y ago

> notorious Khmer Rogue apologist After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed. So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government? > No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward". So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.

MrBuddyCasino 5y ago

> No such promise was made, ever This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links: https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/ https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/

whatshisface 5y ago

>notorious Khmer Rogue apologist I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons: 1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense. 2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent. His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:" > As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial

tptacek 5y ago
He rolled back his factual claims long after more evidence came in, and to this day hasn't acknowledged the misinformation he spread about the Khmers. It was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, and his role in it was to sow doubt about it in the West. I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I think his reluctance is best understood as that of a proud man slow to admit he was wrong rather than that of someone trying to improve the posthumous image of Pol Pot in the west.