15 ms·
Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and Other Intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine War
- sudden_dystopia 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoI am very disappointed by many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue. They have an instinctual gut reaction against NATO and western imperialism, and this has led them to lazy thinking in regards to the situation in Ukraine. I saw similar things around the situation in Kosovo over 20 years ago. It's sloppy thinking. NATO is not a singular person or one monolithic entity, and I am saddened by the black & white quasi-religious thinking which seems to not see the complexities and contradictions here. The people of Ukraine need to be defended from the vicious authoritarian gangsterist government that holds power in Russia. No amount of whataboutism and pseudo-pacifist handwringing will change that. Western leftists need to listen to what Ukrainian socialists are saying, instead of yammering about in a purist echo chamber. My definition of socialism is of a worldview that stands on the side of the oppressed. To me, this is a litmus test that some people on the "left" have failed. Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis.
- sedeki 4y ago> many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue What do you mean by "travelers" in this context?
- bad416f1f5a2 4y ago“Fellow travelers” in this context is an old American term for socialists/communists who may or may not be a member of a socialist/communist party.
- sedeki 4y agoInteresting, OK! I've never heard "traveler" take on that meaning before. I was assuming the poster spoke of Romani people (or "gypsies", but this is a racial slur) and it was clearly out of context.
- sam_lowry_ 4y agoEr... digital nomads?
- gaaaaaaaarf 4y agoI read it as stating that one can travel through opinions, ie politics are a spectrum.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoIt's a common expression in English? People who metaphorically "journey" together.
- sedeki 4y agoOK, I had no idea about that. I thought you spoke of Romani people, or travelers!
- urgentcomment 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- JKCalhoun 4y agoThe only way I can imagine someone on the "left" having a reaction against NATO and Western imperialism (your term) is if they have an ax to grind ... probably more with regard to Western imperialism than NATO? (Probably with specific regard to the U.S. and Iraq.) This goes for Chomsky as well.
- caret 4y agoIt is possible that they have read enough about NATO’s formation, its murky history, and have a good idea about its function. That is, if by left, you mean socialists rather than liberals.
- guerrilla 4y agoYou mean an ax to grind against all of the atrocities they've committed[1]? I'm not sure what you're saying... 1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
- verdverm 4y agoI've been collecting interviews and discussions of intellectuals who seem, to me, thinking about this deeper and better. https://verdverm.com/ukraine https://verdverm.com/ukraine The playlist is more up to date
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zosima 4y agoI think maybe you have somewhat idealized conception of the state of Ukraine before the invasion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine Both Ukraine and Russia have been dominated by a set of oligarchs since the fall of the Soviet Union, who have amassed an extreme amount of wealth and therefore, because of weak laws and bribery, control their respective countries to an extreme degree. I don't see why anyone on the left, should prefer one of the sets of oligarchs to the other.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago... I have no such "idealized conception." Jeez, it's almost like one could be opposed to both autocracies and still support resistance against the Russian state. Like the actual left (or what's left of it) in Ukraine (and Russia) are. A good resource is https://lefteast.org/ https://lefteast.org/
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoSince the crippling of unions and the deregulation of many economic sectors under Reagan, now ossified by the Citizens United decision, I could replace "Ukraine and Russia" with "Democrats and Republicans" and say (almost) exactly the same words about the US.
- zarzavat 4y agoPeople on the left should stand up for the people getting their homes bombed. It shouldn’t matter if it is America bombing Afghans or Russia bombing Ukrainians. Unfortunately some people will only stand up for one or the other.
- thatjoeoverthr 4y agoAll of that is true. The problem is that both sets of oligarchs are currently fine; Russia is attacking everyone -else- in Ukraine. I know people personally who are displaced. There are refugees in what used to be my personal office. The Russian oligarchs are doing this unilaterally, and can stop any time. The west is sending only gadgets, not men, and regular Ukrainians are fighting the fight. (They too can stop any time, but it’s their country.) While I recognize why Russians are upset, they could have handled this better.
- codeflo 4y agoI feel you, I just don’t think it’s limited to this one issue. I too strongly identify with most, perhaps all of the left’s causes: universal human rights, fighting world poverty, peace, protecting the climate. The only problem is, the amount of intellectual laziness displayed by some of the louder advocates of that side political spectrum annoys me beyond belief. For those people, policies seem to be accepted or rejected purely on gut feel and symbolics, not honest analysis of the consequences or even whether they would actually help achieve the purported goal. I can’t be the only one who feels that way, so if there’s an organized “rational left” movement somewhere, please sign me up.
- h2odragon 4y ago> if there’s an organized “rational left” movement They call those people "radical right wing extremists" and "Nazis" You'll have to get out of the "left" far enough to see the rest of the spectrum first. That's hard right now.
- codeflo 4y agoI’m not sure what you’re suggesting here, but there’s no way to confuse the side of the political spectrum that actually cares about all human suffering with the one that cynically doesn’t.
- h2odragon 4y agoI am suggesting that the political spectrum is not just "the left, which cares about human suffering," and "the right, which does not". Or maybe I'm just nuts and there's no one else that thinks individuals should have agency to decide whether they're suffering or how that suffering should be alleviated.
- guerrilla 4y agoThis is just question begging. You're assuming that they don't, which is false.
- 4y ago
- thot_experiment 4y agoThe breadth of bad takes about the situation is absolutely incredible. I'm currently on the ground in eastern europe, I speak a slavic language natively and can communicate okay in a few others. Even in countries with a vivid memory of soviet occupation there are vocal supporters of broad concessions to russian aggression and even people who outright believe in russian propaganda. Several of my friends are housing Ukrainian refugees and are afraid to make it publicly known. A friend of mine was debating removing the Ukrainian flag on her profile for fear it would result in her children being bullied in school. It's fucking wild. THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE OCCUPYING YOU A COUPLE DECADES AGO, IT WAS NOT A GOOD TIME, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THIS?!?!?! fwiw I would say the plurality of people are in support of Ukraine but I never imagined there would so much visible support for russia, or even concessions to russian aggression. It's very disheartening to see any question about the validity of Ukrainian sovereignty.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoIt is very disheartening, indeed. I fear also that the almost universal emotional support that the Ukrainian people had from the average westerner is going to chip away as the actual cost of the war continues, and as the Russian propaganda machine keeps pumping. What happens after the US midterms in the fall? What happens when gas prices continue to be high? JFC being implicitly in favour of a powerful military occupying and bombing its weaker neighbour is not an edgy or contrarian or clever position. It's ethical bankruptcy.
- thriftwy 4y agoThe "FUCKING" ukrainians were "OCCUPYING" them to the same degree as russians, since they were both a part of Soviet Union.
- dantyti 4y agoThis comment is delusional and in no way represents the history of the Soviet Union, nor the sentiment towards Ukrainians in post-soviet countries.
- 4y ago
- spaetzleesser 4y ago"I am very disappointed by many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue. " Me too. I am also very disappointed about their reactions to other issues too. Seems a lot of people on the left like to philosophize about issues but don't really like to acknowledge real world issues. I saw this when the rioting after the George Floyd went on. A lot of people refused to even think that maybe burning down shops is not a good response to racism. Instead they just kept on talking about systemic racism while ignoring the riots. And now the response to Ukraine is often "Why do these Ukrainians make so much trouble? They should stop the killing and give up. They are losing anyway. We are pacifists, we don't like war". I agree that there may have been ways to deal with the situation better before the war but there is simply no excuse for Russia to attack the country and bomb cities. If somebody has responsibility to stop this, it's clearly Russia and nobody else.
- JanisErdmanis 4y ago> Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis. Mr. Varoufakis definitely has excellent rhetoric skills, but many of his and his comrades positions and emphasis on resolving Ukrainian conflict would put put Ukraine on a plate for Putin. Makes me wonder what arrangements Mr. Varoufakis had made with Putin regime. Perhaps apparachik does his analysis and writes books for him in exchange. Maybe popularity pumped up with bots in views, sales, invitations. Or an arrangement which protects the ground of democratic elections in Bolivia, Chile and others against a coup orchestrated by US. All these things seem possible as the left never in history have been weaker to challenge those who have. And the prospects with Ukrainian war looks even more grimmer. And all of that because of a man who learned that wealth does not bring happiness.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoThis is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. Look for signs of denying Ukrainians agency over their country's future and 19-th century law of the jungle logic (wait what happened to high minded ideals like decolonization and self-determination? Do those only apply when the West is/was in the wrong?).
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago100% agree. Like I said below, it's a litmus test of who is truly on the side of the oppressed. There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.
- guerrilla 4y ago> Stalinist Chomsky is literally an anarchist who opposes the existence of all states.
- testbjjl 4y ago> This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.
- kspacewalk2 4y agoOoh, "to the last Ukrainian", man what a zinger, har har. It can't be that Ukrainians are begging to be sent weapons to defend themselves from literal genocide and the US is the good guy in the story. That would just blow up Chomsky's Formula For All Global Affairs: US Bad. And since US cannot be good by definition, Ukrainians should just accept their country, language and culture being erased, like don't they know something something spheres of influence and some guy promised no NATO enlargement (actually not, but don't look into that because remember, US Bad).
- gtsop 4y agoOnly pattern #5 had some merrit. There is no excuse for invading anywhere, period. Other than that, this article is an elegant, technically more detailed version of the US based propaganda around the war. US/NATO/EU and Russia are just doing business uppon the deaths of ukrainians. Russia is clearly the most responsible for this, however, please, don't insult our intelligence by speaking of "democartic values" of the "free west". The west camp is equally rotten, it just has some nice make up on it's face and the only reason they are supporting ukraine is to make money, pretending they care for the devastated ukrainian people. They did not start the fire, but they are dumping tons of gas on it, because they benefit.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoRidiculously schematic thinking. Have you considered that "the west" might be composed of more than one train of thought and motive? Who is this "they" doing the pretending here? Very black & white, binary thinking.
- gtsop 4y ago
- inglor_cz 4y ago"The west camp is equally rotten" I don't think you realize the depth of the cleptocracy that is Russia. There is a reason why all the nations from behind the former Iron Curtain would rather fight to the death than end up under their control again. Of all the bloody, miserable empires of the world, the Russian one is the most dysfunctional and has been so for centuries. It is a historical outlier, a poor and underdeveloped nation conquering its richer and more developed neighbors to the west by sheer brute force. Hopefully it seems that the recipe no longer works.
- gtsop 4y agoLet's agree your description of Russia is right. Does that mean we have to lower the barrier of what "rotten" means to us? Is Russia more rotten than the major western players? Ok let's agree on that too. So i should change the wording "equally rotten" to "also rotten". Still rotten as to my standards and still hypocrites.
- ordu 4y agoI'm surprised. I didn't read or hear what Noam Chomsky says, but judging by his points brought up by the article, he is just repeating Putin's propaganda. He even uses their methods of changing topic from an uncomfortable one to a "US is no better then Russia". I'm surprised, because I thought that Chomsky was mostly intelligent person. I've heard that he had very strange political views, but to just repeat Putin seems to manifest his lack of an ability to think for himself.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoWhat I've seen from Chomsky so far didn't actually seem to really reflect what I saw in this letter. He was mainly doing what Chomsky always does which is point out the crimes and hypocrisies of various western governments. But he's always been fairly consistently against authoritarian governments and dictators. I'll have to go digging to see exactly what this letter is responding to. Some other western leftists do sound like this, though. Yanis Varoufakis did an annoying interview for example.
- marcodiego 4y ago> Some other western leftists do sound like this Even Lula said something similar on a Time interview recently. Brazil is very dependent on Russia's fertilizers and is a big (biggest?) food exporter. Brazilian politicians have been very careful to condemn the war while being light on Putin or the result could mean a significant rise on the price of food and even famine.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoRight what we see is a kind of world of (at least) bipolar competing imperialisms, of which the "Russian" side (roughly speaking) is less powerful but attempting to assert itself. Sergei Lavrov has tried to carve out an ideological space in which this sphere around Russia has inherited some sort of anti-colonialist sheen. But in large part it is frankly worse than "the west" in almost all respects. Lavrov talks like an anti-imperialist while actually basically being the Mouth of Sauron. The talking face of a failing autocratic petro-state.
- debacle 4y ago
- sebzim4500 4y agoWeird how the US has taken no casualties. Clearly their military is even stronger than we thought.
- juanani 4y agoStronger seems to mean afraid in this case. RF are taking care of business. Americans dont have any on the ground tactics, in this case, they are taking notes how to fight.
- HKH2 4y agoThe US stockpile of Javelins and Stingers has definitely taken a hit.
- ttybird2 4y agoIn the Azerbaijan - Armenian conflict Turkey did not take any causalities either.
- eutropia 4y agoI was really hoping Chomsky would offer a point of view less firmly entrenched in the politics of 20th century economic imperialism, because he’s normally very insightful. But it does seem like in his own way he adopted a belief in American supremacy. The US is powerful, and unprecedentedly so (especially throughout the 90s), but they don’t control all world politics.
- jillesvangurp 4y agoArticles like this are kind of the point of this war: people exchanging views in a respectful ways in written form is a freedom we have that is currently denied to many Russians and that Ukrainians are fighting to preserve in their own country, which has been invaded. IMHO the reason Chomsky's views are disappointing is that he in effect picks the oppression of Ukrainians by Russians as a lesser evil compared to them fighting for their freedom. War is ugly and Chomsky is of course a life long pacifist. So that isn't a surprising point of view. But you'd hope he'd value his own freedoms a bit higher. To deny that freedom to others is the bit that disappoints.
- yesenadam 4y ago> Chomsky is of course a life long pacifist I was surprised to read this, and indeed a quick google of "is chomsky a pacifist" returned many examples of Chomsky saying and writing that he's not a pacifist.
- jaunty_chapeau 4y ago
- the_biot 4y agoActually, his grand linguistic theory (universal grammar) has been comprehensively disproven. So I'm not so sure he's regarded as an excellent linguist anymore. Though I suspect he hasn't changed his mind about it. Evidence and logic are not really his thing, are they?
- ttybird2 4y ago"they appear to be just as dogmatic and just as monstrous as the fascists." I can't understand this claim. Fascists are dogmatic because they are unwilling to even listen and attempt to oppress opposing viewpoints. They are monstrous because they use violence and threats to eliminate whoever they consider as undesirable or as an opponent. Which of the two did Chomsky do? "frankies" What does that mean?
- jaunty_chapeau 4y agoDogmatic for adherence to ideology above all else. One does not have to be violent or oppressive to be dogmatic. Monstrous for his dogmatic adherence to ideology, which would leave the Ukrainian people to fend for themselves in the face of the Russian invasion. "Frankies" means fascists, humorously. Followers of Francisco Franco if it helps you remember.
- ttybird2 4y agoI guess we just don't have the same definitions of "Dogmatic" and "Monstrous". I would suggest "Mussolinists" instead, as Franco is more associated with Falangism. I honestly thought that you were referring to the Franks.
- jaunty_chapeau 4y ago
- stuu99 4y agoGet the real explanation for why russia is attacking the ukraine (same as monroe doctrine of the US): John J. Mearsheimer, Professor of political science. https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4 How the US created putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
- nbzso 4y ago
- thescriptkiddie 4y agoThis article badly misrepresents Chomsky's position, and refers to a neo-nazi conspiracy theory as if it were fact.
- divan 4y agoIf you're a westerner who wants to understand the cultural context of the war, I can't but recommend Kamil Galeev mega-threads [1], and this one especially: War of memes [2]. You probably will be able to understand why NATO has little role here, and why we (Ukrainians) are demolishing Pushkin statues after Feb 2022. You can ignore that noise coming from "experts" like Noam. [1] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711 [2] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1516162437455654913 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1516162437455654913
- rendall 4y agoI really love reading Kamil Galeev's analyses. Glad to read that he has the endorsement of a Ukrainian.
- divan 4y agoIn the first days of invasion, when the shock and uncertainty was at its highest, I was reading everything I could to get some sense of what's truly going on and what are the odds. Kamil's threads struck me by the depth of undestanding of russia's internals. I mean, many things are no surprise to me, and are well known for Ukrainians, and yet that was another level. In a way, reading his analyses and explainers helped me psychologically at that moment – even empowered in a way. I can only compare it with being diagnosed with cancer, and reading Siddhartha Mukherjee's Pulitzer-winning book "The Emperor of All Maladies". It doesn't fix your problem, but empowers with knowledge and more intimate understanding of the enemy, which can dramatically shift your internal assesment of risks and danger.
- rendall 4y agoYes. For me as a foreign (USA) resident of Finland (which has its own fraught history with Russia, under the serious question When are they coming for us?), I found his analyses so immensely comforting that I only cautiously trusted them. But the extensive notes and predictive power wins over all other pundits.
- 4y ago
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoChomsky's specialist area is criticism of the US. You ask him about any random topic and he's going to bring up his special area of interest. Chomsky having a pop at the US is like the socialist left or BLM in the US having a pop at Democrats. Yeah, in some grand sense they should be focusing on their common enemy, but on the other hand, someone has to remind people that "the best out of the two current options" isn't that great either or we'll never expand the options, as frustrating as that is when you are emotionally attached to another issue that hangs in the balance and you want a broad coalition to focus on. "If you'd just shut up about racism/sexism/capitalism/war/jobs then we'd be able to totally sort out sexism/capitalism/war/jobs/racism, which is clearly more important!".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ttybird2 4y ago"In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:" It then mentions the Budapest memorandum which has nothing to do with whether the people living in Crimea like it or not. Then it mentions that "Crimeans" is not a thing, it is clear that by "Crimeans" Chomsky meant the people living in Crimea. Then he mentions that Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of Crimea, which while I expect it to be considered as true by most people, I do not think that it really matters, after all nobody really cares about the Anatolian Greeks in Turkey. It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it? As for whether it was declared invalid by the UN assembly, this is irrelevant as to whether the people living in Crimea like it or not. "In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future." This open letter does not try to justify this argument. I would claim that it is false, just consider the various attempts to charge various fighters (in Iraq and other places) against the US with war crimes while at the same time the US refuses to do the same for its own solders. "Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)?" Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia) "If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine" This open letter does not try to justify why they think that providing military assistance to Ukraine will lead to less deaths compared to what Chomsky thinks. Edit: Please do not take this post as a sign of support of any side. Rather it is just criticism of the specific open letter.
- bnralt 4y agoInstead of relying on this letter to guess at what Chomsky says, I suggest people actually read what he said. Here's the interview that the letter links to[1]. Chomsky says he wants Ukraine to be able to defend itself, but also wants there to be a diplomatic rather than military end to the war, and an effort to keep the war from escalating: > I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond sanctions against the aggressor, or appropriate just as sanctions against Washington would have been appropriate when it invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or many other cases. ** > However, I still think it’s not quite the right question. The right question is: What is the best thing to do to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from further destruction? And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement. Chomsky is also quite critical of Russia: > Well, two questions, points of fact: You’re quite right, that the overwhelming mass of the war crimes, the ones that we should be considering, are carried out by the Russians. That’s not in dispute. And they are major war crimes. Saying that Chomsky isn't anti-imperialist because he disagrees with the method of ending the conflict in Ukraine reminds me of how people who opposed the war in Iraq were said to be friends of Saddam and against Iraqi people getting freedom and democracy. Whenever war fever grips the establishment, even disagreements on tactics coming from people who share the same general goals gets treated as abhorrent heresy. It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions. [1] https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill/ https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chom...
- kstenerud 4y ago> And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement. This is, unfortunately, half the problem. Western intellectuals are working under the assumption that they are dealing with a state that thinks in modern terms. Ukrainians know that Russia thinks in 19th century terms, but this simple fact seems to be lost on the West. There cannot be a negotiated settlement to an old-style conquest; Ukraine is literally fighting for its existence. It's like living with a psychopath. He knows exactly what to say to placate or distract or sideline everyone else, and give himself room to abuse and torment his target. And since Russia's propaganda machine is so effective, they actually have the elites in many places (for example Italy) parroting the party line. Hell, they even have the venerable and respected Chomsky playing their game! To put it in perspective: - Since when is it acceptable to invade another country, flatten their cities, send tens of millions fleeing as refugees, block their ports and threaten the world food supply, giving "because there are nazis there" as your reason? How in the hell did this ever become a valid talking point? - Since when is it acceptable to invade country X because country Y is allowing it to join a treaty? Shouldn't country X be allowed to decide with whom they ally themselves without getting killed over it? That's like beating up your girlfriend because some other guy hit on her. The Western intellectuals have been thinking in imperialistic terms (USA vs Russia), when in fact it's about UKRAINE, a sovereign nation with a right to exist, a country that did not threaten its neighbors or build up troops on the border like Russia has done (and then invaded). All they want is their territorial integrity back and to live securely. And no negotiated settlement with Russia will bring that because allowing Putin to "save face" will involve giving up territory, blocking any potential future defense pacts, and then sitting around waiting for invasion #3.
- refurb 4y agoI think the problem is one of viewpoint. The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory is irrelevant. Why? Because the only sovereign territory you have is the one you can occupy and defend. And it’s pretty clear Ukraine can do neither with the regions Russia has already occupied. Sure, the invasion is “illegal”. But being “illegal” means nothing if you don’t have the means to take it back. So, if a weaker power like Ukraine wishes to maintain their territorial integrity they need to find a solution with Russia. Sure, that’s not fair and offends our sense of sovereignty, but hey, that’s reality. That’s what people are getting at with “NATO threatened Russia so Russia invaded”. It’s not excusing it. It’s not saying it’s right. It’s just describing reality. The West is more than happy to bankroll Ukraine’s defense, but it won’t be their sons and daughters dying. They’ll just fight to the last Ukrainian and then settle with Russia in some way. NATO has zero qualms hurting Russia by burning Ukraine to the ground. Ukraine’s smartest move is negotiate some neutrality with Russia and move on with life. It absolutely amazing to read opinions on HN how dumb the population was the get itself involved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and then watch them buy hook, line and sinker the exact same arguments for Ukraine.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jmyeet 4y agoThis is pretty terrible. Chomsky is way more right than these guys. Some notes: 1. Crimea is a settled issue. You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency? 2. While Russia is the bad guy here without doubt, you can't gloss over Ukraine's failings here. Stop with the binary thinking here that one or the other is wrong or that criticizing Ukrainian actions is victim-blaming. Prime example: cutting off the water to Crimea following 2014 by any objective standard is a human rights violation; 3. Ukraine has been a pawn for US foreign policy. It's wild to pretend otherwise. For the US military-industrial complex the current situation is basically ideal. Russia is mired in a war they cannot win, Russia has been isolated from the international community, Europe is set to become less dependent on Russian energy exports, NATO is strengthened and the US gets to sell lots of weapons to Ukraine. 4. The idea that Russia doesn't want a buffer to NATO is laughable and hypocritical. It ignores 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine where the US will not accept any foreign military presence in the Western hemisphere (it's self-declared sphere of influence). This was practically tested when the US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. So why is that OK for the US but not Russia? 5. These authors make the same mistakes most US wonks do: they view the US as benign. Even if you agree with that you should at least accept that not everyone else does and there's plenty of evidence it isn't. I mean NATO's raison d'etre was to destroy the USSR. The USSR is gone so now it's by default the destroy Russia alliance. 6. As for the diplomatic solution, there ultimately will be one. There always is. Even unconditional surrender is a diplomatic end. Russia is a nuclear power. The pre-WW2 standards of defeating hegemonic powers just don't apply any more. There's a whole straw man bit in this about how the only alternative is unconditional surrender. Nobody is saying that. I think the only thing I agree with is the justification for the invasion (most notably "denazification") is completely ridiculous. This is propaganda and it's what imperial powers do. It's really no different to the US spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- EB-Barrington 4y agoReferendum may happen soon in Kherson, and other Ukrainian cities. Would it be valid? Theres a reason the Crimea "referendum" is not accepted, and the issue is far from settled.
- jokoon 4y agoI'm a bit nihilistic when it comes to geopolitics and war. Those debates are a bit dry and a bit pointless, good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter. I'm for Ukraine but you can't deny that Putin still has a lot of people rooting for him, even in Ukraine. If you ask Russians, they will easily answer that Irak was illegally invaded (the lapsus of bush did not help), so it becomes difficult for the west to be seen as the good guy, and it's cynical to say it, but opinions of the masses matter. So of course that comparison is unfair, but this comparison kind of matter in geopolitics.
- guerrilla 4y ago> only influence and power matter. Can I suggest "interests and power" instead. Influence is a form of power and it's important to pay attention to interests, which drive the use of power. I should also highlight that cost vs. benefit is the other determining factor.
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago>good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter. "Good" and "evil" are loaded stand-ins for sets of values and actions, but consider: the U.S. has more influence and power than China. Which country would you rather live in or be influenced by?
- eimrine 4y agoI really love Noam Chomsky works and know what interviews the academics have referring to. But let me ask the academics with a question which continues Noam's thought: > Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination? Have you considered the possibility that Ukraine is going to attach to the West's sphere of influence? Would Ukrainians really want it or they just want the invasion to be stopped?
- chevill 4y agoIf you read this letter I encourage you to read the Chomsky interviews they linked. These interviews were my first experience reading things he wrote or said. After reading those it seems like the authors of this letter didn't really understand his statements. I don't agree with everything Chomsky said, but he seems to try and understand all of the opposing viewpoints in this conflict as a way to figure out what the possible outcomes are. It didn't come across as blatantly or negligently pro-Russian to me. For example, I think its pretty reasonable to hold the opinion that Ukraine probably isn't getting Crimea back without forcibly taking it (and I have no idea if they are capable of it). Chomsky and I could be wrong about this but I don't think it makes either of us pro-Russian shills. He's not attempting to predict what ought to happen in the fantasy world that we want to exist, he's trying to predict what may happen in the deeply flawed world that we actually have.
- rich_sasha 4y agoI think Chomsky’s original sin here is his treatment of Russia as a sensible actor who will negotiate in good faith. Russia showed time and time again this is not the case, and that it responds only to strength. His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia. What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle. Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.
- lucidmote 4y agoMost of the people I have known that rave about Chomsky actually read very little of his work. I've tried getting through a few of his books, and I actually find his linguistic publications more interesting than his geopolitical ones. From the perspective of working class unity and logistic/democratic changes to civilization, I've not found any of his advice terribly useful. Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people. In areas like this he comes dangerously close to being a propagandist for Putin. We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda. Any hope that the tools of capital will eventually lead to a people's revolution when the primary barrier to that is a totalitarian vanguard party seems silly to me.
- guerrilla 4y ago> Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people. What... he's famous precisely for turning many people into progressives and socialists. Nobody would even know he's a linguist or geopolitical theorist otherwise. He's literally a popularizer for the left. > We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda. This I can get behind though. I don't think it will succeed though, Russia and China have paid a lot for their lackeys on the left.