5 ms·

Instead 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].

by bnralt 4y ago

Instead 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.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  I don't think it's 19th vs 20th vs 21st century terms or whatever. It's political-economic interests and contradictions and competing interests around global capital. A fight over who controls resources and which country's capitalist classes get dominance over resources and markets. Aka a classic imperialist war. And clearly the Russians are willing to mobilize 19th century Tsarist style "Great Russian" nationalism + a heaping dose Duginist Russo-fascism in service of this agenda. But I think it's naive to think that Lavrov (Mouth of Sauron) and Putin and the people lining up behind them actually truly believe this cack. That's for all the useful idiots.
  - kstenerud 4y ago
    Actually, Putin does believe it. He's stated many times, as have his subordinates, that his goal is the absorption of "Little Russia" and the rebirth of the Russian empire to stand at her rightful place as a primary power in the world (and as payback for the many humiliations she has suffered at the hands of the West). You can see it in how quickly Russia installs collaborators in Ukrainian regions who suddenly declare that they wish to be annexed by Russia. These kinds of idealistic psychopathic people do exist, and they are incredibly dangerous if they get into positions of power.
  - eveningcoffee 4y ago
    If you have time https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-philosopher-of-russian-fascism/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...
- yonaguska 4y ago
  I see your point, but at the end of the day, when it really is two imperialist powers, USA vs Russia actually calling the shots, does it matter that western intellectuals aren't acknowledging the Ukrainian perspective? From my outside perspective, the Ukrainain perspective isn't what people focus on, simply because Ukrainians have no choice, or rather, there is only a singular choice. And they are entirely dependent on the whims of the two imperialist powers fighting a proxy war with Ukrainain blood. American politicians couldn't care less about the actual Ukrainian people. This is about either crippling Russia and scoring the political points to say they did it, or securing money either for their personal coffers or feeding their local Military Industrial Complex. I personally think that the Ukrainian perspective matters, but we(westerners) won't care until it's too late. Tangentially related, our most recent home grown white supremacist shooter was inspired at least in part by Azov battalion, he wore a black sun patch and lifted several parts of his manifesto from Brendan Tarrant directly, another neo Nazi that actually spent time in Ukraine, with the Azov battalion being an inspiration. I imagine Russia will also be facing internal unrest for generations for what's happening in Ukraine. Maybe this is their Chernobyl moment.
tgv 4y ago
> 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. That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter). And the facts might have proven him wrong. He's been saying so since the start, but Ukraine seems to have been rather successful in repelling the Russians. > It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions. Tell that to Vladimir Vladimirovitsj.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  I'm not sure I would count Ukraine as being successful when you factor in the human cost of the conflict. Ukraine already has had a huge problem of people emigrating the country, this just multiplies that, not to mention all the men that are never coming back. Families, young men, prisoners of war, and even the men that do survive will pass their scars onto the next generation.
  - tgv 4y ago
    So: another country invades you, you just let them take over? Ok. Where's your house? I know a few people that might be interested in it. Don't be alarmed. Nothing will happen to you or your family. If you comply. They won't suddenly start making more demands, I swear.
- refurb 4y ago
  Ukraine has been successful in slowing Russia down, but that’s about it. Best case scenario now is Russia and Ukraine settle with Ukraine losing a bunch of territory. Russia gets time to regroup, and if unsatisfied, invades again in another 3-5 years. Remember, this didn’t start this year, it’s been going on for almost a decade. Russia can win by simply keeping Ukraine unstable and ungovernable and slowly taking more and more territory. And keeping NATO at bay.
  - 4y ago

by bnralt 4y ago

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.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
I don't think it's 19th vs 20th vs 21st century terms or whatever. It's political-economic interests and contradictions and competing interests around global capital. A fight over who controls resources and which country's capitalist classes get dominance over resources and markets. Aka a classic imperialist war. And clearly the Russians are willing to mobilize 19th century Tsarist style "Great Russian" nationalism + a heaping dose Duginist Russo-fascism in service of this agenda. But I think it's naive to think that Lavrov (Mouth of Sauron) and Putin and the people lining up behind them actually truly believe this cack. That's for all the useful idiots.
- kstenerud 4y ago
  Actually, Putin does believe it. He's stated many times, as have his subordinates, that his goal is the absorption of "Little Russia" and the rebirth of the Russian empire to stand at her rightful place as a primary power in the world (and as payback for the many humiliations she has suffered at the hands of the West). You can see it in how quickly Russia installs collaborators in Ukrainian regions who suddenly declare that they wish to be annexed by Russia. These kinds of idealistic psychopathic people do exist, and they are incredibly dangerous if they get into positions of power.
- eveningcoffee 4y ago
  If you have time https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-philosopher-of-russian-fascism/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...
yonaguska 4y ago
I see your point, but at the end of the day, when it really is two imperialist powers, USA vs Russia actually calling the shots, does it matter that western intellectuals aren't acknowledging the Ukrainian perspective? From my outside perspective, the Ukrainain perspective isn't what people focus on, simply because Ukrainians have no choice, or rather, there is only a singular choice. And they are entirely dependent on the whims of the two imperialist powers fighting a proxy war with Ukrainain blood. American politicians couldn't care less about the actual Ukrainian people. This is about either crippling Russia and scoring the political points to say they did it, or securing money either for their personal coffers or feeding their local Military Industrial Complex. I personally think that the Ukrainian perspective matters, but we(westerners) won't care until it's too late. Tangentially related, our most recent home grown white supremacist shooter was inspired at least in part by Azov battalion, he wore a black sun patch and lifted several parts of his manifesto from Brendan Tarrant directly, another neo Nazi that actually spent time in Ukraine, with the Azov battalion being an inspiration. I imagine Russia will also be facing internal unrest for generations for what's happening in Ukraine. Maybe this is their Chernobyl moment.

tgv 4y ago

> 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. That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter). And the facts might have proven him wrong. He's been saying so since the start, but Ukraine seems to have been rather successful in repelling the Russians. > It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions. Tell that to Vladimir Vladimirovitsj.

yonaguska 4y ago
I'm not sure I would count Ukraine as being successful when you factor in the human cost of the conflict. Ukraine already has had a huge problem of people emigrating the country, this just multiplies that, not to mention all the men that are never coming back. Families, young men, prisoners of war, and even the men that do survive will pass their scars onto the next generation.
- tgv 4y ago
  So: another country invades you, you just let them take over? Ok. Where's your house? I know a few people that might be interested in it. Don't be alarmed. Nothing will happen to you or your family. If you comply. They won't suddenly start making more demands, I swear.
refurb 4y ago
Ukraine has been successful in slowing Russia down, but that’s about it. Best case scenario now is Russia and Ukraine settle with Ukraine losing a bunch of territory. Russia gets time to regroup, and if unsatisfied, invades again in another 3-5 years. Remember, this didn’t start this year, it’s been going on for almost a decade. Russia can win by simply keeping Ukraine unstable and ungovernable and slowly taking more and more territory. And keeping NATO at bay.
- 4y ago