3 ms·

> 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 settle

by 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.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  The Russians don't have the money to outdo the west, they will fold, no matter what their propaganda department convinces some people to buy. While Putin has a pretty strong grip on the country it's not as profound as the one Stalin had, and it will fail eventually. He will be assassinated or a coup will happen if he doesn't relent in the next year or so.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Perhaps. Or Putin and the Russian people will galvanize and feel the need to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons and/or shift their economy into a military output machine, causing further instability for Ukraine and the European continent. The US did it when threatened in WW2. What makes us think the Russians are less likely to use nukes or other terrible weapons than the US?
    - signatoremo 4y ago
      Because it was the matter of survival and existence of Russia as the nation in the WW2? Amazing things happen when you are under attack. What are the same threats to Russia today? They are under no threats from the outside. Simple as that. The issue is that they’ve become increasingly irrelevant. They may work to become a modern economy. Russia is full of educated people, with a proud culture. Or they may rely on their past glory, expanding their empire by interfering with their neighbors. They’ve chosen the latter.
      - cudgy 4y ago
        So Russia and/or China can annex Mexico into an exclusive military alliance and the US would argue “They are under no threats from the outside (China and Russia). Simple as that.” No way that would be the case. Alarm bells and missiles would be flying over such a move. Why do people not understand this as an equally alarming concern to Russia?
        eveningcoffee 4y ago
chevill 4y ago
>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). This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option. Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from. Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies. He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation. So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world. Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.
yucky 4y ago
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  If the Ukrainians wanted to stop the fight they could do it tomorrow. The US is helping the Ukrainians with weapons. Your perspective is saying that Ukrainians are puppets and have no choice in the matter. They could all lay down their weapons and put up their hands if they didn't want to fight for their country and against Russian genocide. They don't have US guns threatening to kill them if they give up, unlike Russian soldiers who are threatened with prison time for desertion. No one on HN is going to buy that the US is puppeteering Ukraine.
  - yucky 4y ago

by tgv 4y ago

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.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
The Russians don't have the money to outdo the west, they will fold, no matter what their propaganda department convinces some people to buy. While Putin has a pretty strong grip on the country it's not as profound as the one Stalin had, and it will fail eventually. He will be assassinated or a coup will happen if he doesn't relent in the next year or so.
- cudgy 4y ago
  Perhaps. Or Putin and the Russian people will galvanize and feel the need to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons and/or shift their economy into a military output machine, causing further instability for Ukraine and the European continent. The US did it when threatened in WW2. What makes us think the Russians are less likely to use nukes or other terrible weapons than the US?
  - signatoremo 4y ago
    Because it was the matter of survival and existence of Russia as the nation in the WW2? Amazing things happen when you are under attack. What are the same threats to Russia today? They are under no threats from the outside. Simple as that. The issue is that they’ve become increasingly irrelevant. They may work to become a modern economy. Russia is full of educated people, with a proud culture. Or they may rely on their past glory, expanding their empire by interfering with their neighbors. They’ve chosen the latter.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      So Russia and/or China can annex Mexico into an exclusive military alliance and the US would argue “They are under no threats from the outside (China and Russia). Simple as that.” No way that would be the case. Alarm bells and missiles would be flying over such a move. Why do people not understand this as an equally alarming concern to Russia?
      - eveningcoffee 4y ago

chevill 4y ago

>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). This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option. Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from. Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies. He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation. So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world. Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.

yucky 4y ago

stjohnswarts 4y ago
If the Ukrainians wanted to stop the fight they could do it tomorrow. The US is helping the Ukrainians with weapons. Your perspective is saying that Ukrainians are puppets and have no choice in the matter. They could all lay down their weapons and put up their hands if they didn't want to fight for their country and against Russian genocide. They don't have US guns threatening to kill them if they give up, unlike Russian soldiers who are threatened with prison time for desertion. No one on HN is going to buy that the US is puppeteering Ukraine.
- yucky 4y ago