4 ms·

[...] support current Russian and its invasion to Ukraine. I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act ag

[...] support current Russian and its invasion to Ukraine. I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act against international law in his first sentence. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=68Rh1tKx98k https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=68Rh1tKx98k

fhyinfds 4y ago
[dead]
- moogly 4y ago
  > benefit of the doubt on his motives Maybe I'm wrong but I interpret that as "don't assume you know Putin's motives for invading Ukraine" and that it doesn't mean that Chomsky supports the invasion or that Putin has any _morally correct_ motive (if you believe in universal morality).
- danbruc 4y ago
  What does this even mean, doubt about what? It's completely out of context. And to add a bit to my initial comment, judging something as moral or immoral, as just or unjust, as lawful or unlawful, as justified or unjustified are all different things as are understanding why someone did something, judging that decisions as good or bad, and supporting them. And do not forget that we have the benefit of hindsight when we are discussing past decisions and statements.
cdnfren 4y ago
There are tons of interviews and videos where he blames the U.S. and NATO for the war and sais that Ukraine must make concessions to the invaders, so yes that means being a supporter of the invasion and the regime that perpetrated it. If he is fully aware of the extent of the damage he is doing or it's just his misguided convictions, that's a different story.
- lqpart 4y ago
  So Mearsheimer, who went to West Point, is a "supporter of the invasion" as well? Ironically, these interpretations are a manifestation of manufactured consent! Anyone mentioning undesirable parts of history must be crushed!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - cf141q5325 4y ago
    Mearsheimers article for anyone curious (he goes a lot further then Chomsky) https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mear... In case of paywall: https://archive.ph/WFzxA https://archive.ph/WFzxA
- danbruc 4y ago
  No, that is not what support means. What you are describing is explaining Russian actions based on a specific world view and suggesting actions to improve the situation assuming the underlying world view is correct. The fact that those suggestions, if realized, might give Russia what it desired, does not imply support.
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  If suggesting that there have been NATO actions that influenced Putins decision amounts to support of the invasion you would also have to talk to the current CIA director about treason. In 2008 he wrote the "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" cable.
arinlen 4y ago
> I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act against international law in his first sentence. Noam Chomsky described Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "criminal", by after the face-saving copout there's always a "but". In some interviews, Chomsky states in no uncertain terms that he believes that everyone should just hand over Russia what the regime wants as a form of appeasement, without spending any time or effort criticizing or attacking the invasion and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Russia, or any awareness that Russia has been constantly "appeased" in Ukraine for around a decade. The cinicism reaches a point where Chomsky said Ukraine should roll over to save the lives of the people of Ukraine, because in his world view Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and ethnic cleansing campaign can only end up in the destruction of the Ukraine or the destruction of Russia, and he asserts that he rejects the idea that Russia can be destroyed. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-our-priority-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-... Quite a different tone than Chomsky's rants regarding the Iraq invasion.
- danbruc 4y ago
  None of your points expresses support. It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives. At least immediately, there can of course be other bad things happening down the road. I do not think that I would consider this the best option most of the time, but it is a valid option and maybe even a good one if you value lives over everything else or if the situation is extremely in favor of the aggressor. But even then does suggesting to surrender not imply your support for the initial aggression.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives. This take is profoundly disingenuous. Russia is targeting civilians and razing Ukrainian cities and settlements, conducting forced deportations, burying civilians in mass graves, all while Russia's talking heads repeatedly claim Ukraine does not have the right to exist. And here you are, claiming that not offering ay resistance to Russia's assault on Ukraine would magically save people's lives.

fhyinfds 4y ago

[dead]

moogly 4y ago
> benefit of the doubt on his motives Maybe I'm wrong but I interpret that as "don't assume you know Putin's motives for invading Ukraine" and that it doesn't mean that Chomsky supports the invasion or that Putin has any _morally correct_ motive (if you believe in universal morality).
danbruc 4y ago
What does this even mean, doubt about what? It's completely out of context. And to add a bit to my initial comment, judging something as moral or immoral, as just or unjust, as lawful or unlawful, as justified or unjustified are all different things as are understanding why someone did something, judging that decisions as good or bad, and supporting them. And do not forget that we have the benefit of hindsight when we are discussing past decisions and statements.

cdnfren 4y ago

There are tons of interviews and videos where he blames the U.S. and NATO for the war and sais that Ukraine must make concessions to the invaders, so yes that means being a supporter of the invasion and the regime that perpetrated it. If he is fully aware of the extent of the damage he is doing or it's just his misguided convictions, that's a different story.

lqpart 4y ago
So Mearsheimer, who went to West Point, is a "supporter of the invasion" as well? Ironically, these interpretations are a manifestation of manufactured consent! Anyone mentioning undesirable parts of history must be crushed!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- cf141q5325 4y ago
  Mearsheimers article for anyone curious (he goes a lot further then Chomsky) https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mear... In case of paywall: https://archive.ph/WFzxA https://archive.ph/WFzxA
danbruc 4y ago
No, that is not what support means. What you are describing is explaining Russian actions based on a specific world view and suggesting actions to improve the situation assuming the underlying world view is correct. The fact that those suggestions, if realized, might give Russia what it desired, does not imply support.
cf141q5325 4y ago
If suggesting that there have been NATO actions that influenced Putins decision amounts to support of the invasion you would also have to talk to the current CIA director about treason. In 2008 he wrote the "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES" cable.

arinlen 4y ago

> I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act against international law in his first sentence. Noam Chomsky described Russia's invasion of Ukraine as "criminal", by after the face-saving copout there's always a "but". In some interviews, Chomsky states in no uncertain terms that he believes that everyone should just hand over Russia what the regime wants as a form of appeasement, without spending any time or effort criticizing or attacking the invasion and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Russia, or any awareness that Russia has been constantly "appeased" in Ukraine for around a decade. The cinicism reaches a point where Chomsky said Ukraine should roll over to save the lives of the people of Ukraine, because in his world view Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and ethnic cleansing campaign can only end up in the destruction of the Ukraine or the destruction of Russia, and he asserts that he rejects the idea that Russia can be destroyed. https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-our-priority-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/28/04/2022/chomsky-... Quite a different tone than Chomsky's rants regarding the Iraq invasion.

danbruc 4y ago
None of your points expresses support. It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives. At least immediately, there can of course be other bad things happening down the road. I do not think that I would consider this the best option most of the time, but it is a valid option and maybe even a good one if you value lives over everything else or if the situation is extremely in favor of the aggressor. But even then does suggesting to surrender not imply your support for the initial aggression.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > It is one option, if you are attacked, you just surrender and probably save a lot of lives. This take is profoundly disingenuous. Russia is targeting civilians and razing Ukrainian cities and settlements, conducting forced deportations, burying civilians in mass graves, all while Russia's talking heads repeatedly claim Ukraine does not have the right to exist. And here you are, claiming that not offering ay resistance to Russia's assault on Ukraine would magically save people's lives.