4 ms·

> 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 Choms

> 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.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    I obviously do not know, but do you know that Russia would have done those things if Ukraine had just handed the country over on day one? And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that is what they should have done, I am just suggesting that the death toll and destruction could be lower than what we have now. And again, it could, I am not even saying it would, maybe there would have been an uprising of the population or whatever and the situation would have turned out even worse. My point is purely that surrendering is a possible course of action which might provide some benefits over other options and that making such a suggestion does not imply that you are supporting the aggressor even if this would give the aggressor what they wanted.
Grustaf 4y ago
Ethnic cleansing? Never mind that Russians and Ukrainians have the same ethnicity, what is this supposed to mean?
- arinlen 4y ago
  > Ethnic cleansing? Never mind that Russians and Ukrainians have the same ethnicity, what is this supposed to mean? They really don't. Even ignoring the fact that it's idiotic to talk about a single Russian ethnicity given the Russian Federation is comprised of multiple distinct ethnic and cultural heritages, Ukraine has a distinct and independent ethnicity. https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/mobile-people-and-diverse-societies/ethnic-and-linguistic-identity-in-ukraine-it-s-complicated https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/mobile-people-and-diverse-soc... Just because they look alike to you and you can't tell apart which language is which, that does not mean they are not separate and distinct ethnicities. Hell, don't take my word for it. Just listen to what Russia's regime has to say about Ukraine and what they perceive their untermensch role towards Russia should be to understand how silly it is to not talk about ethnic cleansing.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    There are dozens of ethnicities in the Russian federation - you should visit the Russian Ethnographic Museum in St Petersburg - but only one of them is called "Russian", and it is essentially indistinguishable from what you might call "Ukrainian". In fact, present day Ukraine has a very complex history and is a mixture of ethnic (sub)-groups, and to the extent that you can even talk about a "Ukrainian ethnicity" it contains more internal diversity than the "Ukrainian vs Russian" difference. And obviously you can't use language as a determinant. If you've ever spent any time in Ukraine you would know that until recently most "ethnic Ukrainians" spoke mostly Russian, even in the West. This is largely the case even today - Zelensky's mother tongue is Russian and his Ukrainian is still pretty rough. And there are ethnic Russians in Ukraine that speak better Ukrainian than Russian. But setting that aside, and ignoring the fact that even if you accept Ukrainian and Russian as separate ethnicities, they are still incredibly close, like Norwegians and Swedes, it's still hard to understand how this could be an "ethnic cleansing", the bombs and artillery kill Russian and Ukrainian civilians indiscriminately. I mean if you bomb a city where ethnic Russians make up say 40% of the population, which is not uncommon in Donbass where most of the fighting is taking place, then that proportion won't change. If anything, the overall proportion of Russians in Ukraine will decrease since they are bombing the parts of Ukraine where most of the very large Russian minority lives. So obviously the war is not about ethnic cleansing. If they just wanted to kill Ukrainians there are millions of them in Russia. It's about political control. Present day Ukraine also contains many ethnic sub-groups and groups, in the East a large portion are obviously Russians, in the West there is of course a strong Polish influence. But even setting aside the complex demographic history, and being generous and

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.
- danbruc 4y ago
  I obviously do not know, but do you know that Russia would have done those things if Ukraine had just handed the country over on day one? And just to be clear, I am not suggesting that is what they should have done, I am just suggesting that the death toll and destruction could be lower than what we have now. And again, it could, I am not even saying it would, maybe there would have been an uprising of the population or whatever and the situation would have turned out even worse. My point is purely that surrendering is a possible course of action which might provide some benefits over other options and that making such a suggestion does not imply that you are supporting the aggressor even if this would give the aggressor what they wanted.

Grustaf 4y ago

Ethnic cleansing? Never mind that Russians and Ukrainians have the same ethnicity, what is this supposed to mean?

arinlen 4y ago
> Ethnic cleansing? Never mind that Russians and Ukrainians have the same ethnicity, what is this supposed to mean? They really don't. Even ignoring the fact that it's idiotic to talk about a single Russian ethnicity given the Russian Federation is comprised of multiple distinct ethnic and cultural heritages, Ukraine has a distinct and independent ethnicity. https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/mobile-people-and-diverse-societies/ethnic-and-linguistic-identity-in-ukraine-it-s-complicated https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/mobile-people-and-diverse-soc... Just because they look alike to you and you can't tell apart which language is which, that does not mean they are not separate and distinct ethnicities. Hell, don't take my word for it. Just listen to what Russia's regime has to say about Ukraine and what they perceive their untermensch role towards Russia should be to understand how silly it is to not talk about ethnic cleansing.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  There are dozens of ethnicities in the Russian federation - you should visit the Russian Ethnographic Museum in St Petersburg - but only one of them is called "Russian", and it is essentially indistinguishable from what you might call "Ukrainian". In fact, present day Ukraine has a very complex history and is a mixture of ethnic (sub)-groups, and to the extent that you can even talk about a "Ukrainian ethnicity" it contains more internal diversity than the "Ukrainian vs Russian" difference. And obviously you can't use language as a determinant. If you've ever spent any time in Ukraine you would know that until recently most "ethnic Ukrainians" spoke mostly Russian, even in the West. This is largely the case even today - Zelensky's mother tongue is Russian and his Ukrainian is still pretty rough. And there are ethnic Russians in Ukraine that speak better Ukrainian than Russian. But setting that aside, and ignoring the fact that even if you accept Ukrainian and Russian as separate ethnicities, they are still incredibly close, like Norwegians and Swedes, it's still hard to understand how this could be an "ethnic cleansing", the bombs and artillery kill Russian and Ukrainian civilians indiscriminately. I mean if you bomb a city where ethnic Russians make up say 40% of the population, which is not uncommon in Donbass where most of the fighting is taking place, then that proportion won't change. If anything, the overall proportion of Russians in Ukraine will decrease since they are bombing the parts of Ukraine where most of the very large Russian minority lives. So obviously the war is not about ethnic cleansing. If they just wanted to kill Ukrainians there are millions of them in Russia. It's about political control. Present day Ukraine also contains many ethnic sub-groups and groups, in the East a large portion are obviously Russians, in the West there is of course a strong Polish influence. But even setting aside the complex demographic history, and being generous and