4 ms·

Why would they? At the end of the day, the CIA is driven by realpolitik. Chomsky sees things as they are, and is also an idealist. Where they intersect is that

Why would they? At the end of the day, the CIA is driven by realpolitik. Chomsky sees things as they are, and is also an idealist. Where they intersect is that part about seeing things as they are.

TulliusCicero 3y ago
> Chomsky sees things as they are No he doesn't? Chomsky's views on Ukraine are batshit.
- TexanFeller 3y ago
  He's one of the few people strenuously warning about the possibility of this war escalating to a nuclear exchange and reminding us that preventing this is the only thing that matters. In my book that makes him less batshit than most. Example: https://youtu.be/L7IHiJBIkns https://youtu.be/L7IHiJBIkns
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > He's one of the few people strenuously warning about the possibility of this war escalating to a nuclear exchange and reminding us that preventing this is the only thing that matters. In my book that makes him less batshit than most. This is also very conveniently a Russian talking point to just make Ukraine bend over and take it. If we want to stop the risk of nuclear war from increasing drastically in future we need to help defend Ukraine itself from Russia to the fullest. If we don't, it will become clear to the world that only nuclear weapons can defend a country from having their land grabbed by Russia and other countries and nuclear proliferation will go through the roof. Nuclear proliferation going through the roof will drastically increase the chance of a nuclear exchange in the future.
    - TexanFeller 3y ago
      > it will become clear to the world that only nuclear weapons can defend a country from having their land grabbed by Russia and other countries That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective. Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade. If you try and change that that rhetoric by saying you can also only defend yourself when you have nuclear weapons then the entire dynamic changes and a lot more countries will start active nuclear weapons programs.
        tempodox 3y ago
        Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place?
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place? This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail to win or get concessions in the war.
        Qem 3y ago
        They already felt that when they saw Iraq and Afghanistan being invaded, but not Pakistan or North Korea.
        Synaesthesia 3y ago
        Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s Look at what is happening in the world. Country after country standing up and saying they will continue to have their own relations with Russia, they see right through the hypocrisy of the west.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      Of course, it is a messy situation, where the bat-shit people and realpolitik have a venn-diagram that has a lot of cross over. Ukraine wasn't some paradise of unification before the war, and Russia wasn't completely evil. But, sorting it out, good luck. There are some real historians that would agree with a lot of 'Russian Talking Points' does that mean they are bat-shit crazy? OR, is Russia pretty good at adding into their talking points enough 'reality' to make it convincing.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    This is just a Russian apologist talking point. "Just accept Russia invading you because maybe nukes" could potentially be used for anything. "Give us a favorable trade deal because otherwise we might nuke you." How many times have Russian officials saber rattled about nukes and red lines and escalation when a Western partner provides small arms or artillery or tanks or jets, only for the red lines to be crossed and they do nothing? Short of someone invading Russia or nuking Russia, it's obviously a bluff, and by trying to sue for peace prematurely, you're playing into their rhetorical ploy. It's a transparently cheap tactic that only works on Putinverstehers.
    - x3874 3y ago
      Funny to think what the US will gain tru this meddling in European affairs by though talk and providing billions in support to Zelenskys regime: even more bases outside their jurisdiction to further their global dominance, and the ones on Ukrainian territory lie right next to Russia. MAJOR gain. And on a second note ofc increased TAM for their products and services, fuelled by Ukrainian indebtness. One can only puke thinking about that.
      - TulliusCicero 3y ago
        Putin certainly fucked up big time by murdering people and trying to topple a democratic government to be replaced by his stooges. What a dumbass. Everyone tried to talk him out of it, but dude wants his empire.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  Chomsky hawk

Why would they? At the end of the day, the CIA is driven by realpolitik. Chomsky sees things as they are, and is also an idealist. Where they intersect is that part about seeing things as they are.

TulliusCicero 3y ago

> Chomsky sees things as they are No he doesn't? Chomsky's views on Ukraine are batshit.

TexanFeller 3y ago
He's one of the few people strenuously warning about the possibility of this war escalating to a nuclear exchange and reminding us that preventing this is the only thing that matters. In my book that makes him less batshit than most. Example: https://youtu.be/L7IHiJBIkns https://youtu.be/L7IHiJBIkns
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > He's one of the few people strenuously warning about the possibility of this war escalating to a nuclear exchange and reminding us that preventing this is the only thing that matters. In my book that makes him less batshit than most. This is also very conveniently a Russian talking point to just make Ukraine bend over and take it. If we want to stop the risk of nuclear war from increasing drastically in future we need to help defend Ukraine itself from Russia to the fullest. If we don't, it will become clear to the world that only nuclear weapons can defend a country from having their land grabbed by Russia and other countries and nuclear proliferation will go through the roof. Nuclear proliferation going through the roof will drastically increase the chance of a nuclear exchange in the future.
  - TexanFeller 3y ago
    > it will become clear to the world that only nuclear weapons can defend a country from having their land grabbed by Russia and other countries That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > That cat's out of the bag, it has been common wisdom for decades that countries with nukes don't get invaded and other deterrents aren't nearly as effective or economical. Mutually assured destruction is one of the biggest reasons the world's been so peaceful recently. No major wars, just various nuclear powers occasionally invading various non-nuclear powers. MAD is mad effective. Yes but you can still defeat a state that has nuclear weapons when they invade. If you try and change that that rhetoric by saying you can also only defend yourself when you have nuclear weapons then the entire dynamic changes and a lot more countries will start active nuclear weapons programs.
      - tempodox 3y ago
        Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place?
        _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Why roll the dice when having nuclear weapons protects you from being invaded in the first place? This how I feel a lot more countries will start feeling if Ukraine doesn't win or Russia successfully uses their nuclear blackmail to win or get concessions in the war.
        Qem 3y ago
        They already felt that when they saw Iraq and Afghanistan being invaded, but not Pakistan or North Korea.
        Synaesthesia 3y ago
        Wow a nuclear armed superpower invading a country, that's sure a sea-change for the world /s Look at what is happening in the world. Country after country standing up and saying they will continue to have their own relations with Russia, they see right through the hypocrisy of the west.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Of course, it is a messy situation, where the bat-shit people and realpolitik have a venn-diagram that has a lot of cross over. Ukraine wasn't some paradise of unification before the war, and Russia wasn't completely evil. But, sorting it out, good luck. There are some real historians that would agree with a lot of 'Russian Talking Points' does that mean they are bat-shit crazy? OR, is Russia pretty good at adding into their talking points enough 'reality' to make it convincing.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  This is just a Russian apologist talking point. "Just accept Russia invading you because maybe nukes" could potentially be used for anything. "Give us a favorable trade deal because otherwise we might nuke you." How many times have Russian officials saber rattled about nukes and red lines and escalation when a Western partner provides small arms or artillery or tanks or jets, only for the red lines to be crossed and they do nothing? Short of someone invading Russia or nuking Russia, it's obviously a bluff, and by trying to sue for peace prematurely, you're playing into their rhetorical ploy. It's a transparently cheap tactic that only works on Putinverstehers.
  - x3874 3y ago
    Funny to think what the US will gain tru this meddling in European affairs by though talk and providing billions in support to Zelenskys regime: even more bases outside their jurisdiction to further their global dominance, and the ones on Ukrainian territory lie right next to Russia. MAJOR gain. And on a second note ofc increased TAM for their products and services, fuelled by Ukrainian indebtness. One can only puke thinking about that.
    - TulliusCicero 3y ago
      Putin certainly fucked up big time by murdering people and trying to topple a democratic government to be replaced by his stooges. What a dumbass. Everyone tried to talk him out of it, but dude wants his empire.
thumbuddy 3y ago
Chomsky hawk