14 ms·

I was thinking more about February 2022, where he tries to blame the Ukrainian invasion on nato expansion or something https://chomsky.info/20220204/ https://c

I was thinking more about February 2022, where he tries to blame the Ukrainian invasion on nato expansion or something https://chomsky.info/20220204/ https://chomsky.info/20220204/ Oh also his georgian take https://chomsky.info/200809__2/ https://chomsky.info/200809__2/

roenxi 2y ago
What do you expect him to believe? If you go in with an anti-imperialist anti-war bias, then NATO expansion is a bit of a beacon when asking questions like "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?". I don't actually remember if there is a serious counter-proposal; most people tend to rely on the theory that Putin suddenly went unhinged - which is obviously not the belief a thoughtful leftist would come to.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  No, the alternative liberal internationalist view is that the preservation of imperial-like spheres of influence and ironclad regional hegemonies is unfair, u democratic, and at odds with the rules-based trade-oriented order we’d like to see the world continue to adopt. No country was forced to join NATO. In fact, it took years and years of lobbying from Eastern European countries before the first new members were allowed to join in 1999. Even then, plenty of care was taken to signal to Russia that it was strictly seen as a defensive measure, from allowing the Russian government in as an observer at all levels, to limiting the military capacity of the Baltics and putting a very low cap on the number and type of NATO assets that could be deployed in countries bordering Russia. The intellectual mistake that Chomsky and many who share his ideas make is to believe that just because Russia might reasonably feel aggrieved at no longer being able to politically and economically dominate the countries around it through the use of military force as it could as the USSR, that it somehow has a right to have that situation reversed and is therefore justified at launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring democratic country to gain back that power. There should be no such right in the modern era, and believing in it is a betrayal of traditional left-wing ideals. Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future, pulling off the same kinds of annexations and similar as it did as a young power, and when it was far less powerful than it is now.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point. > Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future The US could act much worse in the present if it wanted. Only China is really in a position to stop them and even there only in a geographically limited area of Asia. The reason the US often doesn't bother with a might-makes-right response is because it isn't effective, not because they're purposefully holding themselves back from useful options. It is more effective to have the rule based order where, famously, the US makes the rules and gives the orders.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      > I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is there an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point. Fair enough. To answer that, I’d say the actual trigger wasn’t NATO but the EU, and Ukraine wanting to join it and move out of Russia’s sphere of influence. This was coupled to a wave of new leadership who wanted a more western and central European alignment. That’s what the Maidan was all about, when Yanukovych unilaterally refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and brutally cracked down on the resulting protests. That desire for closer ties with western and central Europe played out economically too, with the Ukrainian tech sector in particular being promoted as an outsourcing hub for European companies and holding conferences like Devoxx. Russia invaded because it knew it either subjugated Ukraine now, while it was still relatively weak but growing fast, or it lost the opportunity altogether. And in Russian strategic thought the idea of not being able to control Ukraine, which they see as an integral part of Russia, is anathema. > The reason the US often doesn't bother with a might-makes-right response is because it isn't effective, not because they're purposefully holding themselves back from useful options. It is more effective to have the rule based order where, famously, the US makes the rules and gives the orders. On some level, sure, but as China’s rise has shown the rules based order does not prevent competitors from rising up and eventually eclipsing US power. While the rules based order allows the US to use economic coercion, it also allows China to do the same. A might-makes-right approach can be effective, but it can also lead to world wars which are immensely destructive and which the US wants to avoid. It’s not just the US though, the EU is similarly in favour of substituting diplomacy and trade for military power.
phatfish 2y ago
He is still annoyed communism failed so epically. In his mind the Soviet satellites were to blame for wanting independence. It can been seen again with Ukraine, it's not that the Ukrainians are standing up for their independence, it is somehow NATOs fault. He has made some good points about western politics from time to time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
- slantedview 2y ago
  > it is somehow NATOs fault. NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.
  - EthanHeilman 2y ago
    > it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion. Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here. Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.
    - Jerrrrry 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - hindsightbias 2y ago
      Years Ukraine not admitted to NATO: 1992-2022 But it was going to happen any minute now. I wonder if these sme people think Turkey is going to be admitted to the EU… There’s a sucker born every minute.
      - EthanHeilman 2y ago
        Yep. The US told Ukraine it was never going to happen. Originally Ukraine had wanted neutrality but Russia kept making territorial claims on Ukraine land pushing Ukraine to seek protection from Russian imperialist ambitions. If Ukraine eventually gets NATO membership it will be because of Russian's invasion.
pydry 2y ago
He was entirely right about that too. NATO is an aggressive alliance that has exclusively invaded three countries in the last 20 years, zero of whom were threat to it. The worst one was probably Libya, because NATO pretended to engage in a humanitarian mission to gain approval from the security council and then left the country utterly destroyed state afterwards. The country was shredded. It's a tool of western imperialism that dangles the false promise of protection. In this respect it operates with the same logic as a gang recruiting teenagers before using them as cannon fodder. Of course you can't say these things in polite company just as I couldn't say that WMDs were a complete load of bullshit in 2003 without being verbally attacked. In 20 years time it will be seen as obvious, however.
- StefanBatory 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _djo_ 2y ago
  The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned. Which other countries did NATO invade?
  - M2Ys4U 2y ago
    NATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited. That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive". Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
foobarqux 2y ago
The same view that is held by a plethora of senior western officials such as Obama, William Burns (Former ambassador to Russia), Gates (Former Secretary of Defence), Angela Merkle, etc.

roenxi 2y ago

What do you expect him to believe? If you go in with an anti-imperialist anti-war bias, then NATO expansion is a bit of a beacon when asking questions like "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?". I don't actually remember if there is a serious counter-proposal; most people tend to rely on the theory that Putin suddenly went unhinged - which is obviously not the belief a thoughtful leftist would come to.

_djo_ 2y ago
No, the alternative liberal internationalist view is that the preservation of imperial-like spheres of influence and ironclad regional hegemonies is unfair, u democratic, and at odds with the rules-based trade-oriented order we’d like to see the world continue to adopt. No country was forced to join NATO. In fact, it took years and years of lobbying from Eastern European countries before the first new members were allowed to join in 1999. Even then, plenty of care was taken to signal to Russia that it was strictly seen as a defensive measure, from allowing the Russian government in as an observer at all levels, to limiting the military capacity of the Baltics and putting a very low cap on the number and type of NATO assets that could be deployed in countries bordering Russia. The intellectual mistake that Chomsky and many who share his ideas make is to believe that just because Russia might reasonably feel aggrieved at no longer being able to politically and economically dominate the countries around it through the use of military force as it could as the USSR, that it somehow has a right to have that situation reversed and is therefore justified at launching an unprovoked attack on a neighbouring democratic country to gain back that power. There should be no such right in the modern era, and believing in it is a betrayal of traditional left-wing ideals. Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future, pulling off the same kinds of annexations and similar as it did as a young power, and when it was far less powerful than it is now.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is their an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point. > Ironically, returning to a might-makes-right global order as envisioned by Russia would mean the United States could behave far worse in future The US could act much worse in the present if it wanted. Only China is really in a position to stop them and even there only in a geographically limited area of Asia. The reason the US often doesn't bother with a might-makes-right response is because it isn't effective, not because they're purposefully holding themselves back from useful options. It is more effective to have the rule based order where, famously, the US makes the rules and gives the orders.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    > I don't disagree with any of that. But you didn't deal with the "why is there an active land war in Eastern Europe?" question; which is what Chomsky was picking at to get to the NATO expansion point. Fair enough. To answer that, I’d say the actual trigger wasn’t NATO but the EU, and Ukraine wanting to join it and move out of Russia’s sphere of influence. This was coupled to a wave of new leadership who wanted a more western and central European alignment. That’s what the Maidan was all about, when Yanukovych unilaterally refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement and brutally cracked down on the resulting protests. That desire for closer ties with western and central Europe played out economically too, with the Ukrainian tech sector in particular being promoted as an outsourcing hub for European companies and holding conferences like Devoxx. Russia invaded because it knew it either subjugated Ukraine now, while it was still relatively weak but growing fast, or it lost the opportunity altogether. And in Russian strategic thought the idea of not being able to control Ukraine, which they see as an integral part of Russia, is anathema. > The reason the US often doesn't bother with a might-makes-right response is because it isn't effective, not because they're purposefully holding themselves back from useful options. It is more effective to have the rule based order where, famously, the US makes the rules and gives the orders. On some level, sure, but as China’s rise has shown the rules based order does not prevent competitors from rising up and eventually eclipsing US power. While the rules based order allows the US to use economic coercion, it also allows China to do the same. A might-makes-right approach can be effective, but it can also lead to world wars which are immensely destructive and which the US wants to avoid. It’s not just the US though, the EU is similarly in favour of substituting diplomacy and trade for military power.

phatfish 2y ago

He is still annoyed communism failed so epically. In his mind the Soviet satellites were to blame for wanting independence. It can been seen again with Ukraine, it's not that the Ukrainians are standing up for their independence, it is somehow NATOs fault. He has made some good points about western politics from time to time. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

slantedview 2y ago
> it is somehow NATOs fault. NATO continued to expand right up to Russia's doorstep despite repeated promises not to, and refused to rule out expanding to Ukraine. Russia clearly called this out as a problem for years. Whether or not this is "NATOs fault", it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion.
- EthanHeilman 2y ago
  > it's clear that the Ukraine invasion was motivated, in part, by NATO expansion. Unless you mean, the only way to have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been to accept Ukraine into NATO, I strongly disagree with you here. Russia invaded Ukraine not because Russia is fearful of NATO but because Russia wished to recreate the Soviet empire. It's just plain old imperialism.
  - Jerrrrry 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - hindsightbias 2y ago
    Years Ukraine not admitted to NATO: 1992-2022 But it was going to happen any minute now. I wonder if these sme people think Turkey is going to be admitted to the EU… There’s a sucker born every minute.
    - EthanHeilman 2y ago
      Yep. The US told Ukraine it was never going to happen. Originally Ukraine had wanted neutrality but Russia kept making territorial claims on Ukraine land pushing Ukraine to seek protection from Russian imperialist ambitions. If Ukraine eventually gets NATO membership it will be because of Russian's invasion.

pydry 2y ago

He was entirely right about that too. NATO is an aggressive alliance that has exclusively invaded three countries in the last 20 years, zero of whom were threat to it. The worst one was probably Libya, because NATO pretended to engage in a humanitarian mission to gain approval from the security council and then left the country utterly destroyed state afterwards. The country was shredded. It's a tool of western imperialism that dangles the false promise of protection. In this respect it operates with the same logic as a gang recruiting teenagers before using them as cannon fodder. Of course you can't say these things in polite company just as I couldn't say that WMDs were a complete load of bullshit in 2003 without being verbally attacked. In 20 years time it will be seen as obvious, however.

StefanBatory 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_djo_ 2y ago
The invasion of Libya was fully authorised by the UNSC, and it was not conducted or approved solely by NATO. Libya was also already in a highly destructive civil war before the intervention, which is why it happened, so it’s not like they went in and destabilised a stable country. Gaddafi had built Libya’s security around himself in a cult of personality, things were always going to fall apart once his power waned. Which other countries did NATO invade?
- M2Ys4U 2y ago
  NATO's intervention in Kosovo is the one that routinely cited. That wasn't defensive by any means, but that also doesn't make it unjustified nor should it really be called "aggressive". Chomsky, naturally, denied that ethnic cleansing was happening there because it wasn't the US or "western" countries doing it.
  - _djo_ 2y ago

foobarqux 2y ago

The same view that is held by a plethora of senior western officials such as Obama, William Burns (Former ambassador to Russia), Gates (Former Secretary of Defence), Angela Merkle, etc.