10 ms·

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, tha

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.

RIMR 2y ago
[flagged]
- EthanHeilman 2y ago
  If you repeat false claims used to justify a war of conquest, you can't complain if people see you as aligning yourself with support of that war. I wish Chomsky a speedy recovery, but he has had a number bad political takes over the years.
  - Jerrrrry 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - EthanHeilman 2y ago
      [flagged]
graphe 2y ago
Many people also hate mearsheimer if he talks about what he predicts will happen vs what he'd like to happen (Ukraine or Israel).
crazygringo 2y ago
The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and distracting from domestic problems. So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.)
- xg15 2y ago
  But how do you know so clearly that the one thing is a lie and the other is the truth? Even if you reject the "encroaching NATO" narrative, what makes "Putin just woke up one day and decided that remaking the Soviet Union and/or the zarist Russian Empire would be a great thing to do in the 21th century" the more plausible hypothesis? What information do you have that Mearsheimer doesn't?
  - dinglestepup 2y ago
    One of Putin's stated goals when he came to power was joining NATO. He did not feel threatened by it until he needed to justify his imperialistic behavior.
    - xg15 2y ago
      Or until the European stance changed, under the influence of the US, from one of including Russia to excluding. At least that's what Ulrike Guerot claims to have experienced. I have no idea if this is true. I also don't want to say that Russia always tells the whole truth without lies and propaganda. But I'm finding it rather that our own side doesn't behave in the Ukraine conflict as we behave in other conflicts between third countries. We also engage in a lot of propaganda and biased reporting, especially on the topic of Ukraine and Israel (as shown by fair.org), so I've become careful too quickly deciding what the truth is. (I do disagree in at least one point with all the russia apologists though: Whatever may have happened in Ukraine before the war and whatever the larger context is, what is happening right now there is driven by Russia and is absolutely devastating for Ukrainians. That Ukrainians hate Russia is absolutely understandable. So I think we should continue to support Ukraine. Nevertheless, if there was some hidden context in the lead-up of the war, it would be in our best interests to expose this.)
      - cc81 2y ago
        Europe was happily buying more and more gas from Russia and wanted to increase trading until the directional change from Putin.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
renegade-otter 2y ago
Which is basically Russian propaganda. NATO is an invite-only alliance. Ukraine has been begging to be in it, but Russia creates alliances the old-fashioned way - by invading, then raping and pillaging. Name one country that NATO "forced" into the alliance, I'll wait. All this talk of "poor Russia and its thirteen timezones felt threatened by a defensive alliance" is complete bullshit. It's the "she looked at me wrong so I stabbed her" defense, and the fact that Chomsky could not see right through this is telling. The explanation is much simpler - Putin wanted to add a slice to the empire, and miscalculated that the West would do nothing, like it did before. And then the bitching and moaning ensued. Did the neutral Sweden consider joining NATO before the invasion? No. Poor Russia, besieged by all sides by the neighbors who do not want to die defending against Russian recidivist meat waves and in torture cellars. Just. Stop. It.
mopsi 2y ago
> He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That is a total nonsense that has been called as such by people who were in key positions of power in the USSR and pre-Putin Russia. Out of their irrational anti-american hatred, "intellectuals" like Chomsky choose to blatantly ignore when people like Gorbachev directly say that the sob story about NATO promising not to accept Eastern Europe into the organization is a myth that even theoretically isn't plausible and couldn't be true.
emn13 2y ago
Chomsky, even in recent years, speaks in very clearly and well-thought out, structured arguments. The way he phrases it, NATO was essentially at fault and the Russian response followed from that. I don't buy that he misspoke or we misheard; the line of reasoning was very clearly stated. We can quibble about what "taking sides" means, but the message he meant to convey was that the current outcome was the US's responsibility. Chomsky's line of reasoning was clear, but it's always been very weak on this matter (he's said this quite often). It largely ignores the Kremlin's agency; it hardly matters what the US did here since the Kremlin had choices too and those mattered much more. Even more problematically, it ignored both Ukrainian and the wider post-Soviet region's agency as well. NATO expansion was never forced on anyone; to the contrary, it was eagerly sought after, and why? Because the Kremlin wasn't to be trusted, which turned out to be an accurate prediction. It didn't have to be so; the Kremlin's institutional mistreatment of its neighborhood _caused_ that mistrust and sustain it to this day. The Kremlin could have acted in good faith, and would have continued to receive the warm welcome from western governments that the initial post-Soviet governments did. It could have mended the Soviet-derived mistrust in eastern Europe, and likely easily so given it's richness in natural resources, and the logistical centrality that attracted trade between former USSR nations via Russia, and it's initially warm reception by western powers. The hint of far-future NATO membership was a "threat" to Putin the way mere talk of bolt-cutters are a threat to a kidnapper. That threat might well have been real, to be clear, but framing it the way Chomsky did isn't helpful; it obscures Putin's (or the Kremlin's inner circle's) choice to be an oppressive, almost colonial power ruling over it's neighbors. The problem never was talk of bolt-cutters, the problem is that people _wanted_ those for a reason.

RIMR 2y ago

[flagged]

EthanHeilman 2y ago
If you repeat false claims used to justify a war of conquest, you can't complain if people see you as aligning yourself with support of that war. I wish Chomsky a speedy recovery, but he has had a number bad political takes over the years.
- Jerrrrry 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - EthanHeilman 2y ago
    [flagged]

graphe 2y ago

Many people also hate mearsheimer if he talks about what he predicts will happen vs what he'd like to happen (Ukraine or Israel).

crazygringo 2y ago

The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and distracting from domestic problems. So it's sad to see anyone falling for Putin's lies so easily. (See also Mearshimer.)

xg15 2y ago
But how do you know so clearly that the one thing is a lie and the other is the truth? Even if you reject the "encroaching NATO" narrative, what makes "Putin just woke up one day and decided that remaking the Soviet Union and/or the zarist Russian Empire would be a great thing to do in the 21th century" the more plausible hypothesis? What information do you have that Mearsheimer doesn't?
- dinglestepup 2y ago
  One of Putin's stated goals when he came to power was joining NATO. He did not feel threatened by it until he needed to justify his imperialistic behavior.
  - xg15 2y ago
    Or until the European stance changed, under the influence of the US, from one of including Russia to excluding. At least that's what Ulrike Guerot claims to have experienced. I have no idea if this is true. I also don't want to say that Russia always tells the whole truth without lies and propaganda. But I'm finding it rather that our own side doesn't behave in the Ukraine conflict as we behave in other conflicts between third countries. We also engage in a lot of propaganda and biased reporting, especially on the topic of Ukraine and Israel (as shown by fair.org), so I've become careful too quickly deciding what the truth is. (I do disagree in at least one point with all the russia apologists though: Whatever may have happened in Ukraine before the war and whatever the larger context is, what is happening right now there is driven by Russia and is absolutely devastating for Ukrainians. That Ukrainians hate Russia is absolutely understandable. So I think we should continue to support Ukraine. Nevertheless, if there was some hidden context in the lead-up of the war, it would be in our best interests to expose this.)
    - cc81 2y ago
      Europe was happily buying more and more gas from Russia and wanted to increase trading until the directional change from Putin.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

renegade-otter 2y ago

Which is basically Russian propaganda. NATO is an invite-only alliance. Ukraine has been begging to be in it, but Russia creates alliances the old-fashioned way - by invading, then raping and pillaging. Name one country that NATO "forced" into the alliance, I'll wait. All this talk of "poor Russia and its thirteen timezones felt threatened by a defensive alliance" is complete bullshit. It's the "she looked at me wrong so I stabbed her" defense, and the fact that Chomsky could not see right through this is telling. The explanation is much simpler - Putin wanted to add a slice to the empire, and miscalculated that the West would do nothing, like it did before. And then the bitching and moaning ensued. Did the neutral Sweden consider joining NATO before the invasion? No. Poor Russia, besieged by all sides by the neighbors who do not want to die defending against Russian recidivist meat waves and in torture cellars. Just. Stop. It.

mopsi 2y ago

> He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That is a total nonsense that has been called as such by people who were in key positions of power in the USSR and pre-Putin Russia. Out of their irrational anti-american hatred, "intellectuals" like Chomsky choose to blatantly ignore when people like Gorbachev directly say that the sob story about NATO promising not to accept Eastern Europe into the organization is a myth that even theoretically isn't plausible and couldn't be true.

emn13 2y ago

Chomsky, even in recent years, speaks in very clearly and well-thought out, structured arguments. The way he phrases it, NATO was essentially at fault and the Russian response followed from that. I don't buy that he misspoke or we misheard; the line of reasoning was very clearly stated. We can quibble about what "taking sides" means, but the message he meant to convey was that the current outcome was the US's responsibility. Chomsky's line of reasoning was clear, but it's always been very weak on this matter (he's said this quite often). It largely ignores the Kremlin's agency; it hardly matters what the US did here since the Kremlin had choices too and those mattered much more. Even more problematically, it ignored both Ukrainian and the wider post-Soviet region's agency as well. NATO expansion was never forced on anyone; to the contrary, it was eagerly sought after, and why? Because the Kremlin wasn't to be trusted, which turned out to be an accurate prediction. It didn't have to be so; the Kremlin's institutional mistreatment of its neighborhood _caused_ that mistrust and sustain it to this day. The Kremlin could have acted in good faith, and would have continued to receive the warm welcome from western governments that the initial post-Soviet governments did. It could have mended the Soviet-derived mistrust in eastern Europe, and likely easily so given it's richness in natural resources, and the logistical centrality that attracted trade between former USSR nations via Russia, and it's initially warm reception by western powers. The hint of far-future NATO membership was a "threat" to Putin the way mere talk of bolt-cutters are a threat to a kidnapper. That threat might well have been real, to be clear, but framing it the way Chomsky did isn't helpful; it obscures Putin's (or the Kremlin's inner circle's) choice to be an oppressive, almost colonial power ruling over it's neighbors. The problem never was talk of bolt-cutters, the problem is that people _wanted_ those for a reason.