I am very disappointed by many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue. They have an instinctual gut reaction against NATO and western imperialism, and this has led them to lazy thinking in regards to the situation in Ukraine. I saw similar things around the situation in Kosovo over 20 years ago. It's sloppy thinking.
NATO is not a singular person or one monolithic entity, and I am saddened by the black & white quasi-religious thinking which seems to not see the complexities and contradictions here.
The people of Ukraine need to be defended from the vicious authoritarian gangsterist government that holds power in Russia. No amount of whataboutism and pseudo-pacifist handwringing will change that. Western leftists need to listen to what Ukrainian socialists are saying, instead of yammering about in a purist echo chamber.
My definition of socialism is of a worldview that stands on the side of the oppressed. To me, this is a litmus test that some people on the "left" have failed.
Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis.
The only way I can imagine someone on the "left" having a reaction against NATO and Western imperialism (your term) is if they have an ax to grind ... probably more with regard to Western imperialism than NATO? (Probably with specific regard to the U.S. and Iraq.)
Both Ukraine and Russia have been dominated by a set of oligarchs since the fall of the Soviet Union, who have amassed an extreme amount of wealth and therefore, because of weak laws and bribery, control their respective countries to an extreme degree.
I don't see why anyone on the left, should prefer one of the sets of oligarchs to the other.
Jeez, it's almost like one could be opposed to both autocracies and still support resistance against the Russian state. Like the actual left (or what's left of it) in Ukraine (and Russia) are.
Since the crippling of unions and the deregulation of many economic sectors under Reagan, now ossified by the Citizens United decision, I could replace "Ukraine and Russia" with "Democrats and Republicans" and say (almost) exactly the same words about the US.
People on the left should stand up for the people getting their homes bombed. It shouldn’t matter if it is America bombing Afghans or Russia bombing Ukrainians. Unfortunately some people will only stand up for one or the other.
All of that is true. The problem is that both sets of oligarchs are currently fine; Russia is attacking everyone -else- in Ukraine. I know people personally who are displaced. There are refugees in what used to be my personal office. The Russian oligarchs are doing this unilaterally, and can stop any time. The west is sending only gadgets, not men, and regular Ukrainians are fighting the fight. (They too can stop any time, but it’s their country.) While I recognize why Russians are upset, they could have handled this better.
I feel you, I just don’t think it’s limited to this one issue. I too strongly identify with most, perhaps all of the left’s causes: universal human rights, fighting world poverty, peace, protecting the climate. The only problem is, the amount of intellectual laziness displayed by some of the louder advocates of that side political spectrum annoys me beyond belief. For those people, policies seem to be accepted or rejected purely on gut feel and symbolics, not honest analysis of the consequences or even whether they would actually help achieve the purported goal. I can’t be the only one who feels that way, so if there’s an organized “rational left” movement somewhere, please sign me up.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here, but there’s no way to confuse the side of the political spectrum that actually cares about all human suffering with the one that cynically doesn’t.
I am suggesting that the political spectrum is not just "the left, which cares about human suffering," and "the right, which does not".
Or maybe I'm just nuts and there's no one else that thinks individuals should have agency to decide whether they're suffering or how that suffering should be alleviated.
As someone on the left, I think the big problem is the difference between some online leftists and "real-world" leftists, who fight for the things you mentioned, but don't spend time shitposting on twitter.
The breadth of bad takes about the situation is absolutely incredible. I'm currently on the ground in eastern europe, I speak a slavic language natively and can communicate okay in a few others. Even in countries with a vivid memory of soviet occupation there are vocal supporters of broad concessions to russian aggression and even people who outright believe in russian propaganda. Several of my friends are housing Ukrainian refugees and are afraid to make it publicly known. A friend of mine was debating removing the Ukrainian flag on her profile for fear it would result in her children being bullied in school. It's fucking wild.
THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE OCCUPYING YOU A COUPLE DECADES AGO, IT WAS NOT A GOOD TIME, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THIS?!?!?!
fwiw I would say the plurality of people are in support of Ukraine but I never imagined there would so much visible support for russia, or even concessions to russian aggression. It's very disheartening to see any question about the validity of Ukrainian sovereignty.
It is very disheartening, indeed. I fear also that the almost universal emotional support that the Ukrainian people had from the average westerner is going to chip away as the actual cost of the war continues, and as the Russian propaganda machine keeps pumping. What happens after the US midterms in the fall? What happens when gas prices continue to be high?
JFC being implicitly in favour of a powerful military occupying and bombing its weaker neighbour is not an edgy or contrarian or clever position. It's ethical bankruptcy.
And not a single one of them were representative of their countrymen. Stalin in particular seemed to almost relish doing nasty things to his country of origin.
And the Polish United Worker's Party in Poland were Poles. Does that make Poles hate other Poles?
Or were you trying to make some sort of point about the differences in the repressive mechanisms or social constraints established under Khrushchev vs Brezhnev?
I'm in a post-sov country that is strongly supporting Ukraine publicly and where no one is fearing persecution or bullying for taking in refugees. Nevertheless, there are always (33 years and counting) vocal minority voices that parrot Russian narratives.
I strongly believe there are several key factors to this: a similar cultural experience and societal identity for people over 50[1] and a strong influence stemming from the combination of only knowing Russian as their single foreign language and the prevalence of Russian TV channels in the 90s/00s as well as Russian YouTube channels more recently. The 90s were hard in post-soviet countries, many people got disillusioned, some never really got back on their feet.
In terms of misremembering the occupation: cognitive biases and flaws[2], nostalgia, regressively conservative, hyper nationalistic, as well as anti-US/Western sentiments, etc. are all abused by Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories. Some narratives are really textbook political myths[3] about the Savior, the Golden Age (I guess the US got a real taste of this one with the MAGA movement). Much like a significant number of Trump supporters in the US, supporters or Russia in my country are more likely to believe in chemtrails, sovereign citizen claims, global pedophile conspiracies, anti-LGBTQ narratives, etc.
By using the word „misremembering“ you only show the misunderstanding of real experiences of people which lived in that period. They may have experienced oppression, but it could be subtle and perceived very differently. Those people are not necessary living better now, often on the contrary. Transition to capitalism has left many behind, and being old, poor and misunderstood is certainly felt worse today than being young and not being able to buy American jeans back then. Calling it a false memory is intellectual snobbery.
"I am very disappointed by many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue. "
Me too.
I am also very disappointed about their reactions to other issues too. Seems a lot of people on the left like to philosophize about issues but don't really like to acknowledge real world issues. I saw this when the rioting after the George Floyd went on. A lot of people refused to even think that maybe burning down shops is not a good response to racism. Instead they just kept on talking about systemic racism while ignoring the riots.
And now the response to Ukraine is often "Why do these Ukrainians make so much trouble? They should stop the killing and give up. They are losing anyway. We are pacifists, we don't like war". I agree that there may have been ways to deal with the situation better before the war but there is simply no excuse for Russia to attack the country and bomb cities. If somebody has responsibility to stop this, it's clearly Russia and nobody else.
> Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis.
Mr. Varoufakis definitely has excellent rhetoric skills, but many of his and his comrades positions and emphasis on resolving Ukrainian conflict would put put Ukraine on a plate for Putin. Makes me wonder what arrangements Mr. Varoufakis had made with Putin regime.
Perhaps apparachik does his analysis and writes books for him in exchange. Maybe popularity pumped up with bots in views, sales, invitations. Or an arrangement which protects the ground of democratic elections in Bolivia, Chile and others against a coup orchestrated by US.
All these things seem possible as the left never in history have been weaker to challenge those who have. And the prospects with Ukrainian war looks even more grimmer. And all of that because of a man who learned that wealth does not bring happiness.
This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist. Look for signs of denying Ukrainians agency over their country's future and 19-th century law of the jungle logic (wait what happened to high minded ideals like decolonization and self-determination? Do those only apply when the West is/was in the wrong?).
100% agree. Like I said below, it's a litmus test of who is truly on the side of the oppressed.
There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.
> This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist.
This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.
Ooh, "to the last Ukrainian", man what a zinger, har har. It can't be that Ukrainians are begging to be sent weapons to defend themselves from literal genocide and the US is the good guy in the story. That would just blow up Chomsky's Formula For All Global Affairs: US Bad. And since US cannot be good by definition, Ukrainians should just accept their country, language and culture being erased, like don't they know something something spheres of influence and some guy promised no NATO enlargement (actually not, but don't look into that because remember, US Bad).
I don't quite see your point here.
Russians were killing Ukrainian civilians in territory they attacked and occupied, and presumably this is still happening on the territory they still hold. I definitely count that as genocide, I don't see how this situation can be more nuanced.
Okay, so to what end do you wish to employ this appeal to nuance? I ask because usually this is just a naive argument in favour of inaction. Of course inaction is an action in itself, with consequences that can be just as serious as those of actions. See e.g. Obama on Syria.
America fighting "with every last Ukrainian" is the literally the same line the Kremlin uses.
It's propaganda, and makes no sense - against barbaric Russian soldiers committing countless rapes and civilian executions... Ukraine would fight to the last Ukrainian even without any external support.
That is some real American Exceptionalism from Chomsky. It's as if he is saying Ukraine can't think for themselves and that everything everyone does is somehow attributable to America's meddling.
I've found it shocking that people on the left have willfully taken up de-facto support of Russia in their zeal to oppose the US on ideological grounds. The MAGA crowd and the far right in the US are no better and perhaps much worse, but these people should know better. It's a deadly trap for them.
That people can say that Ukraine is being manipulated by others into defending their country to the death makes no sense at all. The remaining claims are wife beater logic: Look what you made me do! Russia had to invade Ukraine because they wouldn't behave, because NATO wasn't cowed and showed no respect!
A necessary consequence of the logic of opposing interventionist US foreign policy is acknowledging that there will be no “Team America: World Police” to help countries like Ukraine in regional conflicts. There’s nothing ideologically inconsistent about it.
You can’t micro-focus on a single incident. Maybe we are doing the right thing by arming the Ukrainians. But maybe we’re not. We thought we were doing the right thing arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. Look how that turned out. The US was ready to oppose the independence of my home country, to support western-aligned Pakistan against Soviet-aligned India: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declass.... There is a long track record of global powers intervening in regional wars that we can evaluate to see if on the whole the policy is a good one.
There is a big difference between acknowledging there will be no Team America: World Police to help Ukraine in its regional conflict (currently the bipartisan position of the US government, as well as commentators of all stripes) and various individuals explaining that actually, Putin has been annexing parts of neighbouring countries not associated with NATO in self defence against NATO imperialism and Ukrainians mostly preferring closer economic and political ties with Western Europe to Russia is US imperialism (unlike Russia invading to enforce Putin's preference for closer economic and political ties!) and what about Ukraine having neo-Nazis etc etc...
The war in Ukraine is extremely clear. One country attacked another in an attempt to overthrow their government and incorporate them into the Soviet Union 2.0.
There is one side that is the clear aggressor that's killing civilians, and another one that is defending their right to self-determination.
Russians ARE committing war crimes in Ukraine. There is a lot of evidence for them massacring civilians. See what they've done in Bucha.
That being said, one thing you're right is that the "good guys" in this war were wrong before. What I think you don't see is that there were huge protests in the West against the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't support what the US were doing in the Middle East, but I wholeheartedly support all efforts to get Russians out of Ukraine - including shipping American military gear.
I spent the first two months+ of the war in Ukraine (my home, but I'm not Ukrainian).
I completely accept that opposing interventionist foreign policy in the case of Ukraine support is a valid stance for US citizens.
However, I hope that in this case the US continues to support Ukraine - we need it - as the price Ukraine has paid for Russia's truly barbaric aggression is already too high.
You will find some on "the left" [0] who ostensibly condemn the Russian invasion but claim that, by providing Ukraine with the weapons, the intelligence and the financial aid it needs to defend itself, the West is somehow prolonging the conflict and causing greater suffering—the implication being that without such help, the war would be over much quicker (i.e. Ukraine would soon be defeated by Russia).
While given a particular set of moral values this may be a legitimate argument, it is strangely inconsistent with other comparable events. Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering.
Going to a more local context, in my home country of Spain, many on the left hold a historical grudge against France and the UK for not coming to the support of the legitimate Spanish Republic in 1936 when a military/nationalist coup triggered what eventually became the Spanish Civil War and lead to Franco's far-right dictatorship. The USSR, in contrast, did come to the aid of the Republic for better or for worse. However, funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic.
[0] I hate the oversimplification and forced dichotomy that results from talking about "the left" or "the right", hence the quotation marks.
"Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering."
For this I have the following possible explanations:
- They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed.
- They supported an early war against Germany because they believe that the German government would keep going with their demands and that the war was inevitable.
- They are against the war but admitting it would be a social suicide.
- They don't have an opinion about it or just have not voiced an opinion about it. (as it is an event that happened decades ago instead of one that is happening at this moment)
"funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic."
This is interesting. What is their usual counterargument? I Presume that they either don't have a consistent logic behind it or they believe that protecting Ukraine would not benefit the common people (or would benefit them marginally) in comparison to the Spanish civil war which in their mind supporting the republican side would benefit the common people enough to counterbalance the loss of lives.
> For this I have the following possible explanations:
> - They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed.
What on Earth are you talking about? France and the UK did not come to Poland's help in September 1939 not due to an altruist aspiration to stop Nazi atrocities that had not yet begun, but due to a mere fact that neither country was ready for an all out war with a heavily industrialised Nazi war machine.
Nazis invaded Poland on the 1939-09-01, but the first ever death camp at Bełżec in Poland had not been built and had not become operational until March 1942 (Operation Reinhard) with more to follow over 1942-44. The truth about the nature and the scale of Nazi atrocities had not surfaced to Western Allies until 1943 which was well into the WWII, and when it did surface, the Western Allies at first refused to believe in reports due to the unfathomable and previously unseen scale of the atrocities.
According to the official Nazi racial doctrine, all Slavic peoples (Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians – all of the Slavs, indiscriminately) – with Poles specifically – were subject to a complete and indiscriminate extermination; from Himmler's speech on 1940-03-15 in Poznan:
Himmler spricht in Poznan vor den versammelten Kommandanten der Konzentrationslager. Eine seiner Aussagen: "Alle polnischen Facharbeiter werden in unserer Rüstungsindustrie eingesetzt. Später werden alle Polen aus dieser Welt verschwinden. Es ist erforderlich, dass das großdeutsche Volk die Vernichtung sämtlicher Polen als seine Hauptaufgabe versteht.".
"…das großdeutsche Volk die Vernichtung sämtlicher Polen als seine Hauptaufgabe versteht" is key here.
> > "funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic."
> > "What is their usual counterargument?"
One that stuck to my mind was, believe it or not, that an internal armed coup against a democratic government does carry the moral obligation of other democracies to intervene and defend it if said government requests it—which is not the case apparently when a democratic government requests support to defend itself from a neighbouring state which invades it without the slightest provocation. It's basically all post-hoc rationalisations of their emotional beliefs.
Providing weapons is a major intervention. That’s what the US did in the war between Pakistan and Bangladesh, and they ended up supporting a genocide.
You can try to rationalize a distinction by saying in that case, the US failed to support the people seeking independence. But then you have to be in the business of deciding which people’s claim of independence is legitimate. Supporting the jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union didn’t exactly end up well. Intervention is always rationalized in the moment.
"Failing fast" was hardly an intentional decision on the part of France. In fact, one of the principal reasons why Germany was able to so quickly overwhelm France was precisely because France was still preparing for the last war, i.e. trench warfare. Related to that, after the fall of France, the British Cabinet was intensely split between those on the side of Churchill who believed that the UK should "never surrender", and those on the side of foreign secretary Lord Halifax (and initially Chamberlain) who believed that the UK should offer peace terms with Germany to avoid a crushing defeat [0]. Had Chamberlain not changed his mind and Halifax's view had prevailed, one could argue that the UK would have chosen to "fail fast" and thus avoided the Blitz and much further suffering of its people—but at what cost?
Non-intervention is all well and good but it is also the policy the West followed towards the Nazi’s in the 30’s.
WW2 could have been stopped before it started if Britain or France marched into Germany (ad they could have won at many points) at any time between 1933 and 1939.
So by arming Zelensky et al, maybe we are creating a monster (unlikely) but maybe we are stopping a much worse monster from starting WW3 (more likely).
I'm not sure that Russia attacking Ukraine can be considered a regional conflict.
First, when a country with nukes is involved in a conflict I think a good case can be made the "region" is the whole world if there is even a small chance nukes might be used.
Second, Russia, the US, China, and others have an agreement to not use military force against Ukraine (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances). Russia is violating that agreement, which automatically makes it a conflict with the US and so not regional.
Noam Chomsky is anti-imperialist. He also prioritizes anti-imperialism lower than other things and justifies support for imperialist politicians (e.g. Obama, Biden) by proffering arguments from pragmatism and "lesser evilism".
So it's possible to say he's anti-imperialist, but not sincerely so and be correct.
It’s interesting that so many people now deem to authoritatively speak of the agency of a country whose geopolitics were relatively unknown until recently. Chomsky and others simply have the benefit of having watched this completely avoidable tragedy unfold. Putins rise to power, Russia’s ostracization from the western order, etc. And I could say the same in the inverse: there are many who had no interest in anti-imperialism until it aligned with anti-Russian and pro U.S. sentiment. It’s easy to tell from the fact that U.S. imperialism that has been going on alongside the Russian invasion has gone almost entirely ignored. (Somalia being the latest example) Ultimately this is a pointless argument — the stage has been set, the rules agreed upon. The U.S. and EU will fund Ukraine indefinitely and NATO will continue to take in European countries. I hope and pray that the war comes to a resolution that allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty on its own terms.
I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should.
I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine.
And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.
As the letter states, what you’re effectively denying is Ukrainian self-determination and agency. Does the U.S. “control” France? Germany? Clearly not.
Exactly! Plus I know it might sound crazy, but US influence doesn’t involve invading other countries or even threatening them into some form of submission. If The whole world joined Warsaw and the US felt isolated I guarantee you wouldn’t see us invading Canada/Mexico/Europe in the name of self defense, even though provocative USSR tactics might actually warrant such a response. But the US doesn’t roll that way, generally we want good trade relations and non-interference, practically the whole world has been against us as different times and we still didn’t lash out. Providing humanitarian aid and weapons is not the same as sending your own people into a country against the worlds interest and claiming self defense.
Of course the U.S controls France and especially Germany, that's a common point of contention in European politics. That's a result of globalism, trade agreements and having the biggest military in the world.
Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have.
It's an huge leap to go from world foreign politics to "control".
> Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have.
Self-determination and agency is available to those who have the will to fight for it. Clearly they do have the means to fight for it based on their ability to secure vast military support from the west.
>Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have.
Fascinating claim about a country that has been successfully resisting a Russian invasion for 3 months with predominantly locally-produced (and upgraded) weapons.
Nevertheless, if we steelman your argument and agree that Ukraine can never be truly self-determined and that it must choose between US or Russia, then not choosing a country that has done to Ukraine what the Russian Federation has been doing at least since 2003[1] seems favorable.
There's also the matter of centuries worth of historic memory of repression and subjugation, tortures, rapes, murders, man-made famines, forced mass deportations, etc. perpetrated by Russian autocrats and dictators. And now, quite alarmingly, we are seeing Stalinist-style atrocities being committed in 2022[2,3]. With this in mind, falling under Russian occupation is the worst case scenario for Ukraine and Ukrainians.
Of course there is. But as far as I can tell nothing on this matter has been about building a non-corrupt Ukrainian state with functioning institutions. It has from the US side been (since many, many years) about influencing politics in anti-Russian directions and pouring weapons and military training into Ukraine.
And then USA's actions in Ukraine seems a lot like their Middle Eastern or South American policies. Which I doubt is in the interest of the vast majority of Ukrainians.
The influx of training and weapons only started pouring in after Russia invaded Crimea and the Donbas. At that point, Russia's aspirations on the entirety of Ukraine were apparent for all to see. The Ukrainians understandably decided that aligning with the NATO, despite it's member states' ulterior motives, were far better than becoming a vassal state like Belarus.
> what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine
this is a bold claim to make without any tangible evidence to support it. Especially as it contradicts your very next statement about not having "a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine". It seems like you are claiming that Ukraine has no agency and autonomy in this situation or that the country is only allowed to resist with the armaments it has? Care to elaborate?
As for the war becoming "even more vile and bloody": do you believe Ukraine should just give up so that the Russians could be able to indiscriminately torture, rape, murder and disappear countless citizens of Ukraine, as they have been doing for centuries in the region? Again, Ukraine used its own armaments to resists and Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol and other bloody and vile atrocities still happened.
Not just anti-imperialism but many other political and philosophical opinions too.
Many things in history and politics are dense. It's expected that people will disagree on these things.
But every so often something happens which is genuinely quite simple to understand. This Ukraine invasion allows you to discriminate between those who are still committed to reality and those who are not.
If you cannot understand that countries desire to join Nato (because they understand the Kremlin better than most Westerners); that ex-KGB Putin holding a candle once a year doesn't make him the grand protector of Christendom; that Russians are victims of this regime too; that this invasion was predicted by many (see Kasparov); etc etc... Then I really cannot take you serious anymore.
What is a fact is that Ukraine is caught between the geo-politics of US and Russia because of incompetent Ukrainian political leadership. Unlike the Ukranian and NATO propaganda that tries to portray the current Ukrainian President as a hero, anyone who has a good grasp of politics can see that the man is clearly politically incompetent. He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another (clearly showing no understanding of geo-politics and spheres of influence and their own standing in the world order). While Biden and Putin's ego in the conflict are understandable because of their superpower rivalry, it is incredibly sad that the amateur politics of the current Ukranian leadership has plunged the country into such a disaster.
Ukraine is just another Iraq or Afghanistan because of similar incompetent and selfish leadership who care more about politics than the suffering of their fellow citizens.
I have no doubt that by the time the conflict ends, US and Russia would have balkanised Ukraine, and the war will turn into a stalemate prolonged low-intensity conflict with proxy battles between the superpowers in this region. Both Russia and US want to prolong the battle, as it is in their interest to do so, and the incompetent Ukranian leadership is totally blind to this.
You make it sound that the "suffering of their fellow citizens" is somehow the fault of Ukraine's leaders, and they should just surrender to Russia's interests, which would somehow would end the suffering?
Also the "snubbing another", i.e. Russia is quite the victim-blaming. Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade?
Also Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked by the US, which according to your words means the leadership there should have just surrendered to the imperialist USA instead, instead of caring about "politics".
> You make it sound that the "suffering of their fellow citizens" is somehow the fault of Ukraine's leaders
Yes, it is, obviously! India was once the wealthiest country in the world. It was then conquered by the British who ruled over them for 300+ years to become one of the poorest country in the world by the time the British left. Why? Weak, incompetent leadership that lacked vision. Incompetent politicians ignorantly or deliberately create suffering for their country. This war happened because of the political incompetence of the current Ukrainian leadership, and perhaps even because of their own selfish ambition to cement their political positions.
> ... and they should just surrender to Russia's interests, which would somehow would end the suffering?
Temporarily, if need be. But don't consider it as a surrender but a strategic retreat. International pressure against Russia can be diplomatically used to soften some of the demands they make, but yes, Ukraine will have to yield more. And whether the suffering ends really depends on the kind of leadership Ukraine's politician are capable of. Right now, Russia is winning the war (it is clear that they are not looking to occupy all of Ukraine and are willing to carve up the country in the long term. They are selectively targeting and occupying areas of Ukraine they consider necessary to protect its strategic interest, in case whatever remains of Ukraine after the war does manage to join NATO in the distant future).
> Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade?
It's the reality of the world order the super-powers have created for themselves. Yes, it is unfair.
As for Iraq or Afghanistan, the point was that they caught the interest of the superpowers, but their political leadership was politically incompetent to deal with them appropriately and couldn't protect their own country's interest. Leaders of both nation snubbed the superpowers. And look at them now. That's what the Americans and Russians will do to Ukraine too, unless Ukrainian politicians understand and accept the reality of their own standing in the world order.
When it comes to foreign policy, the Ukrainians have as much agency as the average American, and it doesn’t help them that in this case it’s American foreign policy that has caused them issue.
No, what’s amazing is hearing people who are well versed in the multiple US foreign adventures that more often than not results in thousands of civilian deaths, political instability and worsening opinions about the US, vehemently argue that of course the US should intervene and anyone who even raises the idea that maybe we should mind our own business gets labeled as “pro-Russia”.
The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions.
The left is basically parroting the exact same language
the right did for all its foreign interventions.
I don't find it hypocritical to oppose wars of aggression.
GWB's invasion of Iraq was America breaking international law. I was against that.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is Russia breaking international law. I am against that.
I am for whatever strategy (military aid? diplomacy? alliances?) most effectively addresses the Ukraine invasion and limits future illegal invasions. Nobody can know yet which strategy would be best, but it's not hypocrisy to be open to military aid, etc. I want to live in a world where leaders obey the rules.
But the left is NOT opposing military intervention (or escalation), it’s promoting it in response to Russia’s invasion.
And I’m not sure I understand the jump from “i oppose X” to “the US must get involved with X”.
Noam Chomsky is critical of Russia’s invasion, just like you.
But doing “something” is an entirely separate decision. People seem to be operating with the default of “if there is a problem, the US has an obligation to fix it”
It’s that mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the past 60-70 years.
My opinion is the default is “we do nothing”, and anything more needs justification and a careful analysis to ensure we don’t make things worse (which has been the outcome of almost every intervention since WW2).
It's probable that we have similar fears about escalation. If this ends in nuclear war, clearly it won't have been worth it. Our difference of opinion then is that I consider the risks of inaction to be more grave than you do.
One bad thing about GWB's wars is that the global community failed to prevent or meaningfully punish them. That precedent increases world-wide recklessness and paranoia.
I worry that if the outcome of the Ukraine is not a spectacular failure for Russia, the world will continue backsliding (I bet there are Chinese generals rallying already to take Taiwan)
What faith remains in the rule of law internationally is important to preserve. Eg: if the Hague had managed to imprison Cheney et al, would Russia today dare to invade neighbors?
My worries there are why I am open to escalation, though, like you, I fear it could escalate up to some kind of extinction event :(
I am unabashedly a fan of my country. As soon as the US showed some disinterest in Europe and pull back a bit because we have a ton of internal issues and issues with China. Because Trump opened up the doors and made NATO look weak Russia attacked Ukraine thinking NATO would just let it slide. I have been a critic of the Afghan war in particular and what happened in Libya. However, I 100% agree with fighting off Russian aggression in Europe. If Ukraine falls then Russia will roll over all the former Soviet satellite countries and take them back as well. The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason. We know it will cost trillions if the Russians aren't stopped now.
> The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason
Everything for the victory, I guess?
> US Congress quietly enables funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi-led Azov Regiment
> David Levine
> 1 February 2016
> The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by US President Barack Obama late last year, did not include a previously expected ban against the funding of the Azov Regiment, a military organization that originated as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and was subsequently incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine.
> The Azov Regiment is notorious for the openly white supremacist and anti-Semitic views of its members, and its use of the Wolfsangel, a swastika-like symbol once used by certain divisions of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as its leading role in the Battle of Mariupol in May-June 2014. The regiment’s leader is Andriy Biletsky, a current member of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) and also leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly. In a characteristic statement, Biletsky was quoted by the UK Telegraph last August as stating, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
Keep buying that Russian propaganda that Ukraine is rife with Nazi-ism. Every country in the western world has small contingents of Nazis, all less than 1% of the population. You are allowing that Russian BS to cloud your judgement. Also the they have had -jewish- leaders, that doesn't sound like much of a Nazi group to me lmfao
Only pattern #5 had some merrit. There is no excuse for invading anywhere, period. Other than that, this article is an elegant, technically more detailed version of the US based propaganda around the war.
US/NATO/EU and Russia are just doing business uppon the deaths of ukrainians. Russia is clearly the most responsible for this, however, please, don't insult our intelligence by speaking of "democartic values" of the "free west". The west camp is equally rotten, it just has some nice make up on it's face and the only reason they are supporting ukraine is to make money, pretending they care for the devastated ukrainian people. They did not start the fire, but they are dumping tons of gas on it, because they benefit.
Ridiculously schematic thinking. Have you considered that "the west" might be composed of more than one train of thought and motive? Who is this "they" doing the pretending here?
I don't think you realize the depth of the cleptocracy that is Russia. There is a reason why all the nations from behind the former Iron Curtain would rather fight to the death than end up under their control again.
Of all the bloody, miserable empires of the world, the Russian one is the most dysfunctional and has been so for centuries. It is a historical outlier, a poor and underdeveloped nation conquering its richer and more developed neighbors to the west by sheer brute force. Hopefully it seems that the recipe no longer works.
Let's agree your description of Russia is right. Does that mean we have to lower the barrier of what "rotten" means to us?
Is Russia more rotten than the major western players? Ok let's agree on that too. So i should change the wording "equally rotten" to "also rotten". Still rotten as to my standards and still hypocrites.
How does the West make money? We’re giving away billions worth of military equipment and ammunition. While also implementing oil and gas bans that will hurt Western (the EU mostly) economies really bad.
True, some sectors are profiting but overal the economy will suffer greatly. Electricity prices are already insane in Europe (the bill this month was higher than my parent’s pension) and it will only get worse by winter. Factories will have to shut down and people won’t be able to heat their homes. Already happened last winter but this year it will be on a much larger scale. And let’s not forget about the skyrocketing food prices. This war is pushing millions of middle class Europeans into poverty. The best thing for the economy would be to just give Russia what they want.
So I don’t think the West is in it to make money. Not at all. If it was up to the Eastern EU countries they would send their armies to fight in Ukraine. They are scared of Russia. That’s their primary motivation, not profit. Other EU countries are alarmed but they lack the traumatic experience of Soviet occupation so they are less eager to fight. Still they are smart enough to realize if Russia succeeds the Baltics or Poland could be next. So the EU helps out of self preservation.
The US just sees this as an opportunity to damage Russia, they prefer to stretch this war out. The EU wants it to end as fast as possible.
I don't agree with the parent poster at all (see other comments) but it's fair to point out that certain sectors of the "western" economies are doing quite well out of this. In particular petrochemical companies and arms manufacturers.
A Marxist analysis would see the whole thing as a conflict between competing spheres and sectors of the international capitalist class that has broken out into open violent conflict. Contradictions in interests that were not resolvable by statecraft or other means are now being "resolved" through wholesale destruction.
I'm curious as to how you dismiss the first pattern, specifically, Russia's treatment of indigenous Crimean Tatars as well as the laughable 2014 "referendum"
I don't dismiss it by saying chomsky is right, i dismiss it by saying both sides are wrong. It is a very well known fact up to this point on history that all these referendums are processes to put legitimate stamps on big decisions the actuall people in power want to take.
The formula is simple, you make a narrative that devides to right and wrong. Then you spam people of the hell that will break loose if they do not vote for what you want. People vote it and then you say "hey! The people wanted it, not me!" If they don't vote it you just hold a second referendum.
I am not saying this is what happened there exactly, but referendums have become a joke in the 21st century.
I'm surprised. I didn't read or hear what Noam Chomsky says, but judging by his points brought up by the article, he is just repeating Putin's propaganda. He even uses their methods of changing topic from an uncomfortable one to a "US is no better then Russia".
I'm surprised, because I thought that Chomsky was mostly intelligent person. I've heard that he had very strange political views, but to just repeat Putin seems to manifest his lack of an ability to think for himself.
What I've seen from Chomsky so far didn't actually seem to really reflect what I saw in this letter.
He was mainly doing what Chomsky always does which is point out the crimes and hypocrisies of various western governments.
But he's always been fairly consistently against authoritarian governments and dictators. I'll have to go digging to see exactly what this letter is responding to.
Some other western leftists do sound like this, though. Yanis Varoufakis did an annoying interview for example.
Even Lula said something similar on a Time interview recently. Brazil is very dependent on Russia's fertilizers and is a big (biggest?) food exporter. Brazilian politicians have been very careful to condemn the war while being light on Putin or the result could mean a significant rise on the price of food and even famine.
Right what we see is a kind of world of (at least) bipolar competing imperialisms, of which the "Russian" side (roughly speaking) is less powerful but attempting to assert itself. Sergei Lavrov has tried to carve out an ideological space in which this sphere around Russia has inherited some sort of anti-colonialist sheen. But in large part it is frankly worse than "the west" in almost all respects.
Lavrov talks like an anti-imperialist while actually basically being the Mouth of Sauron. The talking face of a failing autocratic petro-state.
Sure, what we really need to avoid the "warmongering media" is a British RT journalist rocking up after the last defenders have surrendered to talk about how the war has turned Mariupol into a "marvellous Russian City" and interviewing the celebrating leadership of the Donetsk People's Republic talking about the Great Patriotic War...
>... He is a very old man. Not to demean him but he is not what he once was.
He is respectfully old, but this only underscores how remarkable he is, how true to his life-long commitment of exposing the imperialist narratives and giving voice to the oppressed.
However, I guess, russia's war against Ukraine presented a tough topic for him. He is undoubtedly anti-war and in support of people who suffer. Yet he cannot detach this from the fact that indeed the USA, EU, and NATO are in helping position to Ukraine.
This by extension put Mr. Chomsky at odds with Ukraine's struggle, thus all the narratives so familiar from russian propaganda to justify this stance. But by all means, he's not a russia's or putin's proxy. Sadly and predictably, his views are readily weaved into this propaganda, while his name and work is largely irrelevant to most of the russia population.
Ukraine remains the land where Chomsky's father was born. And the present reality is that this land is still being blown and burned on the orders of russia criminal leadership, who gives a damn about Mr. Chomsky's life-long commitment.
In this case the Ukrainian people, their language and culture are the oppressed, historically! So I believe, Mr. Chomsky is on Ukraine's people side too ... just in the depths and breadth of his heart.
Ukraine did not start this war, russia did. Now Ukraine needs every bit of support to withstand and hopefully prevail in this struggle to survive as people and the nation!
No, you just need to pay close attention and actually understand his words.
Take for example the Bosnian war. People are quick to misrepresent Chomskys views as supporting the Serbs position. He just was against actions which would escalate the conflict. And he was correct. NATO involvement spurred genocide.
His points on Ukraine are nuanced. Ukrainians hate it because they want everyone to just whole-sale support them. True support of Ukraine is pushing for peace. Arming Ukraine is akin to someone encouraging a little kid to fight an older bully. All we will accomplish is the eventual hurt of the kid.
NATO made the Serbs commit genocide? I can't believe that I'm reading that on HN. How did NATO "spur" the Serbs to kill 8000 Bosnian muslim men in Sebrenica exactly?
Look, I’m not saying NATO directly made the Serbs do what they did. But you should at least read Chomskys take on the timeline of events and respond to that if you believe him to be wrong.
> More important, the U.S. was able to enforce its domination over the strategic Balkans region, ... A destitute Serbia remains the last holdout, probably not for long.
How can you take someone seriously who writes that in the closing paragraphs, and ignores the preceding mass killings with the remark that "it wasn't really genocide, so who cares"? Anyway, the pattern "NATO made them kill" is in that article as well.
Stronger seems to mean afraid in this case. RF are taking care of business. Americans dont have any on the ground tactics, in this case, they are taking notes how to fight.
I was really hoping Chomsky would offer a point of view less firmly entrenched in the politics of 20th century economic imperialism, because he’s normally very insightful.
But it does seem like in his own way he adopted a belief in American supremacy. The US is powerful, and unprecedentedly so (especially throughout the 90s), but they don’t control all world politics.
Articles like this are kind of the point of this war: people exchanging views in a respectful ways in written form is a freedom we have that is currently denied to many Russians and that Ukrainians are fighting to preserve in their own country, which has been invaded.
IMHO the reason Chomsky's views are disappointing is that he in effect picks the oppression of Ukrainians by Russians as a lesser evil compared to them fighting for their freedom. War is ugly and Chomsky is of course a life long pacifist. So that isn't a surprising point of view. But you'd hope he'd value his own freedoms a bit higher. To deny that freedom to others is the bit that disappoints.
I was surprised to read this, and indeed a quick google of "is chomsky a pacifist" returned many examples of Chomsky saying and writing that he's not a pacifist.
Actually, his grand linguistic theory (universal grammar) has been comprehensively disproven. So I'm not so sure he's regarded as an excellent linguist anymore.
Though I suspect he hasn't changed his mind about it. Evidence and logic are not really his thing, are they?
"they appear to be just as dogmatic and just as monstrous as the fascists."
I can't understand this claim. Fascists are dogmatic because they are unwilling to even listen and attempt to oppress opposing viewpoints. They are monstrous because they use violence and threats to eliminate whoever they consider as undesirable or as an opponent. Which of the two did Chomsky do?
Dogmatic for adherence to ideology above all else. One does not have to be violent or oppressive to be dogmatic. Monstrous for his dogmatic adherence to ideology, which would leave the Ukrainian people to fend for themselves in the face of the Russian invasion.
"Frankies" means fascists, humorously. Followers of Francisco Franco if it helps you remember.
If you're a westerner who wants to understand the cultural context of the war, I can't but recommend Kamil Galeev mega-threads [1], and this one especially: War of memes [2]. You probably will be able to understand why NATO has little role here, and why we (Ukrainians) are demolishing Pushkin statues after Feb 2022.
You can ignore that noise coming from "experts" like Noam.
In the first days of invasion, when the shock and uncertainty was at its highest, I was reading everything I could to get some sense of what's truly going on and what are the odds. Kamil's threads struck me by the depth of undestanding of russia's internals. I mean, many things are no surprise to me, and are well known for Ukrainians, and yet that was another level. In a way, reading his analyses and explainers helped me psychologically at that moment – even empowered in a way. I can only compare it with being diagnosed with cancer, and reading Siddhartha Mukherjee's Pulitzer-winning book "The Emperor of All Maladies". It doesn't fix your problem, but empowers with knowledge and more intimate understanding of the enemy, which can dramatically shift your internal assesment of risks and danger.
Yes. For me as a foreign (USA) resident of Finland (which has its own fraught history with Russia, under the serious question When are they coming for us?), I found his analyses so immensely comforting that I only cautiously trusted them. But the extensive notes and predictive power wins over all other pundits.
The second thread is quite good, but I wonder if its author understands that he just described why all his buddies' efforts towards building the "non-imperialistic benign Russia without the color of the war" are doomed since the beginning.
As someone from the west who has near zero understanding of Russian or Ukrainian culture and history, I preferred to take a step back and try to find stuff I do have in common with them.
To me, the west sponsoring the war in Vietnam comes close. The ideological basis for that war was the "domino theory", which postulated Asian countries would fall the communism like domino's. It's not too different from the way Galeev paints Russian's motivation for invading the Ukraine today. The west wanted to expand it's western way of doing things. The domino theory postulated the reverse was happening - western style culture would be snuffed out in Asia by communism. So the west decided to sponsor a horrific war to force the issue.
The west lost that war emphatically in the end. Amazingly, that loss didn't stop the US and it's allies trying to pull the same stunt again and again in subsequent years, most recently in Afghanistan. And unless it's some tiny nation as happened with Russia and Georgia, the outcome has always been the same - humiliating loss. It always costs enormous sums, inflicts huge human suffering, lasts for years, brings down governments, and yet we in the west do it over and over again. It just boggles the mind.
Russia's foray into Ukraine looks very similar to me. Ukraine was moving from a Russian style culture to a more a western style. Russia loathes and fears the displacement of their way of doing things just as much as the west loathes any drift from capitalism and individualism to communism and cooperatives. Russia's attempt at fixing this by installing a puppet government in Ukraine failed. So they decided to fix it with a war.
It's amazing two cultures believe they are so different they are willing kill each other over it, are nonetheless near identical in their instinctive approach to solving those differences.
The outcome will be no different - Russia will lose this war, just as they lost in Afghanistan and the west lost most of their similar wars. And it will have no effect on the outcome in the end. The west lost the Vietnam war, so we got to see the domino theory pan out. Turned out it was a crock of shit, little more than a mass paranoid delusion. Asian countries (including China) has been moving from communism to their own unique style of capitalism ever since.
Unfortunately I doubt it will work out that way for Russia. Unlike the domino theory, its fears are well justified. Rule by law and well managed markets work better than a kleptocracy. It means you get to have nice things. In raw numbers, Russia's economy is about the size of Australia's - a nation with 1/5 the population. Another number: Australian GDP per capita: USD$50k, Canada GDP per capita: $40k, Russia GDP per capita: $10k. All are resource rich nations.
Young Ukrainians compared what they saw in the west and the east - and made the rational decision. You can only see so far in either direction, so in the east of Ukraine where their view of the west is obscured, they are still endorse the Russian way. But if you look at poll results on joining NATO there is a line dividing east and west. People on the western side voted to become more like NATO, on the east to remain with Russia. That line has been moving steadily eastwards over time. Russia decided to wage a war to stop the advance of that line. It makes about as much sense as trying to stop jelly sliding down a wall with nails. Insane.
I wish I could say our politicians in the west were better, but history demonstrates otherwise. That's something else Russian's and westerners have in common.
Chomsky's specialist area is criticism of the US. You ask him about any random topic and he's going to bring up his special area of interest.
Chomsky having a pop at the US is like the socialist left or BLM in the US having a pop at Democrats. Yeah, in some grand sense they should be focusing on their common enemy, but on the other hand, someone has to remind people that "the best out of the two current options" isn't that great either or we'll never expand the options, as frustrating as that is when you are emotionally attached to another issue that hangs in the balance and you want a broad coalition to focus on.
"If you'd just shut up about racism/sexism/capitalism/war/jobs then we'd be able to totally sort out sexism/capitalism/war/jobs/racism, which is clearly more important!".
"In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:"
It then mentions the Budapest memorandum which has nothing to do with whether the people living in Crimea like it or not. Then it mentions that "Crimeans" is not a thing, it is clear that by "Crimeans" Chomsky meant the people living in Crimea. Then he mentions that Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of Crimea, which while I expect it to be considered as true by most people, I do not think that it really matters, after all nobody really cares about the Anatolian Greeks in Turkey. It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it? As for whether it was declared invalid by the UN assembly, this is irrelevant as to whether the people living in Crimea like it or not.
"In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future."
This open letter does not try to justify this argument. I would claim that it is false, just consider the various attempts to charge various fighters (in Iraq and other places) against the US with war crimes while at the same time the US refuses to do the same for its own solders.
"Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)?"
Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)
"If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine"
This open letter does not try to justify why they think that providing military assistance to Ukraine will lead to less deaths compared to what Chomsky thinks.
Edit: Please do not take this post as a sign of support of any side. Rather it is just criticism of the specific open letter.
>It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it?
Yes, this usually means exactly that. For example, that Crimean Tartar community members were kidnapped, arrested, disappeared, deported or killed before, during and after the referendum. It also means that vote counting was rigged, ballot stuffing was prevalent, people were coerced into voting, and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased.
> Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)
Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?
Russia's official statements regarding Ukrainian sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality do speak of 'elimination'. Russian actions in occupied territories of Ukraine indicate that this is, indeed, one of their war aims. Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide, I have to ask: are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?
"Crimean Tartar community members were kidnapped, arrested, disappeared, deported or killed before, during and after the referendum"
Even if this is true[1] I do not see how this would alert the result of the referendum, given the amount of people who voted in support of joining Russia.
[1] this article is the first time that I saw such a claim. I might search about it later.
"and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased"
The question as posted in Wikipedia seems reasonable to me.
"Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?"
I mean regarding the currently occupied territories/after a future annexation of Ukraine.
"do speak of 'elimination'"
Sure, of the ideas of "sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality", not of the people themselves.
"Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide"
I (and as I perceive it, the majority of the people) do not personally consider the elimination of the idea of a nationality as genocide. I could perhaps be willing to entertain the idea of a cultural genocide (it is however questionable that this is what is planned for the Ukrainians) but I would not equate it to an actual genocide.
"are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?"
I have seen some arguing it, but it is not something that I personally believe.
Instead of relying on this letter to guess at what Chomsky says, I suggest people actually read what he said. Here's the interview that the letter links to[1]. Chomsky says he wants Ukraine to be able to defend itself, but also wants there to be a diplomatic rather than military end to the war, and an effort to keep the war from escalating:
> I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond sanctions against the aggressor, or appropriate just as sanctions against Washington would have been appropriate when it invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or many other cases.
**
> However, I still think it’s not quite the right question. The right question is: What is the best thing to do to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from further destruction? And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.
Chomsky is also quite critical of Russia:
> Well, two questions, points of fact: You’re quite right, that the overwhelming mass of the war crimes, the ones that we should be considering, are carried out by the Russians. That’s not in dispute. And they are major war crimes.
Saying that Chomsky isn't anti-imperialist because he disagrees with the method of ending the conflict in Ukraine reminds me of how people who opposed the war in Iraq were said to be friends of Saddam and against Iraqi people getting freedom and democracy. Whenever war fever grips the establishment, even disagreements on tactics coming from people who share the same general goals gets treated as abhorrent heresy.
It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions.
> And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.
This is, unfortunately, half the problem. Western intellectuals are working under the assumption that they are dealing with a state that thinks in modern terms. Ukrainians know that Russia thinks in 19th century terms, but this simple fact seems to be lost on the West. There cannot be a negotiated settlement to an old-style conquest; Ukraine is literally fighting for its existence.
It's like living with a psychopath. He knows exactly what to say to placate or distract or sideline everyone else, and give himself room to abuse and torment his target. And since Russia's propaganda machine is so effective, they actually have the elites in many places (for example Italy) parroting the party line. Hell, they even have the venerable and respected Chomsky playing their game!
To put it in perspective:
- Since when is it acceptable to invade another country, flatten their cities, send tens of millions fleeing as refugees, block their ports and threaten the world food supply, giving "because there are nazis there" as your reason? How in the hell did this ever become a valid talking point?
- Since when is it acceptable to invade country X because country Y is allowing it to join a treaty? Shouldn't country X be allowed to decide with whom they ally themselves without getting killed over it? That's like beating up your girlfriend because some other guy hit on her.
The Western intellectuals have been thinking in imperialistic terms (USA vs Russia), when in fact it's about UKRAINE, a sovereign nation with a right to exist, a country that did not threaten its neighbors or build up troops on the border like Russia has done (and then invaded). All they want is their territorial integrity back and to live securely. And no negotiated settlement with Russia will bring that because allowing Putin to "save face" will involve giving up territory, blocking any potential future defense pacts, and then sitting around waiting for invasion #3.
I don't think it's 19th vs 20th vs 21st century terms or whatever.
It's political-economic interests and contradictions and competing interests around global capital. A fight over who controls resources and which country's capitalist classes get dominance over resources and markets. Aka a classic imperialist war.
And clearly the Russians are willing to mobilize 19th century Tsarist style "Great Russian" nationalism + a heaping dose Duginist Russo-fascism in service of this agenda. But I think it's naive to think that Lavrov (Mouth of Sauron) and Putin and the people lining up behind them actually truly believe this cack.
Actually, Putin does believe it. He's stated many times, as have his subordinates, that his goal is the absorption of "Little Russia" and the rebirth of the Russian empire to stand at her rightful place as a primary power in the world (and as payback for the many humiliations she has suffered at the hands of the West).
You can see it in how quickly Russia installs collaborators in Ukrainian regions who suddenly declare that they wish to be annexed by Russia.
These kinds of idealistic psychopathic people do exist, and they are incredibly dangerous if they get into positions of power.
I see your point, but at the end of the day, when it really is two imperialist powers, USA vs Russia actually calling the shots, does it matter that western intellectuals aren't acknowledging the Ukrainian perspective? From my outside perspective, the Ukrainain perspective isn't what people focus on, simply because Ukrainians have no choice, or rather, there is only a singular choice. And they are entirely dependent on the whims of the two imperialist powers fighting a proxy war with Ukrainain blood.
American politicians couldn't care less about the actual Ukrainian people. This is about either crippling Russia and scoring the political points to say they did it, or securing money either for their personal coffers or feeding their local Military Industrial Complex.
I personally think that the Ukrainian perspective matters, but we(westerners) won't care until it's too late. Tangentially related, our most recent home grown white supremacist shooter was inspired at least in part by Azov battalion, he wore a black sun patch and lifted several parts of his manifesto from Brendan Tarrant directly, another neo Nazi that actually spent time in Ukraine, with the Azov battalion being an inspiration. I imagine Russia will also be facing internal unrest for generations for what's happening in Ukraine. Maybe this is their Chernobyl moment.
Actually it's the entire Western world against Russia. I've never seen such unity in Europe over a single issue, nor has there ever been such a big military investment here since the second world war. Even SWITZERLAND picked sides! This isn't anything like those old silly USA-led NATO adventures where the European "partners" would send some token troops and try to keep quiet about it back home.
This invasion has woken the sleeping European giant.
The counter argument is the Western elite are thinking the world has changed while every other country including Russia are still playing by 20th century Sphere of Influence geopolitics.
The US invaded Cuba when the Russians installed missiles, so is it surprising in the least that Russia is intervening when NATO moves up to their border?
Problem in Russia is that they imagine that they are a superpower in some capacity. They are not. It was believed in the West that perhaps they have modernized their army but they have not.
> The right question is: What is the best thing to do to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from further destruction? And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.
That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter). And the facts might have proven him wrong. He's been saying so since the start, but Ukraine seems to have been rather successful in repelling the Russians.
> It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions.
I'm not sure I would count Ukraine as being successful when you factor in the human cost of the conflict. Ukraine already has had a huge problem of people emigrating the country, this just multiplies that, not to mention all the men that are never coming back. Families, young men, prisoners of war, and even the men that do survive will pass their scars onto the next generation.
So: another country invades you, you just let them take over? Ok. Where's your house? I know a few people that might be interested in it. Don't be alarmed. Nothing will happen to you or your family. If you comply. They won't suddenly start making more demands, I swear.
The Russians don't have the money to outdo the west, they will fold, no matter what their propaganda department convinces some people to buy. While Putin has a pretty strong grip on the country it's not as profound as the one Stalin had, and it will fail eventually. He will be assassinated or a coup will happen if he doesn't relent in the next year or so.
Perhaps. Or Putin and the Russian people will galvanize and feel the need to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons and/or shift their economy into a military output machine, causing further instability for Ukraine and the European continent. The US did it when threatened in WW2. What makes us think the Russians are less likely to use nukes or other terrible weapons than the US?
Because it was the matter of survival and existence of Russia as the nation in the WW2? Amazing things happen when you are under attack.
What are the same threats to Russia today? They are under no threats from the outside. Simple as that. The issue is that they’ve become increasingly irrelevant. They may work to become a modern economy. Russia is full of educated people, with a proud culture. Or they may rely on their past glory, expanding their empire by interfering with their neighbors. They’ve chosen the latter.
So Russia and/or China can annex Mexico into an exclusive military alliance and the US would argue “They are under no threats from the outside (China and Russia). Simple as that.” No way that would be the case. Alarm bells and missiles would be flying over such a move. Why do people not understand this as an equally alarming concern to Russia?
You are here missing only one very simple but important fact. Russia nor China are not superpowers. China may become one soon but it is not yet. Russia can be as concerned as it likes to be but if it steps over the line, it will get its ass handled back to it.
Russia has more nukes than any country in the world. That alone makes them a power to be reckoned with regardless of whether they are a super power by anyone’s definition.
Perhaps the US and Europe is pushing things to the point of their own suicide as well. The US (alone) is sending 50+ billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine for a conflict that has only lasted for a couple months. At this rate, the US will send about $300 billion in 1 year! That represents almost 1/2 of the entire US military annual budget and would dwarf the military budget of almost all nations in the world except maybe China. Talk about suicide.
How much did wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost? War in Afghanistan was only important for posturing. This is also the reason why when US decided to leave, it did not look back. Putin of course inferred that it is signal of weakness when it was not. Putin also inferred that Europe trying to keep good relations and keep doing business is signal of weakness. He stepped into trap created by his own delusion.
Only if you ignore Ukrainians sucessfull counter-offensives on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Worst case scenario possibly is a peace deal because, as you said, Russia will invade again in a few years and both sides will be better prepared.
Long term the only way for Ukraine independence is the equalization of it's military capabality with that of Russia. This war is a grinding machine causing heavy material and human losses for both sides but Ukraine with international support have better odds than sanctioned Russia. And frankly it's a bargain for the European democracies to support Ukraine now and later get a better aligned energy supplier and a weaker ideological enemy.
What's at play for Russia is the monopoly over European energy as Donetsk and Crimea have large recent-discovered oil & gas reserves. An independent Ukraine would certainly take over this market.
Israel is 1/10th of the population of Egypt and survived the Arab War where it was attacked by Egypt, Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. And the Arabs received Soviet support. Also the US lost at Vietnam. The Soviets lost at Afghanistan and Russia is a shadow of what the Soviet Union was.
Total population means nothing as it ignores that Russia demographics is skewed towards old women and that a large share of the youngers are from ethnic minorities. Russia is struggling to replenish losses and haven't mass conscripted. And sheer numbers alone aren't enough to win a war. Equipment, training, moral, tactics and logistics are also important.
"acceptable cost" here is losses in fighting for freedom or genocide. There is no choice at all, in case of fighting you have chances, in case of giving up it's death/rape/torture/gulags/deportations anyway.
It is possible but there are at least two serious vulnerabilities for Russia's forces. If UA can recognize them and exploit fully, large part of Russian army will collapse.
>That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter).
This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option.
Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from.
Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies.
He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation.
So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world.
Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.
If the Ukrainians wanted to stop the fight they could do it tomorrow. The US is helping the Ukrainians with weapons. Your perspective is saying that Ukrainians are puppets and have no choice in the matter. They could all lay down their weapons and put up their hands if they didn't want to fight for their country and against Russian genocide. They don't have US guns threatening to kill them if they give up, unlike Russian soldiers who are threatened with prison time for desertion. No one on HN is going to buy that the US is puppeteering Ukraine.
The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory is irrelevant.
Why? Because the only sovereign territory you have is the one you can occupy and defend. And it’s pretty clear Ukraine can do neither with the regions Russia has already occupied.
Sure, the invasion is “illegal”. But being “illegal” means nothing if you don’t have the means to take it back.
So, if a weaker power like Ukraine wishes to maintain their territorial integrity they need to find a solution with Russia. Sure, that’s not fair and offends our sense of sovereignty, but hey, that’s reality.
That’s what people are getting at with “NATO threatened Russia so Russia invaded”. It’s not excusing it. It’s not saying it’s right. It’s just describing reality.
The West is more than happy to bankroll Ukraine’s defense, but it won’t be their sons and daughters dying. They’ll just fight to the last Ukrainian and then settle with Russia in some way. NATO has zero qualms hurting Russia by burning Ukraine to the ground.
Ukraine’s smartest move is negotiate some neutrality with Russia and move on with life.
It absolutely amazing to read opinions on HN how dumb the population was the get itself involved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and then watch them buy hook, line and sinker the exact same arguments for Ukraine.
This is pretty terrible. Chomsky is way more right than these guys. Some notes:
1. Crimea is a settled issue. You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency?
2. While Russia is the bad guy here without doubt, you can't gloss over Ukraine's failings here. Stop with the binary thinking here that one or the other is wrong or that criticizing Ukrainian actions is victim-blaming. Prime example: cutting off the water to Crimea following 2014 by any objective standard is a human rights violation;
3. Ukraine has been a pawn for US foreign policy. It's wild to pretend otherwise. For the US military-industrial complex the current situation is basically ideal. Russia is mired in a war they cannot win, Russia has been isolated from the international community, Europe is set to become less dependent on Russian energy exports, NATO is strengthened and the US gets to sell lots of weapons to Ukraine.
4. The idea that Russia doesn't want a buffer to NATO is laughable and hypocritical. It ignores 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine where the US will not accept any foreign military presence in the Western hemisphere (it's self-declared sphere of influence). This was practically tested when the US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. So why is that OK for the US but not Russia?
5. These authors make the same mistakes most US wonks do: they view the US as benign. Even if you agree with that you should at least accept that not everyone else does and there's plenty of evidence it isn't. I mean NATO's raison d'etre was to destroy the USSR. The USSR is gone so now it's by default the destroy Russia alliance.
6. As for the diplomatic solution, there ultimately will be one. There always is. Even unconditional surrender is a diplomatic end. Russia is a nuclear power. The pre-WW2 standards of defeating hegemonic powers just don't apply any more. There's a whole straw man bit in this about how the only alternative is unconditional surrender. Nobody is saying that.
I think the only thing I agree with is the justification for the invasion (most notably "denazification") is completely ridiculous. This is propaganda and it's what imperial powers do. It's really no different to the US spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is settled in a sense, that there's no solution besides destroying Russia as a state that would result in return of Crimea to Ukraine. As OP said, whether we recognize Crimean referendum or not, is irrelevant, so bringing Kherson into conversation does not make much sense. Polls in territories occupied after 24.02 would not show the same level of support of the referendum results, as it happened in Crimea.
1. So: force natives out, settle the land with military officers and other not-collonists-only-in-name, fix some polls and call it Crimean agency.
Tell me: in 1941, did the Baltic States enter the Soviet Union willingly (via democratic votes of coincidentally brand new Soviet-aligned governments) or did it happen due to Soviet military coercion, threats and ultimatums? Was it a settled issue in 1945-1953[1]? In 1989[2]? How about now? Same question about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
2. Finding it really hard not to see this as victim blaming. Do you believe cutting off the water supply to Crimea was what prompted a military invasion that targeted Kiyv, among other targets? Should Ukraine have absorbed the infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc. to keep the water supply operational for a, your words 'settled issue'? Since it would then be an international matter, the water supply question would be governed by treaties, yes? Again, at the very least, there are costs involved in keeping the water flowing. Unless you feel this is a situation where Russia can take what ever it wants and get paid for it. A sort of Bullying as a Service, if you will.
3. First of all: what if Russia's the pawn? Secondly: did the US organize the 2003 Tuzla Island incident, where Russia tried to annex Ukraine's island in the Kerch strait? Might this be a pattern that's not solely the interest of the US military-industrial complex?
4. Whataboutism. Or, as the Soviets used to say: "Oh yeah? And you're lynching negroes in the US!".[3]
5. Since you are equivocating the Soviet Union and Russia, the US is objectively more benign. To paraphrase your point: you are making the same mistake that most US "anti-imperialists" make by seeing it as the most active and subversive force in human history. In terms of repressiveness and meddling in foreign countries (coups, revolutions), Russian and Soviet history is hard to beat. Bucha in 2022 is what my great grandparents and grandparents had to live through when the Soviets occupied our country. The equivocation is justified.
6. It takes two to tango, but it's hard to listen to the crowd shouting about how you should start dancing when the other side has just left the floor and stabbed your mother in plain sight of everyone.
Fascinating how you agreed that the Russian narrative is completely ridiculous and then ended with another whataboutism about the US.
I wonder if you really understand what „natives“ mean in the context of Crimea. E.g. Eastern Slavs were present there long before conquest by Ottoman Turks, so technically Crimean Tatars can be called colonizers, which wiped or assimilated the original population of the peninsula. Even if we start calling them natives, the sequence that you described is a nonsense. Crimea became part of Ukraine only after Tatars were resettled by Stalin, so this could not be part of some plan of Russia to take it from Ukraine. It was already Russian, with Russian population bigger than Ukrainian.
>You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency?
This is a complete lie. Also the USSR settled Crimea with many Russians to change its demographics.
I'm a bit nihilistic when it comes to geopolitics and war.
Those debates are a bit dry and a bit pointless, good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter.
I'm for Ukraine but you can't deny that Putin still has a lot of people rooting for him, even in Ukraine.
If you ask Russians, they will easily answer that Irak was illegally invaded (the lapsus of bush did not help), so it becomes difficult for the west to be seen as the good guy, and it's cynical to say it, but opinions of the masses matter.
So of course that comparison is unfair, but this comparison kind of matter in geopolitics.
Can I suggest "interests and power" instead. Influence is a form of power and it's important to pay attention to interests, which drive the use of power. I should also highlight that cost vs. benefit is the other determining factor.
>good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter.
"Good" and "evil" are loaded stand-ins for sets of values and actions, but consider: the U.S. has more influence and power than China. Which country would you rather live in or be influenced by?
I really love Noam Chomsky works and know what interviews the academics have referring to. But let me ask the academics with a question which continues Noam's thought:
> Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination?
Have you considered the possibility that Ukraine is going to attach to the West's sphere of influence? Would Ukrainians really want it or they just want the invasion to be stopped?
If you read this letter I encourage you to read the Chomsky interviews they linked. These interviews were my first experience reading things he wrote or said. After reading those it seems like the authors of this letter didn't really understand his statements.
I don't agree with everything Chomsky said, but he seems to try and understand all of the opposing viewpoints in this conflict as a way to figure out what the possible outcomes are. It didn't come across as blatantly or negligently pro-Russian to me.
For example, I think its pretty reasonable to hold the opinion that Ukraine probably isn't getting Crimea back without forcibly taking it (and I have no idea if they are capable of it). Chomsky and I could be wrong about this but I don't think it makes either of us pro-Russian shills. He's not attempting to predict what ought to happen in the fantasy world that we want to exist, he's trying to predict what may happen in the deeply flawed world that we actually have.
I think Chomsky’s original sin here is his treatment of Russia as a sensible actor who will negotiate in good faith. Russia showed time and time again this is not the case, and that it responds only to strength.
His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia.
What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle.
Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.
Most of the people I have known that rave about Chomsky actually read very little of his work. I've tried getting through a few of his books, and I actually find his linguistic publications more interesting than his geopolitical ones.
From the perspective of working class unity and logistic/democratic changes to civilization, I've not found any of his advice terribly useful. Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people.
In areas like this he comes dangerously close to being a propagandist for Putin. We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda.
Any hope that the tools of capital will eventually lead to a people's revolution when the primary barrier to that is a totalitarian vanguard party seems silly to me.
> Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people.
What... he's famous precisely for turning many people into progressives and socialists. Nobody would even know he's a linguist or geopolitical theorist otherwise. He's literally a popularizer for the left.
> We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda.
This I can get behind though. I don't think it will succeed though, Russia and China have paid a lot for their lackeys on the left.
236 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 85.2 ms ] threadNATO is not a singular person or one monolithic entity, and I am saddened by the black & white quasi-religious thinking which seems to not see the complexities and contradictions here.
The people of Ukraine need to be defended from the vicious authoritarian gangsterist government that holds power in Russia. No amount of whataboutism and pseudo-pacifist handwringing will change that. Western leftists need to listen to what Ukrainian socialists are saying, instead of yammering about in a purist echo chamber.
My definition of socialism is of a worldview that stands on the side of the oppressed. To me, this is a litmus test that some people on the "left" have failed.
Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis.
What do you mean by "travelers" in this context?
I was assuming the poster spoke of Romani people (or "gypsies", but this is a racial slur) and it was clearly out of context.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller
This goes for Chomsky as well.
That is, if by left, you mean socialists rather than liberals.
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
https://verdverm.com/ukraine
The playlist is more up to date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine
Both Ukraine and Russia have been dominated by a set of oligarchs since the fall of the Soviet Union, who have amassed an extreme amount of wealth and therefore, because of weak laws and bribery, control their respective countries to an extreme degree.
I don't see why anyone on the left, should prefer one of the sets of oligarchs to the other.
Jeez, it's almost like one could be opposed to both autocracies and still support resistance against the Russian state. Like the actual left (or what's left of it) in Ukraine (and Russia) are.
A good resource is https://lefteast.org/
They call those people "radical right wing extremists" and "Nazis"
You'll have to get out of the "left" far enough to see the rest of the spectrum first. That's hard right now.
Or maybe I'm just nuts and there's no one else that thinks individuals should have agency to decide whether they're suffering or how that suffering should be alleviated.
THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE OCCUPYING YOU A COUPLE DECADES AGO, IT WAS NOT A GOOD TIME, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THIS?!?!?!
fwiw I would say the plurality of people are in support of Ukraine but I never imagined there would so much visible support for russia, or even concessions to russian aggression. It's very disheartening to see any question about the validity of Ukrainian sovereignty.
JFC being implicitly in favour of a powerful military occupying and bombing its weaker neighbour is not an edgy or contrarian or clever position. It's ethical bankruptcy.
Communism is a totalitarian cult after all.
Or were you trying to make some sort of point about the differences in the repressive mechanisms or social constraints established under Khrushchev vs Brezhnev?
I strongly believe there are several key factors to this: a similar cultural experience and societal identity for people over 50[1] and a strong influence stemming from the combination of only knowing Russian as their single foreign language and the prevalence of Russian TV channels in the 90s/00s as well as Russian YouTube channels more recently. The 90s were hard in post-soviet countries, many people got disillusioned, some never really got back on their feet.
In terms of misremembering the occupation: cognitive biases and flaws[2], nostalgia, regressively conservative, hyper nationalistic, as well as anti-US/Western sentiments, etc. are all abused by Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories. Some narratives are really textbook political myths[3] about the Savior, the Golden Age (I guess the US got a real taste of this one with the MAGA movement). Much like a significant number of Trump supporters in the US, supporters or Russia in my country are more likely to believe in chemtrails, sovereign citizen claims, global pedophile conspiracies, anti-LGBTQ narratives, etc.
1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory#Mandela_Effect 3- http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/pas/pas201201/pas2012-08.pdf
By using the word „misremembering“ you only show the misunderstanding of real experiences of people which lived in that period. They may have experienced oppression, but it could be subtle and perceived very differently. Those people are not necessary living better now, often on the contrary. Transition to capitalism has left many behind, and being old, poor and misunderstood is certainly felt worse today than being young and not being able to buy American jeans back then. Calling it a false memory is intellectual snobbery.
Me too.
I am also very disappointed about their reactions to other issues too. Seems a lot of people on the left like to philosophize about issues but don't really like to acknowledge real world issues. I saw this when the rioting after the George Floyd went on. A lot of people refused to even think that maybe burning down shops is not a good response to racism. Instead they just kept on talking about systemic racism while ignoring the riots.
And now the response to Ukraine is often "Why do these Ukrainians make so much trouble? They should stop the killing and give up. They are losing anyway. We are pacifists, we don't like war". I agree that there may have been ways to deal with the situation better before the war but there is simply no excuse for Russia to attack the country and bomb cities. If somebody has responsibility to stop this, it's clearly Russia and nobody else.
Mr. Varoufakis definitely has excellent rhetoric skills, but many of his and his comrades positions and emphasis on resolving Ukrainian conflict would put put Ukraine on a plate for Putin. Makes me wonder what arrangements Mr. Varoufakis had made with Putin regime.
Perhaps apparachik does his analysis and writes books for him in exchange. Maybe popularity pumped up with bots in views, sales, invitations. Or an arrangement which protects the ground of democratic elections in Bolivia, Chile and others against a coup orchestrated by US.
All these things seem possible as the left never in history have been weaker to challenge those who have. And the prospects with Ukrainian war looks even more grimmer. And all of that because of a man who learned that wealth does not bring happiness.
There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.
Chomsky is literally an anarchist who opposes the existence of all states.
This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.
It's the opposite of nuanced.
It's propaganda, and makes no sense - against barbaric Russian soldiers committing countless rapes and civilian executions... Ukraine would fight to the last Ukrainian even without any external support.
That people can say that Ukraine is being manipulated by others into defending their country to the death makes no sense at all. The remaining claims are wife beater logic: Look what you made me do! Russia had to invade Ukraine because they wouldn't behave, because NATO wasn't cowed and showed no respect!
A necessary consequence of the logic of opposing interventionist US foreign policy is acknowledging that there will be no “Team America: World Police” to help countries like Ukraine in regional conflicts. There’s nothing ideologically inconsistent about it.
You can’t micro-focus on a single incident. Maybe we are doing the right thing by arming the Ukrainians. But maybe we’re not. We thought we were doing the right thing arming Afghan freedom fighters against the Soviet Union. Look how that turned out. The US was ready to oppose the independence of my home country, to support western-aligned Pakistan against Soviet-aligned India: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kissinger-nixon-tape-declass.... There is a long track record of global powers intervening in regional wars that we can evaluate to see if on the whole the policy is a good one.
Russians ARE committing war crimes in Ukraine. There is a lot of evidence for them massacring civilians. See what they've done in Bucha.
That being said, one thing you're right is that the "good guys" in this war were wrong before. What I think you don't see is that there were huge protests in the West against the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't support what the US were doing in the Middle East, but I wholeheartedly support all efforts to get Russians out of Ukraine - including shipping American military gear.
I completely accept that opposing interventionist foreign policy in the case of Ukraine support is a valid stance for US citizens.
However, I hope that in this case the US continues to support Ukraine - we need it - as the price Ukraine has paid for Russia's truly barbaric aggression is already too high.
While given a particular set of moral values this may be a legitimate argument, it is strangely inconsistent with other comparable events. Virtually nobody on "the left" will ever claim that France and the UK should have not declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland so as to decrease suffering.
Going to a more local context, in my home country of Spain, many on the left hold a historical grudge against France and the UK for not coming to the support of the legitimate Spanish Republic in 1936 when a military/nationalist coup triggered what eventually became the Spanish Civil War and lead to Franco's far-right dictatorship. The USSR, in contrast, did come to the aid of the Republic for better or for worse. However, funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic.
[0] I hate the oversimplification and forced dichotomy that results from talking about "the left" or "the right", hence the quotation marks.
For this I have the following possible explanations:
- They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed.
- They supported an early war against Germany because they believe that the German government would keep going with their demands and that the war was inevitable.
- They are against the war but admitting it would be a social suicide.
- They don't have an opinion about it or just have not voiced an opinion about it. (as it is an event that happened decades ago instead of one that is happening at this moment)
"funnily enough, whenever I bring this point up with those who claim the West is "prolonging suffering" by supporting Ukraine, they never concede that France and UK's decision at the time would be consistent with their claimed non-interventionism, nor that the USSR prolonged suffering by supporting the eventually defeated Spanish Republic."
This is interesting. What is their usual counterargument? I Presume that they either don't have a consistent logic behind it or they believe that protecting Ukraine would not benefit the common people (or would benefit them marginally) in comparison to the Spanish civil war which in their mind supporting the republican side would benefit the common people enough to counterbalance the loss of lives.
> - They supported a war against Germany not for the protection of Poland but in order to topple the fascist government and stop the atrocities that were being committed.
What on Earth are you talking about? France and the UK did not come to Poland's help in September 1939 not due to an altruist aspiration to stop Nazi atrocities that had not yet begun, but due to a mere fact that neither country was ready for an all out war with a heavily industrialised Nazi war machine.
Nazis invaded Poland on the 1939-09-01, but the first ever death camp at Bełżec in Poland had not been built and had not become operational until March 1942 (Operation Reinhard) with more to follow over 1942-44. The truth about the nature and the scale of Nazi atrocities had not surfaced to Western Allies until 1943 which was well into the WWII, and when it did surface, the Western Allies at first refused to believe in reports due to the unfathomable and previously unseen scale of the atrocities.
According to the official Nazi racial doctrine, all Slavic peoples (Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians – all of the Slavs, indiscriminately) – with Poles specifically – were subject to a complete and indiscriminate extermination; from Himmler's speech on 1940-03-15 in Poznan:
"…das großdeutsche Volk die Vernichtung sämtlicher Polen als seine Hauptaufgabe versteht" is key here.The worst was yet to begin in 1942, not in 1939.
> > "What is their usual counterargument?"
One that stuck to my mind was, believe it or not, that an internal armed coup against a democratic government does carry the moral obligation of other democracies to intervene and defend it if said government requests it—which is not the case apparently when a democratic government requests support to defend itself from a neighbouring state which invades it without the slightest provocation. It's basically all post-hoc rationalisations of their emotional beliefs.
You can try to rationalize a distinction by saying in that case, the US failed to support the people seeking independence. But then you have to be in the business of deciding which people’s claim of independence is legitimate. Supporting the jihadists in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union didn’t exactly end up well. Intervention is always rationalized in the moment.
(Preemptively: you do not under any circumstances "gotta hand it to them", etc, etc).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cabinet_crisis,_May_1940
WW2 could have been stopped before it started if Britain or France marched into Germany (ad they could have won at many points) at any time between 1933 and 1939.
So by arming Zelensky et al, maybe we are creating a monster (unlikely) but maybe we are stopping a much worse monster from starting WW3 (more likely).
First, when a country with nukes is involved in a conflict I think a good case can be made the "region" is the whole world if there is even a small chance nukes might be used.
Second, Russia, the US, China, and others have an agreement to not use military force against Ukraine (the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances). Russia is violating that agreement, which automatically makes it a conflict with the US and so not regional.
So it's possible to say he's anti-imperialist, but not sincerely so and be correct.
I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine.
And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.
Yes it does [1][2], the list is huge [3]. I don't know how you could possibly be this ignorant with the Internet existing.
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
3. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/how-many-...
I’m sure Central and South America are glad to know now.
Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have.
Wishing for a fair world does not make it so.
> Self-determination and agency is only available to those who have the means to fight for it. Ukraine has none, it has whatever the nations providing 10s of billions in military aid allow it to have.
Self-determination and agency is available to those who have the will to fight for it. Clearly they do have the means to fight for it based on their ability to secure vast military support from the west.
Oh okay, it's just a coincidence that almost always get what they want and when they don't there's just coincidentally disaster.
Fascinating claim about a country that has been successfully resisting a Russian invasion for 3 months with predominantly locally-produced (and upgraded) weapons.
Nevertheless, if we steelman your argument and agree that Ukraine can never be truly self-determined and that it must choose between US or Russia, then not choosing a country that has done to Ukraine what the Russian Federation has been doing at least since 2003[1] seems favorable.
There's also the matter of centuries worth of historic memory of repression and subjugation, tortures, rapes, murders, man-made famines, forced mass deportations, etc. perpetrated by Russian autocrats and dictators. And now, quite alarmingly, we are seeing Stalinist-style atrocities being committed in 2022[2,3]. With this in mind, falling under Russian occupation is the worst case scenario for Ukraine and Ukrainians.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre
This isn't even close to true... Where have you been?
Perhaps there is more nuance than “controlled by the USA vs controlled by Russia - equally bad?”
And then USA's actions in Ukraine seems a lot like their Middle Eastern or South American policies. Which I doubt is in the interest of the vast majority of Ukrainians.
this is a bold claim to make without any tangible evidence to support it. Especially as it contradicts your very next statement about not having "a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine". It seems like you are claiming that Ukraine has no agency and autonomy in this situation or that the country is only allowed to resist with the armaments it has? Care to elaborate?
As for the war becoming "even more vile and bloody": do you believe Ukraine should just give up so that the Russians could be able to indiscriminately torture, rape, murder and disappear countless citizens of Ukraine, as they have been doing for centuries in the region? Again, Ukraine used its own armaments to resists and Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol and other bloody and vile atrocities still happened.
Many things in history and politics are dense. It's expected that people will disagree on these things.
But every so often something happens which is genuinely quite simple to understand. This Ukraine invasion allows you to discriminate between those who are still committed to reality and those who are not.
If you cannot understand that countries desire to join Nato (because they understand the Kremlin better than most Westerners); that ex-KGB Putin holding a candle once a year doesn't make him the grand protector of Christendom; that Russians are victims of this regime too; that this invasion was predicted by many (see Kasparov); etc etc... Then I really cannot take you serious anymore.
Ukraine is just another Iraq or Afghanistan because of similar incompetent and selfish leadership who care more about politics than the suffering of their fellow citizens.
I have no doubt that by the time the conflict ends, US and Russia would have balkanised Ukraine, and the war will turn into a stalemate prolonged low-intensity conflict with proxy battles between the superpowers in this region. Both Russia and US want to prolong the battle, as it is in their interest to do so, and the incompetent Ukranian leadership is totally blind to this.
I think he needs weapons but he has no money, so he is running the biggest tv donation marathon ever.
Also the "snubbing another", i.e. Russia is quite the victim-blaming. Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade?
Also Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked by the US, which according to your words means the leadership there should have just surrendered to the imperialist USA instead, instead of caring about "politics".
Yes, it is, obviously! India was once the wealthiest country in the world. It was then conquered by the British who ruled over them for 300+ years to become one of the poorest country in the world by the time the British left. Why? Weak, incompetent leadership that lacked vision. Incompetent politicians ignorantly or deliberately create suffering for their country. This war happened because of the political incompetence of the current Ukrainian leadership, and perhaps even because of their own selfish ambition to cement their political positions.
> ... and they should just surrender to Russia's interests, which would somehow would end the suffering?
Temporarily, if need be. But don't consider it as a surrender but a strategic retreat. International pressure against Russia can be diplomatically used to soften some of the demands they make, but yes, Ukraine will have to yield more. And whether the suffering ends really depends on the kind of leadership Ukraine's politician are capable of. Right now, Russia is winning the war (it is clear that they are not looking to occupy all of Ukraine and are willing to carve up the country in the long term. They are selectively targeting and occupying areas of Ukraine they consider necessary to protect its strategic interest, in case whatever remains of Ukraine after the war does manage to join NATO in the distant future).
> Ukraine snubs Russia, which it has the right to do, therefore Russia is allowed to invade?
It's the reality of the world order the super-powers have created for themselves. Yes, it is unfair.
As for Iraq or Afghanistan, the point was that they caught the interest of the superpowers, but their political leadership was politically incompetent to deal with them appropriately and couldn't protect their own country's interest. Leaders of both nation snubbed the superpowers. And look at them now. That's what the Americans and Russians will do to Ukraine too, unless Ukrainian politicians understand and accept the reality of their own standing in the world order.
You've predicted 2014.
The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions.
GWB's invasion of Iraq was America breaking international law. I was against that.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is Russia breaking international law. I am against that.
I am for whatever strategy (military aid? diplomacy? alliances?) most effectively addresses the Ukraine invasion and limits future illegal invasions. Nobody can know yet which strategy would be best, but it's not hypocrisy to be open to military aid, etc. I want to live in a world where leaders obey the rules.
And I’m not sure I understand the jump from “i oppose X” to “the US must get involved with X”.
Noam Chomsky is critical of Russia’s invasion, just like you.
But doing “something” is an entirely separate decision. People seem to be operating with the default of “if there is a problem, the US has an obligation to fix it”
It’s that mentality that has gotten us into so much trouble over the past 60-70 years.
My opinion is the default is “we do nothing”, and anything more needs justification and a careful analysis to ensure we don’t make things worse (which has been the outcome of almost every intervention since WW2).
One bad thing about GWB's wars is that the global community failed to prevent or meaningfully punish them. That precedent increases world-wide recklessness and paranoia.
I worry that if the outcome of the Ukraine is not a spectacular failure for Russia, the world will continue backsliding (I bet there are Chinese generals rallying already to take Taiwan)
What faith remains in the rule of law internationally is important to preserve. Eg: if the Hague had managed to imprison Cheney et al, would Russia today dare to invade neighbors?
My worries there are why I am open to escalation, though, like you, I fear it could escalate up to some kind of extinction event :(
Everything for the victory, I guess?
> US Congress quietly enables funding for Ukrainian neo-Nazi-led Azov Regiment
> David Levine
> 1 February 2016
> The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by US President Barack Obama late last year, did not include a previously expected ban against the funding of the Azov Regiment, a military organization that originated as a volunteer militia in May 2014 and was subsequently incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine.
> The Azov Regiment is notorious for the openly white supremacist and anti-Semitic views of its members, and its use of the Wolfsangel, a swastika-like symbol once used by certain divisions of the armed forces of Nazi Germany, as well as its leading role in the Battle of Mariupol in May-June 2014. The regiment’s leader is Andriy Biletsky, a current member of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada (parliament) and also leader of the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly. In a characteristic statement, Biletsky was quoted by the UK Telegraph last August as stating, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival, a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/01/azov-f01.html
I'm waiting for your explanations.
US/NATO/EU and Russia are just doing business uppon the deaths of ukrainians. Russia is clearly the most responsible for this, however, please, don't insult our intelligence by speaking of "democartic values" of the "free west". The west camp is equally rotten, it just has some nice make up on it's face and the only reason they are supporting ukraine is to make money, pretending they care for the devastated ukrainian people. They did not start the fire, but they are dumping tons of gas on it, because they benefit.
Very black & white, binary thinking.
I don't think you realize the depth of the cleptocracy that is Russia. There is a reason why all the nations from behind the former Iron Curtain would rather fight to the death than end up under their control again.
Of all the bloody, miserable empires of the world, the Russian one is the most dysfunctional and has been so for centuries. It is a historical outlier, a poor and underdeveloped nation conquering its richer and more developed neighbors to the west by sheer brute force. Hopefully it seems that the recipe no longer works.
Is Russia more rotten than the major western players? Ok let's agree on that too. So i should change the wording "equally rotten" to "also rotten". Still rotten as to my standards and still hypocrites.
1. Many countries are dumping old military equipment on ukraine and re-stocking with new. (Profit for the military equipment providers)
2. The gas bans mean US based LNG is going to be transported to Europe as alternate gas source (profits for providers and transporters)
The exonomy will be hurt in some ways (mostly impacting regular people) but it will benefit quite a few buisness sectora (on the expense of others)
So I don’t think the West is in it to make money. Not at all. If it was up to the Eastern EU countries they would send their armies to fight in Ukraine. They are scared of Russia. That’s their primary motivation, not profit. Other EU countries are alarmed but they lack the traumatic experience of Soviet occupation so they are less eager to fight. Still they are smart enough to realize if Russia succeeds the Baltics or Poland could be next. So the EU helps out of self preservation.
The US just sees this as an opportunity to damage Russia, they prefer to stretch this war out. The EU wants it to end as fast as possible.
I don’t see a profit motive.
A Marxist analysis would see the whole thing as a conflict between competing spheres and sectors of the international capitalist class that has broken out into open violent conflict. Contradictions in interests that were not resolvable by statecraft or other means are now being "resolved" through wholesale destruction.
Which is disturbingly similar to WWI.
The formula is simple, you make a narrative that devides to right and wrong. Then you spam people of the hell that will break loose if they do not vote for what you want. People vote it and then you say "hey! The people wanted it, not me!" If they don't vote it you just hold a second referendum.
I am not saying this is what happened there exactly, but referendums have become a joke in the 21st century.
I'm surprised, because I thought that Chomsky was mostly intelligent person. I've heard that he had very strange political views, but to just repeat Putin seems to manifest his lack of an ability to think for himself.
He was mainly doing what Chomsky always does which is point out the crimes and hypocrisies of various western governments.
But he's always been fairly consistently against authoritarian governments and dictators. I'll have to go digging to see exactly what this letter is responding to.
Some other western leftists do sound like this, though. Yanis Varoufakis did an annoying interview for example.
Even Lula said something similar on a Time interview recently. Brazil is very dependent on Russia's fertilizers and is a big (biggest?) food exporter. Brazilian politicians have been very careful to condemn the war while being light on Putin or the result could mean a significant rise on the price of food and even famine.
Lavrov talks like an anti-imperialist while actually basically being the Mouth of Sauron. The talking face of a failing autocratic petro-state.
Then, you would understand more what Chomsky is saying.
Source: I spent the last two years+ full time in Ukraine, much of the last decade in Ukraine.
I'm not Ukrainian - I just know reality from theatre.
He is respectfully old, but this only underscores how remarkable he is, how true to his life-long commitment of exposing the imperialist narratives and giving voice to the oppressed.
However, I guess, russia's war against Ukraine presented a tough topic for him. He is undoubtedly anti-war and in support of people who suffer. Yet he cannot detach this from the fact that indeed the USA, EU, and NATO are in helping position to Ukraine.
This by extension put Mr. Chomsky at odds with Ukraine's struggle, thus all the narratives so familiar from russian propaganda to justify this stance. But by all means, he's not a russia's or putin's proxy. Sadly and predictably, his views are readily weaved into this propaganda, while his name and work is largely irrelevant to most of the russia population.
Ukraine remains the land where Chomsky's father was born. And the present reality is that this land is still being blown and burned on the orders of russia criminal leadership, who gives a damn about Mr. Chomsky's life-long commitment.
In this case the Ukrainian people, their language and culture are the oppressed, historically! So I believe, Mr. Chomsky is on Ukraine's people side too ... just in the depths and breadth of his heart.
Ukraine did not start this war, russia did. Now Ukraine needs every bit of support to withstand and hopefully prevail in this struggle to survive as people and the nation!
Take for example the Bosnian war. People are quick to misrepresent Chomskys views as supporting the Serbs position. He just was against actions which would escalate the conflict. And he was correct. NATO involvement spurred genocide.
His points on Ukraine are nuanced. Ukrainians hate it because they want everyone to just whole-sale support them. True support of Ukraine is pushing for peace. Arming Ukraine is akin to someone encouraging a little kid to fight an older bully. All we will accomplish is the eventual hurt of the kid.
http://goodtimesweb.org/industry-govt-agents/z-chomsky-nato-...
> More important, the U.S. was able to enforce its domination over the strategic Balkans region, ... A destitute Serbia remains the last holdout, probably not for long.
How can you take someone seriously who writes that in the closing paragraphs, and ignores the preceding mass killings with the remark that "it wasn't really genocide, so who cares"? Anyway, the pattern "NATO made them kill" is in that article as well.
Probably they are. I suspect I need to witness them firsthand.
But it does seem like in his own way he adopted a belief in American supremacy. The US is powerful, and unprecedentedly so (especially throughout the 90s), but they don’t control all world politics.
IMHO the reason Chomsky's views are disappointing is that he in effect picks the oppression of Ukrainians by Russians as a lesser evil compared to them fighting for their freedom. War is ugly and Chomsky is of course a life long pacifist. So that isn't a surprising point of view. But you'd hope he'd value his own freedoms a bit higher. To deny that freedom to others is the bit that disappoints.
I was surprised to read this, and indeed a quick google of "is chomsky a pacifist" returned many examples of Chomsky saying and writing that he's not a pacifist.
Though I suspect he hasn't changed his mind about it. Evidence and logic are not really his thing, are they?
I can't understand this claim. Fascists are dogmatic because they are unwilling to even listen and attempt to oppress opposing viewpoints. They are monstrous because they use violence and threats to eliminate whoever they consider as undesirable or as an opponent. Which of the two did Chomsky do?
"frankies"
What does that mean?
"Frankies" means fascists, humorously. Followers of Francisco Franco if it helps you remember.
I would suggest "Mussolinists" instead, as Franco is more associated with Falangism. I honestly thought that you were referring to the Franks.
John J. Mearsheimer, Professor of political science.
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
How the US created putin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ
You can ignore that noise coming from "experts" like Noam.
[1] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498377757536968711
[2] https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1516162437455654913
To me, the west sponsoring the war in Vietnam comes close. The ideological basis for that war was the "domino theory", which postulated Asian countries would fall the communism like domino's. It's not too different from the way Galeev paints Russian's motivation for invading the Ukraine today. The west wanted to expand it's western way of doing things. The domino theory postulated the reverse was happening - western style culture would be snuffed out in Asia by communism. So the west decided to sponsor a horrific war to force the issue.
The west lost that war emphatically in the end. Amazingly, that loss didn't stop the US and it's allies trying to pull the same stunt again and again in subsequent years, most recently in Afghanistan. And unless it's some tiny nation as happened with Russia and Georgia, the outcome has always been the same - humiliating loss. It always costs enormous sums, inflicts huge human suffering, lasts for years, brings down governments, and yet we in the west do it over and over again. It just boggles the mind.
Russia's foray into Ukraine looks very similar to me. Ukraine was moving from a Russian style culture to a more a western style. Russia loathes and fears the displacement of their way of doing things just as much as the west loathes any drift from capitalism and individualism to communism and cooperatives. Russia's attempt at fixing this by installing a puppet government in Ukraine failed. So they decided to fix it with a war.
It's amazing two cultures believe they are so different they are willing kill each other over it, are nonetheless near identical in their instinctive approach to solving those differences.
The outcome will be no different - Russia will lose this war, just as they lost in Afghanistan and the west lost most of their similar wars. And it will have no effect on the outcome in the end. The west lost the Vietnam war, so we got to see the domino theory pan out. Turned out it was a crock of shit, little more than a mass paranoid delusion. Asian countries (including China) has been moving from communism to their own unique style of capitalism ever since.
Unfortunately I doubt it will work out that way for Russia. Unlike the domino theory, its fears are well justified. Rule by law and well managed markets work better than a kleptocracy. It means you get to have nice things. In raw numbers, Russia's economy is about the size of Australia's - a nation with 1/5 the population. Another number: Australian GDP per capita: USD$50k, Canada GDP per capita: $40k, Russia GDP per capita: $10k. All are resource rich nations.
Young Ukrainians compared what they saw in the west and the east - and made the rational decision. You can only see so far in either direction, so in the east of Ukraine where their view of the west is obscured, they are still endorse the Russian way. But if you look at poll results on joining NATO there is a line dividing east and west. People on the western side voted to become more like NATO, on the east to remain with Russia. That line has been moving steadily eastwards over time. Russia decided to wage a war to stop the advance of that line. It makes about as much sense as trying to stop jelly sliding down a wall with nails. Insane.
I wish I could say our politicians in the west were better, but history demonstrates otherwise. That's something else Russian's and westerners have in common.
Chomsky having a pop at the US is like the socialist left or BLM in the US having a pop at Democrats. Yeah, in some grand sense they should be focusing on their common enemy, but on the other hand, someone has to remind people that "the best out of the two current options" isn't that great either or we'll never expand the options, as frustrating as that is when you are emotionally attached to another issue that hangs in the balance and you want a broad coalition to focus on.
"If you'd just shut up about racism/sexism/capitalism/war/jobs then we'd be able to totally sort out sexism/capitalism/war/jobs/racism, which is clearly more important!".
It then mentions the Budapest memorandum which has nothing to do with whether the people living in Crimea like it or not. Then it mentions that "Crimeans" is not a thing, it is clear that by "Crimeans" Chomsky meant the people living in Crimea. Then he mentions that Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people of Crimea, which while I expect it to be considered as true by most people, I do not think that it really matters, after all nobody really cares about the Anatolian Greeks in Turkey. It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it? As for whether it was declared invalid by the UN assembly, this is irrelevant as to whether the people living in Crimea like it or not.
"In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future."
This open letter does not try to justify this argument. I would claim that it is false, just consider the various attempts to charge various fighters (in Iraq and other places) against the US with war crimes while at the same time the US refuses to do the same for its own solders.
"Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)?"
Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)
"If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine"
This open letter does not try to justify why they think that providing military assistance to Ukraine will lead to less deaths compared to what Chomsky thinks.
Edit: Please do not take this post as a sign of support of any side. Rather it is just criticism of the specific open letter.
What an utterly inappropriate comparison.
Yes, this usually means exactly that. For example, that Crimean Tartar community members were kidnapped, arrested, disappeared, deported or killed before, during and after the referendum. It also means that vote counting was rigged, ballot stuffing was prevalent, people were coerced into voting, and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased.
> Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)
Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?
Russia's official statements regarding Ukrainian sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality do speak of 'elimination'. Russian actions in occupied territories of Ukraine indicate that this is, indeed, one of their war aims. Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide, I have to ask: are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?
Even if this is true[1] I do not see how this would alert the result of the referendum, given the amount of people who voted in support of joining Russia.
[1] this article is the first time that I saw such a claim. I might search about it later.
"and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased"
The question as posted in Wikipedia seems reasonable to me.
"Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?"
I mean regarding the currently occupied territories/after a future annexation of Ukraine.
"do speak of 'elimination'"
Sure, of the ideas of "sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality", not of the people themselves.
"Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide"
I (and as I perceive it, the majority of the people) do not personally consider the elimination of the idea of a nationality as genocide. I could perhaps be willing to entertain the idea of a cultural genocide (it is however questionable that this is what is planned for the Ukrainians) but I would not equate it to an actual genocide.
"are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?"
I have seen some arguing it, but it is not something that I personally believe.
> I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond sanctions against the aggressor, or appropriate just as sanctions against Washington would have been appropriate when it invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or many other cases. ** > However, I still think it’s not quite the right question. The right question is: What is the best thing to do to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from further destruction? And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.
Chomsky is also quite critical of Russia:
> Well, two questions, points of fact: You’re quite right, that the overwhelming mass of the war crimes, the ones that we should be considering, are carried out by the Russians. That’s not in dispute. And they are major war crimes.
Saying that Chomsky isn't anti-imperialist because he disagrees with the method of ending the conflict in Ukraine reminds me of how people who opposed the war in Iraq were said to be friends of Saddam and against Iraqi people getting freedom and democracy. Whenever war fever grips the establishment, even disagreements on tactics coming from people who share the same general goals gets treated as abhorrent heresy.
It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chom...
This is, unfortunately, half the problem. Western intellectuals are working under the assumption that they are dealing with a state that thinks in modern terms. Ukrainians know that Russia thinks in 19th century terms, but this simple fact seems to be lost on the West. There cannot be a negotiated settlement to an old-style conquest; Ukraine is literally fighting for its existence.
It's like living with a psychopath. He knows exactly what to say to placate or distract or sideline everyone else, and give himself room to abuse and torment his target. And since Russia's propaganda machine is so effective, they actually have the elites in many places (for example Italy) parroting the party line. Hell, they even have the venerable and respected Chomsky playing their game!
To put it in perspective:
- Since when is it acceptable to invade another country, flatten their cities, send tens of millions fleeing as refugees, block their ports and threaten the world food supply, giving "because there are nazis there" as your reason? How in the hell did this ever become a valid talking point?
- Since when is it acceptable to invade country X because country Y is allowing it to join a treaty? Shouldn't country X be allowed to decide with whom they ally themselves without getting killed over it? That's like beating up your girlfriend because some other guy hit on her.
The Western intellectuals have been thinking in imperialistic terms (USA vs Russia), when in fact it's about UKRAINE, a sovereign nation with a right to exist, a country that did not threaten its neighbors or build up troops on the border like Russia has done (and then invaded). All they want is their territorial integrity back and to live securely. And no negotiated settlement with Russia will bring that because allowing Putin to "save face" will involve giving up territory, blocking any potential future defense pacts, and then sitting around waiting for invasion #3.
It's political-economic interests and contradictions and competing interests around global capital. A fight over who controls resources and which country's capitalist classes get dominance over resources and markets. Aka a classic imperialist war.
And clearly the Russians are willing to mobilize 19th century Tsarist style "Great Russian" nationalism + a heaping dose Duginist Russo-fascism in service of this agenda. But I think it's naive to think that Lavrov (Mouth of Sauron) and Putin and the people lining up behind them actually truly believe this cack.
That's for all the useful idiots.
You can see it in how quickly Russia installs collaborators in Ukrainian regions who suddenly declare that they wish to be annexed by Russia.
These kinds of idealistic psychopathic people do exist, and they are incredibly dangerous if they get into positions of power.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...
American politicians couldn't care less about the actual Ukrainian people. This is about either crippling Russia and scoring the political points to say they did it, or securing money either for their personal coffers or feeding their local Military Industrial Complex.
I personally think that the Ukrainian perspective matters, but we(westerners) won't care until it's too late. Tangentially related, our most recent home grown white supremacist shooter was inspired at least in part by Azov battalion, he wore a black sun patch and lifted several parts of his manifesto from Brendan Tarrant directly, another neo Nazi that actually spent time in Ukraine, with the Azov battalion being an inspiration. I imagine Russia will also be facing internal unrest for generations for what's happening in Ukraine. Maybe this is their Chernobyl moment.
This invasion has woken the sleeping European giant.
The US invaded Cuba when the Russians installed missiles, so is it surprising in the least that Russia is intervening when NATO moves up to their border?
If you have serious interest to understand what delusion started this war then please read this text https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...
That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter). And the facts might have proven him wrong. He's been saying so since the start, but Ukraine seems to have been rather successful in repelling the Russians.
> It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions.
Tell that to Vladimir Vladimirovitsj.
Best case scenario now is Russia and Ukraine settle with Ukraine losing a bunch of territory.
Russia gets time to regroup, and if unsatisfied, invades again in another 3-5 years.
Remember, this didn’t start this year, it’s been going on for almost a decade.
Russia can win by simply keeping Ukraine unstable and ungovernable and slowly taking more and more territory. And keeping NATO at bay.
What are the same threats to Russia today? They are under no threats from the outside. Simple as that. The issue is that they’ve become increasingly irrelevant. They may work to become a modern economy. Russia is full of educated people, with a proud culture. Or they may rely on their past glory, expanding their empire by interfering with their neighbors. They’ve chosen the latter.
1. It's suicide
2. the Russia doesn't -really- need Ukraine and neither does Putin
3. see #1
Long term the only way for Ukraine independence is the equalization of it's military capabality with that of Russia. This war is a grinding machine causing heavy material and human losses for both sides but Ukraine with international support have better odds than sanctioned Russia. And frankly it's a bargain for the European democracies to support Ukraine now and later get a better aligned energy supplier and a weaker ideological enemy.
What's at play for Russia is the monopoly over European energy as Donetsk and Crimea have large recent-discovered oil & gas reserves. An independent Ukraine would certainly take over this market.
It’s in Ukraines best interest to find some co-existence with Russia at an acceptable cost.
NATO is not going to do it for them and in fact is happy to sacrifice Ukraine if it benefits the overall security of Western Europe.
Total population means nothing as it ignores that Russia demographics is skewed towards old women and that a large share of the youngers are from ethnic minorities. Russia is struggling to replenish losses and haven't mass conscripted. And sheer numbers alone aren't enough to win a war. Equipment, training, moral, tactics and logistics are also important.
"acceptable cost" here is losses in fighting for freedom or genocide. There is no choice at all, in case of fighting you have chances, in case of giving up it's death/rape/torture/gulags/deportations anyway.
Will the war end with a much smaller Ukraine? Most definitely.
This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option.
Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from.
Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies.
He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation.
So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world.
Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.
The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine’s sovereign territory is irrelevant.
Why? Because the only sovereign territory you have is the one you can occupy and defend. And it’s pretty clear Ukraine can do neither with the regions Russia has already occupied.
Sure, the invasion is “illegal”. But being “illegal” means nothing if you don’t have the means to take it back.
So, if a weaker power like Ukraine wishes to maintain their territorial integrity they need to find a solution with Russia. Sure, that’s not fair and offends our sense of sovereignty, but hey, that’s reality.
That’s what people are getting at with “NATO threatened Russia so Russia invaded”. It’s not excusing it. It’s not saying it’s right. It’s just describing reality.
The West is more than happy to bankroll Ukraine’s defense, but it won’t be their sons and daughters dying. They’ll just fight to the last Ukrainian and then settle with Russia in some way. NATO has zero qualms hurting Russia by burning Ukraine to the ground.
Ukraine’s smartest move is negotiate some neutrality with Russia and move on with life.
It absolutely amazing to read opinions on HN how dumb the population was the get itself involved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and then watch them buy hook, line and sinker the exact same arguments for Ukraine.
1. Crimea is a settled issue. You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency?
2. While Russia is the bad guy here without doubt, you can't gloss over Ukraine's failings here. Stop with the binary thinking here that one or the other is wrong or that criticizing Ukrainian actions is victim-blaming. Prime example: cutting off the water to Crimea following 2014 by any objective standard is a human rights violation;
3. Ukraine has been a pawn for US foreign policy. It's wild to pretend otherwise. For the US military-industrial complex the current situation is basically ideal. Russia is mired in a war they cannot win, Russia has been isolated from the international community, Europe is set to become less dependent on Russian energy exports, NATO is strengthened and the US gets to sell lots of weapons to Ukraine.
4. The idea that Russia doesn't want a buffer to NATO is laughable and hypocritical. It ignores 200 years of the Monroe Doctrine where the US will not accept any foreign military presence in the Western hemisphere (it's self-declared sphere of influence). This was practically tested when the US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. So why is that OK for the US but not Russia?
5. These authors make the same mistakes most US wonks do: they view the US as benign. Even if you agree with that you should at least accept that not everyone else does and there's plenty of evidence it isn't. I mean NATO's raison d'etre was to destroy the USSR. The USSR is gone so now it's by default the destroy Russia alliance.
6. As for the diplomatic solution, there ultimately will be one. There always is. Even unconditional surrender is a diplomatic end. Russia is a nuclear power. The pre-WW2 standards of defeating hegemonic powers just don't apply any more. There's a whole straw man bit in this about how the only alternative is unconditional surrender. Nobody is saying that.
I think the only thing I agree with is the justification for the invasion (most notably "denazification") is completely ridiculous. This is propaganda and it's what imperial powers do. It's really no different to the US spreading democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Would it be valid?
Theres a reason the Crimea "referendum" is not accepted, and the issue is far from settled.
Tell me: in 1941, did the Baltic States enter the Soviet Union willingly (via democratic votes of coincidentally brand new Soviet-aligned governments) or did it happen due to Soviet military coercion, threats and ultimatums? Was it a settled issue in 1945-1953[1]? In 1989[2]? How about now? Same question about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
2. Finding it really hard not to see this as victim blaming. Do you believe cutting off the water supply to Crimea was what prompted a military invasion that targeted Kiyv, among other targets? Should Ukraine have absorbed the infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc. to keep the water supply operational for a, your words 'settled issue'? Since it would then be an international matter, the water supply question would be governed by treaties, yes? Again, at the very least, there are costs involved in keeping the water flowing. Unless you feel this is a situation where Russia can take what ever it wants and get paid for it. A sort of Bullying as a Service, if you will.
3. First of all: what if Russia's the pawn? Secondly: did the US organize the 2003 Tuzla Island incident, where Russia tried to annex Ukraine's island in the Kerch strait? Might this be a pattern that's not solely the interest of the US military-industrial complex?
4. Whataboutism. Or, as the Soviets used to say: "Oh yeah? And you're lynching negroes in the US!".[3]
5. Since you are equivocating the Soviet Union and Russia, the US is objectively more benign. To paraphrase your point: you are making the same mistake that most US "anti-imperialists" make by seeing it as the most active and subversive force in human history. In terms of repressiveness and meddling in foreign countries (coups, revolutions), Russian and Soviet history is hard to beat. Bucha in 2022 is what my great grandparents and grandparents had to live through when the Soviets occupied our country. The equivocation is justified.
6. It takes two to tango, but it's hard to listen to the crowd shouting about how you should start dancing when the other side has just left the floor and stabbed your mother in plain sight of everyone.
Fascinating how you agreed that the Russian narrative is completely ridiculous and then ended with another whataboutism about the US.
1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Soviet_partisans#During_S... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way 3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
This is a complete lie. Also the USSR settled Crimea with many Russians to change its demographics.
Those debates are a bit dry and a bit pointless, good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter.
I'm for Ukraine but you can't deny that Putin still has a lot of people rooting for him, even in Ukraine.
If you ask Russians, they will easily answer that Irak was illegally invaded (the lapsus of bush did not help), so it becomes difficult for the west to be seen as the good guy, and it's cynical to say it, but opinions of the masses matter.
So of course that comparison is unfair, but this comparison kind of matter in geopolitics.
Can I suggest "interests and power" instead. Influence is a form of power and it's important to pay attention to interests, which drive the use of power. I should also highlight that cost vs. benefit is the other determining factor.
"Good" and "evil" are loaded stand-ins for sets of values and actions, but consider: the U.S. has more influence and power than China. Which country would you rather live in or be influenced by?
> Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination?
Have you considered the possibility that Ukraine is going to attach to the West's sphere of influence? Would Ukrainians really want it or they just want the invasion to be stopped?
Yes.
They’ve already said yes in 2014.
I don't agree with everything Chomsky said, but he seems to try and understand all of the opposing viewpoints in this conflict as a way to figure out what the possible outcomes are. It didn't come across as blatantly or negligently pro-Russian to me.
For example, I think its pretty reasonable to hold the opinion that Ukraine probably isn't getting Crimea back without forcibly taking it (and I have no idea if they are capable of it). Chomsky and I could be wrong about this but I don't think it makes either of us pro-Russian shills. He's not attempting to predict what ought to happen in the fantasy world that we want to exist, he's trying to predict what may happen in the deeply flawed world that we actually have.
His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia.
What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle.
Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.
From the perspective of working class unity and logistic/democratic changes to civilization, I've not found any of his advice terribly useful. Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people.
In areas like this he comes dangerously close to being a propagandist for Putin. We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda.
Any hope that the tools of capital will eventually lead to a people's revolution when the primary barrier to that is a totalitarian vanguard party seems silly to me.
What... he's famous precisely for turning many people into progressives and socialists. Nobody would even know he's a linguist or geopolitical theorist otherwise. He's literally a popularizer for the left.
> We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda.
This I can get behind though. I don't think it will succeed though, Russia and China have paid a lot for their lackeys on the left.