Russia and Ukraine

[Leonardo17]

(There is a very good 1989 book by Noam Chomsky on that called “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies”.)

Chomsky's still around you know. 

His interviews on YouTube concerning Ukraine are very much recommended.

I know that this is also happening. Roger Waters for instance in still in the spirit of the anti-war movement of the 70’s and has said many things that have cause his concert in Poland to be canceled. It might be something similar but what I am going to do will be to listen to this Noam Chomsky video and to answer Him. (This is going to be long but I had to do it)
The youtube link is: https://youtu.be/8Jr0PCU4m7M?t=247
(By the way I still like this guy even if he is getting very old now )
 
1) a) I don’t know about the US, but many foreign leaders, including Vlodynir Zelensky paraded around Putin to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict in the weeks before and after the start of the conflict. Putin’s response was firm. It was “I want Zelensky gone. Ukraine cannot join NATO. And Ukraine must be entirely demilitarized”. He said that Ukraine was “in his zone of influence” in other words Ukraine could only be a satellite of Russia and he wouldn’t negotiate on that.
1) b) Mr Chomsky has also a video on the issue on the issue of Taiwan. As I said I got confused at first. But I think he is clearly getting old. (It will happen to all of us. It’s not a crime). Maybe, emotionally he went back to the 70’s which was a time when the US was truly in a wrongful war and he and his friends (including Roger Waters) were putting their lives at stake to end that madness. Or that’s my theory I would say.
2) He is right when he said that the US didn’t try to negotiate directly and that the US position was tougher than the Europeans. But the American were the only ones who had accurately predicted that the invasion of Ukraine was imminent while the Germans etc. were saying that Putin would never go something like that.
3) a) NATO is a defensive alliance. It will pose a threat to you only if you attack a NATO country
3) b) Russia had already invaded Crimea in 2014. And before that (before the Maidan revolution), it was trying to take-over Ukraine from the inside.
4) a) Russian military is not that capable. We’ve all seen that in the last few months.
4) b) All that Russia has to do is to withdraw to its own territory. The Ukrainians won’t attack them in their own territory and the war will end. (?)
To the interviewer: In the first days of the war Zelensky was the direct target of Russian special forces. They wanted to assassinate him.
5) (I don’t like this interviewer). What Chomsky is saying is that the US could have a softer stance on Russia. I disagree with him. After WWI, Europe didn’t want another war. So they gave and gave and gave to Hitler until there was nothing left to give anymore. There is even a popular French song on this “Apres-Guerre” spirit of Europeans in that time. Basically the song is saying “Your horse is gone, your stable is gone, your house is gone, your husband is gone, your entire fortune is gone but everything is fine Madame la Marquise, for there is no war yet”… So no, I disagree with him on this.
6) He may not be entirely wrong with his “Mexico” comparison. I think he is right on that. Yet, This is not the Soviet Union you’re dealing with. This is a state that is being ruled by a mixture of FSB, Russian Mafia, Oligarchs and an all-powerful leader called Vladimir Putin. So Mr. Chomsky may be right on some points like a hidden will to demilitarize Russia. But so what? This isn’t like attacking Saddam for chemical weapons that he didn’t have. What I mean is that current Russia has no enough legitimacy to demand a “demilitarized Ukraine”. I mean based on what? Russia is no longer a model of communism. So I don’t get this. Sorry.
7) There is a movie called “Donbass” by the director Sergey Loznitsa that was shot in 2018. I think people should see it.
8) He is putting it all on the US. And there are points on which he is completely right. Yet: I believe that Putin needed this war. Why? – Because his regime is unsustainable. See. A country in which some rich oligarchs get all the riches, and the ordinary people are completely broken by economic difficulties, this cannot work. Not if you sell them communism, not if you sell them “İslam”, not if you sell them “the great Satan”. The regime is not sustainable. Belarussians don’t want it. Russians don’t want it. So Putin needs a war. He needed, and still needs that enemy.
9) Chomsky is clearly saying “I am an American, so I am focusing on my government in my effort to promote a diplomatic solution to this conflict”
10) (The interviewer is clearly biased and I think he is attempting to manipulate Noam Chomsky – I am skipping his questions), I agree with Chomsky. He is clearly saying “Don’t be over reactive, Dear US, don’t be like China, make a move, attempt to negotiate with the Russians”
Note: The Intercept and this interviewer are clearly not an independent media outlet. I think someone like Noam Chomsky deserves better media coverage than that.
11) On the example of art: I believe that art can be boycotted in times of war because it can also be used as a channel of expression by the enemy.
12) Chomsky is making strong (and true) comment on the current state of the American media. (All of this is true) but this has nothing to do with the demonized “western media” depiction of the Russian propaganda machine. Just listen carefully
13) He is very critical of the US in many areas. He gives the examples of Nicaragua and Serbia, or Irak. Well, Ukraine is not any of these states. It was a peaceful and harmless country until the Russian invasion.
14) I just remembered it now: Didn’t joe Biden have a 1 hour video conference with Putin (two or 3 of them) before Putin’s invasion? – So No. I don’t think the newest videos of Chomsky mean anything for any of us
15) True comments on Indian Modi. But Modi is backed by Russia just like D. Trump, Marrine Lepen, Victor Orban and Georgia Meloni.
16) India and China are just opportunistic. They are buying Russian oil for half it’s price and are calling themselves “the allies of Russia”.
17) “encircling China” – Yes, I agree. But he is underestimating China’s capacities. With a leader like Xi chi Ping, China is increasing a danger to most surrounding countries including the US who would have to wage a war 2000 miles into the pacific with the world’s biggest navy.
18) He has very strong points on working with China to tacle with truly existential issues like global warming that threatens the entire human race. The US is adopting a “compete with China” stance instead. Yes. But China is a Tyranical regime. Tyranical regimes are unstable. I believe you cannot just let them get ahead of everyone and “lead the world”. How do they lead the world if they cannot even lead themselves? I think I disagree on that too.
19) (he has a dog in house ) His US. Criticism is still a little exaggerated on some issues.
20) Go to 51:00 . Chomsky say that the attack on Ukraine by Vladimir Putin was “Crimminal” and “utterly stupid”
21) He still thinks of Russia as something like the Soviet-Union. As I said. Putin’s Russia does not have the ideological foundation of the Soviet Union. It is not “The defender of the free and equal, socialist way of living that opposes the decadent an unequal wester capitalism”. Russia is the capital of inequalities. It doesn’t have that communist ideology anymore. So what is it standing for? – It opposes the west. – Ok. But in the name of what? (These are the questions I would ask him if I was sitting in his classroom or conference room)
22) He is extremely pessimistic on global warming: In fact with the Russia Ukraine war everyone wants to free themselves from their dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
 
- That’s an old gun that we have here. His books are classics that must be known by anyone interested in political issues. But I don’t think his most recent comments are very up-to-date in comparison with more modern interpretations of what has been happening.
The times have changed in the last 5 decades: I think that we are less tolerant toward unjustified war today. In the 70’s it was anarchists, and Hippies who were marching against Vietnam and they were beaten for doing it. Today, no one wants to tolerate Vladimir Putin, No one tolerates China for what they did in Hong-Kong, no one tolerate Iran for what they are doing to their own people. That’s what I mean by “old gun”. See, in WWII the British would just keep having their dinner while the V2 were falling on them. War was something that just happened. Today, we just don’t like it. We don’t like the idea of it. So I don’t know if his generation can truly understand our position on such issues today.