48 ms·

Noam Chomsky: “We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history”

105 points by maram 4y ago

spupe 4y ago
Chomsky is absolutely right. We are sleepwalking into disaster and all I see is a deterioration of public discourse, where we fail to acknowledge how big the threat of extinction currently is.
gadders 4y ago
clarionbell 4y ago
I didn't expect anything from Chomsky (notorious Khmer Rogue apologist) and he didn't disappoint: >“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.” No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.
- speeder 4y ago
  Is this site pro-russian propaganda one? (I am not familiar with it, I found it by googling your text) https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
  - MrMan 4y ago
    yes HN is rife with Russian propaganda, and has been for years.
- dmead 4y ago
  Can you source the khmer rouge accusation? that sounds wrong.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom... TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
    - dmead 4y ago
      ah thanks. im not super surprised that he didn't admit when he was wrong... just disappointed.
- TaupeRanger 4y ago
  You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand. Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
  - BuckRogers 4y ago
    So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
      - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
        That is a different question.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
- spupe 4y ago
  The issue is not as straightforward as you describe. The promise was made and several actors confirm it [1]. That it was not put in a treaty does not contradict what Chomsky said. NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
  - mlcrypto 4y ago
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The promise was made Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not. Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them. And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    NATO expansion is an argument, not a reason. But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.
  - jacobsievers 4y ago
    I don't think the Guardian article supports your assertion that "several actors confirm it". It mentions that Kohl made a similar statement, not that Kohl was an "actor" in terms of the original "promise" or that he confirmed it was made.
- nimbius 4y ago
  Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved. History remembers a broken promise differently... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
    > Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities. As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too. Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    And yet, nearly 2 years later, at the end of '91, Yeltsin said the long-term goal of Russia was to join NATO[1]. And they were slowly moving in that direction through the aughts. If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error. The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
- purple50 4y ago
- slicedsalamist 4y ago
  > but it was never written down in any treaty Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us... - For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics) At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items) There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both. Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
  - 6thaccount 4y ago
  - kaba0 4y ago
    That’s an absolutely meaningless story/analogue when it comes to international treaties. As mentioned, they were not between two parties who would even have a “right” to enforce it (it’s like your friend offered a house he didn’t even owned), and it simply doesn’t work like that at this scale. Is “make America great again” a binding offer?
- goto11 4y ago
  > No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made. On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
  - jacobsievers 4y ago
    The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit. Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not. Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
- ogogmad 4y ago
  The promise was made with the USSR, and not the Russian Federation. The former was a much bigger country than the latter, and Ukraine was a part of it just like Russia. I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
  - CapricornNoble 4y ago
    >>>I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus. >>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy. When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
- 323 4y ago
  No written promise was made, but there were verbal promises. > Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it. Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it. I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic. If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none. If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Breaking the Budapest memorandum was far more dangerous, now everyone knows that you need nukes to not be attacked.
- VictorPath 4y ago
  > notorious Khmer Rogue apologist After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed. So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government? > No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward". So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  > No such promise was made, ever This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links: https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/ https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >notorious Khmer Rogue apologist I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons: 1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense. 2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent. His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:" > As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
  - tptacek 4y ago
    He rolled back his factual claims long after more evidence came in, and to this day hasn't acknowledged the misinformation he spread about the Khmers. It was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, and his role in it was to sow doubt about it in the West. I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      I think his reluctance is best understood as that of a proud man slow to admit he was wrong rather than that of someone trying to improve the posthumous image of Pol Pot in the west.
- spurgu 4y ago
  What? Unless I give it to you in written, my word accounts for nothing?
pddpro 4y ago
For the longest time now, I have been thinking about this fact: Mine, and the entire Humanity's survival depends upon a mere handful of men. I sometimes think about how a madman could launch a nuclear attack that could potentially cascade into the extinction of humanity. Or how another authority could cut millions of trees solely because of the fact that it lies on his/her territory and that it's none of our business, triggering irreversible climate change and once again, the potential extinction of humanity. All of this makes me terribly sad. What use is years and years worth of scientific research and intelligence if all it does is cause our own extinction? We are just like Ouroboros eating its own tail.
- m_ke 4y ago
  Same goes for business and wealth. I'm convinced that it's in the best interest of all of us to limit the accumulation of political, economic and military power. We'd be in a much better place if we had universal laws that forced countries, businesses to break up or become more democratic as they grow. Progressive tax rates should limit people from getting rich enough to buy up whole industries or at the very least we should limit these individuals from buying up majority stakes in new ventures.
  - orobanche 4y ago
    limiting the accumulation of political, economic and military power requires a tremendous accumulation of power
  - azth 4y ago
    It's a red herring. The true underlying causes for these things are already solved by Islamic regulations on finance, societal issues, social welfare, etc.
- pabe 4y ago
  That's why decentralization is important. It's less efficient than centralization but more resilient. But because of efficiency, life tends to evolve into complex centralized systems that become incredibly vulnerable.
dfxm12 4y ago
“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.” I'm sure some social critics thought the same of young people like Chomsky, who were thrown in jail for protesting the Vietnam War. I don't know if I'm being pessimistic or realist, but in the context of climate crisis & impirialism, we've seen history repeat itself enough time across enough generations that I'm not hopeful anymore that the kids will figure it out.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually? Even, sadly, though that may mean generations of rebellion, war, strife, hardship....
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually? That's called "whig history" and it's mostly an idea of religious origin: the idea that the world progresses to some moral or enlightened end. Technology and scientific knowledge do accumulate over time. Actually, even those can be lost (tons of techniques were lost for centuries, and some are still unknown, when empires like Rome fell), but generally they accumulate, based on their technical and informational nature. But society, morality, government enlightenment etc. don't accumulate. They can revert to totally worse than previous times at any point, and often have. That's based on human character (not so malleable outside of evolutionary time spans), interests (national, folk, and private), resource availability and contest for resources, who is in power, and trends, ideology and moral ideas prevalent at each era. (E.g. post golden-era Athens compared to before, post-Roman empire medieval times, the Renessaince (the quentessential era of slaughter and war in Europe, and also when the Inquisition was founded and operated), WWI and WWII compared to the "belle epoque". And those regressions was in regular, non existential danger times. What can happen under lack of resources like water (in most of the planet), climate change catastrophes, or even nuclear war, is even worse.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Chomsky tries to point at the 2021 cooperation talks.. but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. They were the entire reason Ukraine sought foreign help. Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.
- nextstep 4y ago
  Chomsky also didn’t mention that USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded the coup in 2014. But this is a very short interview, so he can’t go into detail about every time the US has undermined democracy.
  - tgv 4y ago
    And Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the election of Yanukovych and the widespread corruption. Their hands were so clean!
- CapricornNoble 4y ago
  >>>Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget. I notice many users on HN start their "history of Russia" with the invasion of Georgia in 2008....but Russia has been led by Putin since 1999. We might have short memories due to our governments changing every 4 years...but this country has been run by the same man for 23 years. And I'm sure he has a long memory. So what were the key events from 1999-2007 that could have shaped Putin's perspective regarding relations with the US, to the point that he felt invading Georgia (and all other hostility since) was the correct long-term strategy? That didn't happen in a vacuum. I leave researching this as an exercise for the reader (hint: you can dig through some of my older comments as I've covered it a few times...)
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Yes because Russia was so worried about us shooting down their nukes they had to invade.. Georgia?
    - CapricornNoble 4y ago
topspin 4y ago
Where are the doomsday clock people lately? Putin et al. have been rattling the nuclear sabre for weeks now and I can't recall any stories about bumping the 'clock.' Officials and their punditry have been dutifully wagging their fingers about Russia and their nuclear capability, especially when Ukraine has the temerity to conduct any offensive operations; you'd think the clock folks could muster a press conference at least. [follow-up] So there was a press 'release' (as opposed to an actual press conference) in January, where we find zero mention of the immense pre-invasion Russian military build-up that was happening at the time. It has been pointed out to me that the clock is not updated in response to real time events. I suppose, except they took 30s off the clock -- complete with an actual press conference -- within a week of Trump being inaugurated, citing his "disturbing comments" about nuclear weapons, among other things.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- The_Stone 4y ago
  The clock's been at 100 seconds to midnight for the past 3 years, there's nowhere to bump the clock to. "The clock folks" at the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists did have a press release in January of this year - https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/press-release-at-dooms-doorstep-it-is-100-seconds-to-midnight/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/press-release-at-dooms-doors... and responded to the invasion with https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russians-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russia... stating "This is exactly what 100 seconds to midnight conveys. It is dangerous, fluid, and unstable."
- quesera 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock > The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.
vegai_ 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ncfausti 4y ago
  In the posted video he's talking about the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change. Do you have anything to say regarding the substance of those claims or are you content with textbook ad hominem?
- newaccount2021 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zephrx1111 4y ago
[flagged]
albertopv 4y ago
I don't get why Noam Chomsky is still so revered by many. Every time I read something from him its almost everything bullshit. NATO has nothing to do with Russia war, one should read Anna Politkovskaja 2004 book, it's everything there.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Didn’t he have an at least mildly impactful academic career in linguistics?
  - albertopv 4y ago
    Yes, when? I'm talking about now and a totally different area. Maybe it's me, every time I read him I sense anti americanism
- Tepix 4y ago
  Every time i read Chomsky, i'm thinking: Why is he so much more knowledgeable and insightful than the average american? This guy gets it.
  - albertopv 4y ago
    If it's sarcasm I don't get it, for sure I'm not as smart as Chomsky.
Febra33 4y ago
Noam Chomsky on here. Jesus. This guy is whataboutism reincarnated.
- kgwxd 4y ago
  This comment on here. Jesus. This guy is ad hominem reincarnated.[sic]
  - akamaka 4y ago
    I searched for “what about” in the article, and it is indeed there. Chomsky responds to the question asking if the war is about Russia trying to stamp out democracy by saying “What about what the USA is doing?”
tptacek 4y ago
The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine. The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.
- nextstep 4y ago
  It’s not a false dichotomy because he’s not presenting these two ideas as mutually exclusive. Maybe you misunderstood his argument (or what a dichotomy means). His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.
  - tgv 4y ago
    By seeing this response as unavoidable, you’re turning out into a dichotomy.
    - joejohnson 4y ago
      This is not what a dichotomy is. Chomsky’s point is that both the expansion of NATO and Putin being a dictator played a part in the invasion of Ukraine. He’s presenting these two facts as the opposite of a dichotomy!
      - tptacek 4y ago
        The expansion of NATO didn't play a part in the invasion of Ukraine, in any moral or rational way. By framing it that way, Chomksy subtly creates a justification for the invasion that does not exist. Which is my point about how disingenuous this logic is.

105 points by maram 4y ago

Chomsky is absolutely right. We are sleepwalking into disaster and all I see is a deterioration of public discourse, where we fail to acknowledge how big the threat of extinction currently is.

gadders 4y ago

clarionbell 4y ago

I didn't expect anything from Chomsky (notorious Khmer Rogue apologist) and he didn't disappoint: >“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.” No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.

speeder 4y ago
Is this site pro-russian propaganda one? (I am not familiar with it, I found it by googling your text) https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
- MrMan 4y ago
  yes HN is rife with Russian propaganda, and has been for years.
dmead 4y ago
Can you source the khmer rouge accusation? that sounds wrong.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom... TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
  - dmead 4y ago
    ah thanks. im not super surprised that he didn't admit when he was wrong... just disappointed.
TaupeRanger 4y ago
You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand. Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
- BuckRogers 4y ago
  So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing. Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
    - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
      That is a different question.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        It's not. "We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
spupe 4y ago
The issue is not as straightforward as you describe. The promise was made and several actors confirm it [1]. That it was not put in a treaty does not contradict what Chomsky said. NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
- mlcrypto 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The promise was made Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not. Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them. And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  NATO expansion is an argument, not a reason. But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.
- jacobsievers 4y ago
  I don't think the Guardian article supports your assertion that "several actors confirm it". It mentions that Kohl made a similar statement, not that Kohl was an "actor" in terms of the original "promise" or that he confirmed it was made.
nimbius 4y ago
Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved. History remembers a broken promise differently... https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017... Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gunfighthacksaw 4y ago
  > Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities. As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too. Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  And yet, nearly 2 years later, at the end of '91, Yeltsin said the long-term goal of Russia was to join NATO[1]. And they were slowly moving in that direction through the aughts. If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error. The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
purple50 4y ago
slicedsalamist 4y ago
> but it was never written down in any treaty Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us... - For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics) At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side. - For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items) There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both. Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
- 6thaccount 4y ago
- kaba0 4y ago
  That’s an absolutely meaningless story/analogue when it comes to international treaties. As mentioned, they were not between two parties who would even have a “right” to enforce it (it’s like your friend offered a house he didn’t even owned), and it simply doesn’t work like that at this scale. Is “make America great again” a binding offer?
goto11 4y ago
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made. On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
- jacobsievers 4y ago
  The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit. Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not. Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
ogogmad 4y ago
The promise was made with the USSR, and not the Russian Federation. The former was a much bigger country than the latter, and Ukraine was a part of it just like Russia. I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
- CapricornNoble 4y ago
  >>>I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus. >>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy. When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
323 4y ago
No written promise was made, but there were verbal promises. > Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
incomingpain 4y ago
>No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it. Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it. I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic. If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none. If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Breaking the Budapest memorandum was far more dangerous, now everyone knows that you need nukes to not be attacked.
VictorPath 4y ago
> notorious Khmer Rogue apologist After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed. So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government? > No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward". So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
> No such promise was made, ever This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links: https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/ https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/
whatshisface 4y ago
>notorious Khmer Rogue apologist I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons: 1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense. 2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent. His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:" > As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
- tptacek 4y ago
  He rolled back his factual claims long after more evidence came in, and to this day hasn't acknowledged the misinformation he spread about the Khmers. It was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, and his role in it was to sow doubt about it in the West. I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    I think his reluctance is best understood as that of a proud man slow to admit he was wrong rather than that of someone trying to improve the posthumous image of Pol Pot in the west.
spurgu 4y ago
What? Unless I give it to you in written, my word accounts for nothing?

pddpro 4y ago

For the longest time now, I have been thinking about this fact: Mine, and the entire Humanity's survival depends upon a mere handful of men. I sometimes think about how a madman could launch a nuclear attack that could potentially cascade into the extinction of humanity. Or how another authority could cut millions of trees solely because of the fact that it lies on his/her territory and that it's none of our business, triggering irreversible climate change and once again, the potential extinction of humanity. All of this makes me terribly sad. What use is years and years worth of scientific research and intelligence if all it does is cause our own extinction? We are just like Ouroboros eating its own tail.

m_ke 4y ago
Same goes for business and wealth. I'm convinced that it's in the best interest of all of us to limit the accumulation of political, economic and military power. We'd be in a much better place if we had universal laws that forced countries, businesses to break up or become more democratic as they grow. Progressive tax rates should limit people from getting rich enough to buy up whole industries or at the very least we should limit these individuals from buying up majority stakes in new ventures.
- orobanche 4y ago
  limiting the accumulation of political, economic and military power requires a tremendous accumulation of power
- azth 4y ago
  It's a red herring. The true underlying causes for these things are already solved by Islamic regulations on finance, societal issues, social welfare, etc.
pabe 4y ago
That's why decentralization is important. It's less efficient than centralization but more resilient. But because of efficiency, life tends to evolve into complex centralized systems that become incredibly vulnerable.

dfxm12 4y ago

“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.” I'm sure some social critics thought the same of young people like Chomsky, who were thrown in jail for protesting the Vietnam War. I don't know if I'm being pessimistic or realist, but in the context of climate crisis & impirialism, we've seen history repeat itself enough time across enough generations that I'm not hopeful anymore that the kids will figure it out.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually? Even, sadly, though that may mean generations of rebellion, war, strife, hardship....
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 4y ago
  >And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually? That's called "whig history" and it's mostly an idea of religious origin: the idea that the world progresses to some moral or enlightened end. Technology and scientific knowledge do accumulate over time. Actually, even those can be lost (tons of techniques were lost for centuries, and some are still unknown, when empires like Rome fell), but generally they accumulate, based on their technical and informational nature. But society, morality, government enlightenment etc. don't accumulate. They can revert to totally worse than previous times at any point, and often have. That's based on human character (not so malleable outside of evolutionary time spans), interests (national, folk, and private), resource availability and contest for resources, who is in power, and trends, ideology and moral ideas prevalent at each era. (E.g. post golden-era Athens compared to before, post-Roman empire medieval times, the Renessaince (the quentessential era of slaughter and war in Europe, and also when the Inquisition was founded and operated), WWI and WWII compared to the "belle epoque". And those regressions was in regular, non existential danger times. What can happen under lack of resources like water (in most of the planet), climate change catastrophes, or even nuclear war, is even worse.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Chomsky tries to point at the 2021 cooperation talks.. but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. They were the entire reason Ukraine sought foreign help. Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.

nextstep 4y ago
Chomsky also didn’t mention that USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded the coup in 2014. But this is a very short interview, so he can’t go into detail about every time the US has undermined democracy.
- tgv 4y ago
  And Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the election of Yanukovych and the widespread corruption. Their hands were so clean!
CapricornNoble 4y ago
>>>Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget. I notice many users on HN start their "history of Russia" with the invasion of Georgia in 2008....but Russia has been led by Putin since 1999. We might have short memories due to our governments changing every 4 years...but this country has been run by the same man for 23 years. And I'm sure he has a long memory. So what were the key events from 1999-2007 that could have shaped Putin's perspective regarding relations with the US, to the point that he felt invading Georgia (and all other hostility since) was the correct long-term strategy? That didn't happen in a vacuum. I leave researching this as an exercise for the reader (hint: you can dig through some of my older comments as I've covered it a few times...)
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Yes because Russia was so worried about us shooting down their nukes they had to invade.. Georgia?
  - CapricornNoble 4y ago

topspin 4y ago

Where are the doomsday clock people lately? Putin et al. have been rattling the nuclear sabre for weeks now and I can't recall any stories about bumping the 'clock.' Officials and their punditry have been dutifully wagging their fingers about Russia and their nuclear capability, especially when Ukraine has the temerity to conduct any offensive operations; you'd think the clock folks could muster a press conference at least. [follow-up] So there was a press 'release' (as opposed to an actual press conference) in January, where we find zero mention of the immense pre-invasion Russian military build-up that was happening at the time. It has been pointed out to me that the clock is not updated in response to real time events. I suppose, except they took 30s off the clock -- complete with an actual press conference -- within a week of Trump being inaugurated, citing his "disturbing comments" about nuclear weapons, among other things.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
The_Stone 4y ago
The clock's been at 100 seconds to midnight for the past 3 years, there's nowhere to bump the clock to. "The clock folks" at the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists did have a press release in January of this year - https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/press-release-at-dooms-doorstep-it-is-100-seconds-to-midnight/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/press-release-at-dooms-doors... and responded to the invasion with https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russians-invasion-of-ukraine/ https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russia... stating "This is exactly what 100 seconds to midnight conveys. It is dangerous, fluid, and unstable."
quesera 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock > The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.

vegai_ 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ncfausti 4y ago
In the posted video he's talking about the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change. Do you have anything to say regarding the substance of those claims or are you content with textbook ad hominem?
newaccount2021 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zephrx1111 4y ago

[flagged]

albertopv 4y ago

I don't get why Noam Chomsky is still so revered by many. Every time I read something from him its almost everything bullshit. NATO has nothing to do with Russia war, one should read Anna Politkovskaja 2004 book, it's everything there.

the_only_law 4y ago
Didn’t he have an at least mildly impactful academic career in linguistics?
- albertopv 4y ago
  Yes, when? I'm talking about now and a totally different area. Maybe it's me, every time I read him I sense anti americanism
Tepix 4y ago
Every time i read Chomsky, i'm thinking: Why is he so much more knowledgeable and insightful than the average american? This guy gets it.
- albertopv 4y ago
  If it's sarcasm I don't get it, for sure I'm not as smart as Chomsky.

Febra33 4y ago

Noam Chomsky on here. Jesus. This guy is whataboutism reincarnated.

kgwxd 4y ago
This comment on here. Jesus. This guy is ad hominem reincarnated.[sic]
- akamaka 4y ago
  I searched for “what about” in the article, and it is indeed there. Chomsky responds to the question asking if the war is about Russia trying to stamp out democracy by saying “What about what the USA is doing?”

tptacek 4y ago

The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right. The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine. The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.

nextstep 4y ago
It’s not a false dichotomy because he’s not presenting these two ideas as mutually exclusive. Maybe you misunderstood his argument (or what a dichotomy means). His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.
- tgv 4y ago
  By seeing this response as unavoidable, you’re turning out into a dichotomy.
  - joejohnson 4y ago
    This is not what a dichotomy is. Chomsky’s point is that both the expansion of NATO and Putin being a dictator played a part in the invasion of Ukraine. He’s presenting these two facts as the opposite of a dichotomy!
    - tptacek 4y ago
      The expansion of NATO didn't play a part in the invasion of Ukraine, in any moral or rational way. By framing it that way, Chomksy subtly creates a justification for the invasion that does not exist. Which is my point about how disingenuous this logic is.