World News

If you think Chomsky doesn’t consider Russia’s invasion criminal, brutal, and unjustifiable, that’s just not correct. If you actually read the interviews

Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”. That negotiations with Russia would mean de facto abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the whims of an aggressor that has shown itself capable of extraordinary brutality, such as in Bucha and Izyum, is dismissed. “Ukraine is not a free actor; they’re dependent on what the US determines,” he says, adding that the US is supplying Kyiv with weapons simply to weaken Russia. “For the US, this is a bargain. For a fraction of the colossal military budget, the US is able to severely degrade the military forces of its only real military adversary.”

According to Chomsky, Russia is acting with restraint and moderation. He compares Russia’s way of fighting with the US’s during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that large-scale destruction of infrastructure seen in that conflict “hasn’t happened in Ukraine”. He adds: “Undoubtedly Russia could do it, presumably with conventional weapons. [Russia] could make Kyiv as unliveable as Baghdad was, could move in to attacking supply lines in western Ukraine.”

When I asked him to clarify whether he was implying that Russia is fighting more humanely in Ukraine than the US did in Iraq, Chomsky replies, “I’m not implying it, it’s obvious.” Delegations of UN inspectors had to be withdrawn once the invasion of Iraq began, he says, “because the attack was so severe and extreme… That’s the US and British style of war.” Chomsky adds: “Take a look at casualties. All I know is the official numbers… the official UN numbers are about 8,000 civilian casualties [in Ukraine]. How many civilian casualties were there when the US and Britain attacked Iraq?”

Still incapable of reading, I see.

For bonus points, Chomsky's typical brand of 'brilliant' IR takes.

At times, Chomsky’s ideological priors lead him to overlook facts that might contradict his narrative. For instance, Sweden and Finland, which had been officially non-aligned for 210 and 73 years, respectively, both applied to join Nato in May 2022. To most observers, the end of their decades of neutrality might seem at least tangentially related to the invasion of Ukraine three months earlier. However, Chomsky says that both countries seeking to join Nato had “nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack, which has never been even conceived”. Claims that Russia could threaten either country amount to “Western propaganda”, he adds. Instead, Chomsky argues that joining Nato gives the military industries of both Nordic countries “great new market opportunities [and] new access to advanced equipment”.

Sovereignty, of course, is a Western Imperialist Lie, and it's only natural that a brave anti-imperialist like Chomsky would oppose it.

Asked what form a potential settlement to the war in Ukraine might take, Chomsky says: “First of all, Ukraine will not be a member of Nato. That’s the red line that every Russian leader has insisted on since [the former Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and [the former Soviet president Mikhail] Gorbachev.” He adds: “Ukraine gains the status of, say, Austria during the Cold War or Mexico today. Mexico can’t join a military alliance [hostile to the US]. There’s no treaty about it but it’s perfectly obvious.”

A peace agreement would involve Ukraine offering “a degree of autonomy” to the eastern Donbas region, today partially occupied by Russia. “With regard to Crimea [which was illegally annexed in 2014]… we put it off for the moment. Let it be discussed later. Those are the basic outlines of a solution under the Minsk II agreement.” The Minsk I and II agreements were signed between Ukraine and Russia in 2014 and 2015. Intended to end the conflict that began in 2014, they included military and political steps that were never implemented by Moscow. The agreements are today widely viewed in Ukraine as having paved the way for Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. “There will be no Minsk III,” as the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky curtly put it last November.

And, of course, the classic "Look how she was dressed, the whore was asking for it"

Chomsky’s criticisms of US foreign policy are not limited to Ukraine. Just as Washington provoked Russia with Nato expansion it is also “provoking China openly” over Taiwan, he tells me. “The US is carrying out a programme… to encircle China with a ring of sentinel states armed with advanced precision weapons aimed at China,” an apparent reference to American defence cooperation with countries such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.

“What is the threat from China at this point?” Chomsky asks me. “The threat is coming from the US with, of course, Britain following. [The UK] is just a lackey at this point. It’s not an independent country anymore.” Though he acknowledges that China is “not a nice country” and is violating international law in the South China Sea, he says “the talk about [war over] Taiwan is coming from the West”. Beijing, which views Taiwan as its own territory, has not ruled out an invasion and regularly conducts military exercises which simulate a blockade of the self-governing island.

And for the final round of hypocrisy

Reflecting on our conversation, I came across a passage in an essay from Chomsky’s 1970 book At War with Asia. “As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue,” he wrote. “Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others.” These words seem to me to be more applicable to the war in Ukraine than anything Noam Chomsky said during our conversation 53 years later.

What drugs are you smoking? I’ve never been ok with any genocide for any reason. Unlike many liberals who were fine with Biden funding genocide because “it’s not an important issue”. I’ve always been against genocide and accelerationism. Quote me proving otherwise or get your pathetic strawman out of here.

I literally posted screenshots of the guys we were discussing playing genocide games, but go off. Infinite apologia for one genocide is permitted, but not the other.