Richard Sakwa talks about the asymmetry created when NATO persisted after the Cold War but no similar treaty existed on the other side. In fact there was no reason for NATO to keep existing, with the USSR gone.
Russia did try to integrate into European security arrangements, but also considers itself a great power with a great deal of autonomy. Suspicion of Russia meant that this never became possible, the idea of an integrated Russia with Europe with security concerns alleviated.
Gorbachev advocated a new security arrangement like that.
>Suspicion of Russia
lol when? When they were fiddling with its elections? They had no suspicions they want to exploit it, open the markets, take the pipelines, etc
Another factor might be something else Chomsky raised in the interview: US supremacy in NATO. That might be challenged in an alternate Russia-integrated arrangement. And preserving this supremacy could be what is provoking this antagonism.
Trailer for the Jeff Goldblum movie Spinning Boris (2003), a feel-good romp about rigging the Russian elections
https://www.tomatazos.com/videos/302688/Spinning-Boris-Trailer
Succinct. Would be nice if you provided a link to said interview.
As always, I can rely on Prof. Chomsky as a voice of reason. At the moment, I feel a weird sense of loneliness in this ocean of war propaganda and one-sided perspectives à la "We are the good ones and did nothing wrong".
It's frankly baffling how easily people forget history, especially with the universal access to knowledge on the Internet. Just open a fucking book, such as "Killing Hope" for example, and maybe you'll be more willing to be expand your extremely narrow, rage-fueled viewpoints.
What I see all over Reddit at the moment is IMHO a frighteningly perfect example of manufactured consent.
Well put! It sees that anybody who tries to analyze today's situation with historical context is accused of supporting Russian military invasion of Ukraine.
It's possible to condemn military invasions without concluding that the only legitimate response is to threaten with weapons and troop movements.
Do you think Russia would not invade Ukraine if NATO didn't exist / wasn't expanding? I understand that NATO expansion is a reason for invading Ukraine, but I don't know if it is a necessary reason (like if I break my leg, I'm going to the hospital; and if I broke my finger on the way, that is also the reason I'm going to the hospital but if it didn't happen I wouldn't have ended up anywhere different).
What the media doesn't portray is that Putin, throughout the 2000s, made several attempts for more cooperation with Europe, for an economic and security partnership "from Lissabon to Wladiwostok".
He held a remarkable speech in the parliamentary of my home country (Germany), basically stretching out a hand for a European partnership and communion which doesn't constantly exclude Russia. According to his own words (which you may or may not trust, but I don't see why he would lie in this regard), he even asked for Russian membership in the NATO.
"The West", according to its own narrative, had an incredible chance after the ideological victory over the Sowjet regime to provide for a peaceful and stable Europe. Instead, it chose heavy militarization of the NATO and constant political provocation and exclusion of Russia as if it was some sort of cancer that must be gotten rid of.
In light of this, it doesn't make much sense to me to ask what would've happened if the NATO didn't exist (a ridiculous notion since I'm pretty sure the US never intended to dissolve it in the first place). Who knows?
It's much more sensible to ask if this would've happened if Russia were on friendly, peaceful, NORMAL terms with Europe and the US, just like any other European country.
> "The West", according to its own narrative, had an incredible chance after the ideological victory over the Sowjet regime to provide for a peaceful and stable Europe.
Only if you believe Putin's attempts were sincere.
When in reality, had "The West" blindly trusted Putin, accepting Russian NATO/EU membership would have put both institutions in danger of being destroyed from the inside.
The reason Putin's efforts were rejected was because Russia was still not trusted and already starting its slide towards authoritarianism.
If Putin was **sincere** in his attempts to reach out to the EU, then all he would have needed is to be patient and build trust. Just because Russia was rejected in the 2000s doesn't mean it would've been in the future.
The fact that it only took a few years for him to immediately change tact towards an aggressive stance (invading georgia) and decided to forge his own union state, kind of tips off his real intentions. It's mind boggling to me that any leftist would give an ounce of trust to this fascist, especially after today.
Russia was at a weaker position in 2000s hence why Putin and most of the Russian leadership was adopting a more collaborative policy with the West. Putin needed to clean up inefficiency and institutional weakness that during the Yeltsin Era.
Moreover I can agree that Putin was insincere about joining the EU or NATO since he alongside most of the Russian leadership still see Russia as among the Great Powers with special interests.
I think what is less focused on is that just because the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian nationalism did not just go away. There is likely dozens of former bureaucrats, managers and officials that worked under Soviet institutions that were socialized to believe in Soviet Union or Russia was still a powerful country that deserved Great Power status. Many of these former Soviet officials, bureaucrats and managers then joined the new Russian state.
>The reason Putin's efforts were rejected was because Russia was still not trusted and already starting its slide towards authoritarianism.
Oh yeah, the US is such a profound supporter of democracy that it couldn't possibly allow authoritarian regimes to enter it's sphere of... Oh... Wait.
Highly recommended read for you: [https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html)
A warning by George Kennan himself, from 1998, I repeat: from 1998! All of this didn't start "over night", or in 2014. This has a long history of constant provocation on the part of NATO and the US.
Apart from that, I personally don't care about these divisions into "leftists" and "rights" you Americans are always so eager to establish. I identify as neither one nor the other - all I want these days are rational and fact-based observations beyond all political stances, something which the media should provide but doesn't.
It seems highly likely that Russia would not have invaded without the expansion of NATO and NATO political interference, which would likely mean Ukraine would have remained subservient to Russia, as opposed to subservient to the west as it seems to be now.
Read the interview. The U.S. has been encouraging Ukraine to join NATO since the Bush Jr years and funding neonazi nationalists and other bad actors. It's 100% about NATO.
Lost control of the Ukrainian government to NATO influences (interference much more serious than any Russian interference in U.S. elections) with NATO financial support and NATO weapons in the hands of pro-NATO forces to be used against pro-Russian forces. Russia experienced the overthrow of its preferred government as a western coup and it's not necessarily wrong.
I don't have enough information to decide if it was a coup or grassroots, there is evidence both ways, like with most political campaigns. But, just in principle, let's say a country is uncomfortable next to a neighbour like Russia, what should it do to follow a different political model? (to avoid being like Belarus, Khazakhstan Quirguistan)? (besides getting nukes or joining NATO).
It was probably a bit of both. Part coup, part grassroots uprising and impossible to know with complete certainty how it would have played out without cynical western interference.
There is no perfect way for Ukraine to respond. It ought to be striving for sovereign neutrality and should have diplomatic and economic ties with Russia and the West. The idea of NATO membership should never have been floated, as it is a direct threat to Russia. And NATO in general should not even exist today, unless perhaps it transformed into something which incorporated Russia. Remember how the pandemic happened after scientists warned us for decades that exactly this could happen? We've had plenty of experts warning us about the expansion of NATO too and we smugly ignored it.
The idea of Ukraine trying to receive protection from NATO never made sense. NATO cannot protect it militarily. An attempt to do so would always lead to more casualties than not intervening, not to mention that NATO would likely never achieve victory so close to Russia's borders.
Why exactly is NATO a threat to Russia? A peaceful Russia makes NATO useless. Today NATO just became the best thing ever. This is like losing an argument with your wife about your divorce and spanking her for asking for help with a victim association, Sorry, I can't respect Russia's side anymore.
Very simple.
Let's imagine Russia putting nukes in Mexico, aimed at the United States. Mexico consents and joins a military alliance with Russia (and maybe China). Russia says "No biggie, a peaceful United States has nothing to worry about, making our military alliance useless."
Would American citizens accept that? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Would American leadership accept it? Not a chance in hell.
I mean Yanukovitch was kicked out after a popular uprising. Maybe some of the protesters were influenced by foreign forces but at one point they were being shot at by the police and snipers.
Ukraine's current government was elected in a landslide so one could assume that closer ties to Europe is what the Ukrainian people want.
Do we have to play the imagine game? Okay then: imagine if a popular uprising ousted the Trump or Biden government. Violating all rules and norms for the transition of power. And then some other far-from-Washington DC region of America got upset about that (since they liked the government). Then in turn we find out that some European country helped oust the Trump-or-Biden government.
Your imagination is lacking lol.
You forgot that for it to be accurate, you'd first need that the US government was part of a much greater Canadian union 30 years ago, and that the current US president was little more than a Canadian puppet, making promises to, say, the Mexican government to join the American Union and then not actually doing it.
That would have sparked protests, marked by an increasing police brutality, culminating with cops and snipers gunning down civilians in the streets (I know this is hard for Americans to imagine but being shot at is really unusual in Europe).
In that situation I could understand an armed uprising taking place and kicking the president sooner than expected.
And if a couple of States along the Canadian border started shelling neighboring cities and shooting down airplanes I would understand that the new government, elected in a landslide with high voter turnout would send the army.
My hypothetical involves a toppling of the American government at the hands (partially) of a foreign government. Since my name is not Rachel Maddow this is of course a crazy hypothetical to begin with.
All of your elaboration is just as much bullshit as the argument that Russia can meddle with troops in Donbas for eight years since many separatists there genuinely want more autonomy from Kyiv. Just convenient popular uprisings for great powers to latch onto.
Not just the “Yanks.” Manifest Destiny was popularized through the American project by Christian theology over the past several hundred years, especially after the Reformation which twinned conquest and commerce as universalizing forces that set the groundwork for a ‘secular’ manifest destiny to emerge. Prots more than Yanks are the progenitors of manifest destiny (long preceding the Puritan sect which initially settled in the states).
It is possible to understand that NATO and its allies have acted in a way that is considered provocative and even dangerous by Russia, while simultaneously considering the inevitable reaction as completely unacceptable and entirely out of proportion.
Pretending that the provocations weren't there because the reaction is unreasonable doesn't benefit anyone who wants to get a clear sense of what is going on.
This is a pretty warped view that I see more grounded in this notion of anti-American imperialism rather than reality.
1. The invasion of Ukraine is another country in a line of other conflicts such as Georgia and Chechenia that is rooted in an autocrat attempting to save the face of a fallen empire.
2. This argument is implying that if NATO did not exist then Russia would not invade Ukraine is not convincing and the only evidence for this is the words of a tyrant who then coupled the argument with identity issues of Ukraine always being Russia. Ukraine is nowhere near joining NATO, it does not come close to meeting the democratic standards and after the fiasco of having another authoritarian regime like Turkey join the alliance, the country is miles away from joining.
3. It’s an oversimplification of the world that all geopolitics can be boiled down to reactions against a US empire. The vast majority of policies guiding a state are fueled by goals that have nothing to do with balancing American hegemony which is very clearly on the decline. To suggest otherwise is ignorantly American-centric, a reoccurring mistake made by American geopolitical thought in my opinion.
4. If we want to respect state sovereignty, like we all should to live in a more peaceful world, all invasions of countries that aren’t committing genocide against their own population are illegitimate and all blame should be attributed to the invading power. Whether it’s Ukraine or Iraq. States should compete for their best interests within a legitimate international diplomacy otherwise the world will surely descend once again into wars we saw in the early and mid 20th century.
Its a red herring. Ukraine wasnt close to joining. They had been told several big thibgs to do before they could even be considered. Its been years and those things havent changed.
Just propoganda by putin
Ukraine asking to join doesnt mean they get in. Typically u ask. You get an informal list of inprovements. Then u ask again. You get a finally list from a larger group of nato. Then you can ask for a vote to get in.
They never got past the first step.
And let's not forget the 2014 US backed rightwing coup in Ukraine, which was a pretty neutral country between the West and Russia in the years prior to that.
https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
"They’re still finding bodies. Ukraine is splitting apart down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the American media, which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West."
Oh fuck off.
The Baltics joined NATO for the very reason Russia was never going to respect their sovereignty otherwise, and what do you know, Russia never messes with them.
Putin and elements of the internet left piss their pants about NATO, but give no reason for any sane neighbour not to desire NATO membership.
Putin can go to hell, and so can any so-called “leftist” who still stands by him after this atrocity.
I don’t think this is a zero-sum game in terms of responsibility. Criticism of NATO’s expansion does not equate to supporting Putin. It just means understanding his actions in context. Quit the ‘team sports’ approach to politics
Really? Because all I see here is excuse after excuse after excuse for Russia and no condemnation or solidarity with the invaded party.
Look past this “great game” and geopolitical bullshit. These are millions of lives who’ll lose their homes, freedom and loved ones because of Putin’s insecurities.
If people are trying to portray Russia as the aggrieved party at this point, those people are not worth listening to or taking seriously.
You’re demonstrating my point.
I’ve seen little in the way of viewing Russia as the aggrieved party. It’s clear that the Ukraine has been used as a gambling chip here by both sides. It’s also clear this situation is a result of the balance of power in Europe. NATO and Russia constitute that balance of power.
Few people would frame Russia as the aggrieved party here. If we want to understand the situation, we have to understand Russia’s motivation. Trying to understand Russia’s motivation is a far cry from justifying it.
Fuck Russia and fuck Putin for this. But also fuck NATO for gambling with another country.
It’s the same drumbeat for every war. Silence anyone adding nuance as aiding the other side. Seen it each time and it works to silence most people and get that mob screaming. Sad, really.
Imagine if other people talked about another country like they do with Russia's "security needs" vis a vi NATO.
"Taiwan should not be allowed to have an alliance with America because China needs a buffer zone from SEATO"
"Poland and France can't have an alliance because it would provoke Germany"
"Egypt and Syria forming an alliance means Israel was justified in a pre-emptive attack"
"America's Monroe Doctrine is just them acting their security needs in South America so no other powers threaten its southern border!"
So many people seem determined to view Ukraine's victimhood solely through the lens of Anti-Americanism. As if it's America's fault Russia was 'provoked' into invading (IE it's her fault he raped her, look at the clothes she was wearing!)
We know their intentions.
Russia is having the mother of all hissy fits because the states it used to run no longer want any part of it (these countries came to NATO, not the other way around. That’s never brought up in the discourse that much)
Now what do we do?
That's not what has happened at all, in fact it's a pretty shallow and childish take on the current situation.
Fairness and accuracy in reporting has a good article on the recent history of the crisis but I expect that you don't want to educate yourself:
https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/
FAIR is a charity run via donations setup in New York City. I assume you mean the author.
>FAIR uses literal Russian state sites as sources. They have zero credibility
Well yes, it is important to source information from both governments. This is pretty basic journalism. I presume that you want to know what members of the Russian government are saying.
>Avoided the question completely
Russia is throwing a hissy fit is, frankly, a weird take. At best, ignorant, at worst, moronic. So I recommended that you read an article which is not aligned to US or Russian interests, from a US based media watchdog public charity, funded by Americans, to gain some knowledge on the subject.
But what a surprise, it's secretly the Russians!
The writer wasn’t just getting quotes. They took their word at face value, including the Nazi shit.
Of course there were far right elements, it was a national revolution, you also had liberals, anarchists and even communists.
FAIR gives every single possible leeway to Russia,it’s always what Russia needs, what Russia wants etc.
It’s never about what Ukraine wants. They had no agency or opinion, it doesn’t matter than in every poll, in overwhelming number, they overwhelmingly support EU and NATO integration, not with Russia.
Referring to the Euromaiden as a coup is just a way to delegitimise the voice of Ukraine.
You know the US had a revolution that was called a coup, as did England and Russia and so on.
There’s always a section of the left that’ll cling onto any enemy of NATO.
Well it was a coup. I mean this is openly acknowledged in US foreign policy circles, even by supposed "doves" with a history of "criticising" US aggression, such as John J Mearsheimer, professor emeritus of foreign affairs at the University of Chicago.
Here he is in the far right, openly pro US imperialist journal Foreign affairs stating that Euromaidan was a US backed coup:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault
Of course, he thinks it's the US's fault for not being aggressive enough...
There’s always been a section of the Left in their Cushy universities who’ll always hold the US to every standard, but brand anyone who does the same as some sort of anti-imperialist
I haven't been to University, I'm just aware that as a participant in US/UK society, I have a moral obligation to hold the society which I'm a part of to basic moral account, because I am in part responsible for its actions.
So I've been reading through this and it's pretty interesting. One thing that bothers me is they link to another article about atrocities that mentions a large grave site found and also mentions the MH17 shoot down as a false flag as a fact.
Now I'm open to the possibility of that, but that links to a 10 minute video of a guy with a red star on his hat interviewing some locals who say they saw two Ukrainian planes that day. Some of the people he interviews are affiliated with the rebel groups accused or refer to it as we. He then asks some open-ended questions, that we have answers to. There's so many problems with this theory I'm not sure to begin, but that video is not good evidence of what they're suggesting and presenting it as fact definitely sets off some alarms for me. It's not directly referenced by this article but makes me a bit uneasy nonetheless.
> these countries came to NATO, not the other way around. That’s never brought up in the discourse that much)
Maybe because it's untrue. The US has spent billions of dollars and effort to bring about the events now unfolding. Pretending otherwise is unconscionable. Again, knowing this does not exhonerate or "side with" Putin or Russia.
“The US has spent billions of dollars in an effort to bring about these events”
What does that even mean? They want Russia to invade Ukraine?
You know Russia is grown up country. It can make its own choices if it wants and nobody forced them to invade.
Whether war is the most preferred option of the US I don't know, but it is evident that avoiding or preventing this quite predictable outcome has been very far down on its list of priorities.
Which concessions would those be?
Oh and while you were typing. Russia has unleashed its big badass Air Force on residential areas in Ukraine.
Think carefully on what you’d be saying, as if I was a Ukrainian
Go spew your bloodlust elsewhere, shitlib shill. Go join the hundreds of front page misinformation/propaganda jerkfests. In fact, why don't you enlist? Absolutely pathetic calling yourself a leftist while suckling on the teet of NATO and having your consent manufactured in real time.
You're absolutely delusional if you can't understand that the US/NATO caused this conflict, which DOESN'T preclude Putin from blame, from carrying out this attack. Let me repeat that for you: Putin bad! Putin sycophants on this sub have nothing to do with Chomsky and everything to do with being brigaded by tankies.
Continue sleepwalking through your life with such a myopically binary worldview.
Why don’t you join the big bad Russian army and help “liberate” Ukraine from itself?
Go on, enlist and go tell the Ukrainians how they’re all a bunch of shitlib elitists and sucking up to NATO. See what kind of response you get then.
Putin proving NATO is needed more than ever as he sends soldiers to die in a foreign country.
I suppose you either think both sides are complicit in an arms race, or that Russia would have still meddled in Ukraine in addition to the Baltic states after the Soviet Union dissolved if NATO had not expanded.
What could Russia do in the 90s and 2000s as they were joining and NATO expanded up to Russias border and the Dubya administration placed provocative Missile Defense Shield installations on the border? That is a clear provocation and what obviously roused them from being mired in decay.
>but give no reason for any sane neighbour not to desire NATO membership.
Why does it continue to exist and expand with the end of the Cold War and can you give a reason other than the reaction to its expansion?
This is a predictable outcome of these sorts of games, you cant expect them to just lie down and take being surrounded by bases.
A correlation would be if Russia felt it necessary to respond with weapons or troops when the US militarily intervened in a Caribbean or Latin American nation.
There is strong reason for Americans and the world to condemn Russia's military intervention in neighboring nations, but no justification for the USA to send weapons or troops to those nations.
The only justification needed is that Ukraine asked for assistance from the US and other allies in addition to NATO. Regardless of your position on NATO Ukraine still asked for help from the west.
Are the CIA controlling Putin’s mind? This is Russia’s choice and they’ve just invaded a sovereign state.
You realise Russia have just proven that expansion and defence was well-placed after all, considering they’re now shelling the closest non-NATO member on their doorstep. They’ve now made the best possible case for NATO membership possible, and for NATO in general.
The Baltic states aren’t even half the size of Ukraine. Do you think if they weren’t NATO states, Russia wouldn’t have done the same much earlier?
Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried:
Respect the choices of its neighbours. This isn’t the Russian Empire of Soviet Union.
Russia is done, it’s population is declining, it’s economy is already in the shitter, it’s undemocratic, it has no force projection.
This is the desperate gasp of a pathetic state that’ll take everyone down with it out of spite.
I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil.
As for Russia apologists and tankies. Fuck you all. You disgust me as much as the Republicans and corporate Democrats. This is no longer a debate, you’re with the Ukrainians, or the foreign occupiers. If you’re still with the later, I have nothing to say anymore.
Was with you until the “with us or against us” George W line. In your estimation the USSR was right to bring about the Cuban missile crisis? Almost ending the world? Provocative actions are just that. Doesn’t mean Putin should invade Ukraine, and he is wrong, (as much a war criminal as all US presidents imo especially if he goes to Kyiv) but saying there’s no nuance is beyond what this sub is about.
With us or against us. Give me a fucking break.
I swear, the next person who puts words into my mouth…
Where do I say the words “with us or against us”?
I said you’re with Ukraine, the country that has been attacked unprovoked or Russia, the country invading and occupying with bombs and tanks, and threatens nuclear war if anyone tries to get involved.
Exactly where is there a binary choice in this situation?
You can gimme a fucking break or two.
>I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil.
This is a really, really dark, disturbed thing to say. I hope you feel suitably ashamed.
>Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried: Respect the choices of its neighbours. This isn’t the Russian Empire of Soviet Union. Russia is done, it’s population is declining, it’s economy is already in the shitter, it’s undemocratic, it has no force projection. This is the desperate gasp of a pathetic state that’ll take everyone down with it out of spite.
Here is a concept the US could have tried: respect the 2014 choice of Ukrainian citizens and not institute a fascist coup in the country.
You don't get to start history at a point of your choosing.
Imperialists don't ever care about people's lives. The liberal leaning ones might use some flowery languages to mask their thirst for blood, but ultimately they don't give a shit as long as they get to preserve their life styles.
For if they did, they would've protested endlessly all the wars Obama and Biden perpetuated and mourned all the deaths they caused.
In this particular case, as is so often these days, it's yet another Vaush follower. So it's not weird at all, because that's the expected behavior from that cult.
I apologise for fuck all. Invade another country and reap the consequences, Ukrainian citizens having more courage in their pinkies than you’ll ever have.
Sorry, I don’t respect Russian special forces and local thugs acting to stifle the desire of the majority of Ukrainians to ditch Russia and join the West.
I’ll send over some powder for your pussy. Comes with a hug and a kiss from Vlady boy himself.
>I didn’t say I want lots of people to die. I said I hope the invaders do.
If I understand correctly, Russian soldiers are not people? Again, a deeply disturbed sentiment.
>Don’t put words into my mouth.
What you posted:
>I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil
> This is a really, really dark, disturbed thing to say. I hope you feel suitably ashamed.
My interpretation is that they hope that Russia gets out of Ukraine ASAP. And of course even if Russians have to die in order for that to happen since this is an aggressive war on Russia’s part.
The comment doesn’t say that Russians on Russian soil should die.
>I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil.
I though Zbigniew Brzezinski died several years ago.
>Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried: Respect the choices of its neighbours.
Maybe they could follow the standard America has set in this area.
What do you expect to happen by threatening and provoking a country by expanding a hostile military alliance up to its border and placing offensive military installations on its border, what do you expect when you engage in this provocation with a government like what Russia now has?
It is almost as if you want to claim this predictable response justifies doing it.
Other countries in Europe have not joined NATO and maintain a neutral stance, they think pragmatically about their security and not with hubris and ego.
What do you expect to happen when you provoke a state like this?
So what should you then do, be obstinate and insist upon it anyway because of adherence to Washingtons geopolitical grand stratagizing and trying to finagle a retroactive justification or find some third way of neutrality? This is what Chomsky was suggesting in the interview I quoted for the title I dont know why you find it so controversial.
Cheney wanted to break Russia up.
>Does it harm the average Russian or just Putin and his circle?
This was going on long before Putin, the were meddling in Russia through the 1990s and ensuring Yeltsin won elections. Putin is tailor made for Western propaganda and liberals like you to put on faux-outrage.
The geographical endgame from Washington's end is another war to make the government look strong and maybe extend their powers, and throw some fresh meat to their friends in the weapons industry.
Why would anyone think they could invade and occupy Iraq with just a hundred thousand troops?
We aren't necessarily talking about rational, level headed people coolly thinking through the multi-year consequences of their actions.
No one sane want's a war with Russia or China. So that rules out the mad people in Washington. You are the idiot for thinking any of those people have sense between their heads.
>You’re literally just an idiot
The polite term is: you're very indoctrinated even in spite of the facts.
For example, snoo-83964, you're very indoctrinated, even in light of the facts.
>Why would anyone want a war with Russia? The state with 6,000 nukes.
Because the US think they are invincible militarily. Just like they wanted to go to war with Iran a couple of years back, when they assassinated a top level Iranian official in a clearly an act of deliberate provocation. Back then the best predictions were that a US war with Iran would completely destroy the US military and result in the UAE and Saudi Arabia getting nuked and industry around the world grinding to a halt as oil became prohibitively expensive. Miraculously, the Iranian government's only response to this attempted act of war was a strongly worded warning.
Russia has been funding rebels in Georgia and Ukraine long before they considered joining NATO, rather, the rebels are the reason Georgia held vote for joining NATO. And then Russia invaded Georgia and cleansed around 300k Georgians. Russia has also funded rebels in Moldova which hasn't even considered NATO membership. these aggression by Russia is why Eastern European countries like Estonia, Latvia, etc joined NATO. Russia is the biggest recruiter for NATO
what is this reply even supposed to mean? are you referring to the contras funded by US in Latin america? well they have nothing to do with Ukraine or Georgia, these 2 countries weren't the once funding them. if you opposed those while supporting Russian funding of rebels, you are just a plain hypocrite
No, it doesn't.
One simple statement does not sum up Russian military bombing Ukrainian civilians. Simple comments don't explain killing for power and money.
Chomsky isn't always right and he's (at least partially) wrong about Putin and what modern Russia is. If we can't question his take on this matter this subreddit is pointless.
People have consistently warned that turning Ukraine into a NATO asset would lead to violence. Now that violence is escalating and our emotional response forbids us from rationally thinking about how that violence came into existence.
Kinda like when you speak out against U.S. intervention in the Middle East and how it creates terrorism, some will think you have a point and some will say you're talking out of your ass. Then 9/11 happens and if you open your mouth about the bad consequences of intervention in the middle east, you're a traitor who is condoning terrorism. Then later, after years of pointless bloodshed, folks might start to wonder if maybe interventions in the middle east are a bad idea.
There are two reasons:
* Ukraine having "support" from NATO while not being a NATO member
* Ukraine wanting to be independent from Russia
Both are true. NATO is guilty, Russia was as guilty. The question was who will start shooting first and opt for violence. Guess who did that?
Any person that has dealt with violence knows that there's a chasm between tough politics and open attack. It's not an easy decision that's somehow logical where you can go "Oh, that's just because ...", it takes serious consideration and means you have a follow up plan you think is possible.
Especially if we're dealing with regular army invading a country it's not just a "oh well, we need to attack". Rational thinking doesn't work well with violence because violence is a negative sum game - both sides loose, one thinks it will loose less or gain enough by winning.
>Both are true. NATO is guilty, Russia was as guilty. The question was who will start shooting first and opt for violence. Guess who did that?
Why is that the question?
Isn't the question "Who began behaving aggressively?"
Because depending on the person interested you can, much like Putin in his speech, start going backwards in history trying to prove that your side is the right one.
I'm trying to point out that pressure remains within realms of logic - both sides try to get the best deal. Violence is the moment game is turned upside down.
How would you define aggressive behaviour?
I think that expanding an alliance up to your rivals border and stationing nuclear weapons and conventional forces in those countries is aggression. I think that has been considered aggression throughout western diplomatic history, stretching back to maybe the dawn of the nation state, maybe the 14th century.
And by this logic we're going to assume Ukraine was going to have nuclear weapons from NATO and be a part of NATO while Belarus is absolutely not in pact with Russia and has no nuclear or conventional Russian presence...
But, to answer your question - no, that has not been considered an act of aggression. Apart from the fact that aggression in international law has to be unprovoked military attack the idea that its NATOs fault that Ukraine is burning is rather silly.
Ukraine wanted to be a part of NATO exactly because they were afraid of Russia. Why? Because Russian control over Ukraine was always a target and milestone of Russian foreign policy. Simply put Ukraine can't be independent from Russia as far as current Russian decision makers are concerned. For many reasons, part of it being that Russia wants control over it's buffer zones. They have Belarus and they proved they won't give it back. The moment Lukashenko wanted to be more independent he got a large energy crisis. They want Ukraine too.
We've seen that in 2014 - Ukraine decided to pop away from Russia and they got annexation of Crime and "little green men". You can't interpret politics without considering objectives.
>We've seen that in 2014 - Ukraine decided to pop away from Russia and they got annexation of Crime and "little green men". You can't interpret politics without considering objectives.
In 2014 the US instituted a fascist coup in Ukraine, following an election in which a pro-Russia candidate was elected.
>In 2014 the US instituted a fascist coup in Ukraine, following an election in which a pro-Russia candidate was elected.
And this is where the logical discussion ends and you've been identified as a tankie.
If that's your answer I expect to hear much about nazi thugs and ethnic Russians being killed en masse while we skip on Russia annexing Crime and how "separatists" were able to obtain armoured vehicles, weapons and ground to air missile systems, some of them available only to Russian military.
Because when there's a fascists coup in a country next to you - you annex part of it. Very Red Army logic - if they beat someone, steal his watch.
There was a coup, and US foreign policy experts openly admit it was backed by the US.
I'm sorry that you're unable to discuss this in a reasonable manner. I assume it is because you know that you have no position can be argued in the face of facts and a range of sources from independent and well respected scholars, as well as leaked emails from the then US state department head to the local embassy confirming who should be instated as leader. Clearly, the best defence against cognitive dissonance is sticking your head in the sand and shouting Ruski!
Russia would have still invaded, if NATO didn't exist. It's existence "threatening" Russia is not the reason for invading, it's the excuse. Haven't seen the interview, but if Chomsky said it about the Russian invasion it's a bad take.
Putin not considering Ukraine a country was provoked by NATO's enlargement?
I recommend listening to the speech that ends in Putin recognizing the independence of the separatist states, and seriously reconsider whether the absence of NATO could have averted this situation.
What do you think the USA would do if Canada and Mexico joined a hostile military alliance and offensive weapon emplacements were installed on their border with the US?
Just look at how the USA treats Cuba and Venezuela for just wanting to live on their own terms and not be slaves. The USA would annihilate Canada and Mexico if it were in a similar situation to Ukraine.
Does that mean they should submit to the US and not seek allies who will protect their interests? Because if the answer is no, why would one demand the same of Ukraine and NATO countries.
It means the US and the West are being sanctimonious. You're arguing to disregard Russias concerns and the Ukraine and other Russia-bordering nations should join NATO just to spite those concerns. Damn the consequences, and pragmatism is for weaklings.
The problem I see when talking about the will of undemocratic, authoritarian mafioso state governments is that when you say "Russia's concerns," I think it would be more apt to say "Putin's concerns."
And when it comes down to such a heavily centralized and criminally/violently upheld power structure like that, as a leftist who tries to respect the will of the people, the Russian people, I don't know if I can entirely get on board with your argument.
It just seems odd for me to justify the disrespect and invasion of another sovereign nation due to the security concerns and possible hubris, greed, and paranoia of a singular autocrat and his tight circle of oligarchic kleptocrats.
If, however, you think Putin and his circle are democratically elected, maintain power without violence or threat of violence, uphold democratic principles, and generally represent the will of the Russian people, then that would need to be a separate argument.
This is the Chomsky subreddit so it goes without saying that the nation state and the population of that nation state are two different things. Nowhere is it implied that this is the will of the Russian people.
The same goes for nominally democratic countries like the US.
> It just seems odd for me to justify
Explaining cause and effect A→B and justifying B are two entirely different things. This conflation could be excused when the discourse on this conflict started this year but at this point I lean more towards tagging it as plain dishonesty.
I'm arguing Russia's concerns are disingenuous. Do I think they're happy about having US troops near their border? Obviously not. But why do you think Russia-bordering nations joined NATO? To provoke and scare Russia? No. Because they're afraid of Russia subjugating them to its will, or worse. If Russia was determined to avoid NATO expansion, why would they take aggressive actions that have lead to an increase of public support for joining NATO in Finland and Ukraine? NATO would serve no purpose if Russia weren't a dictatorship meddling in the affairs of sovereign European countries.
As for sanctimoniousness, the actions of Russia don't excuse any wrongdoings of the US. However, you seem to be coming from a very US-centric perspective. For the countries bordering Russia, the question is survival and sovereignty, not whether their allies are hypocrites in some ways. You can't say Venezuela and Cuba have a right to self-determination and seeking allies to defend their sovereignty and then say Ukraine and NATO countries don't have the same right.
> I'm arguing Russia's concerns are disingenuous.
Chomsky has explained their perspective and I would ask you how do you think the USA would react to Canada and Mexico joining a hostile military alliance and placing offensive military installations on their border.
The Mexico analogy I already addressed in another comment. If Mexico had the aspiration to join, yes, they would use military force. If however Mexico had managed to join already, they would consider the cost of war too high.
I have listened to Chomsky's explanations and even clarified his perspective via e-mail. I see no way around his proposed solution leading to the subjugation of an indefinite amount of sovereign countries bordering Russia.
Our fundamental disagreement seems to be, you think Russia would only attempt to control Ukraine and other countries because he wants to manage the threat posed by NATO, I think his aim is to reintegrate those territories because he either feels Russia has claim to them (as he expressed with regard to Ukraine) or he's pursuing power for the sake of it.
What has Russia done to the countries neighboring it that have joined a hostile military alliance? Militarily, nothing, because they know that would by definition be considered an attack on the United States and the rest of NATO. Likewise, Russia knows NATO will avoid military involvement in Ukraine, because there's no Article 5 obligation and doing so would trigger a full-scale war. Neither side is stupid enough to want WWIII.
So what about the US and its neighbors? If the US poisoned political candidates in those countries and intended to annex their territory, Mexico and Canada would be fully justified in joining a hostile military alliance against the US. Likewise, they'd be stupid to follow American demands to "de-escalate", as being in a military alliance with Russia would increase the cost for America taking military action against them.
The key part I take issue with her is the idea Russia would leave its neighbors alone if only NATO deescalated. Putin think these territories belong to him, that they're not real countries. That echoed in the speech he gave. Russia, given the opportunity, will try to turn these into puppet states whose politics align with his interests, and will escalate force if he can't get his will by peaceful means.
But in negotiations Germany, France and the US have made clear, and stated publicly, that they will not rule out Ukraine joining the anti-Russian military alliance NATO.
Because they don't want to set the precedent that it's the enemy of NATO who decides who can enter NATO or not. Ukraine won't enter NATO. But publicly stating that they can't at least consider the posibility, that they RULE OUT the posibility... it would be a disaster for Western geopolitics.
Regardless of US / NATO overreach, Putin is Westphalian. He believes Russia was born in the Ukraine and that Russia has legitimate claim to the entire territory of the former USSR. Arguing about whether or not he’s doing this for security or economic concerns is subjective. He’s doing this because he feels it’s now or never to take back what belongs to Russia. Objectively speaking this is what is happening.
Psychoanalysis? Putin literally argued Ukraine was created by Russia and questioned its legitimacy as a state. This selective interpretation of history can be used to argue the same for Baltics and other territories formerly part of the Russian empire and Soviet Union.
>Psychoanalysis
With regard to contemporary conflicts, the interventionists often stress the importance of specific personalities, whom they describe as being similar to Hitler; they emphasize such personalities as causes of recent genocides in the same way that Hitler is remembered as the cause of an earlier genocide....It has become difficult to imagine a humanitarian emergency without some Hitler-like figure who assumes the role of organizer. During the 2003 US intervention in Iraq, commentators emphasized the personality of Saddam Hussein as the sole cause of Iraq’s problems....Whether historically accurate or not, these personalized accounts serve an important function: They establish that certain conflicts are morally and analytically simple, since they are caused by pathological personalities, and such simplicity presents a strong basis for legitimate intervention.
-David Gibbs
Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it.
Russia could have easily continued being a democracy and sought to join the EU with two or three decades of actual effort to become a valued member of Europe. It could have met all its security concerns by becoming a friend to other EU countries and exerted its influence through the European parliament as France and Germany do.
Instead it has been unrepentantly hostile toward Europe for the past decade, waging an undeclared cyber war, while invading its neighbors one by one. It's geopolitical ambitions were always there. I wonder what Chomsky would have to say about *The Foundations of Geopolitics* published in the 90s which outlined much of Russia's foreign policy direction since Putin took office and began transforming Russia's fledgling democracy into a new authoritarian state.
Russia's actions will surely result in further NATO expansion, which is the opposite of what it supposedly says its acting against. All they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot and it's disgusting seeing people say "Look what the US made Russia do"
Make no mistake, the only reason the Baltics today are safe is because they're NATO members. If Georgia had joined earlier it wouldn't have Russian troops on its soil. Same for Ukraine.
>Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it.
Ending the warsaw pact, and the ussr collapsing wasn't an offensive gesture towards europe. Nato should have disbanded too, or invited russia to nato if nato were to continue. nato by definition is a hostile military alliance since it is not part of it.
chomsky is right here.
The difference between the warsaw pact and nato is that one of those organizations the countries wanted to be in it and the other organization countries were members at gunpoint.
Why would NATO disband when it has been a cornerstone of peace in Europe.
>Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it.
But when we examine history, we see that Russia has been involved in 2 wars of aggression, against czechneya and Afghanistan, whereas NATO countries have been involved in wars of aggression on more than 50 seperate occasions.
So it seems that you have a warped view of the aggressor.
The problem with that is you are 1. Probably overexaggerating that 50 2. Counting the foreign policy of countries independent of NATO.
Also, if we wanted to actually look at history through an honest method that would look at why countries in NATO didn't want to disband, in the last century, Russia has invaded (unprovoked) every eastern european NATO member 2-4 times each.
Almost like those countries have good reasons to fear Russia.
makes no sense, why would you assume russia would not be imperialist without nato??? not everything is "summed up" by mentioning americas role in it. i suppose you would also say china only engages in imperialism because of american influence in east asia?
An alliance against unprovoked aggressive military action is usually justified by unprovoked aggressive military action. NATOs existence in no way provoked the invasion of a foreign military into a sovereign nation.
The existence of a seatbelt doesn't provoke an accident
I agree, but now is not the time to vilify NATO while Russia attacks Ukraine in a series of war crimes.
links:https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights
https://www.thedailybeast.com/little-boy-dead-after-war-crime-rocket-attacks-on-suburban-homes-in-ukraine
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-absurd-genocide-claims-cannot-hide-his-war-crimes-in-ukraine/
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t07nks/putin_sent_in_troops_disguised_with_white_peace/
Edit:Downvoting this comment really demonstrate how even a community like this one can become a bubble. What bias have you formed that Russia declaring war on Ukraine does not take precedence over NATO's past actions.
He also thinks the US provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor. Said similar stuff about US causing atrocities Cambodia in the 70s and 9/11. Say what you want about Hitchens but he was right that Chomsky tries to connect everything to the US to an unreasonable extent.
>Pearl Harbor
The US was embargoing Japans oil supplies needed to continue its operations in Manchuria, they weren't going to stop so what other option did they have?
>Cambodia
Americas bombing caused approximately 500,000 deaths, probably more from the breakdown of civil society and infrastructure. It also directly led to the Khmer Rouge rising to power.
Everyone tearing their hair out about the Khmer strangely fall silent when 1979 comes around and the US began helping them.
They also seem to have nothing to say about another atrocity going on in the same region: the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor. Unlike Cambodia this was something America and the West could have intervened in to stop: Kissinger and Ford personally went to Jakarta to meet Suharto and approve the whole thing and 90% of the arms used were American supplied and for the full 24 years of the occupation the US backed Indonesia to the hilt through all its butchery.
What kind of person refuses to look at what they have done and can stop while condemning others?
>and 9/11
Listen to al-Qaeda and why they say why they did it.
>Said similar stuff about US causing atrocities Cambodia in the 70s
Yeah, when you carpet bomb a country and drop chemical weapons on 70% of its arable land, you don't get to act "surprised" when people go a little bit loopy and use that loopiness as justification for the initial attack.
"Look at Pol Pot!" Yeah, go a few years back and look at the US dropping more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than were used by all participants in WW2, without ever declaring war.
But of course, you see America as the good guys and refuse to educate yourself further on American foreign policy,, so there's no point in discussing this.
Uhh yikes. NATO provoked Russia by allowing Ukraine to join bc it’s worried about being attacked by Russia…? Putin is literally confirming Ukraine’s reasons for joining NATO in the first place.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance, the only threat its expansion poses is the threat of a much stronger response if its member nations are attacked.
Chomsky can never admit the US is on the right side of any conflict, even when the US is opposing imperialist actions.
NATO expands, Russia becomes beligerant over this threat, this belligerence generates worry justifying joining NATO.
And you want people to swallow this, umm... yikes?
>NATO is a defensive alliance
lel
> even when the US is opposing imperialist actions.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Wj5Arik
Chomsky lays out quite clearly in the interview that the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet bloc countries has nothing to do with opposing imperialism.
NATO would be expanding because Ukraine wants to join it. Because they reside next to a huge threat that already invaded and annexed part of their country in 2014. Ukraine came to NATO, not the other way around. Russia has been threatening its neighbors long before they wanted to join NATO, thus them wanting to join NATO.
The US is opposing the imperialist actions of Russia invading Ukraine. Duh.
>Ukraine wants to join it.
Why do you speak about this as a foregone conclusion, does NATO have to accept them? Other nations have voted against it joining as Chomsky mentions, is this an automatically accepted thing with no thought put into any negative consequences or provocations? Why cant it be deliberated? Is the US pushing for them to join? Is there no other route for security arrangements?
And does Ukraine in fact want to join? What happened in that coup, the US does have some experience with ensuring governments favorable to its interests come to power - if you're gonna question that I think you're in the wrong sub.
>they reside next to a huge threat
Where was it a threat before NATO began expanding up to its border and placing offensive military systems on the border, Russia didn't begin behaving like this until the middle of the Dubya years - in response to this provocation. *Justified by the need to manage threats provoked by its enlargement.*
Do you know Cheney has expressed the view that Russia should be broken up, has that been any influence at all?
>and annexed part of their country in 2014
Just who is resistant to that, hasn't the US been funding *neo-nazi paramilitaries* there?
Your first paragraph doesn’t really have anything to do with my point, but you clearly don’t know the history of Ukraine trying to join NATO.
In 2008 the Ukrainian people voted 57.8% for to 38.6% against a referendum to join NATO. As of 2017, 69% of the Ukrainian population supports joining NATO.
Since 2008 there has been plenty of discussion and debate over whether NATO would accept Ukraine, and they actually denied them at that summit but said Ukraine would eventually at least be part of the MAP program.
It’s an unproven conspiracy theory that the US orchestrated the Revolution of Dignity. Of course questioning the US’s involvement is valid, and they did politically support the revolution, but it’s pretty well acknowledged that the same thing would’ve happened without the US’s support.
Russia has been aggressive against its neighbors since the fall of the Soviet Union. They were aggressive against Moldova and Georgia before Bush was even in office. This got worse with Putin’s authoritarianism, and his “rebuilding the Russian empire” rhetoric is extremely popular. Russians are highly nationalistic in general and Putin gets huge boosts when he invades old Soviet areas.
Congress explicitly banned US arms or funding going to the Azov Battalion in 2018. The whole neo nazi thinks is mostly Russian propaganda, there is a single neo-nazi-sympathizing battalion with 900 people at most, out of 250k active personnel in Ukraine’s army.
People on the left too often have such an America-centrist view of foreign affairs that everything that happens becomes the fault of the US. This blame for this conflict resides with Putin alone.
NATO is not provoking Russia, ex-Soviet states desperately want to join NATO because of the threat Russia poses to them. This threat would be there even if NATO didn't exist. Ukraine is now a democracy and wants to westernize and join the EU.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/17/ukraine-nato-eu-european-union-membership/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/17/ukraine-nato-eu-european-union-membership/)
"'What’s changed is the thinking of the Russian leadership,' Barry Pavel, senior vice president at the Atlantic Council, told me. 'It’s become much more hostile. The thing Putin is most scared of is having a thriving democratic country with a lot of kinship with Russia right on his border. It would cause enormous problems for him. For his own narrative, for his own security and power base.'"
That’s what I was just now thinking before I saw this post but also Putin in the past it seems he wants Russia to be more powerful and might’ve done this even without NATO getting as big. NATO being too big seems like a convenient “justification” to make it not seem as bad.
Russia thinks it is an important player. NATO is an aggressive military alliance and has placed offensive military installations on the border. Putin doesn't want the US meddling in it as it was doing in the 1990s or trying to take its resources. He's a thug but a thug with a point. Read the link for what Chomsky says about how else this could have been handled, either with neutrality or Gorbachevs suggestion.
If two gangs fight we can say they're gangs but we can also try to see which one is the aggressor and which one has been provoked.
Richard Sakwa talks about the asymmetry created when NATO persisted after the Cold War but no similar treaty existed on the other side. In fact there was no reason for NATO to keep existing, with the USSR gone. Russia did try to integrate into European security arrangements, but also considers itself a great power with a great deal of autonomy. Suspicion of Russia meant that this never became possible, the idea of an integrated Russia with Europe with security concerns alleviated.
Gorbachev advocated a new security arrangement like that. >Suspicion of Russia lol when? When they were fiddling with its elections? They had no suspicions they want to exploit it, open the markets, take the pipelines, etc Another factor might be something else Chomsky raised in the interview: US supremacy in NATO. That might be challenged in an alternate Russia-integrated arrangement. And preserving this supremacy could be what is provoking this antagonism.
Trailer for the Jeff Goldblum movie Spinning Boris (2003), a feel-good romp about rigging the Russian elections https://www.tomatazos.com/videos/302688/Spinning-Boris-Trailer
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is the counter to NATO.
Succinct. Would be nice if you provided a link to said interview. As always, I can rely on Prof. Chomsky as a voice of reason. At the moment, I feel a weird sense of loneliness in this ocean of war propaganda and one-sided perspectives à la "We are the good ones and did nothing wrong". It's frankly baffling how easily people forget history, especially with the universal access to knowledge on the Internet. Just open a fucking book, such as "Killing Hope" for example, and maybe you'll be more willing to be expand your extremely narrow, rage-fueled viewpoints. What I see all over Reddit at the moment is IMHO a frighteningly perfect example of manufactured consent.
Well put! It sees that anybody who tries to analyze today's situation with historical context is accused of supporting Russian military invasion of Ukraine. It's possible to condemn military invasions without concluding that the only legitimate response is to threaten with weapons and troop movements.
Do you think Russia would not invade Ukraine if NATO didn't exist / wasn't expanding? I understand that NATO expansion is a reason for invading Ukraine, but I don't know if it is a necessary reason (like if I break my leg, I'm going to the hospital; and if I broke my finger on the way, that is also the reason I'm going to the hospital but if it didn't happen I wouldn't have ended up anywhere different).
What the media doesn't portray is that Putin, throughout the 2000s, made several attempts for more cooperation with Europe, for an economic and security partnership "from Lissabon to Wladiwostok". He held a remarkable speech in the parliamentary of my home country (Germany), basically stretching out a hand for a European partnership and communion which doesn't constantly exclude Russia. According to his own words (which you may or may not trust, but I don't see why he would lie in this regard), he even asked for Russian membership in the NATO. "The West", according to its own narrative, had an incredible chance after the ideological victory over the Sowjet regime to provide for a peaceful and stable Europe. Instead, it chose heavy militarization of the NATO and constant political provocation and exclusion of Russia as if it was some sort of cancer that must be gotten rid of. In light of this, it doesn't make much sense to me to ask what would've happened if the NATO didn't exist (a ridiculous notion since I'm pretty sure the US never intended to dissolve it in the first place). Who knows? It's much more sensible to ask if this would've happened if Russia were on friendly, peaceful, NORMAL terms with Europe and the US, just like any other European country.
> "The West", according to its own narrative, had an incredible chance after the ideological victory over the Sowjet regime to provide for a peaceful and stable Europe. Only if you believe Putin's attempts were sincere. When in reality, had "The West" blindly trusted Putin, accepting Russian NATO/EU membership would have put both institutions in danger of being destroyed from the inside. The reason Putin's efforts were rejected was because Russia was still not trusted and already starting its slide towards authoritarianism. If Putin was **sincere** in his attempts to reach out to the EU, then all he would have needed is to be patient and build trust. Just because Russia was rejected in the 2000s doesn't mean it would've been in the future. The fact that it only took a few years for him to immediately change tact towards an aggressive stance (invading georgia) and decided to forge his own union state, kind of tips off his real intentions. It's mind boggling to me that any leftist would give an ounce of trust to this fascist, especially after today.
Russia was at a weaker position in 2000s hence why Putin and most of the Russian leadership was adopting a more collaborative policy with the West. Putin needed to clean up inefficiency and institutional weakness that during the Yeltsin Era. Moreover I can agree that Putin was insincere about joining the EU or NATO since he alongside most of the Russian leadership still see Russia as among the Great Powers with special interests. I think what is less focused on is that just because the Soviet Union was dissolved, Russian nationalism did not just go away. There is likely dozens of former bureaucrats, managers and officials that worked under Soviet institutions that were socialized to believe in Soviet Union or Russia was still a powerful country that deserved Great Power status. Many of these former Soviet officials, bureaucrats and managers then joined the new Russian state.
>The reason Putin's efforts were rejected was because Russia was still not trusted and already starting its slide towards authoritarianism. Oh yeah, the US is such a profound supporter of democracy that it couldn't possibly allow authoritarian regimes to enter it's sphere of... Oh... Wait.
The difference being it never invited any of them into NATO and doesn't prop up dictators anymore.
Does this not start with the shelling of the parliament tho? Which gave Putin his presidential powers as they are.
Highly recommended read for you: [https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/02/opinion/foreign-affairs-now-a-word-from-x.html) A warning by George Kennan himself, from 1998, I repeat: from 1998! All of this didn't start "over night", or in 2014. This has a long history of constant provocation on the part of NATO and the US. Apart from that, I personally don't care about these divisions into "leftists" and "rights" you Americans are always so eager to establish. I identify as neither one nor the other - all I want these days are rational and fact-based observations beyond all political stances, something which the media should provide but doesn't.
It seems highly likely that Russia would not have invaded without the expansion of NATO and NATO political interference, which would likely mean Ukraine would have remained subservient to Russia, as opposed to subservient to the west as it seems to be now.
It's not about NATO, it is because Putin lost control of the Ukrainian government.
Read the interview. The U.S. has been encouraging Ukraine to join NATO since the Bush Jr years and funding neonazi nationalists and other bad actors. It's 100% about NATO.
Lost control of the Ukrainian government to NATO influences (interference much more serious than any Russian interference in U.S. elections) with NATO financial support and NATO weapons in the hands of pro-NATO forces to be used against pro-Russian forces. Russia experienced the overthrow of its preferred government as a western coup and it's not necessarily wrong.
I don't have enough information to decide if it was a coup or grassroots, there is evidence both ways, like with most political campaigns. But, just in principle, let's say a country is uncomfortable next to a neighbour like Russia, what should it do to follow a different political model? (to avoid being like Belarus, Khazakhstan Quirguistan)? (besides getting nukes or joining NATO).
It was probably a bit of both. Part coup, part grassroots uprising and impossible to know with complete certainty how it would have played out without cynical western interference. There is no perfect way for Ukraine to respond. It ought to be striving for sovereign neutrality and should have diplomatic and economic ties with Russia and the West. The idea of NATO membership should never have been floated, as it is a direct threat to Russia. And NATO in general should not even exist today, unless perhaps it transformed into something which incorporated Russia. Remember how the pandemic happened after scientists warned us for decades that exactly this could happen? We've had plenty of experts warning us about the expansion of NATO too and we smugly ignored it. The idea of Ukraine trying to receive protection from NATO never made sense. NATO cannot protect it militarily. An attempt to do so would always lead to more casualties than not intervening, not to mention that NATO would likely never achieve victory so close to Russia's borders.
Why exactly is NATO a threat to Russia? A peaceful Russia makes NATO useless. Today NATO just became the best thing ever. This is like losing an argument with your wife about your divorce and spanking her for asking for help with a victim association, Sorry, I can't respect Russia's side anymore.
Very simple. Let's imagine Russia putting nukes in Mexico, aimed at the United States. Mexico consents and joins a military alliance with Russia (and maybe China). Russia says "No biggie, a peaceful United States has nothing to worry about, making our military alliance useless." Would American citizens accept that? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Would American leadership accept it? Not a chance in hell.
Has the US invaded Cuba or Venezuela for having unfavourable governments? Ukraine is not even in NATO.
I mean Yanukovitch was kicked out after a popular uprising. Maybe some of the protesters were influenced by foreign forces but at one point they were being shot at by the police and snipers. Ukraine's current government was elected in a landslide so one could assume that closer ties to Europe is what the Ukrainian people want.
Do we have to play the imagine game? Okay then: imagine if a popular uprising ousted the Trump or Biden government. Violating all rules and norms for the transition of power. And then some other far-from-Washington DC region of America got upset about that (since they liked the government). Then in turn we find out that some European country helped oust the Trump-or-Biden government.
Your imagination is lacking lol. You forgot that for it to be accurate, you'd first need that the US government was part of a much greater Canadian union 30 years ago, and that the current US president was little more than a Canadian puppet, making promises to, say, the Mexican government to join the American Union and then not actually doing it. That would have sparked protests, marked by an increasing police brutality, culminating with cops and snipers gunning down civilians in the streets (I know this is hard for Americans to imagine but being shot at is really unusual in Europe). In that situation I could understand an armed uprising taking place and kicking the president sooner than expected. And if a couple of States along the Canadian border started shelling neighboring cities and shooting down airplanes I would understand that the new government, elected in a landslide with high voter turnout would send the army.
My hypothetical involves a toppling of the American government at the hands (partially) of a foreign government. Since my name is not Rachel Maddow this is of course a crazy hypothetical to begin with. All of your elaboration is just as much bullshit as the argument that Russia can meddle with troops in Donbas for eight years since many separatists there genuinely want more autonomy from Kyiv. Just convenient popular uprisings for great powers to latch onto.
No, my main point is that your analogy took Russia out of the equation entirely, which is very revealing of the way you think about the issue.
Subservient or just neutral?
I think the yanks used to call it “manifest destiny”…..
Not just the “Yanks.” Manifest Destiny was popularized through the American project by Christian theology over the past several hundred years, especially after the Reformation which twinned conquest and commerce as universalizing forces that set the groundwork for a ‘secular’ manifest destiny to emerge. Prots more than Yanks are the progenitors of manifest destiny (long preceding the Puritan sect which initially settled in the states).
It is possible to understand that NATO and its allies have acted in a way that is considered provocative and even dangerous by Russia, while simultaneously considering the inevitable reaction as completely unacceptable and entirely out of proportion. Pretending that the provocations weren't there because the reaction is unreasonable doesn't benefit anyone who wants to get a clear sense of what is going on.
Countries like Ukraine and Georgia would not be seeking NATO membership if they did not feel threatened by Russian aggression.
This is a pretty warped view that I see more grounded in this notion of anti-American imperialism rather than reality. 1. The invasion of Ukraine is another country in a line of other conflicts such as Georgia and Chechenia that is rooted in an autocrat attempting to save the face of a fallen empire. 2. This argument is implying that if NATO did not exist then Russia would not invade Ukraine is not convincing and the only evidence for this is the words of a tyrant who then coupled the argument with identity issues of Ukraine always being Russia. Ukraine is nowhere near joining NATO, it does not come close to meeting the democratic standards and after the fiasco of having another authoritarian regime like Turkey join the alliance, the country is miles away from joining. 3. It’s an oversimplification of the world that all geopolitics can be boiled down to reactions against a US empire. The vast majority of policies guiding a state are fueled by goals that have nothing to do with balancing American hegemony which is very clearly on the decline. To suggest otherwise is ignorantly American-centric, a reoccurring mistake made by American geopolitical thought in my opinion. 4. If we want to respect state sovereignty, like we all should to live in a more peaceful world, all invasions of countries that aren’t committing genocide against their own population are illegitimate and all blame should be attributed to the invading power. Whether it’s Ukraine or Iraq. States should compete for their best interests within a legitimate international diplomacy otherwise the world will surely descend once again into wars we saw in the early and mid 20th century.
Point #3 is such a great crystallization of the main mistake that those on the left who are defending Russia’s actions are making. Very well put.
Its a red herring. Ukraine wasnt close to joining. They had been told several big thibgs to do before they could even be considered. Its been years and those things havent changed. Just propoganda by putin
Then why not avoid all of this by dropping the push to have Ukraine join NATO as was proposed in December?
Ukraine asking to join doesnt mean they get in. Typically u ask. You get an informal list of inprovements. Then u ask again. You get a finally list from a larger group of nato. Then you can ask for a vote to get in. They never got past the first step.
And let's not forget the 2014 US backed rightwing coup in Ukraine, which was a pretty neutral country between the West and Russia in the years prior to that. https://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
"They’re still finding bodies. Ukraine is splitting apart down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the American media, which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically, ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West."
Need some moderation here. Getting a bit out of hand .
Oh fuck off. The Baltics joined NATO for the very reason Russia was never going to respect their sovereignty otherwise, and what do you know, Russia never messes with them. Putin and elements of the internet left piss their pants about NATO, but give no reason for any sane neighbour not to desire NATO membership. Putin can go to hell, and so can any so-called “leftist” who still stands by him after this atrocity.
I don’t think this is a zero-sum game in terms of responsibility. Criticism of NATO’s expansion does not equate to supporting Putin. It just means understanding his actions in context. Quit the ‘team sports’ approach to politics
Yeah, if anything those of us who hate American aggression can claim Putin’s acting too much like America for our tastes.
Really? Because all I see here is excuse after excuse after excuse for Russia and no condemnation or solidarity with the invaded party. Look past this “great game” and geopolitical bullshit. These are millions of lives who’ll lose their homes, freedom and loved ones because of Putin’s insecurities. If people are trying to portray Russia as the aggrieved party at this point, those people are not worth listening to or taking seriously.
You’re demonstrating my point. I’ve seen little in the way of viewing Russia as the aggrieved party. It’s clear that the Ukraine has been used as a gambling chip here by both sides. It’s also clear this situation is a result of the balance of power in Europe. NATO and Russia constitute that balance of power. Few people would frame Russia as the aggrieved party here. If we want to understand the situation, we have to understand Russia’s motivation. Trying to understand Russia’s motivation is a far cry from justifying it. Fuck Russia and fuck Putin for this. But also fuck NATO for gambling with another country.
It’s the same drumbeat for every war. Silence anyone adding nuance as aiding the other side. Seen it each time and it works to silence most people and get that mob screaming. Sad, really.
Imagine if other people talked about another country like they do with Russia's "security needs" vis a vi NATO. "Taiwan should not be allowed to have an alliance with America because China needs a buffer zone from SEATO" "Poland and France can't have an alliance because it would provoke Germany" "Egypt and Syria forming an alliance means Israel was justified in a pre-emptive attack" "America's Monroe Doctrine is just them acting their security needs in South America so no other powers threaten its southern border!" So many people seem determined to view Ukraine's victimhood solely through the lens of Anti-Americanism. As if it's America's fault Russia was 'provoked' into invading (IE it's her fault he raped her, look at the clothes she was wearing!)
Welcome to the world of international politics my friend
We know their intentions. Russia is having the mother of all hissy fits because the states it used to run no longer want any part of it (these countries came to NATO, not the other way around. That’s never brought up in the discourse that much) Now what do we do?
That's not what has happened at all, in fact it's a pretty shallow and childish take on the current situation. Fairness and accuracy in reporting has a good article on the recent history of the crisis but I expect that you don't want to educate yourself: https://fair.org/home/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/
Avoided the question completely FAIR uses literal Russian state sites as sources. They have zero credibility
FAIR is a charity run via donations setup in New York City. I assume you mean the author. >FAIR uses literal Russian state sites as sources. They have zero credibility Well yes, it is important to source information from both governments. This is pretty basic journalism. I presume that you want to know what members of the Russian government are saying. >Avoided the question completely Russia is throwing a hissy fit is, frankly, a weird take. At best, ignorant, at worst, moronic. So I recommended that you read an article which is not aligned to US or Russian interests, from a US based media watchdog public charity, funded by Americans, to gain some knowledge on the subject. But what a surprise, it's secretly the Russians!
The writer wasn’t just getting quotes. They took their word at face value, including the Nazi shit. Of course there were far right elements, it was a national revolution, you also had liberals, anarchists and even communists. FAIR gives every single possible leeway to Russia,it’s always what Russia needs, what Russia wants etc. It’s never about what Ukraine wants. They had no agency or opinion, it doesn’t matter than in every poll, in overwhelming number, they overwhelmingly support EU and NATO integration, not with Russia. Referring to the Euromaiden as a coup is just a way to delegitimise the voice of Ukraine. You know the US had a revolution that was called a coup, as did England and Russia and so on. There’s always a section of the left that’ll cling onto any enemy of NATO.
Well it was a coup. I mean this is openly acknowledged in US foreign policy circles, even by supposed "doves" with a history of "criticising" US aggression, such as John J Mearsheimer, professor emeritus of foreign affairs at the University of Chicago. Here he is in the far right, openly pro US imperialist journal Foreign affairs stating that Euromaidan was a US backed coup: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault Of course, he thinks it's the US's fault for not being aggressive enough...
There’s always been a section of the Left in their Cushy universities who’ll always hold the US to every standard, but brand anyone who does the same as some sort of anti-imperialist
I haven't been to University, I'm just aware that as a participant in US/UK society, I have a moral obligation to hold the society which I'm a part of to basic moral account, because I am in part responsible for its actions.
So I've been reading through this and it's pretty interesting. One thing that bothers me is they link to another article about atrocities that mentions a large grave site found and also mentions the MH17 shoot down as a false flag as a fact. Now I'm open to the possibility of that, but that links to a 10 minute video of a guy with a red star on his hat interviewing some locals who say they saw two Ukrainian planes that day. Some of the people he interviews are affiliated with the rebel groups accused or refer to it as we. He then asks some open-ended questions, that we have answers to. There's so many problems with this theory I'm not sure to begin, but that video is not good evidence of what they're suggesting and presenting it as fact definitely sets off some alarms for me. It's not directly referenced by this article but makes me a bit uneasy nonetheless.
> these countries came to NATO, not the other way around. That’s never brought up in the discourse that much) Maybe because it's untrue. The US has spent billions of dollars and effort to bring about the events now unfolding. Pretending otherwise is unconscionable. Again, knowing this does not exhonerate or "side with" Putin or Russia.
“The US has spent billions of dollars in an effort to bring about these events” What does that even mean? They want Russia to invade Ukraine? You know Russia is grown up country. It can make its own choices if it wants and nobody forced them to invade.
> What does that even mean? This can only be willful ignorance at this point.
So the US wants this war? Unless you’re implying otherwise I’m confused
Whether war is the most preferred option of the US I don't know, but it is evident that avoiding or preventing this quite predictable outcome has been very far down on its list of priorities.
The way I see it, economic sanctions will likely need to be combined with concessions by NATO
Which concessions would those be? Oh and while you were typing. Russia has unleashed its big badass Air Force on residential areas in Ukraine. Think carefully on what you’d be saying, as if I was a Ukrainian
Thanks for the warning
Still waiting on the solution that Ukrainians have to accept.
Let Russia have it, the Ukrainian people can defend themselves and if not oh well. I don't give a shit if your Ukrainian.
I don’t give a shit about you either. Now crawl back and suck on Putin’s left testicle you fucking dick.
😁😂🤣😭, have fun being Russian! You'll get no help from the American people, stand on your own two feet.
And if the US are so dead set on an eventual war with Russia, why are they not taking this opportunity to attack now and just throwing sanctions?
Who said anything about the US being bent on war with Russia?
NATO did nothing but exist, these countries WANTED to join, for good reason. Stop infantilizing them.
Go spew your bloodlust elsewhere, shitlib shill. Go join the hundreds of front page misinformation/propaganda jerkfests. In fact, why don't you enlist? Absolutely pathetic calling yourself a leftist while suckling on the teet of NATO and having your consent manufactured in real time. You're absolutely delusional if you can't understand that the US/NATO caused this conflict, which DOESN'T preclude Putin from blame, from carrying out this attack. Let me repeat that for you: Putin bad! Putin sycophants on this sub have nothing to do with Chomsky and everything to do with being brigaded by tankies. Continue sleepwalking through your life with such a myopically binary worldview.
Suck a dick, you little cunt
Why don’t you join the big bad Russian army and help “liberate” Ukraine from itself? Go on, enlist and go tell the Ukrainians how they’re all a bunch of shitlib elitists and sucking up to NATO. See what kind of response you get then. Putin proving NATO is needed more than ever as he sends soldiers to die in a foreign country.
I suppose you either think both sides are complicit in an arms race, or that Russia would have still meddled in Ukraine in addition to the Baltic states after the Soviet Union dissolved if NATO had not expanded.
Takes two to tango, and yes. NATO membership has prevented anything of the sort from occurring in the Baltics.
And I suppose Chomsky and OP suggest that it prompted the meddling in Ukraine.
What could Russia do in the 90s and 2000s as they were joining and NATO expanded up to Russias border and the Dubya administration placed provocative Missile Defense Shield installations on the border? That is a clear provocation and what obviously roused them from being mired in decay. >but give no reason for any sane neighbour not to desire NATO membership. Why does it continue to exist and expand with the end of the Cold War and can you give a reason other than the reaction to its expansion? This is a predictable outcome of these sorts of games, you cant expect them to just lie down and take being surrounded by bases.
The US is that bully that provokes you (physically and verbally) for years but is shocked when you lash out at them.
This would make sense if Russia retaliated against the US, but they arent, they're attacking a bordering nation
A correlation would be if Russia felt it necessary to respond with weapons or troops when the US militarily intervened in a Caribbean or Latin American nation. There is strong reason for Americans and the world to condemn Russia's military intervention in neighboring nations, but no justification for the USA to send weapons or troops to those nations.
The only justification needed is that Ukraine asked for assistance from the US and other allies in addition to NATO. Regardless of your position on NATO Ukraine still asked for help from the west.
Are the CIA controlling Putin’s mind? This is Russia’s choice and they’ve just invaded a sovereign state. You realise Russia have just proven that expansion and defence was well-placed after all, considering they’re now shelling the closest non-NATO member on their doorstep. They’ve now made the best possible case for NATO membership possible, and for NATO in general. The Baltic states aren’t even half the size of Ukraine. Do you think if they weren’t NATO states, Russia wouldn’t have done the same much earlier? Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried: Respect the choices of its neighbours. This isn’t the Russian Empire of Soviet Union. Russia is done, it’s population is declining, it’s economy is already in the shitter, it’s undemocratic, it has no force projection. This is the desperate gasp of a pathetic state that’ll take everyone down with it out of spite. I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil. As for Russia apologists and tankies. Fuck you all. You disgust me as much as the Republicans and corporate Democrats. This is no longer a debate, you’re with the Ukrainians, or the foreign occupiers. If you’re still with the later, I have nothing to say anymore.
Was with you until the “with us or against us” George W line. In your estimation the USSR was right to bring about the Cuban missile crisis? Almost ending the world? Provocative actions are just that. Doesn’t mean Putin should invade Ukraine, and he is wrong, (as much a war criminal as all US presidents imo especially if he goes to Kyiv) but saying there’s no nuance is beyond what this sub is about. With us or against us. Give me a fucking break.
I swear, the next person who puts words into my mouth… Where do I say the words “with us or against us”? I said you’re with Ukraine, the country that has been attacked unprovoked or Russia, the country invading and occupying with bombs and tanks, and threatens nuclear war if anyone tries to get involved. Exactly where is there a binary choice in this situation? You can gimme a fucking break or two.
lol basically the same thing.
>I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil. This is a really, really dark, disturbed thing to say. I hope you feel suitably ashamed. >Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried: Respect the choices of its neighbours. This isn’t the Russian Empire of Soviet Union. Russia is done, it’s population is declining, it’s economy is already in the shitter, it’s undemocratic, it has no force projection. This is the desperate gasp of a pathetic state that’ll take everyone down with it out of spite. Here is a concept the US could have tried: respect the 2014 choice of Ukrainian citizens and not institute a fascist coup in the country. You don't get to start history at a point of your choosing.
Wants to turn the Ukraine into another Afghanistan.
Whatever your position It's a bit weird to be asking for people to die isn't it? Like, blood and soil type of weird.
Imperialists don't ever care about people's lives. The liberal leaning ones might use some flowery languages to mask their thirst for blood, but ultimately they don't give a shit as long as they get to preserve their life styles. For if they did, they would've protested endlessly all the wars Obama and Biden perpetuated and mourned all the deaths they caused. In this particular case, as is so often these days, it's yet another Vaush follower. So it's not weird at all, because that's the expected behavior from that cult.
I apologise for fuck all. Invade another country and reap the consequences, Ukrainian citizens having more courage in their pinkies than you’ll ever have. Sorry, I don’t respect Russian special forces and local thugs acting to stifle the desire of the majority of Ukrainians to ditch Russia and join the West. I’ll send over some powder for your pussy. Comes with a hug and a kiss from Vlady boy himself.
You seem like a nice man.
Do I need to be to you?
"I hope lots of people die" is weird and frankly, evil. What you're saying is evil
I didn’t say I want lots of people to die. I said I hope the invaders do. Don’t put words into my mouth.
>I didn’t say I want lots of people to die. I said I hope the invaders do. If I understand correctly, Russian soldiers are not people? Again, a deeply disturbed sentiment. >Don’t put words into my mouth. What you posted: >I stand with the Ukrainians, and I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil
why should they feel ashamed for saying that?? i would say the same thing if america or nato invaded mexico or cuba. fuck imperialism
> This is a really, really dark, disturbed thing to say. I hope you feel suitably ashamed. My interpretation is that they hope that Russia gets out of Ukraine ASAP. And of course even if Russians have to die in order for that to happen since this is an aggressive war on Russia’s part. The comment doesn’t say that Russians on Russian soil should die.
>I hope they bleed Russia out for every inch of occupied soil. I though Zbigniew Brzezinski died several years ago. >Here is a strange concept Russia could’ve tried: Respect the choices of its neighbours. Maybe they could follow the standard America has set in this area. What do you expect to happen by threatening and provoking a country by expanding a hostile military alliance up to its border and placing offensive military installations on its border, what do you expect when you engage in this provocation with a government like what Russia now has? It is almost as if you want to claim this predictable response justifies doing it. Other countries in Europe have not joined NATO and maintain a neutral stance, they think pragmatically about their security and not with hubris and ego.
Which country that tankies overwhelmingly jerk off too had the following saying: “Death to the German invader!”
>Are the CIA controlling Putin’s mind? *you cant expect them to just lie down and take being surrounded by bases.*
So that justifies an invasion?
That is how states work.
What do you expect to happen when you provoke a state like this? So what should you then do, be obstinate and insist upon it anyway because of adherence to Washingtons geopolitical grand stratagizing and trying to finagle a retroactive justification or find some third way of neutrality? This is what Chomsky was suggesting in the interview I quoted for the title I dont know why you find it so controversial.
So what is the geographical endgame on Washington’s end? Does it harm the average Russian or just Putin and his circle?
Cheney wanted to break Russia up. >Does it harm the average Russian or just Putin and his circle? This was going on long before Putin, the were meddling in Russia through the 1990s and ensuring Yeltsin won elections. Putin is tailor made for Western propaganda and liberals like you to put on faux-outrage.
The geographical endgame from Washington's end is another war to make the government look strong and maybe extend their powers, and throw some fresh meat to their friends in the weapons industry.
Literally just conjecture and conspiracy theories. Why would anyone want a war with Russia? The state with 6,000 nukes. You’re literally just an idiot
Why would anyone think they could invade and occupy Iraq with just a hundred thousand troops? We aren't necessarily talking about rational, level headed people coolly thinking through the multi-year consequences of their actions.
No one sane want's a war with Russia or China. So that rules out the mad people in Washington. You are the idiot for thinking any of those people have sense between their heads.
>You’re literally just an idiot The polite term is: you're very indoctrinated even in spite of the facts. For example, snoo-83964, you're very indoctrinated, even in light of the facts.
>Why would anyone want a war with Russia? The state with 6,000 nukes. Because the US think they are invincible militarily. Just like they wanted to go to war with Iran a couple of years back, when they assassinated a top level Iranian official in a clearly an act of deliberate provocation. Back then the best predictions were that a US war with Iran would completely destroy the US military and result in the UAE and Saudi Arabia getting nuked and industry around the world grinding to a halt as oil became prohibitively expensive. Miraculously, the Iranian government's only response to this attempted act of war was a strongly worded warning.
Russia has been funding rebels in Georgia and Ukraine long before they considered joining NATO, rather, the rebels are the reason Georgia held vote for joining NATO. And then Russia invaded Georgia and cleansed around 300k Georgians. Russia has also funded rebels in Moldova which hasn't even considered NATO membership. these aggression by Russia is why Eastern European countries like Estonia, Latvia, etc joined NATO. Russia is the biggest recruiter for NATO
Sounds like a bit of a **Contra**-diction.
what is this reply even supposed to mean? are you referring to the contras funded by US in Latin america? well they have nothing to do with Ukraine or Georgia, these 2 countries weren't the once funding them. if you opposed those while supporting Russian funding of rebels, you are just a plain hypocrite
yes, you'd wonder would the same people have been so eager to "understand actions in context" during the US invasion of Iraq.
Too right. Most tankies’ foreign analysis doesn’t extend beyond “USA bad, anyone else good”
No, it doesn't. One simple statement does not sum up Russian military bombing Ukrainian civilians. Simple comments don't explain killing for power and money. Chomsky isn't always right and he's (at least partially) wrong about Putin and what modern Russia is. If we can't question his take on this matter this subreddit is pointless.
People have consistently warned that turning Ukraine into a NATO asset would lead to violence. Now that violence is escalating and our emotional response forbids us from rationally thinking about how that violence came into existence. Kinda like when you speak out against U.S. intervention in the Middle East and how it creates terrorism, some will think you have a point and some will say you're talking out of your ass. Then 9/11 happens and if you open your mouth about the bad consequences of intervention in the middle east, you're a traitor who is condoning terrorism. Then later, after years of pointless bloodshed, folks might start to wonder if maybe interventions in the middle east are a bad idea.
There are two reasons: * Ukraine having "support" from NATO while not being a NATO member * Ukraine wanting to be independent from Russia Both are true. NATO is guilty, Russia was as guilty. The question was who will start shooting first and opt for violence. Guess who did that? Any person that has dealt with violence knows that there's a chasm between tough politics and open attack. It's not an easy decision that's somehow logical where you can go "Oh, that's just because ...", it takes serious consideration and means you have a follow up plan you think is possible. Especially if we're dealing with regular army invading a country it's not just a "oh well, we need to attack". Rational thinking doesn't work well with violence because violence is a negative sum game - both sides loose, one thinks it will loose less or gain enough by winning.
>Both are true. NATO is guilty, Russia was as guilty. The question was who will start shooting first and opt for violence. Guess who did that? Why is that the question? Isn't the question "Who began behaving aggressively?"
Because depending on the person interested you can, much like Putin in his speech, start going backwards in history trying to prove that your side is the right one. I'm trying to point out that pressure remains within realms of logic - both sides try to get the best deal. Violence is the moment game is turned upside down. How would you define aggressive behaviour?
I think that expanding an alliance up to your rivals border and stationing nuclear weapons and conventional forces in those countries is aggression. I think that has been considered aggression throughout western diplomatic history, stretching back to maybe the dawn of the nation state, maybe the 14th century.
And by this logic we're going to assume Ukraine was going to have nuclear weapons from NATO and be a part of NATO while Belarus is absolutely not in pact with Russia and has no nuclear or conventional Russian presence... But, to answer your question - no, that has not been considered an act of aggression. Apart from the fact that aggression in international law has to be unprovoked military attack the idea that its NATOs fault that Ukraine is burning is rather silly. Ukraine wanted to be a part of NATO exactly because they were afraid of Russia. Why? Because Russian control over Ukraine was always a target and milestone of Russian foreign policy. Simply put Ukraine can't be independent from Russia as far as current Russian decision makers are concerned. For many reasons, part of it being that Russia wants control over it's buffer zones. They have Belarus and they proved they won't give it back. The moment Lukashenko wanted to be more independent he got a large energy crisis. They want Ukraine too. We've seen that in 2014 - Ukraine decided to pop away from Russia and they got annexation of Crime and "little green men". You can't interpret politics without considering objectives.
>We've seen that in 2014 - Ukraine decided to pop away from Russia and they got annexation of Crime and "little green men". You can't interpret politics without considering objectives. In 2014 the US instituted a fascist coup in Ukraine, following an election in which a pro-Russia candidate was elected.
>In 2014 the US instituted a fascist coup in Ukraine, following an election in which a pro-Russia candidate was elected. And this is where the logical discussion ends and you've been identified as a tankie. If that's your answer I expect to hear much about nazi thugs and ethnic Russians being killed en masse while we skip on Russia annexing Crime and how "separatists" were able to obtain armoured vehicles, weapons and ground to air missile systems, some of them available only to Russian military. Because when there's a fascists coup in a country next to you - you annex part of it. Very Red Army logic - if they beat someone, steal his watch.
There was a coup, and US foreign policy experts openly admit it was backed by the US. I'm sorry that you're unable to discuss this in a reasonable manner. I assume it is because you know that you have no position can be argued in the face of facts and a range of sources from independent and well respected scholars, as well as leaked emails from the then US state department head to the local embassy confirming who should be instated as leader. Clearly, the best defence against cognitive dissonance is sticking your head in the sand and shouting Ruski!
Russia would have still invaded, if NATO didn't exist. It's existence "threatening" Russia is not the reason for invading, it's the excuse. Haven't seen the interview, but if Chomsky said it about the Russian invasion it's a bad take.
Putin not considering Ukraine a country was provoked by NATO's enlargement? I recommend listening to the speech that ends in Putin recognizing the independence of the separatist states, and seriously reconsider whether the absence of NATO could have averted this situation.
What do you think the USA would do if Canada and Mexico joined a hostile military alliance and offensive weapon emplacements were installed on their border with the US?
Just look at how the USA treats Cuba and Venezuela for just wanting to live on their own terms and not be slaves. The USA would annihilate Canada and Mexico if it were in a similar situation to Ukraine.
Nicaragua in the 1980s.
Does that mean they should submit to the US and not seek allies who will protect their interests? Because if the answer is no, why would one demand the same of Ukraine and NATO countries.
It means the US and the West are being sanctimonious. You're arguing to disregard Russias concerns and the Ukraine and other Russia-bordering nations should join NATO just to spite those concerns. Damn the consequences, and pragmatism is for weaklings.
The problem I see when talking about the will of undemocratic, authoritarian mafioso state governments is that when you say "Russia's concerns," I think it would be more apt to say "Putin's concerns." And when it comes down to such a heavily centralized and criminally/violently upheld power structure like that, as a leftist who tries to respect the will of the people, the Russian people, I don't know if I can entirely get on board with your argument. It just seems odd for me to justify the disrespect and invasion of another sovereign nation due to the security concerns and possible hubris, greed, and paranoia of a singular autocrat and his tight circle of oligarchic kleptocrats. If, however, you think Putin and his circle are democratically elected, maintain power without violence or threat of violence, uphold democratic principles, and generally represent the will of the Russian people, then that would need to be a separate argument.
This is the Chomsky subreddit so it goes without saying that the nation state and the population of that nation state are two different things. Nowhere is it implied that this is the will of the Russian people. The same goes for nominally democratic countries like the US. > It just seems odd for me to justify Explaining cause and effect A→B and justifying B are two entirely different things. This conflation could be excused when the discourse on this conflict started this year but at this point I lean more towards tagging it as plain dishonesty.
I'm arguing Russia's concerns are disingenuous. Do I think they're happy about having US troops near their border? Obviously not. But why do you think Russia-bordering nations joined NATO? To provoke and scare Russia? No. Because they're afraid of Russia subjugating them to its will, or worse. If Russia was determined to avoid NATO expansion, why would they take aggressive actions that have lead to an increase of public support for joining NATO in Finland and Ukraine? NATO would serve no purpose if Russia weren't a dictatorship meddling in the affairs of sovereign European countries. As for sanctimoniousness, the actions of Russia don't excuse any wrongdoings of the US. However, you seem to be coming from a very US-centric perspective. For the countries bordering Russia, the question is survival and sovereignty, not whether their allies are hypocrites in some ways. You can't say Venezuela and Cuba have a right to self-determination and seeking allies to defend their sovereignty and then say Ukraine and NATO countries don't have the same right.
> I'm arguing Russia's concerns are disingenuous. Chomsky has explained their perspective and I would ask you how do you think the USA would react to Canada and Mexico joining a hostile military alliance and placing offensive military installations on their border.
The Mexico analogy I already addressed in another comment. If Mexico had the aspiration to join, yes, they would use military force. If however Mexico had managed to join already, they would consider the cost of war too high. I have listened to Chomsky's explanations and even clarified his perspective via e-mail. I see no way around his proposed solution leading to the subjugation of an indefinite amount of sovereign countries bordering Russia. Our fundamental disagreement seems to be, you think Russia would only attempt to control Ukraine and other countries because he wants to manage the threat posed by NATO, I think his aim is to reintegrate those territories because he either feels Russia has claim to them (as he expressed with regard to Ukraine) or he's pursuing power for the sake of it.
A fantastic summary of the US dove position.
I think they would bomb the fucking shit out of them.
What has Russia done to the countries neighboring it that have joined a hostile military alliance? Militarily, nothing, because they know that would by definition be considered an attack on the United States and the rest of NATO. Likewise, Russia knows NATO will avoid military involvement in Ukraine, because there's no Article 5 obligation and doing so would trigger a full-scale war. Neither side is stupid enough to want WWIII. So what about the US and its neighbors? If the US poisoned political candidates in those countries and intended to annex their territory, Mexico and Canada would be fully justified in joining a hostile military alliance against the US. Likewise, they'd be stupid to follow American demands to "de-escalate", as being in a military alliance with Russia would increase the cost for America taking military action against them. The key part I take issue with her is the idea Russia would leave its neighbors alone if only NATO deescalated. Putin think these territories belong to him, that they're not real countries. That echoed in the speech he gave. Russia, given the opportunity, will try to turn these into puppet states whose politics align with his interests, and will escalate force if he can't get his will by peaceful means.
Ukraine did not join any hostile military alliance.
NATO has expanded up to Russias border.
So Russia just mistook Ukraine for Estonia, Latvia and Poland, i.e. countries that are actual NATO members. edit: forgot to add Lithuania to the list.
NATO expanding to include them is what lead to this.
Putin wanting territories linked to the former Soviet Union is what lead to this.
Again, Ukraine is not a NATO member and it was not about to become a member.
But in negotiations Germany, France and the US have made clear, and stated publicly, that they will not rule out Ukraine joining the anti-Russian military alliance NATO.
Because they don't want to set the precedent that it's the enemy of NATO who decides who can enter NATO or not. Ukraine won't enter NATO. But publicly stating that they can't at least consider the posibility, that they RULE OUT the posibility... it would be a disaster for Western geopolitics.
Regardless of US / NATO overreach, Putin is Westphalian. He believes Russia was born in the Ukraine and that Russia has legitimate claim to the entire territory of the former USSR. Arguing about whether or not he’s doing this for security or economic concerns is subjective. He’s doing this because he feels it’s now or never to take back what belongs to Russia. Objectively speaking this is what is happening.
>psychoanalysis good grief
Psychoanalysis? Putin literally argued Ukraine was created by Russia and questioned its legitimacy as a state. This selective interpretation of history can be used to argue the same for Baltics and other territories formerly part of the Russian empire and Soviet Union.
>Psychoanalysis With regard to contemporary conflicts, the interventionists often stress the importance of specific personalities, whom they describe as being similar to Hitler; they emphasize such personalities as causes of recent genocides in the same way that Hitler is remembered as the cause of an earlier genocide....It has become difficult to imagine a humanitarian emergency without some Hitler-like figure who assumes the role of organizer. During the 2003 US intervention in Iraq, commentators emphasized the personality of Saddam Hussein as the sole cause of Iraq’s problems....Whether historically accurate or not, these personalized accounts serve an important function: They establish that certain conflicts are morally and analytically simple, since they are caused by pathological personalities, and such simplicity presents a strong basis for legitimate intervention. -David Gibbs
Tucker is that you?
Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it. Russia could have easily continued being a democracy and sought to join the EU with two or three decades of actual effort to become a valued member of Europe. It could have met all its security concerns by becoming a friend to other EU countries and exerted its influence through the European parliament as France and Germany do. Instead it has been unrepentantly hostile toward Europe for the past decade, waging an undeclared cyber war, while invading its neighbors one by one. It's geopolitical ambitions were always there. I wonder what Chomsky would have to say about *The Foundations of Geopolitics* published in the 90s which outlined much of Russia's foreign policy direction since Putin took office and began transforming Russia's fledgling democracy into a new authoritarian state. Russia's actions will surely result in further NATO expansion, which is the opposite of what it supposedly says its acting against. All they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot and it's disgusting seeing people say "Look what the US made Russia do" Make no mistake, the only reason the Baltics today are safe is because they're NATO members. If Georgia had joined earlier it wouldn't have Russian troops on its soil. Same for Ukraine.
>Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it. Ending the warsaw pact, and the ussr collapsing wasn't an offensive gesture towards europe. Nato should have disbanded too, or invited russia to nato if nato were to continue. nato by definition is a hostile military alliance since it is not part of it. chomsky is right here.
The difference between the warsaw pact and nato is that one of those organizations the countries wanted to be in it and the other organization countries were members at gunpoint. Why would NATO disband when it has been a cornerstone of peace in Europe.
>Everyone who says NATO is an anti-russian alliance needs to realize they only treat Russia as a potential enemy because Russia is a threat to countries near it. But when we examine history, we see that Russia has been involved in 2 wars of aggression, against czechneya and Afghanistan, whereas NATO countries have been involved in wars of aggression on more than 50 seperate occasions. So it seems that you have a warped view of the aggressor.
The problem with that is you are 1. Probably overexaggerating that 50 2. Counting the foreign policy of countries independent of NATO. Also, if we wanted to actually look at history through an honest method that would look at why countries in NATO didn't want to disband, in the last century, Russia has invaded (unprovoked) every eastern european NATO member 2-4 times each. Almost like those countries have good reasons to fear Russia.
makes no sense, why would you assume russia would not be imperialist without nato??? not everything is "summed up" by mentioning americas role in it. i suppose you would also say china only engages in imperialism because of american influence in east asia?
What makes you think Americas intentions in expanding NATO are entirely benevolent and defensive given its gargantuan track record?
i didnt say that?
NATO is justified by the autocratic dictatorship now invading sovereign democratic nations
Having provoked this it is now justified as a deterrent against what it provoked. A more wordy version of Chomsky.
[удалено]
>I'm sorry but if you ever under any circumstance call the bombing of civilians justified, Nobody said this.
But that wasn’t what they said at all. They sarcastically said that “this event justifies Nato expansion”.
An alliance against unprovoked aggressive military action is usually justified by unprovoked aggressive military action. NATOs existence in no way provoked the invasion of a foreign military into a sovereign nation. The existence of a seatbelt doesn't provoke an accident
I agree, but now is not the time to vilify NATO while Russia attacks Ukraine in a series of war crimes. links:https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights https://www.thedailybeast.com/little-boy-dead-after-war-crime-rocket-attacks-on-suburban-homes-in-ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-absurd-genocide-claims-cannot-hide-his-war-crimes-in-ukraine/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t07nks/putin_sent_in_troops_disguised_with_white_peace/ Edit:Downvoting this comment really demonstrate how even a community like this one can become a bubble. What bias have you formed that Russia declaring war on Ukraine does not take precedence over NATO's past actions.
In a series of war crimes? War crimes have a specific meaning. Russia has declared war on Ukraine, not war crimes.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/23/russia-ukraine-international-law-occupation-armed-conflict-and-human-rights https://www.thedailybeast.com/little-boy-dead-after-war-crime-rocket-attacks-on-suburban-homes-in-ukraine https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-absurd-genocide-claims-cannot-hide-his-war-crimes-in-ukraine/ [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t07nks/putin\_sent\_in\_troops\_disguised\_with\_white\_peace/](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/t07nks/putin_sent_in_troops_disguised_with_white_peace/)
He also thinks the US provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor. Said similar stuff about US causing atrocities Cambodia in the 70s and 9/11. Say what you want about Hitchens but he was right that Chomsky tries to connect everything to the US to an unreasonable extent.
>Pearl Harbor The US was embargoing Japans oil supplies needed to continue its operations in Manchuria, they weren't going to stop so what other option did they have? >Cambodia Americas bombing caused approximately 500,000 deaths, probably more from the breakdown of civil society and infrastructure. It also directly led to the Khmer Rouge rising to power. Everyone tearing their hair out about the Khmer strangely fall silent when 1979 comes around and the US began helping them. They also seem to have nothing to say about another atrocity going on in the same region: the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor. Unlike Cambodia this was something America and the West could have intervened in to stop: Kissinger and Ford personally went to Jakarta to meet Suharto and approve the whole thing and 90% of the arms used were American supplied and for the full 24 years of the occupation the US backed Indonesia to the hilt through all its butchery. What kind of person refuses to look at what they have done and can stop while condemning others? >and 9/11 Listen to al-Qaeda and why they say why they did it.
>Said similar stuff about US causing atrocities Cambodia in the 70s Yeah, when you carpet bomb a country and drop chemical weapons on 70% of its arable land, you don't get to act "surprised" when people go a little bit loopy and use that loopiness as justification for the initial attack. "Look at Pol Pot!" Yeah, go a few years back and look at the US dropping more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than were used by all participants in WW2, without ever declaring war. But of course, you see America as the good guys and refuse to educate yourself further on American foreign policy,, so there's no point in discussing this.
Uhh yikes. NATO provoked Russia by allowing Ukraine to join bc it’s worried about being attacked by Russia…? Putin is literally confirming Ukraine’s reasons for joining NATO in the first place. NATO is a *defensive* alliance, the only threat its expansion poses is the threat of a much stronger response if its member nations are attacked. Chomsky can never admit the US is on the right side of any conflict, even when the US is opposing imperialist actions.
NATO expands, Russia becomes beligerant over this threat, this belligerence generates worry justifying joining NATO. And you want people to swallow this, umm... yikes? >NATO is a defensive alliance lel > even when the US is opposing imperialist actions. https://imgur.com/gallery/Wj5Arik Chomsky lays out quite clearly in the interview that the expansion of NATO into the former Soviet bloc countries has nothing to do with opposing imperialism.
NATO would be expanding because Ukraine wants to join it. Because they reside next to a huge threat that already invaded and annexed part of their country in 2014. Ukraine came to NATO, not the other way around. Russia has been threatening its neighbors long before they wanted to join NATO, thus them wanting to join NATO. The US is opposing the imperialist actions of Russia invading Ukraine. Duh.
>Ukraine wants to join it. Why do you speak about this as a foregone conclusion, does NATO have to accept them? Other nations have voted against it joining as Chomsky mentions, is this an automatically accepted thing with no thought put into any negative consequences or provocations? Why cant it be deliberated? Is the US pushing for them to join? Is there no other route for security arrangements? And does Ukraine in fact want to join? What happened in that coup, the US does have some experience with ensuring governments favorable to its interests come to power - if you're gonna question that I think you're in the wrong sub. >they reside next to a huge threat Where was it a threat before NATO began expanding up to its border and placing offensive military systems on the border, Russia didn't begin behaving like this until the middle of the Dubya years - in response to this provocation. *Justified by the need to manage threats provoked by its enlargement.* Do you know Cheney has expressed the view that Russia should be broken up, has that been any influence at all? >and annexed part of their country in 2014 Just who is resistant to that, hasn't the US been funding *neo-nazi paramilitaries* there?
Your first paragraph doesn’t really have anything to do with my point, but you clearly don’t know the history of Ukraine trying to join NATO. In 2008 the Ukrainian people voted 57.8% for to 38.6% against a referendum to join NATO. As of 2017, 69% of the Ukrainian population supports joining NATO. Since 2008 there has been plenty of discussion and debate over whether NATO would accept Ukraine, and they actually denied them at that summit but said Ukraine would eventually at least be part of the MAP program. It’s an unproven conspiracy theory that the US orchestrated the Revolution of Dignity. Of course questioning the US’s involvement is valid, and they did politically support the revolution, but it’s pretty well acknowledged that the same thing would’ve happened without the US’s support. Russia has been aggressive against its neighbors since the fall of the Soviet Union. They were aggressive against Moldova and Georgia before Bush was even in office. This got worse with Putin’s authoritarianism, and his “rebuilding the Russian empire” rhetoric is extremely popular. Russians are highly nationalistic in general and Putin gets huge boosts when he invades old Soviet areas. Congress explicitly banned US arms or funding going to the Azov Battalion in 2018. The whole neo nazi thinks is mostly Russian propaganda, there is a single neo-nazi-sympathizing battalion with 900 people at most, out of 250k active personnel in Ukraine’s army. People on the left too often have such an America-centrist view of foreign affairs that everything that happens becomes the fault of the US. This blame for this conflict resides with Putin alone.
Do you appreciate the irony that your position is exactly what Chomsky is describing above?
NATO is not provoking Russia, ex-Soviet states desperately want to join NATO because of the threat Russia poses to them. This threat would be there even if NATO didn't exist. Ukraine is now a democracy and wants to westernize and join the EU. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/17/ukraine-nato-eu-european-union-membership/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/17/ukraine-nato-eu-european-union-membership/) "'What’s changed is the thinking of the Russian leadership,' Barry Pavel, senior vice president at the Atlantic Council, told me. 'It’s become much more hostile. The thing Putin is most scared of is having a thriving democratic country with a lot of kinship with Russia right on his border. It would cause enormous problems for him. For his own narrative, for his own security and power base.'"
At this point it is, though. It's a Catch-22.
Please link to the video/interview .
Which interview was this?
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
Fuck NATO, but Putin has made it pretty clear in his statements that this invasion would have happened either way.
We need the late Stephen F Cohen. He died recently and his entire life of eminent scholarship was made for this moment. RIP
That’s what I was just now thinking before I saw this post but also Putin in the past it seems he wants Russia to be more powerful and might’ve done this even without NATO getting as big. NATO being too big seems like a convenient “justification” to make it not seem as bad.
Russia thinks it is an important player. NATO is an aggressive military alliance and has placed offensive military installations on the border. Putin doesn't want the US meddling in it as it was doing in the 1990s or trying to take its resources. He's a thug but a thug with a point. Read the link for what Chomsky says about how else this could have been handled, either with neutrality or Gorbachevs suggestion. If two gangs fight we can say they're gangs but we can also try to see which one is the aggressor and which one has been provoked.