Noam Chomsky interview: Russia "more humane" in Ukraine than US in Iraq | New Statesman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2023
- Noam Chomsky believes Joe Biden is getting US foreign policy wrong when it comes to Russia, as he explains in this interview with the New Statesman.
Subscribe on UA-cam: / @newstatesman
Noam Chomsky is one of the world’s most prominent commentators on international politics since the Vietnam War, and an outspoken critic of American foreign policy. Here Chomsky speaks to Ido Vock to explain his views on the United States' actions in Ukraine, the prospects of a conflict with China over Taiwan, and why Finland and Sweden sought to join Nato.
As Ido explains, Chomsky's views are influential - but that does not mean they are correct. There is no evidence for his claim that the US wants to keep the Ukraine war going to weaken Russia, and his assertions over Finland and Sweden's membership of Nato ignore the timing in relation to the Russia invasion. For more context to this interview, read Ido Vock's article on the New Statesman website: www.newstatesman.com/the-week...
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our UA-cam channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on UA-cam: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: www.newstatesman.com/politics...
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...
Why is a journalist starting an interview by telling us what to think? We can watch and make our own judgements.
Because he is extremely biased. Many times Chomsky answered a question with a question that this moron didn't have a response to. Chomsky is renowned for backing up his words with facts and drawing comparisons.
Totally agreed. I buy Professor’s fact based argument. US and Britain have no moral high ground to pretend that they are peace maker or democracy defender but double standard practitioner.
Google Incitement to genocide.
@@Jose-sy1je No, I think he understands perfectly well what Chomsky is saying. He just doesn't want to lose his job. That's why he starts out with some obligatory hand-waving to get anybody who is just easily offended by anything they disagree with to leave him alone and just sic Chomsky, who can take it. Meanwhile, the interview is intended for people who can think and consider opposing perspectives in good faith on a very controversial topic, however they may see things. It isn't easy to publish such an interview right now, but it is important to do so.
All he's doing is summarizing the interview
I find it reprehensible that you wait until the interviewee is gone and then film a preface to the interview listing counter arguments to his points safely when he is not there anymore to reply. Push back to his face so we can see whether he has a convincing reply or not. I can only conclude you did not do so because you knew he just might have a convincing reply.
Exactly! You hit the nail right on its head. It's the worst interview by a shameless journalist I"ve ever come across.
this interview and the hitpiece accompanying it show real cowardice on the part of the conduct of this New Statesman guy. It's perfectly valid to disagree with Chomsky's positions, but it was such a cowardly and slimy way of doing it, that anyone with self-respect calling themselves a journalist would publish this boggles my mind
It doesn't take much research into Chomsky's interview past to discover what a fierce debater he can be. This kid probably is aware of that and doesn't want to get embarrassed on video. As an example of what it looks like to show up to an interview with the intention of taking down Chomsky, but being completely unprepared, just look up Andrew Marr's interview from the 1980s. What a complete embarrassment that was. Chomsky is 90+, but still has his marbles, and you better have your sh*t together if you're going to go at him directly.
You said it brother. I couldn’t agree more.
ahahhahaha stay mad
Why is the interview full of cuts? Be transparent and release the full video and by the way interviews never have disclaimers for a reason, has been like that since forever.
Chomsky is deaf and needs to read the questions he's asked in captions/text. It might be the delays from that which were cut.
@@sarahjessicafarter7383 yes absolutely correct thats why the cuts are in mid sentences while he is speaking, sure makes total sense because chomsky is "deaf". Alternatively, truth is so harsh that they dont want it to be broadcasted.
@@moizsheikh7910 Ooft, sassy. In a recent conference interview he gave on ChatGPT, Chomsky said he now uses screen captions due to hearing loss, the video of him sharing that information is on UA-cam. If it's unrelated to the cuts in the above video then we can indeed rule out that possibility, it was a suggestion not an assertion.
Starting an interview with a disclaimer doesn't bode well.
He's young and doesn't want to eff up his career, understandable.
@@cyrneco I would think that he is supposed to be a Journalist, and this would be a great opportunity to show his Journalistic talents. Instead, he feeds Chomsky "would you agree ...".
He should be asking Chomsky for his position and challenging it's basis. There is plenty of critique of Chomsky's position to draw on.
@@AndrewBlucher it's not easy, he's young and hopefully he will learn. It's a difficult thing to interview someone of the stature of Chomsky in the best of times interviewing him when he's actually coming out with effed up takes is even more difficult. I think the lad did a better job than the arsehole (an experienced journo) from the times who 'interviewed' Chomsky a few days ago.
@@AndrewBlucher it occurs to me now that it would be very good to see Chomsky sit down and have a chat with Timothy Snyder, that would be interesting and who knows Chomsky might even snap out of it...
@@cyrneco My thoughts exactly. Chomsky doesn't really know much about Ukraine or Russia. Snyder does.
Why did you feel the need to distance yourself from Noam Chomsky's opinions in your introduction? You're the interviewer and your opinion isn't the issue.
Because Noam Chomsky is spreading bollocks, and it’s incumbent on news organisations to give a disclaimer. It’s similar to, for example, news organisations giving disclaimers when airing claims from fascists in America who seek to undermine confidence in elections.
Great that he did. He should have challenged some of the one sided chomsky’s statements. They should bring him into a debate with someone like Kotkin, although people like Chomsky don’t want to actually hear any differing views. Check his other interviews - very often dismissive of everyone else.
@@Max-fq1bg Kotkin would wipe the floor with him.
@@Max-fq1bg Yes I would love to see the two of them debating...
@@SalimAsit Kotlin seems an extremely respectful, composed person. It would be a great debate.
Don't think anyone I know from the nations around the Baltic would recognise his description of reality, let alone the Ukrainians.
Would the people of Iraq recognise it?
Why did Russia wait 6 months to take out the electricity supply? America would of done that on day one.
Ukraine is just being used by the ruthless NeoCons to destabilise Russia at all costs. This war has been going on for 9 bloody years from the Western backed coup against the then ELECTED government of Ukraine.
As Mr. Chomsky does: gives you facts and says ask yourself the question. If you want to know the why for your comment, read Manufacturing Consent. The man WROTE THE BOOK about your comment.
so the Russians are murdering 100,000s of thousands of people in Ukraine, got it
Would you like to follow up on your thinking?
It would have been fairer to have made the points raised at the beginning of the video in the actual interview allowing for debate. Retrospective disagreement seems a trifle weak.
If you think that that's bad, read his write-up of this same interview in the New Statesman lol. It's genuinely shameful
Retrospective disagreement is not just weak--it's downright dishonest and insidious.
@@Muzikman127do you have the link to it?
I wonder why Noam Chomsky, when he speaks about the expansion of NATO in 1999, uses the term "former Russian satellites" to describe Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Instead, he might have described them as "sovereign states, whose nations have the right to decide about their alliances".
"sovereign states who have the right to decide their alliances" as opposed to what? that's a given. "former satellites" describes the change in the balance of power and historical context. it's a phrase you might hear in a documentary and never consider it biased against those states.
He just hates eastern Europe.
That's an incredibly stupid observation even for an ideologue. Chomsky called them "former Russian satellites" because they were that at that time in the Cold World.
Because he wish the USSR still existed.
People do not get what 40 years of cold war does the people's brains.
@@MegaBanne a couple hours ago I watched a short video by TLDR news, a moderate/centrist channel, about the ridiculous and outrageous things china said about baltic states as they criticized what china said. even they called them former soviet states, because it's just a fact. youre being as unreasonable as china
"These demands, however, had always been beside the point. As to negotiations, there is, in fact, very little to negotiate. As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue. ... Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others, just as those who now call for a cease-fire that will leave an American expeditionary force in Vietnam are not facing reality." - Noam Chomsky, 1971
Look up the 1954 Geneva Conference, North Vietnam tried to negotiate and the United States refused to. That quote comes after the United States decades of refusal and escalation of violence. Its the same exact situation as we are in today basically with the U.S refusing to engage with peace.
25:54 The interviewer: "Is it ever right for the United States to provide weapons to democracies under threat of invasion by dictatorships?" Chomsky: "Like Saudi Arabia, for example."
The never ending ‘Double Standard’…
Именно!
No he didn't.
It was containment of Islamism, and containment of communism in South America.
Saudi Arabia is not a democracy - it's one of the least democratic states on earth. The US provides weapons to SA for oil and are probably doing it to Ukraine for the same reason - deal with it.
a journalist who says before the interview that he does not agree with what his guest thinks it is a way of orienting the opinion of his community it is not professional journalism that it is a kind of low level propaganda 🤣
Info bubbles have really messed people up. it is neither interesting nor natural to agree with another individual.
@@kelitobrigante4338I know you’re black! You’ve been spotted!!!
perhaps he is playing safe....😉
@@kelitobrigante4338 also false, people like to conform.
Interview begins at 0:57. Please skip the intro, it is regrettable.
Thanks, my man
First time I'm seeing someone talk about how much they disagree post-interview. Just shows a lack of confidence.
Indeed. That was his agenda. And most likely the New Statesman too.
24:30 it's not even an independent country anymore lol
Good of you to publish this
If I steal is it ok for you to steal too?
The idea of "others does it to" or "others do worse" is like a three (3) year old fighting a sibling arguing with the parents.
yes teh SU did bad things in Iraq. But that is noi reason for Russia to do bad deeds.
Rumblings of an old man. It's quite interesting he mentioned double think because he seems to be full of it.
1. He seems to be ok with a Russian having their god given right for their sphere of influence but would be the first to protest against an American one. Also, he seems to be ok calling countries surrounding Russia, including my own, "Soviet satellites", I wonder whether he calls central and south American countries "Banana Republics".
2. He seems to suggest that 7:04 did any foreign leaders go to visit Baghdad? as if it was a proof of something. guess what genius, neither Wilson nor Churchill visited Berlin during WW2. Know why? Because we were fighting against them not with them.
3. It's rather curious that the people he would otherwise berate and lambast like the head of the CIA he has no problem quoting them when it suits him.
4. The answer to the last question was a bit embarrassing. I thought whataboutism is below his caliber but maybe I was wrong. Asked whether it's ever OK for US to supply weapons to a country to defend itself he instantly jumps to Saudi Arabia and berates them. I'm not going to defend the Saudis here and it is a completely different subject, but it appears that to Mr Chomsky, as long as you are not an US ally, you must be a good guy.
Embarrassing to say the least.
Spot on.
Lol, he's actually a careful thinker, while your judgement is clouded by histrionic jingoism and war propaganda.
His point about doublethink is with respect to Russian military capability and irrational narratives. Its just straightforwardly observable that fear mongering about "re-establishing the ussr" and invading Europe are bandied about, while in reality Russia has never uttered such desires and advances very slowly. And if you're going to accuse him of doublethink, you failed to do so in your comment.
1. Nobody argues for anything "God given", but plenty recognize that powerful countries have spheres of interest and national interests that is disliked when it's fucked with. Nobody also denies the legitimacy of a US sphere of interest, only that it shouldn't extend across the world. The hypocrisy here is that those that insist on unlimited NATO expansion and western sphere of influence are the same ones that demand Russia have no influence even over its neighbors. Your nitpicking about labels also is straightforwardly true too, even though you present it as some gotcha. Former soviet satellite states, yes, of which was largely remains is Hungary, transnistria, donbass, South osettia and abkhazia, Belarus, and to some extent Moldova, Georgia, and Nagorno karabakh. To that same point, he's literally called Europe and Britain US satellites, just as can be said about Brazil under bolsanaro, venezuela if guaido won, Bolivia under the Anez regime, Peru, Guatemala, and Columbia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Phillipines, Japan, South Korea, Israel, among others.
2. Humanitarian and press groups were ordered out of the city because of the brutality of the campaign. The hypocrisy being exposed is how widespread and instantaneous the aid is for Ukraine, yet in the case of iraq, nobody bothered to help them despite the brutal war of aggression western leaders all of a sudden care very deeply about.
3. Lol, the cia chief is quoted to show just how hawkish and insane policy towards Ukraine has been. It's called the criterion of embarrassment, and it makes your argument more powerful because you're quoting someone who would otherwise be expected to be against your position. Like imagine quoting putin as saying he's cool with Ukraine joining nato, that would totally undermine the stated rationale for the invasion
4. Lol, he was asked early on about arming Ukraine and said its fine, but the point he made was that it doesn't occur in a vacuum or without context - the framing of "democracy v autocracy" and "ally v enemy" is too manichaen and would either frustrate or make me laugh too. Again, pointing to the hypocrisy of opposing authoritarian dictatorships, the questioner misses the glaring lie that the US and west doesn't oppose them, and arms plenty of them, Saudi Arabia being the most obvious example. The point being that the reason for their arming isn't simply because they're "allies" or "democracies", but because they're geostrategically useful. In the case of SA, for their oil, in the case of Israel, for their position in the middle east and against Iran, in the case of Ukraine and many others, it's to advance a hostile military alliance towards the US enemies - namely, Russia and China. In this instance, it's not whataboutism, but to be fair, it would have been more constructive to deconstruct the assumptions of the question...but the interviewer has an incredibly naïve and simplistic view of the world and great power conflict.
Also, chomsky doesn't at all take the view "us and allies are bad, us enemies are good", that is the dumbest and least informed synopsis and shows you have never listened to him speak.
Embarrassing to say the least.
Yes, you are.
1. pretty sure he said former soviet satellites. and he talks at length about us intervention in latin america.
2. maybe if you listen to it again you'll figure out what the central point he was trying to get across was
3. this is the second point where I think you're being obtuse on purpose. why would someone use the opinion of someone who normally disagrees with them and is hawkish, to make a point that would generally be perceived to support the other "side" 🤔come on dude. its not that complicated
4. the one point where we partially agree.
Yup!
You ask why ordinary Ukrainians and Georgians are demanding NATO inclusion to the person who wrote a book called "manufacturing consent."
That old Marxist notion of 'false consciousness' that all leftist reactionaries fall back on whenever they lose the argument.
I don’t understand this comment-are you against or in favor of them having that agency?
Chomsky is fast becoming a tragic figure; seeing America''s flaws, but apparently only seeing America's flaws.
He has said repeatedly in other interviews, some done this month, that Russia is wrong for invading.
You have to study his writing and interview before you start writhing comments,.He has criticized MANY TIMES Russia China India and more ..Please read ...
Chompsky is an American, it is part of his duty to point out mistakes of its own.
@@joejohnson3814 And he leaves it at that. He says nothing about Russian media language, nothing about Russian atrocities. He constantly returns to criticising the US. It's really like someone saying in 1939 that Germany is bad to invade Poland, but look at the British and French empires; they're much worse.
@@dragonade85 if you want geopolitics stripped of its context and nuance and spoon fed to you that’s your prerogative. Normal people want to hear both sides and make a decision on how they feel. To reiterate Chomsky has said in every single interview Russia is actively commiting war crimes.
As to negotiations, there is, in fact, very little to negotiate. As long as an Russian army of occupation remains in Ukraine, the war will continue. Withdrawal of Russian troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for “negotiations now” were deluding themselves and others, just as those who now call for a cease-fire that will leave a Russian expeditionary force in Ukraine are not facing reality.
Russia wouldn't have invaded if Ukraine agreed to not join NATO.
@@dwl3006 says ruzzian bots from every loudspeaker
@@dwl3006 That is simply not true. If you look at Russia's actual actions, instead of Kremlin propaganda rethoric, you'll see that facts don't support that claim.
- there was no prospect for Ukraine to join NATO in any forseeable future, Ukraine did not meet accession ctiteria, was part of an active conflict (Donbas) and there was no consensus among NATO members about accepting Ukraine (countries like Hungary would block it, just as they block Sweden today)
- Putin was repeatedly provided with means to block Ukraine's potential accession to NATO, if Russia wouldn't invade, which he ignored. Both German chancellor Scholz and French president Macron personally assured Putin that they would veto any attempt by Ukraine to join the alliance, and he invaded anyway
- once the war started, in March, Zelensky publicly announced that Ukraine will withdraw its bid to join NATO and stay neutral, if Russian troops pull out of Ukraine, to no effect
- the invasion started by Russia had the exact opposite effect to Putin's stated goal of stopping NATO expansion. NATO is getting two new members with modern armies, one of which shares 1300 kilometers border with Russia, right next to Saint Petersburg, yet suddenly it is no longer such a big problem to Russia. NATO is stronger and more united than ever, member states that were neglecting their military for decades (like Germany) are suddenly spending much more on army and modernize their military. Lastly, NATO secretary general and multiple member states now say it very firmly and openly, that Ukraine should join NATO as soon as possible.
- if the problem was Ukraine's accession to NATO, than why illegaly annex 5 regions of Ukraine (Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe & Kherson)? Why Putin keeps repeating genocidal rethoric that Ukraine is not a real country, its existense is a historical mistake, and Ukrainian's are not a real nation, just misguided Russians? Why does Russia change school curriculum and put billboards stating that "Russia will stay here forever" in all occupied territories? What does errasing Ukrainian identity and nationality have to do with NATO expansion?
@@dwl3006 victim blaming.
@@dwl3006 Yes it would. In fact, its likely NATO's existence delayed a full scale Russian invasion. Russia was always going to invade once Ukraine had rejected kremlin control. It did the same with Hungary in 1956. And Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Noam is stuck in 1982🤦♂️
He's stuck in 1968
@@dragonade85
Even better
Thx, Chomsky!
Neutralization would mean Ukraine can't be part of the EU either, which has its own defensive clauses, i.e. essentially a military alliance. The 2014 Maidan wasn't about NATO membership so much as EU membership. Ukraine wasn't really close to applying to NATO in 2014.
The narrative Chomsky is laying out, which you don’t have to agree with, is largely taken from the work of John Mearsheimer. The argument is basically that the 2014 Maidan uprising spooked the Russians because they saw it as an extension of the 2008 NATO declaration at Bucharest that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance. According to this version of events, Ukrainian movement toward EU membership was perceived by the Russians as a “stalking horse” for NATO expansion. The 2014 EU partnership agreement Yanukovych decided not to sign (mainly because it was an austerity program that would have had untenable economic consequences for Ukraine) contained clauses about integrating Ukraine into Atlantic “security architecture” and, as you point out, EU membership has its own contractual military obligations. So however you feel about the veracity of this analysis overall, the Russians weren’t just fabricating this perception out of thin air.
I do not know if the Russian government would be ok with Ukraine's admission into the EU, perhaps they might. I think they are more concerned about Nato. I believe the peace discussions were about Nato neutrality. Crimea was one of the topics discussed in the negotiations and I think there was the provision for a referendum also in Crimea not just in Donbas. The Russian response to the Maidan uprising by annexing Crimea in my understanding was not a response to requests by Ukrainians for joining the EU. Realistically what happened was that the current president had been elected with clear support from the Russian minority but was deposed in Kiev by non-Russian Ukrainians. I see it as equivalent to Washington DC being pro-Republican and the locals staging a coup to depose Biden because he is a Democrat. That still does not entitle Russia to annex Crimea, at least not in our minds. But in the minds of Syrians, USA is not entitled to invade Syria and destroy the country because Americans did not like Assad. The attack on Syria was carried out even though Americans did not worry that the US borders were being endangered or that the US minority in Syria was being discriminated against. US security concerns regarding political developments in Syria could not have possibly been greater than Russian concerns regarding Ukraine. Neither attack was justified, but why is it ok for the US to start new wars and illegally attack neutral countries with only Russia's illegal attack on Ukraine being condemned as unlawful?
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 Syria? Do you mean Iraq? I agree with the general point you’re making but the US didn’t launch a full scale ground invasion of Syria that destroyed the country
@@meshzzizk - NATO did not destroy Syria directly as Russia is doing in Ukraine, but some NATO countries have sponsored a civil war that has made living in Syria very difficult. I do not know if there are more Ukrainian refugees in Europe than Syrian refugees as a result of the wars in the two countries. There are lots of refugees from both countries.
That's a basic lie: why did Nuland boast that the US had spent 5 billion dollars arming Western Ukraine during the Maidan coup?
One wrong does not justify another. Russia has invaded another country and committed war crimes, and those responsible need to face justice. Similar attitude should apply to the second war in Iraq and similar. We need to pursue all war criminals, but in reality that is not going to happen.
As for his reasons why Sweden and Finland sought membership of NATO he deliberately avoids the obvious.
His opinions and views do seem so out of touch with current reality. On this occasion could it not be possible that Ukraine values its independence and that America and many other countries are doing their utmost to support Ukraine for the right reasons?
He explains well why that happened - because of USA moving Eastwards and provoking Russia. Chompsky asks what would USA do if Mexico joined a military aliance, then he answers this question - Mexico would be swept away by USA instantly. So the same way Russia has a right to defend itself against NATO moving Eeastwards to Ukraine. Ukraine just happened to be not only that 'border state' but also the big part of the 'Intermarium' between Baltic sea and Black sea - the territory considered to be of existantial importance for Russia. Poor Ukrainians, USA make use of them in this war.
USA doing things for the right reasons 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@supersaintchristophe337 The reasons right for the USA
@@maximorlov8208 America would not have the right to invade Mexico, just as Russia has no right to invade Ukraine.
Russia's actions has actually strengthened NATO and caused further expansion.
@@supersaintchristophe337 I know hard to believe, but just occasionally self-interest can be to the good of others wrongly attacked.
There are no angels in any of this, but here Russia is an invader, just as America was in Libya and Syria. They should all be condemned.
It's been said before, but the intro doesn't add anything and was clearly added post-interview edit.
Reuploading the original would be a simple matter and audience engagement would be more content-focused, rather than the majority of comments calling the interviewer out for a lqck of journalistic intergrity and rhetorical ability.
Kid you got owned.
I once said I've never seen a smart socialist. Someone replied to me, Noam Chomsky. 😂
Though his accually an anarchist
I don’t know, Albert Einstein seemed pretty smart.
@@coreyc1685 He was. Until later in his life when he became a .........
MLK, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, John Lennon, Einstein, Hawking, Lincoln, Mandela, Carlin and Orwell.
All socialists (or at the very least anti capitalist and/or marxist) that a big enough list for ya?
Yeah they were wrong. He's not a socialist
Yea ..no. I really do not live the US for what they did, and I still think me Bush and Blair both should be in front of a court. But really really: Mr Chomsky should watch the stuff that emerged about Wagner group long before 2022...had he watched the stuff that went down in Syria? Really. I come back to Chomsky again and again because he had so much Kudos with me ...right now he is losing credibility fast!
Pace yourself…
He is stuck in his Vietnam War era pacifism.
"...right now he is losing credibility fast!" - its called confirmation bias, look it up.
@@egida6486 I know what confirmation bias is. And I know that I have it as much as any body else. That is why I come back to Chomsky again and again and again, that is why I listen to podcasts like Unheard, I listen to Wagenknecht as well as AFD that is why I look at the daily mail, even if it hurts as well as BBC and Al Jazeera, wiki leaks etc. So...why do you assume I am the one with confirmation bias here when from all I can read about you. . it might actually be you?
He's 94, almost a century old.
I see a lot of debate here and that is healthy, but what shouldn't be up for debate is whether you should wear a turtleneck. The answer to that one, of course, is no.
Always unique!
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Are you serious? What are you talking about?
@@joejohnson3814 maybe he' stalking about the fact that Chomsky is engaging in a huge form of what about-ism which does nothing but promote the Kremlin narrative
Noam Chomsky remains a clear thinker on most topics about World Affairs and International politics and one of very few prepared to speak out their mind against the one-sided story being presented by Western media sources on this war and any other war.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 wow, since when being a clear thinker is simply repeating russian , prokremlin messages? amazing that you despise Western media, but sad you're choosing to believe in the Russia Today narrative
If there is a one sided view - Chomsky is that. He is unable to present any nuance or even discuss differing interpretation - everything is seen through anarcho-syndicalism and have one “simple” answer. He is an ideologue not an academic, at least not in political sciences.
I would love to see him on a debate with Stephen Kotlin...
...Or Timothy Snyder.
@@dragonade85 Indeed!
Chomsky would destroy him.
@@andcouncil1 You think? Chomsky doesn't really know Russia or Ukraine.
@@dragonade85 I don't think it, it's actually a spoiler.
Self censorship is incredibly powerful. That is, conforming to the majority view. It’s interesting how this video opened, and quite a common kind of comment; to distance ones self from a contrarian (and in this case factual) view.
You said you don’t agree with him? What don’t you agree with?
Sounds like he just stating facts
Whilst I don't agree with him it's very important to hear all opinions
Still a garbage take though...
The Iraq War was a monumental error. [Edit add: And yes it was absolutely unjust.] But the issue with Chomsky’s thinking is that he thinks that all uses of force in international affairs basically have the same moral status. So the use of force to defend the ideal of a rules-based international system is no different than the use of force to plainly annex another state; a cop who shoots at a burglar is no different than a burglar who shoots at the his/her victim. And Chomsky really seems to think that Western democracies, probably due to the hypocrisy of Western democracies in practice, are little better than Chinese and Russian autocracy. So it doesn’t matter to him whether Ukraine is an independent democracy or a part of Russia, or whether Taiwan is an independent democracy or part of China. And thus you have the convergence of humanitarianism with the most cold-blooded sort of foreign policy realism, and of the anti-war left with modern day fascism. This isn’t senility: it’s the logical conclusion of views and attitudes he has always maintained.
(EDIT: I consider the Iraq War to have been both a monumental error and unjust. I'm adding this so that I don't need to keep on explaining that I don't consider Iraq to have been akin to a clerical error. Although my understanding of the word error is that it is a synonym for mistake. My original intention by including my position on Iraq was to indicate that I am not just rejecting Chomsky’s position on Ukraine/Russia offhandedly and that I agree with him on some things.)
After all the wars the US were involved in since world war 2 you still call it a mistake, i guess Afghanistan, Syria, Yugoslavia, Libya is also mistake?. Over a 100000 people Iraq died and you call it an error?
Noam Chomsky has condemned Russia's invasion countless times.
The war in Iraq wasn't an "error" it was a war crime. It wasn't defending the rules based system it went completely against. Washington knew there were NO WMD in Iraq, they simply wanted a full scale war on another country to show that they were doing something to respond to 9/11, plus many in DC had wanted to overthrow Saddam since the 90s.
@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 He just doesn't think it's bad enough for us to do anything about it. Which is conveniently letting them continue to invade.
@@KyleAPemberton - The only positive thing to do is reach an agreement with Russia. Right now they are mostly controlling regions with significant Russian minorities, so their goal has been achieved. The alternative to a peace agreement is to continue the war, risking nuclear escalation. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered? In favour of which alternative should we be doing something about?
Ido has been feeding on proper gander 😂
if the us were in the hunger games it would be the character that forges alliances first with the other greedy and vicious characters in order to eliminate its strong and independent rivals and then proceed to kill any ally that dares decide to stand up against it and act in their own interest - because that’s obviously a us monopoly
so far it’s been a pretty intriguing show to watch
listening to Chomsky speak about foreign policy issues is like reading Shakespeare. The man is a fountain of knowledge & unbiased information.
😂
Everything Hitchens said about Chomsky was right. Incredible how accurate he was in diagnosing Chomsky.
Too bad the wrong guy gets to live a long life.
@Ril Chomsky was not correct and the emails between him and Hitchens showed that his endless "USA is bad" stance was laughable as well as uninformed.
@Ril the actions they take in Ukraine is to help a democracy fight for it's life vs a brutal dictator and Chomsky is too busy hanging out with Epstein to tell the difference.
@Ril is always US AND THE WEST is bad.
@@rosslogie217 There were no emails between Chomsky and Hitchens. You're thinking of Sam Harris. But not knowing that isn't a surprise for someone of your intelligence who bothers to defend Hitchens in 2023, after he has repeatedly been proven as a charlatan when it comes to US foreign policy.
Chomsky favours freedom, he says, but it stops at the point when a country, with good reason, freely decides to be part of an alliance against a former suppressive monster that stultified it for 40 years. I find this extreme pragmatism that favours geopolitical balance, this lack of concern for suffering and the undermining of free choice, rather depressing.
It always bothered me that it's so easy for him to preach this from the comfort and safety of the US, an ocean away.
Sure, Europe might be carved up, families split, people displaced, cultures erased and individual rights brutally suppressed, but that's a small price to pay - for him.
@@Apoc2K fighting to try and gain a stronger position from which to negotiate increases the suffering you mentioned. you also didn't mention the worst part which is that people are dying or being severely harmed, instead you mentioned culture. strange. a distant observer can be out of touch, or be more dispassionate and objective than someone emotionally invested. there are advantages and disadvantages. another factor that doesn't get talked about is how much you value land relative to human lives being put through a meatgrinder. of course I hope I'm wrong and ukraine magically re-takes everything tomorrow and it leads to putin's downfall instead of tactical nukes
It is ironic when the supposed socialist are follow the US cold war doctrine of geopolitical realism when it comes to this.
More like fascists if anything.
@@Apoc2K So continued war is your answer?
If Canada and Mexico decide to allow Russian and Chinese military bases to be established within their territories............What do you think the U.S. would do? Fait Accompli.
But it is not very clear why Chomsky says that Finland and Sweden joining NATO is not much of an issue as compared to Ukraine or Georgia ?
Finland has the biggest and border with Russia so Putin's Nato expansion excuse is bs. Putin wants Ukraine. It is not about Nato. It is about Putin's ego and his sickidea to annex Ukraine. Putin does not consder Ukrine to be a real state.
I was in the British infantry during the second Iraq war and i can categorically say what Noam Chomsky says about British and the US's way of dealing with Iraq was a lot more brutal is 100% correct, I have been saying this from the start of the Russian Ukrainian war all the way through, we in the west have no high moral standing to call foul on Russia. I was mortified with how we dealt with Iraq, so much so I left the UK for Asia the very first opportunity I got. It actually still affects me till this day and it gets to me even more so when I see people in the west insist that we are only interest is the interest of the people of Ukraine.
All power to you and best wishes, Jonathan.
Russia is fighting humanely and restrained. And what is it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volnovakha
@@stefan-xaverscherrer7648 And you trust to wikipedia... 🤣
@@brblja0 Yes. Why shouldn't I believe Wikipedia?
Good comment
until 120 Noam ❣how we all wish our President would have had 5% of your brains & clarity at his "young age" 🥶
If our current president had his brains, we’d literally be a puppet state of Russia.
Chomsky is absolutely correct, and interviewer is wrong.
devastating argument
I'm from Canada 🇨🇦🇨🇦
Ever since I met Mrs Sophia I'm now living big life she's the best
That's great testimonies
Wow I' m just shock someone mentioned expert Sophia I thought I'm the only one trading with her
She helped me recover what I lost trying to trade my self
I invested £5000 pounds I I received £54,000 thousand pounds within 7 days working
Money is an issue that everyone has fora
better and luxurious life, life was hard for me
until I started trading crypto and am now
earning $20,000 per week.
My Hero .Thank you❤
He is an old man that is so anti us imperialism, that he becomes pro Russian imperialism. Hes too old
Who cares if you agree or not?!? Where here for chomsky bro not for you. Thanks for the interview though
That “context” at the outset is some of the most superficial analysis on the subject anyone has given. Why even give it if you’re just going to make your position as sophomoric as possible
It is just as well someone don't agree 100% with whoever.
Its sad watching him turn into a pile of mush his brain is gone to
*"Continue the war in order to severely weaken Russia" - at Ukrainian blood.*
This world is run by sociopaths.
You’ll understand his positions in 20 years. Just like US policy in Iraq is now considered a mistake/crime after 20 years.
The West largely admits its past mistakes. Autocratic regimes don't, even if Chomsky (who only cares about his ego and remaining provocative) wants to present it differently.
US policy was to invade. That invasion was largely condemned, including by Chomsky. How is this invasion any different? Because it was carried out by Russia and not the US?
Don’t forget Central America ,Vietnam, and elsewhere…
@@spikedaniels1528 exactly. But with Central America, barely anyone knows. There was a change of thinking about Vietnam for sure. But it was too late. Even Chomsky says he regrets not talking about sooner
@@freeintellect Too bad Chomsky doesn't regret all of his genocide denial.
Chomsky's analysis of why Sweden and Finland joined NATO is so simplistic. It's based on tired, cliches about military arms sales.
As if those countries would base their total about face in foreign policy on potential arms sales. To say Russia's aggressive hegemonic invasion had no bearing on their decision is totally implausible.
Thanks a lot
2:40 UK and US blocking Russo Ukrainian negotiations
4:40 Should we send weapons to Ukraine?
- Ukraine is not an independent actor, they depend on the US
6:00 Danger of a nuclear war
7:00 Russia has more restraint in it's use of violence than the west had in Iraq
9:30 Minsk agreement
11:50 Russia's motive for the war. Findland and Sweden's reasons for joining NATO
14:20 Russia's intentions and capabilities
20:30 Taiwan
Well according to Chomsky, Russia isn't an independent actor either.. because it has been forced...by the west ..and none of us are independent actors....where to start?
@@thesilkpainter *According to a French academic which is well-known for working through archives, it might go back to the late 1800s, i.e. even two decades before the 1917 Russian Révolution…
@@thesilkpainter Your comment reminds me of the ancient sophists - words and reasoning that seem to say something profound, but are not, like Achilles and the tortoise, or Zeno arrow "paradox" etc.
you controvert his positions in your intro without his being able to refute them, as he would've done
Exactly that, well said.
Cowardly move
And the interview abruptly ended when Chomsky mentioned the support that the US and the UK give to rogue states such as Saudi Arabia.
@@freeintellect you should read the hitpiece he spun out of this interview, makes the intro look like nothing. Could hardly believe that sort of, frankly, infantile hackery, got published in an apparently respectable outlet...
@@Muzikman127 That's the whole point of respectable outlets, though. Yes, I think I saw it. With the title: says Russia is more human. As if it was scandalous.
One of the main reasons Noam Chomsky’s political views are taken seriously in universities and the media is because he has an awesome reputation for scientific accomplishment in the field of linguistics. He is among the ten most cited authors in the humanities-trailing only Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, and Freud-and the only living member of the top ten. Last year The New Yorker called him “one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century.”
Were it not for this status, many of his obsessive and outlandish political ideas would by now have disqualified him from reasoned debate. He thinks every president of the United States since Franklin Roosevelt should have been impeached because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.” He claims the United States actively collaborated with the Nazis against the Soviet Union in the latter stages of World War II. He once supported the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, claiming the genocidal evacuation of Phnom Penh in 1976 was due to a failed rice crop and “may actually have saved many lives.” He describes Israel as a terror state with “points of similarity” to the Third Reich. And he has defended an anti-Semitic French academic who claims the Holocaust was a “historical lie.” Chomsky describes him as nothing more than an “apolitical liberal” whose work is based on “extensive historical research.”
Professor, I apologize. Sili con Valley is the central CPU (Caltech.) I don't think we need this level of inter-connectedness in our World today,
Thanks - it's so important to have access to a diversity of informed, but differing, opinions. Let's hope that open discussion and debate becomes more possible in matters of national and international interest.
I really wouldn't call that informed.
I long ago gave up on Noam Chomsky. He has long been a political dissident of the old style - meaning that he fits in neatly with the French bourgeois belief that intellectuals know better than everyone else. What I find interesting is that his views on Ukraine accord more with the American right rather than the American left (in the USA the left generally supports the Ukraine). An old man past his prime. The New Statesman needs to support the Ukraine but you won't.
Spot on - perhaps those academic intellectuals are quietly envying that they are not part of elites that make changes in the world. They think themselves so smart and none apart of fringe listens let alone changes the world to their view.
The US right wants the war to stop because they would prefer subsidies to go into tangible domestic industries. The US left is heavily reliant on the US led world order so any country (Russia in this case) threatening that world order must be crushed.
Great interview, even though the presentation and questions were all disingenuous. To be clear, your presentation did nothing whatsoever to convince me that Chomsky was demonstrably wrong on any of his points. It just convinced me that your publication is not worth following.
It's one thing to do the interview and get his opinion but why not offer any resistence? Most of his arguments are already well known so why let him just echo them without any push back?
Because its an interview and not a debate?
I understand Chomsky comments as addressing a US / British audience - people that can influence their governments. He does not characterize Ukraine as a puppet state, rather criticizes the US government and its propaganda. He does not sanctify China, yet points out historical US government aggression. I see his emphasis on portraying US government's hegemonic intent and challenging US propaganda as pragmatic in that the people in the US, his main audience, can act to influence and instigate change.
My exact same conlcusions. He focuses so much on anti-american commentary because he believes it's the most amenable to change, for all america's faults it's remarkably transparent. He addressed the anti-american criticism in his 2016 book "Who rules the world?"
Exactly! No one in Russia or China can speak openly the way he does to challenge their government's policies. They would be locked up, because the judiciary also has no independence. The woman who tried to stand in Russia 's presidential election was barred for not filing out her form correctly. Then she lost her appeal. Why? Because their electoral Commission also has no independence. The media has no independence. The whole country is controlled by Putin's Kremlin. Meanwhile Ukrainians are dying every day and Chomsky utters mealy mouthed cliches about the military industrial complex. We all know the US and Briton were wrong in Iraq, but we also know that Russia is wrong in Ukraine. It's happening now, every day. We need to keep trying to stop Putin's war.
I hope one day the world can come together and see Bush and Putin stand stand together in the Hague.
and their puppet masters
Ага. На танке 😂
you forgot tony blair.
The only people you’ll see in The Hague are the war criminals the West doesn’t like after losing a war.
@@user-so7hs5hh9o ZVиZдец pоZZии -- роZZия ZΛO
Poor Chomsky, someone get him to his afternoon nap
George DeSantos Lied 🎌 Ron DeSantos Lied + Kari Lake Lied!= Fox News Lied!
Chomsky has lost the plot, although the warning signs of the past should have alarmed his cult-like followers anyway, given his disgusting views on Pol Pot, his views of the events in Yugoslavia specifically regarding the wording of the term concentration camps, and his comments on the communist Czech government (for which he was condemned for by Vaclav Havel'). Labeling the Iraq invasion (which only lasted from March to May of 2003) as worse than the 1-year brutal onslaught is just dishonest and naive. (The lasting consequences of this war could be worse than that of Iraq)
In addition to that, Chomsky made constant excuses for Islamic radicalism and extremism by blaming the West for its foreign policy interventions, which enabled homegrown Islamists back home to establish their viewpoints and even carry out some of the worst atrocities the continent has seen. It should be of no wonder, as to why he was labeled a "regressive leftist" (alongside Hedges, Finkelstein, Greenwald, and Abby Martin), something the new atheists and reformers called him out for.
The cherry on top is, of course, his ignorant and intellectually lazy viewpoint on China. He isn't questioning China's intention but outright denying its' existence that China is a threat to the West (and other countries in Asia) in the first place. His inability to see the Eastern threat for what it is and still clings to the belief that the West is still the superior power. despite the fact that it is being actively eroded and dismantled in multiple parts of the world (BRICS, moving away from the dollar, etc.) should make us really question him.
Maybe Chopski would like to tell us what it was He and Jeffrey Epstein were talking about at their dinners..?
Anf of course there is no refutation of the facts of his claims. Could you be any lazier than this: " Labeling the Iraq invasion (which only lasted from March to May of 2003) as worse than the 1-year brutal onslaught is just dishonest and naive."
What are the estimated civilian casualties of hte Iraq War? Did therhe West attemot to utterly destroy the infrastructure. Have Russia done to Kiev what the US did to Baghdad?
Remember John Botlon said the West had zero obligation to rebuild the country they had devestated on what were a pack of lies?
And what about Nordstream 2 an act of elogical terrorism waged against its NATO ally in Germany destroying its energy security? Biden his on record as saying he would do it weeks before the invasion. And the US have long threatened the pipeline between the two countries.
Shall we go back further to the start of this with the documented interference of the US in Ukranian elections tem years ago. Are you aware of the Pyatt-Newland transcript?
And there are plenty of who have studied this region who take this postiion Sachs, Mearsheimer.
In your response to this interview on Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you have said absolutely nothing of any sunstance o refute his statements, is that because you perhaps have nothing to contradict them and so instead attack Chomsky, who, with out fail backs up his statements with facts - you have done save delve in to the standard anti-chomsky trope bin.
Do you think he is wrong that the US would in fact tolerate a military alliance with China on its borders, when for 200 years they have held the Monroe policy high - as evidence in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Is he wrong about the agreement not to expand NATO in the 90s? Does anyone seriousl not believe Russia would go nuts at the prospect of a NATO alliance with Ukraine?
Russia have agency and are responsible for their deeds and war crimes - but to pretend that the US has not been trying to instigate such a conflict is to completely ignore the facts, which Chomsky has illuminated and you have ignored.
1. I think there's a lot of misrepresentation of Chomsky's commentary on the Ukraine war - he's not saying "it's right and moral for Russia to invade"; only that under the rules of the international order that the US plays by, this was an inevitable outcome, we knew it, and we proceeded in producing said outcome anyway. He also clarifies the Russian perspective on the situation, which should be a priority for anyone who wants to understand and end tthis conflict. 2. TNS and other left publications put out interviews with controversial content all the time without disclaimer or apology--it made me cringe to see that bit at the beginning.
These title got me hear to give Noam the L
He's a very pro Russia , China professor. Did he protest the shock and awe of the bombing of Berlin during ww2.
A negotiation would centre on Ukraine giving up territory. Is that what Noam is suggesting as a good result, allowing an aggressor to benefit from an invasion? Or is Chomsky suggesting that some friendly words from the West would convince Putin to withdraw from foreign territory. Vague suggestions on negotiation, whatever that might entail, reads more like sophistry than meaningful solutions to a problem.
Chomsky talking to the New Statesman about Ukraine and Taiwan is like an atheist talking to the Pope about the existence of God. This is now a Holy War, until POTUS says not.
Why doesn't he allow the interviewee to listen to these refutations? What happened to basic journalism? This is the oddest introduction I have ever heard to an interview.
A recommendation for the interviewer: grow up, learn what your values are, don't be afraid of not being a good boy, stop thinking that might is right and being right.
Chomsky entirely fails to understand how russian "diplomacy" works. And entirely ignores that russia illegally invaded Crimea and Donbas in 2014. And entirely just ignores why Finland in particular suddenly switched policy. He clearly doesn't respect Ukraine or Georgia's sovereignty and tows the political line with russia. He also completely sidestepped the last question. I do wish the interviewer had pushed him to directly answer it rather than tiptoe around it. But overall very good interview that really exposes Chomsky's anti-Western pro-russia/China viewpoint.
I don't think he's pro any state, given his political views about how society should function. The problem is him, and that broad section of the left, haven't really got out of the cold war and post cold war mind set. I've seen a disintegration of thought about world affairs, coming from that section of the left, really accelerate since the Arab spring and now it's just crashed into a wall since the Ukraine invasion. Corbyn regularly spills his dinner on his shirt over this issue too. It's pretty embarrassing really and depressing.
How do you think the USA would react if Mexico joined a Chinese alliance like he said? And Mexico was executed Americans living in Mexico, how would America react do you think? How did America react when Cuba allied with the USSR? And Cuba was far far far less of threat than Ukraine in NATO is to Russia.
Crimea has been Russian since 1700, it was only a mistake by Khrushchev that gifted it to Ukraine, the entire population assented to the Russian take over, not a drop of blood was spilt, and then overwhelming voted in a free an fair election to join with Russia
@@garretttobin7451 More HIMARS!
Actually ..here Chomsky us dead wrong. I have Swedish as well as Finish friends....and while this might be considered a positive side effect ( the weapons) this was NOT the reason...he is being as disingenuous there as he accuses all of the West to be. There is no way the whole population of both Finland and Sweden went ..oh great we can sell our weapons better..and the greater majorities went for NATO ..just weeks after the dumbass invasion of Ukraine by Russia ..a he should ask the Finish leaders what kind of threats they had to listen to from Russia over the years...do let him not go for that iron clad ..VERBAL promise re NATO not one step east bla bla bla.
Both Finland and Sweden were part of the non-alignment nations during the Cold War en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_and_Non-Aligned_European_States - While they were neutral (like Austria) there was no threat from the Soviet Union or later by Russia. That is clear. The decision to join Nato consequently appears to rationally thinking outsiders such as Noam Chomsky, as having nothing to do with a threat of invasion from Russia. That is what Noam Chomsky is articulating.
Ever heard of propaganda influencing peoples opinions? Try reading manufacturing consent, a book by noam chomsky :DD
@@OR3NG I have read it , thanks.
Love how people disregard it as merely a "verbal" promise when it comes to their assurances of NATO expansion. Just love how US is completely excused and not held accountable for that. NATO served literally no purpose after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
WHY WAS THIS CUT AFTER CHOMSKY SAID "WHAT THE UNITED STATES DETERMINES"? he probably went into detail is why
I'm pleased with all these replies, for and against. It's good to see reasoned debate without vitriol or polemic. Maybe New Statesman readers are more rational.
Or chat-gpt is moderating.
It's very funny to see Chomsky share same love to russia as Trump does, maybe they have something in common in deep
He shows no love of Russia, he simply points to the official record of what has been agreed to in the past. It's unfortunate you're too brainwashed to recognize this
Finnland never was afraid of Russian aggression? Travel to Finnland. Every city has extensive bunkers. Against whom he thinks they are meant to protect? Finnland was always affraid of the Russians, be it leading the Soviet Union or just as Russia ever since they were attacked and a part was annexed at the latest. And that never changed. I could see Poland still being affraid of Germany, but seemingly they are not, as we did change for real. Russia on the other hand has never stopped occupying a part of Moldovia, and Putin, who depending on translation thinks the collapse of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophy of the 20th century or just on of the higest order, became the beloved Zar (not sure if he still really is the beloved) by ending the wars in Chechnya in the manner Russia destroyed Melitopol, before attacking Georgia, before invading Ukraine, annexing Crimea, and invading a second time. Yes, Kiev did not become Bagdad, but only because the Russian air force never managed to establish air superiority and the tank columns going there were halted by the Ukrainian defenders. And while U.S. and British troops did not take as much care about civilians, let alone always allowing the enemy to surrender, I don't remember them to have run a rape campaign or having taken thousands of children (some of the sanctions can be discussed as amounting to something similar though).
I also seem to have forgotten the U.S. and British media having called for nuking everybody constantly -- and former presidents or prime ministers doing the same. And even ignoring all of that, 2003 having been as wrong as it was, while Trump later would question why the U.S. did not act like Putin, they did not. They did not annex the parts of Iraq U.S. oil companies liked, and they did not take the children. And Bagdad looked neither like Grozny nor like Melitopol after they took it.
There is much to criticise both about the U.S. and about Nato, but they are very different from Putin's Russia, and underestimating how much so seems to be a part of why Chomsky lost his grasp of international politics (again, Finnland).
That’s not what I heard here…
Noam is a very wise voice. I've found funny (pathetic) the disclaimer at begining of the video...
very wise for repeating primitive ruzzian propaganda, indeed!
@@tamarak6499 troll
I find Chomsky's decades of genocide denial pathetic. Nobody who is wise would do that.
@@andrewbecker1013 ridiculous
So obviously correct. The blood of all those young men and women is on all our hands.
The man is a monster who denied the Bosnian genocide now he is denying the Ukrainian genocide.
What I do not understand is 14 months ago, people were saying nuclear war was imminent. Imminent, 14 months later no nuclear war?????
Your not the dumbest man on the planet but if he dies your in trouble.😉
That's because, despite Western media propaganda, Russia is doing fairly well in its military objectives. Nuclear War becomes a threat when the Russians start losing badly and have no choice but to turn to nuclear war. There is no option for losing this War for the Russians. The USA just hopes to drag out a low intensity War that gradually bleeds Russia dry. Whether that happens or not we shall. But what IS certain is that Ukraine will be destroyed. They are the guaranteed losers in this War.
Imminent means in a year or what to you genius?
@@mnemonicpie He is using the fact it hasn't happened yet to imply it will not happen. Like a chain smoker saying "they warned me I would get cancer but hey two years later it hasn't happened". It's ignoring the growing risk like a speeding driver. Arguing over semantics may make someone look clever but ignoring the increasing probability of the unthinkable is 'genius'.
@@johndavies5985 yep. These people just don't understand what a wonderful life they have now and how terrible it can be.
Russia want Ukranie land, how do you negotiate that ? Did USA took any land from Iraq or Afghanistan(even before they retreat)?
Not the land but the oil.
hegemony
The US empire is still occupying one third of Syria stealing its oil and grain. The US also took billions of Afghanistan's reserves, leaving the economy to crumble.
@@mimiwinarto9164 How much oil in barrels did the Americans steal? There is also oil in the occupied part of Ukraine.
Noam Chomsky ... And flush the toilet.
What a useless things to say..
Fascinating. The interview/producer put "more humane" in quotes but Chomsky never uses the phrase. Chomsky merely stated factual comparisons between the attacks against Iraq and Ukraine. And yet even some commenters below who acknowledge Chomsky's logic and the facts he puts forth still accept that he used the phrase and take umbrage at his alleged statement.
[Edit: attack changed to attacks for clarity]
Noam Chomsky has become a tragic figure. There has to be more to life than 'West Bad'
Furthermore, this false sense of obligation being marketed needs to be called out, let's be clear, Ukraine is a non-e.u non nat'o state, we have equal obligation to Khazikstan and Madigascar. Our mission should be humanitarian, yet we have boots on the ground (as recent leaks exposed). Our mission should be to end the war and preserve as many of these beautiful people's lives as possible. Not extend it for some imaginary point of negotiation in the future.
You forgot: RUSSHA BAD!
Russia needs to get out of Ukraine first
The interviewer is like a schoolboy, asking questions from a piece paper his teacher gave him. A professional journalist would not have said that stuff at the beginning. He must have really lost his nerve.
It’s his reality, just no one else’s… daft old codger, and I say this as a reader of his works..
Why did Russia wait 6 months to attack the electricity supply? America would of done this on day 1. 20% of Ukraine is ethnic Russian. Russian has used limited resources and never wanted this to escalate.
The West/ NeoCons/ Victoria Nuland should never ever of backed the coup against the ELECTED government of Ukraine 9 bloody years ago, that started this nightmare off.
14,000 dead BEFORE the invasion. The burning alive of Russian civilians at ODESSA destroyed Ukraine for many ethnic Russians.
Let the oppressed Russian ethnic East brake away. Freedom and Independence for the Dombas. We need negotiations ASP
Poor guy bit off more than he could chew. He's had to re-nose the whole interview, likely under the instruction of an editor
The phrasing of the title, and the interviewers opening remarks were a bit off, but the interview was decent.
another Chomsky masterclass… still sharp, still right to the point!
One of the best and most honest analysis of what's going in in the Ukraine and of it's causes.
This is not.
now we him as leader goodie
Gave up on this after a couple of minutes. It’s like saying you stop treating cancer to give the patient a better chance of recovery. Nonsense on stilts.