Noam Chomsky: “We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history”(newstatesman.com)
newstatesman.com
Noam Chomsky: “We’re approaching the most dangerous point in human history”
https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/04/noam-chomsky-were-approaching-the-most-dangerous-point-in-human-history
221 comments
Same goes for business and wealth. I'm convinced that it's in the best interest of all of us to limit the accumulation of political, economic and military power. We'd be in a much better place if we had universal laws that forced countries, businesses to break up or become more democratic as they grow. Progressive tax rates should limit people from getting rich enough to buy up whole industries or at the very least we should limit these individuals from buying up majority stakes in new ventures.
That's why decentralization is important. It's less efficient than centralization but more resilient. But because of efficiency, life tends to evolve into complex centralized systems that become incredibly vulnerable.
> Or how another authority could cut millions of trees solely because of the fact that it lies on his/her territory and that it's none of our business, triggering irreversible climate change
Even worse, authorities across the world are collectively cutting down about 15 billion trees per year, split roughly evenly across permanent deforestation, shifting agriculture (conversion of forest for farming), and logging: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation#not-all-forest-loss...
Even worse, authorities across the world are collectively cutting down about 15 billion trees per year, split roughly evenly across permanent deforestation, shifting agriculture (conversion of forest for farming), and logging: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation#not-all-forest-loss...
With regard to countries... it was a short few decades ago when the left used to clamor and demand self-determination of countries and anti-imperialism.
But today we see exactly the opposite. That countries do not have a right for self determination and that unelected bodies can dictate form afar what countries should do whether or not they are signatories to an agreement or not. That imposition of extra national law is imperialism --not by a country but by elite leadership. If we were to vote democratically from one global pool of voters, would we agree to what the masses from those countries vote for?
But today we see exactly the opposite. That countries do not have a right for self determination and that unelected bodies can dictate form afar what countries should do whether or not they are signatories to an agreement or not. That imposition of extra national law is imperialism --not by a country but by elite leadership. If we were to vote democratically from one global pool of voters, would we agree to what the masses from those countries vote for?
And yet... more people are alive and live far longer, than at any time in history. It is weird how all of pessimism and optimism is rooted in selective cherry picking examples.
I think there is plenty of reason for both pessimism and optimism, and plenty of reasons for neither.
I think there is plenty of reason for both pessimism and optimism, and plenty of reasons for neither.
I didn't expect anything from Chomsky (notorious Khmer Rogue apologist) and he didn't disappoint:
>“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”
No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.
>“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”
No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.
You're just flat wrong about the Khmer apologist thing...a common attempt at character assassination by anti-Chomsky fanatics with no relevance at all to the subject at hand.
Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made. NATO is a defensive alliance whose members join voluntarily, we don't go around planting flags with the Safari icon by right of conquest.
Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you.
I am sure people in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 11 of September and had no mass destruction weapons), Libyan negros (that were hunted down and their city razed with NATO air support) and many, many others would agree with me.
It is not even a matter of blaming only USA that drags the rest of NATO with them, Libya for example the country that started the shenanigans was France.
Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.
I am sure people in Iraq (that had nothing to do with 11 of September and had no mass destruction weapons), Libyan negros (that were hunted down and their city razed with NATO air support) and many, many others would agree with me.
It is not even a matter of blaming only USA that drags the rest of NATO with them, Libya for example the country that started the shenanigans was France.
Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.
What exactly are you disagreeing on?
There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation.
The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).
There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier". NATO is an alliance. NATO does not declare war as a block. Iraq was not a NATO operation. Libya was not a NATO operation.
The only time NATO has intervened outside of self defense as per Article V of the Charter was Yugoslavia (and with good fucking reason).
So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?
Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?
I don't in any way condone what Russia is doing and I wish that invasion on Ukraine will safely end with NATO having a parade on Red Square and demilitarization of Russia.
I'm just arguing that you can't pretend that labels and formalities is all than counts when things start happening.
Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?
I don't in any way condone what Russia is doing and I wish that invasion on Ukraine will safely end with NATO having a parade on Red Square and demilitarization of Russia.
I'm just arguing that you can't pretend that labels and formalities is all than counts when things start happening.
> Could France just deploy it's army in the Ukraine and push out Russian occupiers saying "don't worry we are not NATO, we are here privately" and Russia would have to accept that and hold no additional grudge against NATO, knowing that if it retaliates it will trigger article 5?
Russia can hold all the grudges it likes, with or without any kind of justification.
Not that it matters to the international legitimacy of France (or even NATO, without Article 5 being triggered) directly militarily supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian aggression, see UN Charter, Article 51.
Russia can hold all the grudges it likes, with or without any kind of justification.
Not that it matters to the international legitimacy of France (or even NATO, without Article 5 being triggered) directly militarily supporting Ukraine’s self-defense against Russian aggression, see UN Charter, Article 51.
> So NATO members are still free to do what they want without casting any shade on NATO itself?
I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism.
> Could France
This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.
I condemn the vast majority of the US foreign policy of the last 50+ years, I'm just pointing out that conflating US/NATO is a convenient parlor trick and irrelevant whataboutism.
> Could France
This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.
> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.
That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5.
And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.
That... depends on the precise geographic location of any retaliation. The participation of a NATO state in a collective self-defense action with a non-NATO state under UN Charter Article 51 rights, outside of NATO operations, does not itself limit the applicability of Article 5.
And even if it didn't trigger Article 5, well, most NATO actions have been initiated as a result of Article 4 process, not Article 5 commitments. And an attack on a member’s forces in the Euro-Atlantic region but outside of the precise area covered by Article 5 commitments would arguably be a more serious Article 4 issue than the ones that have resulted in NATO interventions.
> This scenario wouldn't trigger Article 5.
Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?
Really? Does it have to be unprovoked attack? And what exactly means unprovoked? Does having a peace mission in some neighbouring country and defending yourself there counts as provocation? Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?
> Who decides that? And do you think that the definition that would be most geopolitically convenient at that moment wouldn't be chosen?
Oh absolutely it would.
The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.
If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?
The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
Oh absolutely it would.
The Charter is just a lot of verbiage around two promises: NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.
If you are so inclined you can also doubt Article 5 itself: are we really going to unleash the apocalypse over Latvia? Wouldn't we be tempted to bend the rules in that case as well?
The point is whether you believe those promises to be credible. IMHO history implies they largely are, but that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
> NATO members will defend each other, and NATO won't wage aggressive war.
Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense.
NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.
Article 4 is also important, and more actual NATO interventions have been triggered by Article 4 consultations than Article 5 direct mutual defense.
NATO is a regional security organization with a mutual defense commitment, not a pure defensive alliance.
Right, so when Iraq was invaded by:
USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.
Or Afghanistan:
US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, New Zealand
or Libya, france gave them weapons first, and invited the rest of NATO, that responded:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, USA, UK.
NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5, but the fact remains NATO will happily use their forces offensively and working in a cohesive group. You can't just say it isn't NATO because NATO is supposed to be defensive.
USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.
Or Afghanistan:
US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, Italy, New Zealand
or Libya, france gave them weapons first, and invited the rest of NATO, that responded:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Spain, Turkey, USA, UK.
NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5, but the fact remains NATO will happily use their forces offensively and working in a cohesive group. You can't just say it isn't NATO because NATO is supposed to be defensive.
> USA, UK, Australia, Poland, Netherlands, Italy and Spain (and Turkey threatened to invade in 2007 too), the fact they are all members of NATO is just coincidence, it is not NATO piling up on a single country.
Australia isn't a member of NATO (neither is New Zealand, which you claim at another point), and there were NATO members opposed to the invasion; NATO works by consensus, but isn't a supergovernment that dictates the outside-of-NATO foreign policy of its members.
> NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5
It could, but it actually doesn't.
It claims to be a regional security organization, and Article 4 is just as important as Article 5.
Australia isn't a member of NATO (neither is New Zealand, which you claim at another point), and there were NATO members opposed to the invasion; NATO works by consensus, but isn't a supergovernment that dictates the outside-of-NATO foreign policy of its members.
> NATO can claim to be defensive and only about article 5
It could, but it actually doesn't.
It claims to be a regional security organization, and Article 4 is just as important as Article 5.
If you know your history, you'd know that 9/11 triggered NATO's Article 5. It's the only time it was activated so far.
NATO kept us out of nuclear war for 70 years. It kept Soviet tanks from overrunning western Europe. It enabled stable democracies to gain a foothold safely in western Europe.
NATO is literally the only thing that stands between democratic states, which are the minority in the world (the North Atlantic region + some small states in Asia) and totalitarian regimes.
Mysteriously, a non-NATO nation is currently having a genocidal war waged on them. While NATO nations are free and safe. NATO is keeping the Free World safe.
If you hate freedom and representative government, if you find debates "too messy" and like easy-answer dictatorships, you should be anti-NATO.
NATO kept us out of nuclear war for 70 years. It kept Soviet tanks from overrunning western Europe. It enabled stable democracies to gain a foothold safely in western Europe.
NATO is literally the only thing that stands between democratic states, which are the minority in the world (the North Atlantic region + some small states in Asia) and totalitarian regimes.
Mysteriously, a non-NATO nation is currently having a genocidal war waged on them. While NATO nations are free and safe. NATO is keeping the Free World safe.
If you hate freedom and representative government, if you find debates "too messy" and like easy-answer dictatorships, you should be anti-NATO.
Australia is not part of Nato. And you could equally well count in France and Germany as opposing the Iraq war, but it would not support your case.
> Libya was not a NATO operation.
Are you sure?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm
Are you sure?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/71679.htm
>>>There is no such thing as a "NATO Aircraft carrier".
I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".
>>>Iraq was not a NATO operation.
And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93...
>>>Libya was not a NATO operation.
Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest
I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.
I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".
>>>Iraq was not a NATO operation.
And yet there is very significant overlap of Multi-National Forces- Iraq countries with NATO member states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93...
>>>Libya was not a NATO operation.
Have you taken a look at the Wiki article on that conflict? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
A couple of choice quotes: On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest
I'm always amazed at the number of emphatically stated positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are so easily challenged with a 30-second internet search.
> I just interpret that as "aircraft carrier belonging to a NATO member state".
US != NATO
> very significant overlap
ah yes the overlap
> On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together:
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters.
I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.
US != NATO
> very significant overlap
ah yes the overlap
> On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya
You must have forgotten to paste the text after the comma, let us retry together:
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya, to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, in response to events during the First Libyan Civil War. With ten votes in favour and five abstentions, the UN Security Council's intent was to have "an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity” ... [imposing] a ban on all flights in the country's airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the [Muammar] Qadhafi regime and its supporters.
I'm always amazed at the number of snarky know-it-all positions regarding recent geopolitics/warfare/etc. that are based on conveniently projecting away inconvenient pieces of information.
Yes.. the U.S. is not NATO.. it just funds NATO more than any other member state, provides more troops to NATO than any other member state, provides arms more than any other member state, and NATO has never taken an action that works against the geopolitical interest of the U.S. But of course, they're completely separate entities. The Warsaw Pact was also famously not a mission by the SU, it was just a defensive treaty that happened to include them! A hegemon founding and funding a military alliance has no impact on that alliance, and all members of military alliances have equal rights under the treaty.
This is so much the case that until the invasion of Ukraine, France and other NATO members states were saying that Article 5 was effectively unenforceable for any member state save the U.S!
This is so much the case that until the invasion of Ukraine, France and other NATO members states were saying that Article 5 was effectively unenforceable for any member state save the U.S!
> Yes.. the U.S. is not NATO.. it just funds NATO more than any other member state, provides more troops to NATO than any other member state, provides arms more than any other member state
They also have more of a population base than any other member state (4x Germany, 4.8x UK, 5x France...)
They also have more of a population base than any other member state (4x Germany, 4.8x UK, 5x France...)
Agreed, this is part of the historical reason why the U.S. is a global leader (arguably it's really the land mass of the country that's the important part but same same)
The last part of your comment is pretty ironic. You realize that a UN resolution has absolutely nothing to do with NATO being a defensive alliance? It does not matter if they were "mandated" to attack a country that did not attack them first, it is still by definition agression. A defensive alliance would imply a reaction to an attack on your alliance, not on anything else.
If NATO only needs whatever vote it deems necessary to attack a completely uninvolved country because of a completely internal conflict, you realize that literally proves that it is not the type of neighbor you want to have?
What a completely self defeating argument lol. And that's ignoring the totally defensive strikes against serbia. Which for the record I personally think were justified, but supporting an intervention does not mean the intervention suddenly becomes defensive.
If NATO only needs whatever vote it deems necessary to attack a completely uninvolved country because of a completely internal conflict, you realize that literally proves that it is not the type of neighbor you want to have?
What a completely self defeating argument lol. And that's ignoring the totally defensive strikes against serbia. Which for the record I personally think were justified, but supporting an intervention does not mean the intervention suddenly becomes defensive.
All nato countries fought in iraq I think.
Operation Unified Protector in Libya was not a NATO operation? Huh? It was completely a NATO operation.
(I could tangent into Russia...)
(I could tangent into Russia...)
> like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in
It was Azerbaijan using drones procured from Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Anyway NATO is not a single state. NATO members can make independent decisions other NATO members would disapprove.
It was Azerbaijan using drones procured from Turkey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Anyway NATO is not a single state. NATO members can make independent decisions other NATO members would disapprove.
> Then there are the aggressive actions of individual NATO members that are ignored by the rest of the alliance, like Turkey bombing Armenians using drones until Russia stepped in.
Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government.
> As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you.
You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.
Those countries are doing it under their own auspices. You seem to be confusing a defensive alliance with a federalized government.
> As someone living in a country that had a democratic leader toppled down by NATO Aircraft carrier threatening to bomb our most populous city at the time... I disagree with you.
You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.
> You need to be explicit if you want to argue in good faith here.
They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals.
If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
They absolutely do not. The military aggression of nato countries against weaker ones is well documented. They have killed, organized coups, waged war, and assassinated elected leaders for their own economic and political goals.
If you're going to argue that every single one of these was merely a country that happened to be part of nato, acting independently, then do it. It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
NATO countries don't act in coordination. With respect to Iraq:
> On 5 February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to present evidence that Iraq was hiding unconventional weapons. However, Powell's presentation included information based on the claims of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed "Curveball", an Iraqi emigrant living in Germany who later admitted that his claims had been false. Powell also presented evidence alleging Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda. As a follow-up to Powell's presentation, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, the UK, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
> It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
I think that depends on why you show up in forums. If your goal is to learn and grow by sharing experiences backed by data then I think it's important to be specific. If you just show up to "make your voice heard" or make grifting comments, then yeah it doesn't matter that much.
> On 5 February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to present evidence that Iraq was hiding unconventional weapons. However, Powell's presentation included information based on the claims of Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed "Curveball", an Iraqi emigrant living in Germany who later admitted that his claims had been false. Powell also presented evidence alleging Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda. As a follow-up to Powell's presentation, the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the US, the UK, Poland, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
> It's not anyone's responsibility to lob you a specific case that you can try to shoot down on its specific details, and refusing to (proactively!?) do so does not indicate a bad faith argument come on.
I think that depends on why you show up in forums. If your goal is to learn and grow by sharing experiences backed by data then I think it's important to be specific. If you just show up to "make your voice heard" or make grifting comments, then yeah it doesn't matter that much.
A defensive alliance is what it says on the tin. If you want to take umbrage with the aggressions of any individual country, by all means do so. But don't turn NATO into your own personal bogeyman because one of its members did a thing you didn't like irrelevant to the mandate of the alliance. That's a bad faith argument.
If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you.
If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.
If I make a promise that I won't punch you and you go punch someone else, that doesn't reflect on my promise not to punch you.
If that aircraft carrier was acting under NATO's auspices it is absolutely relevant to the argument. If it wasn't then it is a strawman and should be called out.
What it says on the tin might not be what's inside.
You didn't cite your sources in massive claims but yes it's disingenuous to apply individual nation's actions on NATO. NATO is a defensive alliance. They did go to war in the mideast after the US was attacked on 9/11, triggering Article 5.
As far as mideast wars in general, most of them, especially from the 60s to 90s, were proxy wars between democratic states and totalitarian regimes. Whether it be Iran or another one. The mideast is a powder keg in general though, I wouldn't use that region's history, or any party's involvement as a guide for much of anything in regards to your views.
It's amazing to see people on both the left and right oppose NATO. 63 Republicans voted against supporting NATO yesterday, which is just astonishing and short-sighted. That is not the GOP that I once supported, they are lost. NATO is what prevented nuclear war for 70 years. Protected Europe so it could thrive into the healthy democratic states they are today. Prevented Soviet tanks from rolling in.
Especially today, when a non-NATO nation is under attack, and would not be, if it were in NATO. The whole Trump and far left anti-NATO viewpoints were absolutely blown out of the water. It's not even a debate anymore. Western expansion was the correct move as the mask is now off of Putin's Russia.
If you hate free and sovereign states, and like dictators building empires and committing genocide to do it- being against NATO is for you. The story today is the Free World consisting of democratic states vs totalitarianism / authoritarianism / dictatorships. That includes Putin's right-wing government, and Xi's left wing Communist government.
As far as mideast wars in general, most of them, especially from the 60s to 90s, were proxy wars between democratic states and totalitarian regimes. Whether it be Iran or another one. The mideast is a powder keg in general though, I wouldn't use that region's history, or any party's involvement as a guide for much of anything in regards to your views.
It's amazing to see people on both the left and right oppose NATO. 63 Republicans voted against supporting NATO yesterday, which is just astonishing and short-sighted. That is not the GOP that I once supported, they are lost. NATO is what prevented nuclear war for 70 years. Protected Europe so it could thrive into the healthy democratic states they are today. Prevented Soviet tanks from rolling in.
Especially today, when a non-NATO nation is under attack, and would not be, if it were in NATO. The whole Trump and far left anti-NATO viewpoints were absolutely blown out of the water. It's not even a debate anymore. Western expansion was the correct move as the mask is now off of Putin's Russia.
If you hate free and sovereign states, and like dictators building empires and committing genocide to do it- being against NATO is for you. The story today is the Free World consisting of democratic states vs totalitarianism / authoritarianism / dictatorships. That includes Putin's right-wing government, and Xi's left wing Communist government.
[deleted]
No one is hinting at moral equivalence. It’s just that the fact that modern Russia is an awful country waging a disgusting war on a neighbour which just wanted to be left alone doesn’t suddenly erase the history of the USA itself a trigger happy amoral and imperialist country with an history of furthering its own interests through acts of unspeakable violence abroad.
Some people happily mistake NATO for USA because it makes for a more personal/persuasive/convenient argument.
[deleted]
Indeed. Complaining about one lie from decades ago in view of the torrent of lies every day from the Russian government is like complaining about a grain of sand in an ocean of piss.
Indeed. One teensy tiny little lie.
NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia, and it makes sense they would view it as a longstanding insidious aggression.
No, it isn't a legitimate concern. Even if Russia bordered with only NATO countries it wouldn't mean they are in any danger of getting invaded. Because NATO doesn't invade.
NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
NATO is only legitimate danger to the Russia interests in bordering countries like the one they are currently pursuing in the Ukraine, by commiting warcrimes among other things.
How is NATO (and it's minimal expansions) not a concern to Russia again?
It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
It's more complex now, but for awhile they were the two players at the game.
If this was the true concern of the Kremlin, why would they do the one thing that strengthens and enhances NATO in ways unthinkable even 6 months ago.
The war in Ukraine is the rebirth of NATO;
- Finland and Sweden on the fast path to joining. - Every member country making good on defense spending and more. - Eastern member countries inviting ever larger standing forces. - Renewed interest in Nuclear deterrents. - Reinforcement of other "NATO like" alliances like AUKUS.
If the true reason for the war was US-NATO provocation, the it was the most successful, long term, multi-administration conspiracy of the century.
Or - the Kremlin could simply be lying and have other ulterior motives for war (territory, hydrocarbons, empire, legacy, etc).
They are either stupid, or liars.
Fyiw - the only real "winners" here seem to be China.
The war in Ukraine is the rebirth of NATO;
- Finland and Sweden on the fast path to joining. - Every member country making good on defense spending and more. - Eastern member countries inviting ever larger standing forces. - Renewed interest in Nuclear deterrents. - Reinforcement of other "NATO like" alliances like AUKUS.
If the true reason for the war was US-NATO provocation, the it was the most successful, long term, multi-administration conspiracy of the century.
Or - the Kremlin could simply be lying and have other ulterior motives for war (territory, hydrocarbons, empire, legacy, etc).
They are either stupid, or liars.
Fyiw - the only real "winners" here seem to be China.
Because there are already 4 NATO countries bordering Russia.
> NATO doesn't invade
But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia. Another NATO member state, the United States, along with the UK spent the latter half of the 20th century waging a cold war against Russia. I'm a Cold War kid and a U.S. Marine to boot but damn! Russia definitely has legitimate reasons to be concerned with NATO expansion. I know, I know - we believe we're the good guys. The problem is Russia doesn't believe that and they have credible concerns we can't simply hand-wave away. Understanding that is important to making international politics work.
But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia. Another NATO member state, the United States, along with the UK spent the latter half of the 20th century waging a cold war against Russia. I'm a Cold War kid and a U.S. Marine to boot but damn! Russia definitely has legitimate reasons to be concerned with NATO expansion. I know, I know - we believe we're the good guys. The problem is Russia doesn't believe that and they have credible concerns we can't simply hand-wave away. Understanding that is important to making international politics work.
> But two prominent NATO member states, France and Germany, have famously invaded Russia
What? When? Should we be holding modern organisations accountable for Napolenic wars? That's absolutely hilarious statement. So when's USA going to take the revenge against the Brits? I'd like to adjust my vacation plans accordingly.
On the other hand ... You being a marine explains a lot. Standards of US military industrial complex to what country has the right to have as legitimate interest and horrifying.
It's not about being good guys or bad guys. It's about not poking your nose in the stuff of people who live outside of your borders without a firm invitation from global community.
What? When? Should we be holding modern organisations accountable for Napolenic wars? That's absolutely hilarious statement. So when's USA going to take the revenge against the Brits? I'd like to adjust my vacation plans accordingly.
On the other hand ... You being a marine explains a lot. Standards of US military industrial complex to what country has the right to have as legitimate interest and horrifying.
It's not about being good guys or bad guys. It's about not poking your nose in the stuff of people who live outside of your borders without a firm invitation from global community.
Nato doesn't invade?? Do you think there is a difference for the people living there whether the bombs come from an official nato action, or from a country acting alone with the tacit approval or explicit support of other nato countries?
This feels sorta how in the US only congress can declare war, so we don't declare war anymore. These technical distinctions may be compelling to you but they don't put people's legs back on, they don't pull children out of the grave.
Nato countries acting together with the support of other nato countries do invade. Call that what you want I call it nato invading.
This feels sorta how in the US only congress can declare war, so we don't declare war anymore. These technical distinctions may be compelling to you but they don't put people's legs back on, they don't pull children out of the grave.
Nato countries acting together with the support of other nato countries do invade. Call that what you want I call it nato invading.
Which country any NATO member attacked, occupied and annexed? Because that's what Russia does when it invades (like with Crimea).
Let's keep the same meaning of the word 'invade' when we talk about Russia and NATO.
Let's keep the same meaning of the word 'invade' when we talk about Russia and NATO.
Another guy suggesting that now-justified western expansion of a defensive pact warrants this genocidal war on Ukraine. Just amazing. NATO = not invaded. Not NATO? Complete destruction.
It didn't even warrant an invasion of Ukraine. Let alone this. Have you read the news? It's not fake. It's all very real-
Russia denies and deflects in reaction to atrocities...
Town by town, prosecutors build war crimes cases...
Zelensky briefs UN on massacres...
Swastika scratched on corpse... Soldiers cut out tongues...
15-year-old raped with mother...
It didn't even warrant an invasion of Ukraine. Let alone this. Have you read the news? It's not fake. It's all very real-
Russia denies and deflects in reaction to atrocities...
Town by town, prosecutors build war crimes cases...
Zelensky briefs UN on massacres...
Swastika scratched on corpse... Soldiers cut out tongues...
15-year-old raped with mother...
> NATO expanding east is a legitimate concern to Russia
A supposed commitment of NATO not to expand eastward wasn't a concern when they were demanding to be immediately admitted without having to meet readiness milestones like other states in Eastern Europe under President (checks) Putin.
A supposed commitment of NATO not to expand eastward wasn't a concern when they were demanding to be immediately admitted without having to meet readiness milestones like other states in Eastern Europe under President (checks) Putin.
This is a pretty naive view of the reality of NATO. In reality NATO is from its founding a U.S. lead mission that was created to suppress what was then the Soviet Union. This is explicitly stated by the first heads of NATO. To achieve that purpose the U.S. has done all sorts of nefarious things from recruiting former Nazi generals to invading and regime changing countries. Taking the propaganda of any world power as truth is a mistake, and I’m surprised about how many people on HN seem to be doing it. Learning about the history of NATO is the bare minimum that should be done before claiming to educate others about it.
Can you recommend some good sources on NATO's history? Ideally sources that won't show up on the first page of google please.
If I had to pick one, I would recommend the recent series by podcast TrueAnon on NATO. It's up to date and timely -- they discuss the context of Ukraine for example. Caveats are that it can be irreverent at times (if you can't tell by the name heh) and it has a severe left-wing tilt, although not to a delusional degree in my opinion. It's well sourced, and will give you the knowledge to follow up with your own research in those places you are skeptical.
Getting analysis of Ukraine from Mark Ames is like getting analysis of Sandy Hook from Alex Jones. There are credible people with a skeptical take on the Ukraine situation --- Mearsheimer is a good example. TrueAnon is not.
TrueAnon has Mark Ames on often -- well, twice, at least, but he is not a core member of the podcast, and was not featured on these episodes.
EDIT: I do agree that Mearsheimer is another good person to learn from, but I don't know of an article or video from him that takes a holistic view at things
EDIT: I do agree that Mearsheimer is another good person to learn from, but I don't know of an article or video from him that takes a holistic view at things
NATO is just a mainly defensive alliance. So far, it has fought exactly zero defensive wars, but a number of offensive ones. I assume that means that the defensive part of it is working really, really well - nobody seems keen on attacking it.
The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world. Putin, meanwhile, is behaving like an utter savage, and is also scary and destabilizing, to both his immediate neighbours, and also to everyone in the world. Ukraine got burnt, badly from both directions - one pushed it under the bus, the other is in the middle of invading it.
Are these the same level of wrongs? No. Does one excuse the other? Also no. Would I prefer everyone involved to have stopped escalating this, starting two decades ago? Yes. Did poor judgement in the past severely constrict our ability to reach better outcomes in the present? Also yes.
Remember 9/11, and how poor ME policy lead to it? Remember what was in the short term, a reasonable response, in the long run resulted in self-inflicted damage that was orders of magnitude worse?
NATO moving east may well be that short term win. We will see whether the long-term losers will be limited to former Soviet republics.
The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world. Putin, meanwhile, is behaving like an utter savage, and is also scary and destabilizing, to both his immediate neighbours, and also to everyone in the world. Ukraine got burnt, badly from both directions - one pushed it under the bus, the other is in the middle of invading it.
Are these the same level of wrongs? No. Does one excuse the other? Also no. Would I prefer everyone involved to have stopped escalating this, starting two decades ago? Yes. Did poor judgement in the past severely constrict our ability to reach better outcomes in the present? Also yes.
Remember 9/11, and how poor ME policy lead to it? Remember what was in the short term, a reasonable response, in the long run resulted in self-inflicted damage that was orders of magnitude worse?
NATO moving east may well be that short term win. We will see whether the long-term losers will be limited to former Soviet republics.
> The problem here is that both sides are in the wrong, but for different reasons. NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world.
I can't imagine how scary it would be for Polish people right now if we weren't in NATO, because Russians practiaclly mention us along with Ukraine on a single breath.
It was called a Warsaw pact. Warsaw is Polish capital.
I can't imagine how scary it would be for Polish people right now if we weren't in NATO, because Russians practiaclly mention us along with Ukraine on a single breath.
It was called a Warsaw pact. Warsaw is Polish capital.
But that's the problem. Would Russia has gone on a saber-rattling course, starting in '08, had NATO not gone eastwards?
We can't know, it's alt-history speculative wankery. But what we can know is that the latter left the former with very few options.
We can't know, it's alt-history speculative wankery. But what we can know is that the latter left the former with very few options.
We can't know that hadn't Poland joined NATO Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine but we can definitively know that Poland joining NATO is certainly the cause of this war?
You have very interesting priors, I must say.
You have very interesting priors, I must say.
> Would Russia has gone on a saber-rattling course, starting in '08, had NATO not gone eastwards?
Yes. Reestablising soviet empire was Putins life long project from the moment he gained significant power. Vibes of it are easy enough to notice in his speeches predating '08
Those are not words of a man in fear. Those are the words of a man with a dream.
Yes. Reestablising soviet empire was Putins life long project from the moment he gained significant power. Vibes of it are easy enough to notice in his speeches predating '08
Those are not words of a man in fear. Those are the words of a man with a dream.
> Vibes of it are easy enough to notice in his speeches predating '08
NATO went east in 1999, which was before Putin. '08 was when the war in Georgia took place.
NATO went east in 1999, which was before Putin. '08 was when the war in Georgia took place.
> NATO went east in 1999, which was before Putin.
You might want to look up who Russia’s head of government (not chief of state) was in 1999.
Though, on the other hand, the process of NATO expansion into the former Iron Curtain (beyond German unification) actually started in 1991, almost immediately after the fall of the USSR, with requests from a number of ex-Warsaw Pact, including ex-Soviet, republics for an onramp to NATO (including, it might be noted, the Russian Federation, which was also one of the initial members, in 1994, of the NATO-onramp Partnership for Peace program. Which is among the very many reasons that the recent debate about a supposed 1989 commitment to not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact territory is nonsense: even if such an informal non-treaty assurance was binding, and inherited from the USSR by Russia, Russia’s subsequent active and formal participation in the NATO expansion process would have repudiated it, in any case.)
You might want to look up who Russia’s head of government (not chief of state) was in 1999.
Though, on the other hand, the process of NATO expansion into the former Iron Curtain (beyond German unification) actually started in 1991, almost immediately after the fall of the USSR, with requests from a number of ex-Warsaw Pact, including ex-Soviet, republics for an onramp to NATO (including, it might be noted, the Russian Federation, which was also one of the initial members, in 1994, of the NATO-onramp Partnership for Peace program. Which is among the very many reasons that the recent debate about a supposed 1989 commitment to not expand NATO into former Warsaw Pact territory is nonsense: even if such an informal non-treaty assurance was binding, and inherited from the USSR by Russia, Russia’s subsequent active and formal participation in the NATO expansion process would have repudiated it, in any case.)
> NATO expanding eastwards is scary and destabilizing to everyone in the world.
I call BS on that one. Just for an extreme example, take Uruguay. How is NATO expansion eastward scary or destabilizing for them?
Or take Estonia. Is NATO expansion destabilizing for them? Or is it stabilizing? I claim it is the latter; it keeps Russia from coming back.
Was it destabilizing for Ukraine? Insufficient data. If NATO had never gone past united Germany, would Russia have invaded Ukraine? Maybe. Would it have been this bloody? Maybe not. It might have been like the Russian interventions is Belarus and Kazakhstan. Is it better, or worse to be under their heel for the next N decades, but initially have fewer dead bodies?
I call BS on that one. Just for an extreme example, take Uruguay. How is NATO expansion eastward scary or destabilizing for them?
Or take Estonia. Is NATO expansion destabilizing for them? Or is it stabilizing? I claim it is the latter; it keeps Russia from coming back.
Was it destabilizing for Ukraine? Insufficient data. If NATO had never gone past united Germany, would Russia have invaded Ukraine? Maybe. Would it have been this bloody? Maybe not. It might have been like the Russian interventions is Belarus and Kazakhstan. Is it better, or worse to be under their heel for the next N decades, but initially have fewer dead bodies?
> How is NATO expansion eastward scary or destabilizing for them?
It's scary and destabilizing in the sense that Uruguay doesn't really give a rat's ass about where the borders between east and west are drawn in Europe, but would really, really, really prefer that NATO and Russia don't get into a shooting war.
Same thing with threats to the MAD balance of power, like anti-missile defenses. Anyone standing on the sidelines doesn't really care about where the borders are, they just don't want one side to scare the other to the point of nuclear war.
It's scary and destabilizing in the sense that Uruguay doesn't really give a rat's ass about where the borders between east and west are drawn in Europe, but would really, really, really prefer that NATO and Russia don't get into a shooting war.
Same thing with threats to the MAD balance of power, like anti-missile defenses. Anyone standing on the sidelines doesn't really care about where the borders are, they just don't want one side to scare the other to the point of nuclear war.
> NATO is just a mainly defensive alliance. So far, it has fought exactly zero defensive wars
1 in direct mutual self-defense, actually.
> but a number of offensive ones
NATO has conducted, I believe, two operations that were neither mutual self-defense under Article 5 nor at the invitation of the government in whose territory they were conducted nor under a direct call for military forces by the UN Security Council under its notionally-compulsory authority regarding matters of international peace and security, the operation in Libya (which was to enforce Security Council resolutions, but not itself in response for a call by the Council for armed force) and that in response to the Kosovo situation.
1 in direct mutual self-defense, actually.
> but a number of offensive ones
NATO has conducted, I believe, two operations that were neither mutual self-defense under Article 5 nor at the invitation of the government in whose territory they were conducted nor under a direct call for military forces by the UN Security Council under its notionally-compulsory authority regarding matters of international peace and security, the operation in Libya (which was to enforce Security Council resolutions, but not itself in response for a call by the Council for armed force) and that in response to the Kosovo situation.
It's scary and destabilizing to Russia, that is. I mean a country so scared and destabilized that it just invaded a neighboring country. I can't recall right now anyone else bothered by the expansion. Is there any other "everyone in the world" you care to mention?
> NATO is a defensive alliance
Like bombing Libya?
(there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
Like bombing Libya?
(there is more about Russia vis-a-vis Libya but no need for me to Tangent into that)
> It's completely irrelevant that a promise was or wasn't made.
That's true if your word means nothing and you have no honor. NATO is in control of their expansion, yes, the members join voluntarily but the existing members have to approve the new membership. NATO can't claim it has no control of its expansion.
Now does any of this mean that Putin is justified in committing war crimes? No, of course not. But it is relevant that the West can't be trusted to keep their word. That makes negotiating a peaceful resolution to this conflict more difficult. It also provides our detractors plenty with which to create a credible alternate telling of the facts.
That's true if your word means nothing and you have no honor. NATO is in control of their expansion, yes, the members join voluntarily but the existing members have to approve the new membership. NATO can't claim it has no control of its expansion.
Now does any of this mean that Putin is justified in committing war crimes? No, of course not. But it is relevant that the West can't be trusted to keep their word. That makes negotiating a peaceful resolution to this conflict more difficult. It also provides our detractors plenty with which to create a credible alternate telling of the facts.
I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o...
This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o...
This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another.
He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now.
At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face.
Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic.
It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon.
Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now.
At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face.
Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic.
It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon.
Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.
> he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power
The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.
That’s a highly contended assertion.
We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea.
There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea.
There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.
And? The US also committed countless atrocities in Vietnam. I'm talking about the misdeeds of Noam Chomsky, not of the US.
But do this promise makes sense?
NATO it's not a "sentient entity", that choose to expand. Instead are the states that ask to join it.
No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO
>>>No one forced Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to join NATO
No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal.
And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine. Accession into NATO requires unanimous endorsement from all extant members. The most powerful member of the alliance saying "No" sends an even stronger signal.
And then we should have offered military training, maybe even subsidized armament sales (aka "foreign aid") to encourage a strong self-defense capability....but NO formalized or even informal assurances of mutual defense, and no US assets based in their borders. I think that would have been a smart compromise: help these countries make themselves too costly to invade, without making Russia more paranoid and without growing our "surface area" of treaty risks.
> No, but the US should have carefully measured (and probably rejected) any interest from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Ukraine.
Why?
Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation expressed first in a letter from their President to NATO in 1991, formalized when they joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994, and at the time the first three on your list were admitted still being actively worked toward by both the Russian and NATO sides?
Why?
Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation expressed first in a letter from their President to NATO in 1991, formalized when they joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994, and at the time the first three on your list were admitted still being actively worked toward by both the Russian and NATO sides?
>>>Why?
So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late.
>>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation
Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force.
How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?
So that we could focus 100% of our attention on stuffing the CCP Dragon back in a box before it's too late.
>>>Should we also have rejected the interest of the Russian Federation
Compare the strategic utility of Russia in our alliance (#2 nuclear power in the world, extremely large military, shares a border with China) with the strategic utility of the Baltic states. I'd rather have NATO-member Russian tank divisions positioned to attack China's naked rear, backed by Russian ICBMs, helping us. I would argue the US hasn't fought an industrial power out of its weight class.....ever. When we eventually fight the CCP, we're going against a nation that is embarrassing us with its shipbuilding capacity, has 4x the manpower to draw on, and will be operating with shorter logistical lines. We need Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines...all of them to help. We need the Russians to do this again: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria ), while the US Pacific Fleet and JMSDF sink the PLAN, with India/Vietnam/Korea providing basing for the US Air Force.
How does Estonia help us topple the only other Great Power on the planet? The only other serious challenger to US hegemony?
First of all, that’s a very US-centric view. Second of all, as seen from this ongoing war, Russia is no longer a super-power, hell, it doesn’t even have a considerably good military to begin with.
But in all seriousness, if it were to come to a US-CCP war, everyone would equivalently loose no matter what.
But in all seriousness, if it were to come to a US-CCP war, everyone would equivalently loose no matter what.
This is how you get more nukes in the world. If NATO wouldn't help protect the Baltics, Poland etc then it's pretty clear their only option for long-term sovereignty would be banding together to create their own nuclear deterrence. No amount of training would stop a country like Russia (or the US) from trying their luck at some point.
Russia attacking its neighbors goes back centuries. And for that matter, so does western Europe and the US. If there's no formal alliance, then the western powers would be a threat too.
Russia attacking its neighbors goes back centuries. And for that matter, so does western Europe and the US. If there's no formal alliance, then the western powers would be a threat too.
You make some very good points. But creating and maintaining a credible and safe nuclear deterrent is VERY expensive. I think the trick to convincing people they don't need it is to not go around invading other countries in the first place. Mexico doesn't have nukes despite the US easily having a half-dozen reasons it could trump up for "regime change". South Africa gave up their nuke program (I REALLY need to study this one, it's on my To-Do List). Right now we are witnessing Ukraine shatter the Russian military, a pretty good endorsement of conventional deterrence against invasion at least for everyone else who is concerned.
From perspective of some people, like here, countries from ex-Soviet block do not exist and do not make sovereign decisions about their aliences. It's really weird to read (mostly US-based, left-wing) authors who simply forget about whole nations just to push USA-bad narrative. Which is even more disturbing once you see what kind of parties in Europe are pro-Russia.
Indeed, but that sentiment is by no means limited to the US. It's a story older than I am, even real intellectuals (like Chomsky himself) are consumed by this idea that whatever happens and no matter what's the reality of the situation, America must somehow be the bad guy.
I guess it started with Cold War, and Chomsky is just part of the generation that distrusted goverment due to internal issues (racism, womans laws, etc), but later started beliving that information about USSR are also fake.
What is weird from my perspective is shifting this perspective to modern Russia. When USSR tried to push pro-feminist, pro-international propaganga against USA, current Russia and pro-Russia movements are not hiding their disgust with LGBT+, abortion, multiculturalism and such. Which looks like minorities in this countries should be sacrificed on altar of anti-USA sentiment.
> Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement
Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation.
This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation.
This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
Baker doesn't set NATO policy for all time.
If there's nothing written down, there's nothing.
The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
Chomsky is a Khmer Rouge apologist. It's a well documented fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
Let's assume for a moment that not only he said that, but also made a promise, and later even signed it.
Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened.
Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.
Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened.
Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.
Anyway it is not Russia's business where sovereign countries are going to do outside of Russia's borders.
I think the entire point of the past ~6 weeks has been to demonstrate that such a sentiment is clearly false. Something the world forgot after the US demonstrated it in 2001...and again in 2003.....and again in 2011 (Libya, after taking over from France's lead). Next we'll be waiting for the Chinese to remind everyone, probably 2025-2030 (after they finish taking notes on Russia's experience and incorporating lessons learned).
This is naïve.
If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"?
We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.
If the Chinese government struck a deal with Mexico (or Canada) to put military units, bases, people, surveillance etc. in those countries, would the US just say "meh, that's their sovereign right"?
We need to be realistic about this, not idealistic.
[deleted]
So what? NATO antagonization wouldn't even warrant an invasion. Let alone this genocidal war. There's no excuses for this.
[deleted]
Additionally, insofar as lies must be written down to qualify as such, that in itself is quite fascinating and deserves its own separate conversation.
Agreements between superpower nations should probably be in writing.
Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
Incidentally, if someone’s breaking agreements, it’s Russia. They wrote down an actual promise to not invade Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
That is a different question.
It's not.
"We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
"We thought the US Secretary of State could make a verbal binding agreement on behalf of all of NATO" is simply absurd. Treaties exist for a reason; hell, a verbal contract isn't legally valid in the US for a $1,000 purchase, let alone to commit 30 countries' foreign policy.
Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved. History remembers a broken promise differently...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
And yet, nearly 2 years later, at the end of '91, Yeltsin said the long-term goal of Russia was to join NATO[1]. And they were slowly moving in that direction through the aughts.
If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error.
The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error.
The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
Most painful mistake was that right at the end of the cold war Russia wasn't strongly encouraged, even pressured or bribed to join NATO.
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.
> Most painful mistake was that right at the end of the cold war Russia wasn't strongly encouraged, even pressured or bribed to join NATO.
Because NATO works by consensus not majoritarianism, that would have given Russia a NATO veto, in effect. Despite that, Russia was on the NATO onramp from almost immediately after independence from the USSR until Putin demanded that Russia bypass the readiness criteria being applied to other new members and be immediately granted membership (and still technically was on the onramp after that, though no real progress was made between that point and when relations seriously started to degrade with Russia’s invasions of various of neighbors that were also, and more serious, NATO aspirants.)
Because NATO works by consensus not majoritarianism, that would have given Russia a NATO veto, in effect. Despite that, Russia was on the NATO onramp from almost immediately after independence from the USSR until Putin demanded that Russia bypass the readiness criteria being applied to other new members and be immediately granted membership (and still technically was on the onramp after that, though no real progress was made between that point and when relations seriously started to degrade with Russia’s invasions of various of neighbors that were also, and more serious, NATO aspirants.)
If Putin had simply waited, ... he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade.
At 70, I wonder if Putin thinks he doesn't have a decade to wait.
At 70, I wonder if Putin thinks he doesn't have a decade to wait.
He was 62 when he drew up plans to invade Ukraine in 2014. But neither of those actions in 2014 and 2022 really work towards the goal of protection against a NATO threat. It's clear he had other motivations.
if I were him I would see Europe as a very easy-to-manage relationship unless "viral democracy" is somehow a real threat, which I dont really believe. China is a real threat to Russia, and it seems that Putin has decided to become a supplicant to China by buying into their Us vs the West paranoia (which I also dont quite believe literally, I feel it is a rhetorical device to increase nationalism in China to keep people bonded together. )
Rumor mill is that he travels with a cancer doctor, and that he's dying of cancer.
Wasn't there some leaked medical records recently saying he has cancer?
taxicabjesus(4)
In Diplomacy, like in legal contracts, the written agreement is the binding agreement. Experienced negotiators like Gorbachev and Baker know this.
Baker's un-written assurances may have bound him (Baker) to personally help ensure his assurances held, if only to preserve his credibility in other negotiations, but all parties involved understood they were not being written into the agreement and therefore were not a formal agreement. These words had meaning, even when not written into the agreement, because Baker was telling Gorbachev the truth, which was that the US understood that moving the borders of NATO east would be a bad idea. Gorbachev heard that the US understood this. It wasn't a binding legal agreement, it was a statement about the political landscape at that time.
Baker is long gone from the diplomatic landscape and so is that assurance. This isn't actually a surprise.
Baker's un-written assurances may have bound him (Baker) to personally help ensure his assurances held, if only to preserve his credibility in other negotiations, but all parties involved understood they were not being written into the agreement and therefore were not a formal agreement. These words had meaning, even when not written into the agreement, because Baker was telling Gorbachev the truth, which was that the US understood that moving the borders of NATO east would be a bad idea. Gorbachev heard that the US understood this. It wasn't a binding legal agreement, it was a statement about the political landscape at that time.
Baker is long gone from the diplomatic landscape and so is that assurance. This isn't actually a surprise.
Not really since countries are freely violating written agreements that became inconvenient for them or accuse of breaking unwritten ones.
Diolomatic agreements serve one purpose, to enable future diplomacy and their importance should be evaluated through that lens.
Diolomatic agreements serve one purpose, to enable future diplomacy and their importance should be evaluated through that lens.
But the written agreements are the "diplomatic agreements". A lot of things get said, a lot of positions get stated. It's the written agreements that are the actual binding promises.
Of course, as you say, those aren't really binding either. The written promises sometimes are worth the paper they're written on. Verbal promises are worth less than that.
Of course, as you say, those aren't really binding either. The written promises sometimes are worth the paper they're written on. Verbal promises are worth less than that.
Sure, but diplomacy it's much wider than dipomatic agreements and diplomatic agreements are just one tool of it that actually seems easier to be discarded than signed with informal communication shaping actual relations and tone way more.
Written agreements are usually cherry on top of the cake made entirely out of verbal promises and real world balance of force.
Written agreements are usually cherry on top of the cake made entirely out of verbal promises and real world balance of force.
Americans adore the idea that...
I don't know what this sentence means, but you're not supposed to write arguments like this on HN. You can make your point without casting aspersions across entire populations.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I don't know what this sentence means, but you're not supposed to write arguments like this on HN. You can make your point without casting aspersions across entire populations.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
It is not that it was not written down, it is that it was not their promise to make. Even though the US president may be the most powerful person in the world, his time in power is limited, and the powers he is granted are limited as well. There are well considered reasons why treaties are acknowledged by national parliaments.
> Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved.
Yeah, pretty much all of the world recognizes that there is a pretty big difference, especially as to applicability several decades later, between different governments (one one side not even of the same entity, but instead the entity that was a leader among those overthrowing the one directly involved in the initial conversation) between something one official said to another in the course of negotiation and a signed and ratified treaty.
(Not that even a signed and ratified treaty between Russia and every single member of NATO in 1989 being violated would be, under international law, a justification for invasion of Ukraine—who is not in any version of any story a party, except perhaps as co-inheritor of Soviet interests, to the alleged commitment—in violation of the UN Charter and, in the case of the original 2014 invasion, Russia’s treaty obligations to Ukraine, and not that even if there was a legal justification for the invasion it would justified Russia’s rampant war crimes during the invasion.)
Yeah, pretty much all of the world recognizes that there is a pretty big difference, especially as to applicability several decades later, between different governments (one one side not even of the same entity, but instead the entity that was a leader among those overthrowing the one directly involved in the initial conversation) between something one official said to another in the course of negotiation and a signed and ratified treaty.
(Not that even a signed and ratified treaty between Russia and every single member of NATO in 1989 being violated would be, under international law, a justification for invasion of Ukraine—who is not in any version of any story a party, except perhaps as co-inheritor of Soviet interests, to the alleged commitment—in violation of the UN Charter and, in the case of the original 2014 invasion, Russia’s treaty obligations to Ukraine, and not that even if there was a legal justification for the invasion it would justified Russia’s rampant war crimes during the invasion.)
> Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved
I recently noticed the same thing. That this idea of innocent because of insufficient evidence (by some conveniently chosen, case by case, definition of insufficient) is pervading some Americans thinking on the variety of subjects including US foreign policy but also for example corporate responsibility.
I recently noticed the same thing. That this idea of innocent because of insufficient evidence (by some conveniently chosen, case by case, definition of insufficient) is pervading some Americans thinking on the variety of subjects including US foreign policy but also for example corporate responsibility.
Do we think so little of the Soviet leadership that they had no idea how our government works? That they were so ignorant of world affairs to assume a verbal handshake deal would hold?
The word of an administration is only good for the duration of that administration, assuming said administration is even trustworthy. If it isn't written down it's a pinky swear. To hold future administrations accountable for the 30 year old pinky-swears of previous administrations is just contriving excuses to blame America/NATO.
Did the the west screw over Russia? Sure, in many ways (support for color revolutions, not properly supporting Russia during it's economic transition in the 90s, denying it NATO membership, etc). But this latest bout of violence is all Putin's ego and Russian national insecurity. So long as they maintain the world's largest nuclear arsenal, no one is marching on Moscow regardless of where their borders are, and independent nations like Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States should be free to make their own decisions without being held to the standard of Russian paranoia.
The word of an administration is only good for the duration of that administration, assuming said administration is even trustworthy. If it isn't written down it's a pinky swear. To hold future administrations accountable for the 30 year old pinky-swears of previous administrations is just contriving excuses to blame America/NATO.
Did the the west screw over Russia? Sure, in many ways (support for color revolutions, not properly supporting Russia during it's economic transition in the 90s, denying it NATO membership, etc). But this latest bout of violence is all Putin's ego and Russian national insecurity. So long as they maintain the world's largest nuclear arsenal, no one is marching on Moscow regardless of where their borders are, and independent nations like Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States should be free to make their own decisions without being held to the standard of Russian paranoia.
The context of Baker and Gorbachev's discussion was only within the reunited Germany, not Europe generally. See Gorbachev's explanation at https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
[deleted]
> Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved
This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities.
As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too.
Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities.
As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too.
Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
[deleted]
The issue is not as straightforward as you describe. The promise was made and several actors confirm it [1]. That it was not put in a treaty does not contradict what Chomsky said. NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
> The promise was made
Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not.
Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them.
And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.
Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not.
Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them.
And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.
> NATO expansion is a huge part of the current conflict, and it is a pity that it cannot be discussed without smears like yours.
This is a common talking point with no relevance to reality. This is a war for resources (Crimea and the Donbas), a demographic injection to prop up Russia's own dwindling population, and, at the very least, a land bridge and warm water ports. How does subjugating Ukraine stop NATO exactly? Especially when NATO rejected Ukraine's bid.
It's a fig leaf. Any scrutiny at all reveals the true face of this conflict.
This is a common talking point with no relevance to reality. This is a war for resources (Crimea and the Donbas), a demographic injection to prop up Russia's own dwindling population, and, at the very least, a land bridge and warm water ports. How does subjugating Ukraine stop NATO exactly? Especially when NATO rejected Ukraine's bid.
It's a fig leaf. Any scrutiny at all reveals the true face of this conflict.
NATO expansion is an argument, not a reason.
But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.
But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.
I don't think the Guardian article supports your assertion that "several actors confirm it". It mentions that Kohl made a similar statement, not that Kohl was an "actor" in terms of the original "promise" or that he confirmed it was made.
Unfortunately these episodes of history currently sit in the crossfire of propaganda from both sides, some will claim it's current Russian propaganda to minimize its significance and the Russians will claim this is an outsized broken promise that excuses their behavior.
The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.
The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.
Exactly. It bothers me immensely that we cannot have an adult conversation about topics such as these, because people who only have a superficial understanding try to pick a certain phrase or argument as proof that you are on "the other side". It's actually part of the problem of why we cannot have reasonable public opinion a the moment, as journalists and intellectuals have also adopted this way of thinking.
It's not the US's fault that Russia's past imperial subjects are now seeking protection from Russia in NATO.
Parts of the US are able to put itself in those shoes. The DOS isn't staffed by morons, it fully understands why Russia felt threatened by encirclement, even if the press didn't.
It pursued that direction anyways, because what (aside from nuclear war) is the worst that could happen..?
(A full invasion of Ukraine, as it turns out is the worst thing that can happen - so far. But that's no sweat off the backs of anyone on this side of the Atlantic.)
It pursued that direction anyways, because what (aside from nuclear war) is the worst that could happen..?
(A full invasion of Ukraine, as it turns out is the worst thing that can happen - so far. But that's no sweat off the backs of anyone on this side of the Atlantic.)
I think those people exist, but they don't have much influence or defer to more bellicose factions within. Another ironically "great" example was the Iraq war. Who the hell let that go though and then not leak that the words coming out of the mouths of the higher ups were pure bulls--t. "Greeted with flowers, alright".
Now, where are these people, why don't they pipe up and tell us that they told the higher ups what would happen but got ignored? Why can't we be honest that we made a grave mistake in this case?
Now, where are these people, why don't they pipe up and tell us that they told the higher ups what would happen but got ignored? Why can't we be honest that we made a grave mistake in this case?
no more both-sides propaganda please. one side attacked and is committing genocidal destruction of Ukraine, not the so-called other side.
if all Russia wanted was Donbas they could just go here, take it, and eject the ethnic Ukrainians if they like, and steal the resources and territory instead of paying for them. Instead they go all-in on destroying as much of the country as possible before they most likely retreat to a relatively small region in the east, which I think was the original objective.
Russia chose to commit this massive crime, no one else.
if all Russia wanted was Donbas they could just go here, take it, and eject the ethnic Ukrainians if they like, and steal the resources and territory instead of paying for them. Instead they go all-in on destroying as much of the country as possible before they most likely retreat to a relatively small region in the east, which I think was the original objective.
Russia chose to commit this massive crime, no one else.
I'm not excusing Russian atrocities. We're looking at what enabled this trajectory. Lack of introspection leads to more stupid actions. If France and Britain hadn't demanded the extraction of wealth from WWI losers, lots of things would have fallen differently in history. That does not in any way excuse any of the action taken by any of the actors who made their own choices.
But we have to be careful of what stages we are setting up. another example is the "Mujahudeen". Yes, convenient thorn in the Soviets' ambitions but they would come back to haunt us. It's still their fault for their acts of terror, but we also gave them "life" by setting up the stage for them.
But we have to be careful of what stages we are setting up. another example is the "Mujahudeen". Yes, convenient thorn in the Soviets' ambitions but they would come back to haunt us. It's still their fault for their acts of terror, but we also gave them "life" by setting up the stage for them.
I was very confused why Russia felt the need to meddle in US politics reading coverage of 2016.
If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle.
Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time.
Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.
If we look at the timeline, US signaling intent to expand nato lines up perfectly with Russia’s belligerence, and it’s not exactly subtle.
Putin more or less said “we won’t stand for this” at the time.
Perhaps it is a lack of empathy as implied by the parent comment, but that seems surprisingly oblivious.
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced.
A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made.
On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made.
On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
The "promise" wasn't exactly as suggested in the quote. It wasn't agreement, but part of a back-and-forth thought problem. Gorbachev was asked if he preferred a reunited Germany to be a member of Nato and thus constrained by that alliance, or a free-actor--implying that an unaligned Germany would return to it's expansionist ways. Gorbachev followed up by asking if Nato would expand further east and Baker said no. But this was all part of the hypothetical posit.
Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not.
Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not.
Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
>notorious Khmer Rogue apologist
I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons:
1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense.
2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent.
His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:"
> As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons:
1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense.
2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent.
His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:"
> As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial
He rolled back his factual claims long after more evidence came in, and to this day hasn't acknowledged the misinformation he spread about the Khmers. It was one of the worst genocides of the 20th century, and his role in it was to sow doubt about it in the West.
I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
I think his reluctance is best understood as that of a proud man slow to admit he was wrong rather than that of someone trying to improve the posthumous image of Pol Pot in the west.
That would be a stronger argument if he did not actively work to improve the image of Pol Pot while he was orchestrating the deaths of millions of Cambodians.
People are like trains, they take time to slow down and change direction, and the Vietnam antiwar period was one awfully straight track.
Chomsky is frustrating because he sometimes omits context and nuance and lumps wildly heterogeneous groups of people together and implies they are acting in concert. For example, a couple of his books give the clear impression that George Kennan was a warmongering villain (but as a kind of throwaway aside without evidence or analysis). He also has a tendency to anthropomorphize institutions instead of treating them as complex systems, e.g. see his many criticisms of the NY Times.
Of course, plenty of Chomsky’s opponents have their own rhetorical and moral problems. As an undergraduate I watched Chomsky debate Alan Dershowitz, and Dershowitz put on one of the most disrespectful (of Chomsky and the audience) and academically dishonest performances I have ever seen.
It is unfortunate that many outspoken US detractors lose their voices once Russia or others commit clear atrocities, or just keep repeating non sequiturs about the US. It makes it harder to trust their earlier arguments and disentangle principle from reflexive anti-Americanism.
(It is likewise very damaging when the American president/military/intelligence undertakes aggressive wars, arms/trains paramilitaries in authoritarian countries, supplies weapons to murderous dictators, etc., first because those are bad in themselves, but also because they undermine American international legitimacy in cases where projection of American power can actually defend freedom and peace.)
Of course, plenty of Chomsky’s opponents have their own rhetorical and moral problems. As an undergraduate I watched Chomsky debate Alan Dershowitz, and Dershowitz put on one of the most disrespectful (of Chomsky and the audience) and academically dishonest performances I have ever seen.
It is unfortunate that many outspoken US detractors lose their voices once Russia or others commit clear atrocities, or just keep repeating non sequiturs about the US. It makes it harder to trust their earlier arguments and disentangle principle from reflexive anti-Americanism.
(It is likewise very damaging when the American president/military/intelligence undertakes aggressive wars, arms/trains paramilitaries in authoritarian countries, supplies weapons to murderous dictators, etc., first because those are bad in themselves, but also because they undermine American international legitimacy in cases where projection of American power can actually defend freedom and peace.)
Yes, Chomsky does have a problem with lumping together anyone who he sees as having any kind of a unifying interest, I think it comes from his early political influences which have a very pronounced kind of class struggle thinking, that shows up overtly in his writings on anarchism and implicitly color all of his future analyses. He sometimes comes close to recognizing individual differences within what he sees as classes, but usually when quoting other people, and the significance of what they're saying never seems to sink in.
It is no wonder he's so depressed about the future, the belief that anyone with power is allied with everyone else with power on every conceivable issue is as good as forecasting permanent defeat. For example he writes off the end of the Vietnam war as something that happened when business interests turned against it, not really thinking about the fact that business interests are not completely inaccessible to normal people and in fact are normal people. They're just not academics.
It is no wonder he's so depressed about the future, the belief that anyone with power is allied with everyone else with power on every conceivable issue is as good as forecasting permanent defeat. For example he writes off the end of the Vietnam war as something that happened when business interests turned against it, not really thinking about the fact that business interests are not completely inaccessible to normal people and in fact are normal people. They're just not academics.
> but it was never written down in any treaty
Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us...
- For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee
The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics)
At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items)
There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both.
Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us...
- For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee
The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics)
At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items)
There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both.
Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
That’s an absolutely meaningless story/analogue when it comes to international treaties. As mentioned, they were not between two parties who would even have a “right” to enforce it (it’s like your friend offered a house he didn’t even owned), and it simply doesn’t work like that at this scale. Is “make America great again” a binding offer?
The promise was made with the USSR, and not the Russian Federation. The former was a much bigger country than the latter, and Ukraine was a part of it just like Russia.
I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
>>>I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato,
Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus.
>>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus.
>>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
Breaking the Budapest memorandum was far more dangerous, now everyone knows that you need nukes to not be attacked.
>No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.
Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it.
I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic.
If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none.
If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it.
I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic.
If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none.
If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
Can you source the khmer rouge accusation? that sounds wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
ah thanks. im not super surprised that he didn't admit when he was wrong... just disappointed.
> No such promise was made, ever
This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links:
https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/
This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links:
https://martyrmade.com/thoughts-on-ukraine/
Is this site pro-russian propaganda one? (I am not familiar with it, I found it by googling your text)
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
yes HN is rife with Russian propaganda, and has been for years.
> notorious Khmer Rogue apologist
After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed.
So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government?
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda
In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward".
So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed.
So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government?
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda
In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward".
So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
What? Unless I give it to you in written, my word accounts for nothing?
No written promise was made, but there were verbal promises.
> Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
> Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
“There are plenty of young people who are appalled by the behaviour of the older generation, rightly, and are dedicated to trying to stop this madness before it consumes us all. Well, that’s the hope for the future.”
I'm sure some social critics thought the same of young people like Chomsky, who were thrown in jail for protesting the Vietnam War. I don't know if I'm being pessimistic or realist, but in the context of climate crisis & impirialism, we've seen history repeat itself enough time across enough generations that I'm not hopeful anymore that the kids will figure it out.
I'm sure some social critics thought the same of young people like Chomsky, who were thrown in jail for protesting the Vietnam War. I don't know if I'm being pessimistic or realist, but in the context of climate crisis & impirialism, we've seen history repeat itself enough time across enough generations that I'm not hopeful anymore that the kids will figure it out.
At the same time, we made enormous progress during that time - the environmental movement of the 60s led to the EPA, the clean air and water acts, and a whole host of other regulatory, legislative, and indeed societal changes that have actually made a real impact. On a larger level, things like the ban on CFCs later in the 80s were a global-scale response to a large environmental problem.
It’s easy to forget, but we’ve done this work before, and not too long ago.
It’s easy to forget, but we’ve done this work before, and not too long ago.
Well in this case the young people in question have, on a generational level, inherited worse circumstances than their parents. That hasn't been seen in the Western World since pre-WWII.
I'm not saying millennials will figure everything out, but there's no denying the shift in values. It's not some idealistic cultural awakening, just a harsher reality forcing adaptation. In the long run we'll probably ameliorate climate change and screw a bunch of other things up.
I'm not saying millennials will figure everything out, but there's no denying the shift in values. It's not some idealistic cultural awakening, just a harsher reality forcing adaptation. In the long run we'll probably ameliorate climate change and screw a bunch of other things up.
> the young people in question have, on a generational level, inherited worse circumstances than their parents.
If only we could go back to when life was perfect, like.. uh.. the 1950s.. wait no, things were better in the 1970s! I mean, not really since we had massive inflation and gas shortages.. uh, what about the 90s when crime spiked?
What mythical year was this where life was better than today?
If only we could go back to when life was perfect, like.. uh.. the 1950s.. wait no, things were better in the 1970s! I mean, not really since we had massive inflation and gas shortages.. uh, what about the 90s when crime spiked?
What mythical year was this where life was better than today?
Oh I don't know, that large swath of decades where housing was cheap relative to the last 10 years, a high school education could get a job that afforded a middle class existence and education could be paid for with a part time job? Hell for part of that period wages even grew with productivity, what luxury! Sure some things are better today, but the cost of the necessities of life are through the roof relative to wage growth.
Back in the 70s my dad worked his ass off between classes and jobs to pay his own way through his PhD, and owned a small house off his stipend/odd jobs and my mom's salary as a public school teacher, in a decent area of California no less. Even he's admitted that would be simply impossible today.
Back in the 70s my dad worked his ass off between classes and jobs to pay his own way through his PhD, and owned a small house off his stipend/odd jobs and my mom's salary as a public school teacher, in a decent area of California no less. Even he's admitted that would be simply impossible today.
>Well in this case the young people in question have, on a generational level, inherited worse circumstances than their parents.
At no point in history has the world been less violent and more accommodating for marginalized people. Or are you implying that is the problem?
Otherwise, I suspect you're just alluding to the high housing prices caused by every young person wanting to move to the same 5 cities and driving up prices? I mean, the US is big and housing is cheap in plenty of places. Starter homes used to be a thing.
At no point in history has the world been less violent and more accommodating for marginalized people. Or are you implying that is the problem?
Otherwise, I suspect you're just alluding to the high housing prices caused by every young person wanting to move to the same 5 cities and driving up prices? I mean, the US is big and housing is cheap in plenty of places. Starter homes used to be a thing.
And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually? Even, sadly, though that may mean generations of rebellion, war, strife, hardship....
>And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually?
That's called "whig history" and it's mostly an idea of religious origin: the idea that the world progresses to some moral or enlightened end.
Technology and scientific knowledge do accumulate over time. Actually, even those can be lost (tons of techniques were lost for centuries, and some are still unknown, when empires like Rome fell), but generally they accumulate, based on their technical and informational nature.
But society, morality, government enlightenment etc. don't accumulate. They can revert to totally worse than previous times at any point, and often have. That's based on human character (not so malleable outside of evolutionary time spans), interests (national, folk, and private), resource availability and contest for resources, who is in power, and trends, ideology and moral ideas prevalent at each era.
(E.g. post golden-era Athens compared to before, post-Roman empire medieval times, the Renessaince (the quentessential era of slaughter and war in Europe, and also when the Inquisition was founded and operated), WWI and WWII compared to the "belle epoque".
And those regressions was in regular, non existential danger times. What can happen under lack of resources like water (in most of the planet), climate change catastrophes, or even nuclear war, is even worse.
That's called "whig history" and it's mostly an idea of religious origin: the idea that the world progresses to some moral or enlightened end.
Technology and scientific knowledge do accumulate over time. Actually, even those can be lost (tons of techniques were lost for centuries, and some are still unknown, when empires like Rome fell), but generally they accumulate, based on their technical and informational nature.
But society, morality, government enlightenment etc. don't accumulate. They can revert to totally worse than previous times at any point, and often have. That's based on human character (not so malleable outside of evolutionary time spans), interests (national, folk, and private), resource availability and contest for resources, who is in power, and trends, ideology and moral ideas prevalent at each era.
(E.g. post golden-era Athens compared to before, post-Roman empire medieval times, the Renessaince (the quentessential era of slaughter and war in Europe, and also when the Inquisition was founded and operated), WWI and WWII compared to the "belle epoque".
And those regressions was in regular, non existential danger times. What can happen under lack of resources like water (in most of the planet), climate change catastrophes, or even nuclear war, is even worse.
> And yet doesn't history also show us that it gets sorted out eventually?
No, it does not.
It does show that it sometimes gets “sorted out“, but it sometimes just gets institutionalized. And even when it does get “sorted out“, sometimes the sorting out...unsorts.
No, it does not.
It does show that it sometimes gets “sorted out“, but it sometimes just gets institutionalized. And even when it does get “sorted out“, sometimes the sorting out...unsorts.
[deleted]
Chomsky tries to point at the 2021 cooperation talks.. but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
They were the entire reason Ukraine sought foreign help.
Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.
They were the entire reason Ukraine sought foreign help.
Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.
We could also remember Chechenya. What they did to Grozny…
Chomsky also didn’t mention that USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded the coup in 2014. But this is a very short interview, so he can’t go into detail about every time the US has undermined democracy.
And Russia had absolutely nothing to do with the election of Yanukovych and the widespread corruption. Their hands were so clean!
>>>Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.
I notice many users on HN start their "history of Russia" with the invasion of Georgia in 2008....but Russia has been led by Putin since 1999. We might have short memories due to our governments changing every 4 years...but this country has been run by the same man for 23 years. And I'm sure he has a long memory. So what were the key events from 1999-2007 that could have shaped Putin's perspective regarding relations with the US, to the point that he felt invading Georgia (and all other hostility since) was the correct long-term strategy? That didn't happen in a vacuum. I leave researching this as an exercise for the reader (hint: you can dig through some of my older comments as I've covered it a few times...)
I notice many users on HN start their "history of Russia" with the invasion of Georgia in 2008....but Russia has been led by Putin since 1999. We might have short memories due to our governments changing every 4 years...but this country has been run by the same man for 23 years. And I'm sure he has a long memory. So what were the key events from 1999-2007 that could have shaped Putin's perspective regarding relations with the US, to the point that he felt invading Georgia (and all other hostility since) was the correct long-term strategy? That didn't happen in a vacuum. I leave researching this as an exercise for the reader (hint: you can dig through some of my older comments as I've covered it a few times...)
Yes because Russia was so worried about us shooting down their nukes they had to invade.. Georgia?
Yes? Their options were invade Georgia BEFORE it's a NATO member, or allow a NATO-member Georgia to potentially host ABM interceptors at some point in the future, at which point they wouldn't be able to invade without fighting all of NATO. From a risk management perspective, for Russian leadership the choice is obvious.
Chomsky is absolutely right. We are sleepwalking into disaster and all I see is a deterioration of public discourse, where we fail to acknowledge how big the threat of extinction currently is.
I don't get why Noam Chomsky is still so revered by many. Every time I read something from him its almost everything bullshit.
NATO has nothing to do with Russia war, one should read Anna Politkovskaja 2004 book, it's everything there.
Didn’t he have an at least mildly impactful academic career in linguistics?
Yes, when? I'm talking about now and a totally different area. Maybe it's me, every time I read him I sense anti americanism
The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right.
The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.
The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.
It’s not a false dichotomy because he’s not presenting these two ideas as mutually exclusive. Maybe you misunderstood his argument (or what a dichotomy means).
His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.
His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.
By seeing this response as unavoidable, you’re turning out into a dichotomy.
This is not what a dichotomy is. Chomsky’s point is that both the expansion of NATO and Putin being a dictator played a part in the invasion of Ukraine. He’s presenting these two facts as the opposite of a dichotomy!
The expansion of NATO didn't play a part in the invasion of Ukraine, in any moral or rational way. By framing it that way, Chomksy subtly creates a justification for the invasion that does not exist. Which is my point about how disingenuous this logic is.
He substantiates his claim that the expansion of NATO is a perceived threat to Russia. Your mischaracterization of this as a “false dichotomy” with the other point (that Putin is a murderous dictator, which he agrees is true) doesn’t have anything to do with your unsubstantiated claim that he’s being disingenuous.
It has about the same moral valence as saying "Maybe Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is a twisted amoral dictator, and maybe they did it because of how Ukrainians voted in the 2021 Eurovision contest". But it's sneaky, because you can see immediately how ridiculous the Eurovision thing is, but the NATO thing is framed as if it might in fact have been casus belli. Obviously: it was not.
You keep insisting there’s absolutely no connection between the US signing a defense deal with Ukraine and Russia invading. Then what’s your theory as to why Putin invaded?
[deleted]
Where are the doomsday clock people lately? Putin et al. have been rattling the nuclear sabre for weeks now and I can't recall any stories about bumping the 'clock.' Officials and their punditry have been dutifully wagging their fingers about Russia and their nuclear capability, especially when Ukraine has the temerity to conduct any offensive operations; you'd think the clock folks could muster a press conference at least.
[follow-up]
So there was a press 'release' (as opposed to an actual press conference) in January, where we find zero mention of the immense pre-invasion Russian military build-up that was happening at the time. It has been pointed out to me that the clock is not updated in response to real time events. I suppose, except they took 30s off the clock -- complete with an actual press conference -- within a week of Trump being inaugurated, citing his "disturbing comments" about nuclear weapons, among other things.
[follow-up]
So there was a press 'release' (as opposed to an actual press conference) in January, where we find zero mention of the immense pre-invasion Russian military build-up that was happening at the time. It has been pointed out to me that the clock is not updated in response to real time events. I suppose, except they took 30s off the clock -- complete with an actual press conference -- within a week of Trump being inaugurated, citing his "disturbing comments" about nuclear weapons, among other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
> The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.
> The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.
The clock's been at 100 seconds to midnight for the past 3 years, there's nowhere to bump the clock to. "The clock folks" at the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists did have a press release in January of this year - https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/press-release-at-dooms-doors... and responded to the invasion with https://thebulletin.org/2022/02/bulletin-statement-on-russia... stating "This is exactly what 100 seconds to midnight conveys. It is dangerous, fluid, and unstable."
[deleted]
Noam Chomsky on here. Jesus. This guy is whataboutism reincarnated.
vegai_(3)
What use is years and years worth of scientific research and intelligence if all it does is cause our own extinction? We are just like Ouroboros eating its own tail.