Nowhere in this article does it say anything about Russians admitting to cutting the cable, let alone doing it on purpose with malicious intent, so you are just making things up now.
The list of US acts of terrorism goes beyond the Trump presidency; it's convenient for liberals to blame everything on Trump but the bombing of Nord Stream occurred under Biden; Obama was droning weddings while Hilary Clinton was setting fire to Libya (using NATO, the "defensive" alliance that strikes first!)
All the previous cases of cable cutting, alleged by Western news papers without any shred of evidence, is a good way of beating the war drums. The war propaganda and hysteria this time is more intense than the Iraq war, which I think you are too young to remember. It is unclear what material advantage Russia would get from cutting cables, but with hysteria, reason is not required.
"Pro-Russian people" like me .. well I'm pro-peace actually rather than pro-Russian and have seen that the Russians offered negotiations with the US and Europe multiple times that were rejected. Negotiations that might have averted bloodshed. It's interesting that a "non-binary" person like you (according to your Github) wants to view people in a binary category as pro/anti-Russian rather than perhaps having a different perspective.
As to the substance of your last point: I remember Europe actually arguing against the US during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and now seeing Europe being a bunch of kept poodles that would prefer to commit economic, moral and geopolitical suicide rather than stand up for themselves.
The US is blowing up Venezuelan boats, and according to Seymour Hersh, blew up Nord Stream. Why would a few cables be beyond US/NATO capabilities if it drums up popular support for US extra-judicial interdiction of other countries' maritime activity?
Chomsky had been involved in linguistics and politics since the 60s, which is nearly six decades covering a multitude of events and issues. To simplify his work down to even a paragraph is an impossible task, let alone as you have done as simply saying "anti Western".
For example, during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Germany and France were opposed to the invasion, leading to "Freedom Fries" to insult French opposition to the war. The British public was also opposed to the war, although the the Blair government went along with it anyway. Australia had a similar position - public opposition but government went along with it anyway. Canada official refused entry into the Iraq war. Chomsky was also opposed to the Iraq war. Does this mean that France, Germany, Canada and the British and Australian general public are "anti-Western"? Since Chomsky agreed with these countries, does that make him anti-Western or pro-Western? Does it make the US anti-Western since they proceeded with a war despite formal or popular opposition in many Western countries?
I fear you have a certain definition of the "Western" that simply excludes Western opinions that don't fit your understanding.
As to who Chomsky met him; well as part of this Epstein story, Chomsky met with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. In your opinion, does this make him anti-Western?
Indeed, prior to his stroke Chomsky explained that this kind of meeting is why Chomsky associated with Epstein - for the contacts.
I suspect Chomsky is just generally interested in understanding an issues and not bothered by what it's seen as, seemingly to his detriment in this Epstein story.
I doubt you can find any essay or such where he said anti-Western action was good on the sole grounds that it was anti-Western.
It's difficult to summarise so many years of writing in a few sentences but from my own reading, he pointed out
a) many things done by the US lead to death or destruction
b) many of these things are justified in the name of good that doesn't stand up to scrutiny
c) the US government is often hypocritical
d) US citizens are heavily propagandized both for foreign policy and domestic policy
e) as a US citizen, it his duty to try and oppose these actions and since he's not a citizen of Iran, he isn't in a position to do anything about Iran
f) a) through d) explain why he is often seen as an apologist, to use your word, for Iran; he tries to explain, from his point of view, why Iran etc. do the things they do
g) a strong support of freedom of speech and opposition to censorship, including what he regards as private censorship as opposed to merely government censorship.
Chomsky had a stroke a couple of years ago and isn't capable of speaking; the family is trying to maintain their privacy and so there isn't much public information about it but it came out that he can raise his arm when he sees something he dislikes and it doesn't look like much beyond that.
But there is no indication or even accusation that he was involved in any sexual activity, let alone anything inappropriate.
It's innuendo and guilt by association, mainly by his political opponents, both on the left and right, that are taking advantage of his inability to defend himself due to his stroke. I think many people are being _justly maligned_ by their association with Epstein, but in a way that distracts from the wider issue of what exactly does it mean when so many powerful and prominent people are found in compromising or potentially compromising situations and to what ends it served. It's US kompromat and the discussion is largely restricted to maligning people without discussing the significance of it.
In terms of Chomsky himself, given his career spanned both linguistics and politics, an honest critique would either deal with their disagreements with Chomsky like how Norvig did in this essay, or how Hitchens did over the Afghan and Iraq wars rather than saying "he had dinner with Epstein" or "he had dinner with Bannon".
In terms of the Epstein issue, the best criticism I can see is that his association with Epstein, Bannon etc. makes him a hypocrite although I don't find this personally convincing. Part of the problem for me here is that his present infirmities make it difficult for him to defend or explain himself and I find it poor form to kick the man when he's down, mainly by people who just didn't like that Chomsky didn't agree with them personally. Especially when he largely made a contribution to the debates even if one doesn't agree with him.
What percentage of immigrants coming from those regions would you consider to be skilled migrants?
Many parts of Africa have below 80% literacy rates[1] and that's in their respective language; coming to Europe would likely mean learning a new language as well as learning a completely foreign country. If we're speaking about Germany specifically, Germany didn't colonize as many places as the British, Dutch or French so they are unlikely to speak German.
If you want skilled workers, why not simply train those workers locally?
Do the bombs dropping in war zones avoid apolitical people? If not, when is the appropriate time to get sufficiently political to avoid having a bomb dropped on one's head?
RFE/RL is funded by the U.S. Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM). USAGM is an independent federal government agency that oversees all U.S. global broadcasting. Under IRS rules, RFE/RL is a private, nonprofit Sec. 501(c)3 corporation. Chartered in Delaware, it receives federal grants as a private grantee. RFE/RL maintains a corporate office in Washington, D.C. RFE/RL is managed by President Stephen Capus and a Board of Directors chaired by Lisa Curtis. While RFE/RL is funded by the U.S. Congress, our editorial independence is protected by U.S. law. Further, RFE/RL staff are not U.S. federal government employees.
Well I am Polish, and no, you don't have to explain it.
But both America and Europe are very inconsistent on the matter; for example, the EU has placed something like 19 sanction packages on Russia. But it has placed none on Israel, despite the fact that Israel, since even just 2023, has bombed the Yemen president, invaded Lebanon, Syria and well, and killed large numbers of Palestinian people; I will let the lawyers discuss what variation of war crime that counts as.
Furthermore, when Poland helped the US, the UK and Australia invade Afghanistan and Iraq there was apparently no concern about about turning people into slaves, occupation, making Afghanistan/Iraq poorer.
Allow me to quote:
An estimated over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001-2023. Of these, more than 432,000 were civilians. The number of people wounded or ill as a result of the conflicts is far higher, as is the number of civilians who died “indirectly,” as a result of wars’ destruction of economies, healthcare systems, infrastructure and the environment. An estimated 3.6-3.8 million people died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/costs/human
Are you concerned about Western imperialism, and if not, why not?
As a historical note, the equivocation between Soviet/Stalin and Hitler is at best inaccurate. If you're Polish, presumably you know about "General Plan Ost" that aimed to eradicate 85% of the Polish population and similar numbers of other Slavic nations; while Stalin was a terrible dictator (which even Putin has mentioned in interviews), the crimes of the Soviets against Poland pale in comparison.
You can oppose Putin if you wish; but you will only destroy Europe's future, which the Americans will smile at as they buy up your industry and prosperity. Unfortunately, the hatred of Russians outweighs the Europe's comprehension of its own self interest.
Russia has about twice the steel output that Germany does, comparable to the United States (which has twice the population of Russia). Russia uses about twice the electricity that Germany does too.
Here's Germany doing its NATO exercises with broomsticks due to shortages