The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Noam Chomsky on How To Prevent World War III | Current Affairs | The eminent scholar on the worsening threat of nuclear warfare, how to end the war in Ukraine, the self-justifying myths propagated by imperial powers, why the Global South finds American moralizing laughable, and more. Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has written more than 100 books, including, most recently, Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance, co-authored with Marv Waterstone, and, forthcoming, The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power by Noam Chomsky with Vijay Prashad. He is currently the Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona and Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Professor Chomsky recently came on the Current Affairs podcast to talk to editor in chief Nathan J. Robinson about the threat of nuclear war, how American culture often promotes indifference to the suffering of people in other countries, and the history of U.S. foreign policy that brought us to this point. This interview has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity. The full exchange can be listened to here.
The eminent scholar on the worsening threat of nuclear warfare, how to end the war in Ukraine, the self-justifying myths propagated by imperial powers, why the Global South finds American moralizing laughable, and more.
Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has written more than 100 books, including, most recently, Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance, co-authored with Marv Waterstone, and, forthcoming, The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power by Noam Chomsky with Vijay Prashad. He is currently the Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona and Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. Professor Chomsky recently came on the Current Affairs podcast to talk to editor in chief Nathan J. Robinson about the threat of nuclear war, how American culture often promotes indifference to the suffering of people in other countries, and the history of U.S. foreign policy that brought us to this point. This interview has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity. The full exchange can be listened to here.
I was sent a article written by Hubert Smeets who attempted to smear the live-long work of Chomsky as nothing more than an attack on imperialistic America. We should all join the media effort to support NATO in its stand against a dictator. Hubert Smeets is a journalist and historicus known for his blog a Window on Russia. Khodorkovsky and the Henry Jackson Society would be proud of him. 'Sapere aude'
Seven weeks after the start of the war against Ukraine, linguist Noam Chomsky finally appeared at the front. As always, the 93-year-old American had a relentless case again. Putin is not dear, but Biden is more to blame. America wants to suck the Russians into a "cruel guerrilla" just like in the 1980s in Afghanistan. He also has a solution. Putin must be given an "escape." This is possible if Ukrainians obediently come to terms with neutrality, the autonomy of Donbass in the federal state structure and the eventual loss of Crimea, Chomsky told the site last week. Current affairs The alternative is "the destruction of Ukraine and nuclear war".
Shorter Chomsky : "The cause of every problem in the world is American imperialism. I got that right in the 1960s, and nothing ever changes."
He should have prolonged his silence. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
This isn't a proxy war; it is a war between a hegemon which disagrees that those days are over, and a nation which aspires to join that concensus, but has the misfortune to have a long border with the aforesaid hegemon.
The danger for Europe is that letting the hegemon win the war sets a, to put it mildly, dangerous precedent.
I'm not a nationalist; international borders are largely arbitrary historical accidents; but allowing a hegemon to revise them by military conquest is ALWAYS a bad idea. Nevertheless, I hope that Ukraine will agree to a territorial settlement, because the war has to end. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
And frankly "..and a nation which aspires to join that consensus.." is ahistoric and completely removes meddling by one side from consideration. Do you deny that the first pro-Western Orange Revolution government was voted out of office, and I think our guy got something like sevenths place in that election? Or that the US was involved in the Maidan revolution to the point they got to pick the PM afterwards? And finally, Zelensky was voted in as the peace candidate with large majorities, but in the end was unable to implement any part of the ceasefire, at least to a large part because of the threat of violence be far-right elements.
And I certainly agree that the majority of Europeans would like to believe that that age is over, but what the majority of Europeans wants never mattered much when it came to matters of war.
How is this not a proxy war?
You seem to consider that the Maidan revolution is tainted, but no revolution is ever pure. It's axiomatic. That the US was in favour of it, or meddled, is largely beside the point. The actual people of Ukraine had the right to overthrow their president after he flip-flopped over the crucial issue of choosing between Europe and Russia.
Also rember : the government that follows a revolution always betrays the revolution; that's axiomatic too. Poroshenko, as an oligarch himself, was singularly ill-equipped to fight corruption. The fact that he was overwhelmingly defeated by a candidate who is clearly pro-European possibly illustrates a popular aspiration in that direction, no?
And frankly "..and a nation which aspires to join that consensus.." is ahistoric and completely removes meddling by one side from consideration.
I have no idea why you believe that the aspiration of Ukrainians to join the EU is ahistoric. It's been a fundamental, and divisive, issue for the last couple of decades. The succession of presidents elected - Yushenko, Yakunovich, Poroshenko, Zelenskiy - would seem to show a temopral strengthening of popular desire to strengthen ties with the EU and reduce dependency on Russia.
If you believe that Ukrainians have been fooled by the US into becoming pro-EU, rather than making a clear-eyed choice, can you explain the process to me? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
You'll have to walk me through that part. Consider that after Maidan, there was a certain amount of meddling by one side (annexation of Crimea, the Donbass war) which dwarfs anything the Americans attempted.
Maidan had, to the best of my knowledge, never more popular support than about 40%. And do you think that it's expected for a revolution to have another country's representative pick the political leadership afterwards? Political meddling is a matter of chronology, not arithmetic.
have no idea why you believe that the aspiration of Ukrainians to join the EU is ahistoric. It's been a fundamental, and divisive, issue for the last couple of decades. The succession of presidents elected - Yushenko, Yakunovich, Poroshenko, Zelenskiy - would seem to show a temopral strengthening of popular desire to strengthen ties with the EU and reduce dependency on Russia.
The point is exactly that it was disputed. Both "pro-Russian" and "pro-western" candidates could win, and would very likely not win reelection. Before the war Zelensky polled at 20% and if election had been held the "pro-Russian" opposition might very likely have won. But, of course the party leader was put under house arrest for conspiring with Russia (under orders of the Poroshenko government, funnily enough)
But of course, in the real world the US is involved and the transatlantic tendency now has regained its stranglehold on European politics.
My guess is that they will lick their wounds and stay out of trouble for 10 years or so (but what would I know?), giving the EU the time to raise its defense game and kick the US out of Europe. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
#New: Map of Ukraine showing off-road conditions for tracked vehicles (e.g., tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc.) over 30 tons in spring.🟩: traversable 🟨: difficult to traverse🟥: impassable map: 🇦🇹 Institute for Military Geography pic.twitter.com/rUVZSEWp2C— Franz-Stefan Gady (@HoansSolo) April 23, 2022
#New: Map of Ukraine showing off-road conditions for tracked vehicles (e.g., tanks, infantry fighting vehicles etc.) over 30 tons in spring.🟩: traversable 🟨: difficult to traverse🟥: impassable map: 🇦🇹 Institute for Military Geography pic.twitter.com/rUVZSEWp2C
As a warning ... Anne Applebaum resigned from a similar organ, the Legatum Institute. 😂 enjoy 'Sapere aude'
tl;dr: Parents are first teachers.
https://www.raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/binnenlandse-politiek/2094-why-russia-s-elite-went-to-war
The oligarchs who emerged under Yeltsin's rule gave up their involvement in Russia's domestic politics. They earned their money in Russia, but used the West to invest their capital. The balance of power shifted to Putin's cronies and security apparatus. After the annexation of Crimea their anti-Westernism became a platform for consolidation, argues political scientist Kirill Rogov at the Russia File of the Kennan Institute. A clear understanding of why and how Russia's monstrous war of aggression against Ukraine, a war destructive for both countries, became possible will require much time and effort. So far, the focus of immediate commentary has invariably been on President Putin, as the outbreak of war is perceived as his personal decision. However, reasoning along the lines of 'we are all the hostages of one man's insanity' is more likely to produce a fictitious answer rather than a genuine one.
A clear understanding of why and how Russia's monstrous war of aggression against Ukraine, a war destructive for both countries, became possible will require much time and effort. So far, the focus of immediate commentary has invariably been on President Putin, as the outbreak of war is perceived as his personal decision. However, reasoning along the lines of 'we are all the hostages of one man's insanity' is more likely to produce a fictitious answer rather than a genuine one.
Old oligarchs abandoned any ambitions for political change, post Khodorovsky, and went west; new oligarchs also dreamed of golden retirement in western Europe, but that went up in smoke post Crimea; embittered, they doubled down on a bad bet. A coherent picture. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 10
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 21 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 18
by gmoke - Feb 13
by Oui - Feb 131 comment
by Oui - Feb 134 comments
by Oui - Feb 126 comments
by Oui - Feb 113 comments
by Oui - Feb 11
by Oui - Feb 9
by Oui - Feb 7
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 65 comments
by Oui - Feb 59 comments
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 33 comments
by Oui - Feb 35 comments
by Oui - Feb 112 comments
by Oui - Feb 11 comment