Open Letter to Noam Chomsky (and Other Intellectuals) on the Russia-Ukraine War

> And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.

This is, unfortunately, half the problem. Western intellectuals are working under the assumption that they are dealing with a state that thinks in modern terms. Ukrainians know that Russia thinks in 19th century terms, but this simple fact seems to be lost on the West. There cannot be a negotiated settlement to an old-style conquest; Ukraine is literally fighting for its existence.

It's like living with a psychopath. He knows exactly what to say to placate or distract or sideline everyone else, and give himself room to abuse and torment his target. And since Russia's propaganda machine is so effective, they actually have the elites in many places (for example Italy) parroting the party line. Hell, they even have the venerable and respected Chomsky playing their game!

To put it in perspective:

- Since when is it acceptable to invade another country, flatten their cities, send tens of millions fleeing as refugees, block their ports and threaten the world food supply, giving "because there are nazis there" as your reason? How in the hell did this ever become a valid talking point?

- Since when is it acceptable to invade country X because country Y is allowing it to join a treaty? Shouldn't country X be allowed to decide with whom they ally themselves without getting killed over it? That's like beating up your girlfriend because some other guy hit on her.

The Western intellectuals have been thinking in imperialistic terms (USA vs Russia), when in fact it's about UKRAINE, a sovereign nation with a right to exist, a country that did not threaten its neighbors or build up troops on the border like Russia has done (and then invaded). All they want is their territorial integrity back and to live securely. And no negotiated settlement with Russia will bring that because allowing Putin to "save face" will involve giving up territory, blocking any potential future defense pacts, and then sitting around waiting for invasion #3.

> The right question is: What is the best thing to do to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from further destruction? And that’s to move towards a negotiated settlement.

That's a frame, that Chomsky knowingly pushes forward, and it sweeps a number of significant issues under the rug (trusting the Russians, freedom, future deportations, threats to other countries, all of which are addressed in the open letter). And the facts might have proven him wrong. He's been saying so since the start, but Ukraine seems to have been rather successful in repelling the Russians.

> It would be nice if open and honest debate was possible before we made major geopolitical decisions.

Tell that to Vladimir Vladimirovitsj.

I think Chomsky’s original sin here is his treatment of Russia as a sensible actor who will negotiate in good faith. Russia showed time and time again this is not the case, and that it responds only to strength.

His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia.

What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle.

Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.

I really love reading Kamil Galeev's analyses. Glad to read that he has the endorsement of a Ukrainian.

The second thread is quite good, but I wonder if its author understands that he just described why all his buddies' efforts towards building the "non-imperialistic benign Russia without the color of the war" are doomed since the beginning.

As someone from the west who has near zero understanding of Russian or Ukrainian culture and history, I preferred to take a step back and try to find stuff I do have in common with them.

To me, the west sponsoring the war in Vietnam comes close. The ideological basis for that war was the "domino theory", which postulated Asian countries would fall the communism like domino's. It's not too different from the way Galeev paints Russian's motivation for invading the Ukraine today. The west wanted to expand it's western way of doing things. The domino theory postulated the reverse was happening - western style culture would be snuffed out in Asia by communism. So the west decided to sponsor a horrific war to force the issue.

The west lost that war emphatically in the end. Amazingly, that loss didn't stop the US and it's allies trying to pull the same stunt again and again in subsequent years, most recently in Afghanistan. And unless it's some tiny nation as happened with Russia and Georgia, the outcome has always been the same - humiliating loss. It always costs enormous sums, inflicts huge human suffering, lasts for years, brings down governments, and yet we in the west do it over and over again. It just boggles the mind.

Russia's foray into Ukraine looks very similar to me. Ukraine was moving from a Russian style culture to a more a western style. Russia loathes and fears the displacement of their way of doing things just as much as the west loathes any drift from capitalism and individualism to communism and cooperatives. Russia's attempt at fixing this by installing a puppet government in Ukraine failed. So they decided to fix it with a war.

It's amazing two cultures believe they are so different they are willing kill each other over it, are nonetheless near identical in their instinctive approach to solving those differences.

The outcome will be no different - Russia will lose this war, just as they lost in Afghanistan and the west lost most of their similar wars. And it will have no effect on the outcome in the end. The west lost the Vietnam war, so we got to see the domino theory pan out. Turned out it was a crock of shit, little more than a mass paranoid delusion. Asian countries (including China) has been moving from communism to their own unique style of capitalism ever since.

Unfortunately I doubt it will work out that way for Russia. Unlike the domino theory, its fears are well justified. Rule by law and well managed markets work better than a kleptocracy. It means you get to have nice things. In raw numbers, Russia's economy is about the size of Australia's - a nation with 1/5 the population. Another number: Australian GDP per capita: USD$50k, Canada GDP per capita: $40k, Russia GDP per capita: $10k. All are resource rich nations.

Young Ukrainians compared what they saw in the west and the east - and made the rational decision. You can only see so far in either direction, so in the east of Ukraine where their view of the west is obscured, they are still endorse the Russian way. But if you look at poll results on joining NATO there is a line dividing east and west. People on the western side voted to become more like NATO, on the east to remain with Russia. That line has been moving steadily eastwards over time. Russia decided to wage a war to stop the advance of that line. It makes about as much sense as trying to stop jelly sliding down a wall with nails. Insane.

I wish I could say our politicians in the west were better, but history demonstrates otherwise. That's something else Russian's and westerners have in common.

Referendum may happen soon in Kherson, and other Ukrainian cities.

Would it be valid?

Theres a reason the Crimea "referendum" is not accepted, and the issue is far from settled.

1. So: force natives out, settle the land with military officers and other not-collonists-only-in-name, fix some polls and call it Crimean agency.

Tell me: in 1941, did the Baltic States enter the Soviet Union willingly (via democratic votes of coincidentally brand new Soviet-aligned governments) or did it happen due to Soviet military coercion, threats and ultimatums? Was it a settled issue in 1945-1953[1]? In 1989[2]? How about now? Same question about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

2. Finding it really hard not to see this as victim blaming. Do you believe cutting off the water supply to Crimea was what prompted a military invasion that targeted Kiyv, among other targets? Should Ukraine have absorbed the infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc. to keep the water supply operational for a, your words 'settled issue'? Since it would then be an international matter, the water supply question would be governed by treaties, yes? Again, at the very least, there are costs involved in keeping the water flowing. Unless you feel this is a situation where Russia can take what ever it wants and get paid for it. A sort of Bullying as a Service, if you will.

3. First of all: what if Russia's the pawn? Secondly: did the US organize the 2003 Tuzla Island incident, where Russia tried to annex Ukraine's island in the Kerch strait? Might this be a pattern that's not solely the interest of the US military-industrial complex?

4. Whataboutism. Or, as the Soviets used to say: "Oh yeah? And you're lynching negroes in the US!".[3]

5. Since you are equivocating the Soviet Union and Russia, the US is objectively more benign. To paraphrase your point: you are making the same mistake that most US "anti-imperialists" make by seeing it as the most active and subversive force in human history. In terms of repressiveness and meddling in foreign countries (coups, revolutions), Russian and Soviet history is hard to beat. Bucha in 2022 is what my great grandparents and grandparents had to live through when the Soviets occupied our country. The equivocation is justified.

6. It takes two to tango, but it's hard to listen to the crowd shouting about how you should start dancing when the other side has just left the floor and stabbed your mother in plain sight of everyone.

Fascinating how you agreed that the Russian narrative is completely ridiculous and then ended with another whataboutism about the US.

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Soviet_partisans#During_S... 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way 3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

>You may not like it and the referendum was obviously flawed by repeated Western polls since 2014 have shown annexation by Russia to be widely popular (~70% support). So much of this post talks about agency. What about Crimean agency?

This is a complete lie. Also the USSR settled Crimea with many Russians to change its demographics.

Articles like this are kind of the point of this war: people exchanging views in a respectful ways in written form is a freedom we have that is currently denied to many Russians and that Ukrainians are fighting to preserve in their own country, which has been invaded.

IMHO the reason Chomsky's views are disappointing is that he in effect picks the oppression of Ukrainians by Russians as a lesser evil compared to them fighting for their freedom. War is ugly and Chomsky is of course a life long pacifist. So that isn't a surprising point of view. But you'd hope he'd value his own freedoms a bit higher. To deny that freedom to others is the bit that disappoints.

> many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue

What do you mean by "travelers" in this context?

The only way I can imagine someone on the "left" having a reaction against NATO and Western imperialism (your term) is if they have an ax to grind ... probably more with regard to Western imperialism than NATO? (Probably with specific regard to the U.S. and Iraq.)

This goes for Chomsky as well.

I've been collecting interviews and discussions of intellectuals who seem, to me, thinking about this deeper and better.

https://verdverm.com/ukraine

The playlist is more up to date

I think maybe you have somewhat idealized conception of the state of Ukraine before the invasion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine

Both Ukraine and Russia have been dominated by a set of oligarchs since the fall of the Soviet Union, who have amassed an extreme amount of wealth and therefore, because of weak laws and bribery, control their respective countries to an extreme degree.

I don't see why anyone on the left, should prefer one of the sets of oligarchs to the other.

I feel you, I just don’t think it’s limited to this one issue. I too strongly identify with most, perhaps all of the left’s causes: universal human rights, fighting world poverty, peace, protecting the climate. The only problem is, the amount of intellectual laziness displayed by some of the louder advocates of that side political spectrum annoys me beyond belief. For those people, policies seem to be accepted or rejected purely on gut feel and symbolics, not honest analysis of the consequences or even whether they would actually help achieve the purported goal. I can’t be the only one who feels that way, so if there’s an organized “rational left” movement somewhere, please sign me up.

The breadth of bad takes about the situation is absolutely incredible. I'm currently on the ground in eastern europe, I speak a slavic language natively and can communicate okay in a few others. Even in countries with a vivid memory of soviet occupation there are vocal supporters of broad concessions to russian aggression and even people who outright believe in russian propaganda. Several of my friends are housing Ukrainian refugees and are afraid to make it publicly known. A friend of mine was debating removing the Ukrainian flag on her profile for fear it would result in her children being bullied in school. It's fucking wild.

THE FUCKING RUSSIANS WERE OCCUPYING YOU A COUPLE DECADES AGO, IT WAS NOT A GOOD TIME, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THIS?!?!?!

fwiw I would say the plurality of people are in support of Ukraine but I never imagined there would so much visible support for russia, or even concessions to russian aggression. It's very disheartening to see any question about the validity of Ukrainian sovereignty.

"I am very disappointed by many of my fellow travelers on the "left" on this issue. "

Me too.

I am also very disappointed about their reactions to other issues too. Seems a lot of people on the left like to philosophize about issues but don't really like to acknowledge real world issues. I saw this when the rioting after the George Floyd went on. A lot of people refused to even think that maybe burning down shops is not a good response to racism. Instead they just kept on talking about systemic racism while ignoring the riots.

And now the response to Ukraine is often "Why do these Ukrainians make so much trouble? They should stop the killing and give up. They are losing anyway. We are pacifists, we don't like war". I agree that there may have been ways to deal with the situation better before the war but there is simply no excuse for Russia to attack the country and bomb cities. If somebody has responsibility to stop this, it's clearly Russia and nobody else.

> Actually what I've seen from Chomsky though so far is a bit more subtle than others. One of the worst I've seen was from Yanis Varoufakis.

Mr. Varoufakis definitely has excellent rhetoric skills, but many of his and his comrades positions and emphasis on resolving Ukrainian conflict would put put Ukraine on a plate for Putin. Makes me wonder what arrangements Mr. Varoufakis had made with Putin regime.

Perhaps apparachik does his analysis and writes books for him in exchange. Maybe popularity pumped up with bots in views, sales, invitations. Or an arrangement which protects the ground of democratic elections in Bolivia, Chile and others against a coup orchestrated by US.

All these things seem possible as the left never in history have been weaker to challenge those who have. And the prospects with Ukrainian war looks even more grimmer. And all of that because of a man who learned that wealth does not bring happiness.

100% agree. Like I said below, it's a litmus test of who is truly on the side of the oppressed.

There's also a significant % of the so-called "left" which has inherited from the dark and vile Stalinist past some sort of bizarre Russophilism. A kind of binary thinking that divides the world into "imperialist western bloc" and "anti-imperialist bloc" [that somehow Russia and even Iran and Assad's Syria are a part of]. Idiots like George Galloway are parroting lines like this.

> This is a good opportunity to suss out which of your "anti-imperialist" friends are anti-imperialist, and which are actually just anti-US-imperialist.

This opportunity has existed for some time. It’s clear to me at least where most Americans stand on this matter. I watched an In Depth with Chomsky on C-SPAN about a month back when in my opinion he summarized the position succinctly: America is willing to fight Russia and the invasion with every last Ukrainian.

I've found it shocking that people on the left have willfully taken up de-facto support of Russia in their zeal to oppose the US on ideological grounds. The MAGA crowd and the far right in the US are no better and perhaps much worse, but these people should know better. It's a deadly trap for them.

That people can say that Ukraine is being manipulated by others into defending their country to the death makes no sense at all. The remaining claims are wife beater logic: Look what you made me do! Russia had to invade Ukraine because they wouldn't behave, because NATO wasn't cowed and showed no respect!

Criticizing Noam Chomsky for not being sincerely anti-imperialist is a pretty remarkable.

It’s interesting that so many people now deem to authoritatively speak of the agency of a country whose geopolitics were relatively unknown until recently. Chomsky and others simply have the benefit of having watched this completely avoidable tragedy unfold. Putins rise to power, Russia’s ostracization from the western order, etc. And I could say the same in the inverse: there are many who had no interest in anti-imperialism until it aligned with anti-Russian and pro U.S. sentiment. It’s easy to tell from the fact that U.S. imperialism that has been going on alongside the Russian invasion has gone almost entirely ignored. (Somalia being the latest example) Ultimately this is a pointless argument — the stage has been set, the rules agreed upon. The U.S. and EU will fund Ukraine indefinitely and NATO will continue to take in European countries. I hope and pray that the war comes to a resolution that allows Ukraine to keep its sovereignty on its own terms.

I think you're missing that what is now being fought over is whether USA should have control over Ukraine or whether Russia should.

I think you can be an anti-imperialist and not have a strong preference for neither USA nor Russia controlling Ukraine.

And you can be against the war, and against imperialism and so naturally be against arming Ukraine to keep the war going and becoming even more vile and bloody.

Not just anti-imperialism but many other political and philosophical opinions too.

Many things in history and politics are dense. It's expected that people will disagree on these things.

But every so often something happens which is genuinely quite simple to understand. This Ukraine invasion allows you to discriminate between those who are still committed to reality and those who are not.

If you cannot understand that countries desire to join Nato (because they understand the Kremlin better than most Westerners); that ex-KGB Putin holding a candle once a year doesn't make him the grand protector of Christendom; that Russians are victims of this regime too; that this invasion was predicted by many (see Kasparov); etc etc... Then I really cannot take you serious anymore.

What is a fact is that Ukraine is caught between the geo-politics of US and Russia because of incompetent Ukrainian political leadership. Unlike the Ukranian and NATO propaganda that tries to portray the current Ukrainian President as a hero, anyone who has a good grasp of politics can see that the man is clearly politically incompetent. He is foolish enough to believe that he can stay in power and derive political mileage by siding with one power while openly snubbing another (clearly showing no understanding of geo-politics and spheres of influence and their own standing in the world order). While Biden and Putin's ego in the conflict are understandable because of their superpower rivalry, it is incredibly sad that the amateur politics of the current Ukranian leadership has plunged the country into such a disaster.

Ukraine is just another Iraq or Afghanistan because of similar incompetent and selfish leadership who care more about politics than the suffering of their fellow citizens.

I have no doubt that by the time the conflict ends, US and Russia would have balkanised Ukraine, and the war will turn into a stalemate prolonged low-intensity conflict with proxy battles between the superpowers in this region. Both Russia and US want to prolong the battle, as it is in their interest to do so, and the incompetent Ukranian leadership is totally blind to this.

When it comes to foreign policy, the Ukrainians have as much agency as the average American, and it doesn’t help them that in this case it’s American foreign policy that has caused them issue.

No, what’s amazing is hearing people who are well versed in the multiple US foreign adventures that more often than not results in thousands of civilian deaths, political instability and worsening opinions about the US, vehemently argue that of course the US should intervene and anyone who even raises the idea that maybe we should mind our own business gets labeled as “pro-Russia”.

The left is basically parroting the exact same language the right did for all its foreign interventions.

I am unabashedly a fan of my country. As soon as the US showed some disinterest in Europe and pull back a bit because we have a ton of internal issues and issues with China. Because Trump opened up the doors and made NATO look weak Russia attacked Ukraine thinking NATO would just let it slide. I have been a critic of the Afghan war in particular and what happened in Libya. However, I 100% agree with fighting off Russian aggression in Europe. If Ukraine falls then Russia will roll over all the former Soviet satellite countries and take them back as well. The US doesn't just pass a bipartisan $40 billion for no reason. We know it will cost trillions if the Russians aren't stopped now.

> only influence and power matter.

Can I suggest "interests and power" instead. Influence is a form of power and it's important to pay attention to interests, which drive the use of power. I should also highlight that cost vs. benefit is the other determining factor.

>good and evil don't matter, only influence and power matter.

"Good" and "evil" are loaded stand-ins for sets of values and actions, but consider: the U.S. has more influence and power than China. Which country would you rather live in or be influenced by?

What I've seen from Chomsky so far didn't actually seem to really reflect what I saw in this letter.

He was mainly doing what Chomsky always does which is point out the crimes and hypocrisies of various western governments.

But he's always been fairly consistently against authoritarian governments and dictators. I'll have to go digging to see exactly what this letter is responding to.

Some other western leftists do sound like this, though. Yanis Varoufakis did an annoying interview for example.

You could try to understand what people on the ground think instead of what warmongering media tells you: https://youtu.be/i1I8SZeXGFo

Then, you would understand more what Chomsky is saying.

He is a very old man. Not to demean him but he is not what he once was.

No, you just need to pay close attention and actually understand his words.

Take for example the Bosnian war. People are quick to misrepresent Chomskys views as supporting the Serbs position. He just was against actions which would escalate the conflict. And he was correct. NATO involvement spurred genocide.

His points on Ukraine are nuanced. Ukrainians hate it because they want everyone to just whole-sale support them. True support of Ukraine is pushing for peace. Arming Ukraine is akin to someone encouraging a little kid to fight an older bully. All we will accomplish is the eventual hurt of the kid.

> Becoming an academic and pushing policy is inaccessible to most working people.

What... he's famous precisely for turning many people into progressives and socialists. Nobody would even know he's a linguist or geopolitical theorist otherwise. He's literally a popularizer for the left.

> We need a Fifth International where we can all come together and agree once and for all that state capitalism is not socialism, and China and Russia are officially capitalist countries with absurd levels of communist propaganda.

This I can get behind though. I don't think it will succeed though, Russia and China have paid a lot for their lackeys on the left.

> Would Ukrainians really want it

Yes.

> Would Ukrainians really want it or they just want the invasion to be stopped?

They’ve already said yes in 2014.

> kinda like Spain and Catalonia

What an utterly inappropriate comparison.

>It then mentions that the referendum was held at gunpoint, which I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, could they not vote whatever they wanted in it?

Yes, this usually means exactly that. For example, that Crimean Tartar community members were kidnapped, arrested, disappeared, deported or killed before, during and after the referendum. It also means that vote counting was rigged, ballot stuffing was prevalent, people were coerced into voting, and that the very question posed in the referendum was completely biased.

> Here they try to imply that the objective is to kill every Ukrainian while not explicitly mentioning it, while it seems that the goal is to instead eliminate the idea of Ukrainian separatism. (kinda like Spain and Catalonia)

Your statement seems to imply that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, otherwise it pains me to understand how it could be 'separatist'. Care to elaborate?

Russia's official statements regarding Ukrainian sovereignty, nationhood, and nationality do speak of 'elimination'. Russian actions in occupied territories of Ukraine indicate that this is, indeed, one of their war aims. Since the elimination of a nationality and its culture is what's known as committing a genocide, I have to ask: are you saying that Spain is committing a genocide in Catalonia?

Ridiculously schematic thinking. Have you considered that "the west" might be composed of more than one train of thought and motive? Who is this "they" doing the pretending here?

Very black & white, binary thinking.

"The west camp is equally rotten"

I don't think you realize the depth of the cleptocracy that is Russia. There is a reason why all the nations from behind the former Iron Curtain would rather fight to the death than end up under their control again.

Of all the bloody, miserable empires of the world, the Russian one is the most dysfunctional and has been so for centuries. It is a historical outlier, a poor and underdeveloped nation conquering its richer and more developed neighbors to the west by sheer brute force. Hopefully it seems that the recipe no longer works.

How does the West make money? We’re giving away billions worth of military equipment and ammunition. While also implementing oil and gas bans that will hurt Western (the EU mostly) economies really bad.

I'm curious as to how you dismiss the first pattern, specifically, Russia's treatment of indigenous Crimean Tatars as well as the laughable 2014 "referendum"