Comment by bnralt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bnralt | Hacker News Reader

Instead of relying on this letter to guess at what Chomsky says, I suggest people actually read what he said. Here's the interview that the letter links to[1]. Chomsky says he wants Ukraine to be able to defend itself, but also wants there to be a diplomatic rather than military end to the war, and an effort to keep the war from escalating:

> I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it has to be carefully scaled, so that it actually improves their situation and doesn’t escalate the conflict, to lead to destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond sanctions against the aggressor, or appropriate just as sanctions against Washington would have been appropriate when it invaded Iraq, or Afghanistan, or many other cases. ** > However, I still think it’s not quite the right question. 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.

Chomsky is also quite critical of Russia:

> Well, two questions, points of fact: You’re quite right, that the overwhelming mass of the war crimes, the ones that we should be considering, are carried out by the Russians. That’s not in dispute. And they are major war crimes.

Saying that Chomsky isn't anti-imperialist because he disagrees with the method of ending the conflict in Ukraine reminds me of how people who opposed the war in Iraq were said to be friends of Saddam and against Iraqi people getting freedom and democracy. Whenever war fever grips the establishment, even disagreements on tactics coming from people who share the same general goals gets treated as abhorrent heresy.

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

[1] https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chom...

> 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'm not sure I would count Ukraine as being successful when you factor in the human cost of the conflict. Ukraine already has had a huge problem of people emigrating the country, this just multiplies that, not to mention all the men that are never coming back. Families, young men, prisoners of war, and even the men that do survive will pass their scars onto the next generation.

So: another country invades you, you just let them take over? Ok. Where's your house? I know a few people that might be interested in it. Don't be alarmed. Nothing will happen to you or your family. If you comply. They won't suddenly start making more demands, I swear.

Ukraine has been successful in slowing Russia down, but that’s about it.

Best case scenario now is Russia and Ukraine settle with Ukraine losing a bunch of territory.

Russia gets time to regroup, and if unsatisfied, invades again in another 3-5 years.

Remember, this didn’t start this year, it’s been going on for almost a decade.

Russia can win by simply keeping Ukraine unstable and ungovernable and slowly taking more and more territory. And keeping NATO at bay.

The Russians don't have the money to outdo the west, they will fold, no matter what their propaganda department convinces some people to buy. While Putin has a pretty strong grip on the country it's not as profound as the one Stalin had, and it will fail eventually. He will be assassinated or a coup will happen if he doesn't relent in the next year or so.

Perhaps. Or Putin and the Russian people will galvanize and feel the need to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons and/or shift their economy into a military output machine, causing further instability for Ukraine and the European continent. The US did it when threatened in WW2. What makes us think the Russians are less likely to use nukes or other terrible weapons than the US?

Because it was the matter of survival and existence of Russia as the nation in the WW2? Amazing things happen when you are under attack.

What are the same threats to Russia today? They are under no threats from the outside. Simple as that. The issue is that they’ve become increasingly irrelevant. They may work to become a modern economy. Russia is full of educated people, with a proud culture. Or they may rely on their past glory, expanding their empire by interfering with their neighbors. They’ve chosen the latter.

So Russia and/or China can annex Mexico into an exclusive military alliance and the US would argue “They are under no threats from the outside (China and Russia). Simple as that.” No way that would be the case. Alarm bells and missiles would be flying over such a move. Why do people not understand this as an equally alarming concern to Russia?

You are here missing only one very simple but important fact. Russia nor China are not superpowers. China may become one soon but it is not yet. Russia can be as concerned as it likes to be but if it steps over the line, it will get its ass handled back to it.

Russia has more nukes than any country in the world. That alone makes them a power to be reckoned with regardless of whether they are a super power by anyone’s definition.

Because

1. It's suicide

2. the Russia doesn't -really- need Ukraine and neither does Putin

3. see #1

Perhaps the US and Europe is pushing things to the point of their own suicide as well. The US (alone) is sending 50+ billion dollars in military aid to Ukraine for a conflict that has only lasted for a couple months. At this rate, the US will send about $300 billion in 1 year! That represents almost 1/2 of the entire US military annual budget and would dwarf the military budget of almost all nations in the world except maybe China. Talk about suicide.

How much did wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost? War in Afghanistan was only important for posturing. This is also the reason why when US decided to leave, it did not look back. Putin of course inferred that it is signal of weakness when it was not. Putin also inferred that Europe trying to keep good relations and keep doing business is signal of weakness. He stepped into trap created by his own delusion.

Only if you ignore Ukrainians sucessfull counter-offensives on Kyiv and Kharkiv. Worst case scenario possibly is a peace deal because, as you said, Russia will invade again in a few years and both sides will be better prepared.

Long term the only way for Ukraine independence is the equalization of it's military capabality with that of Russia. This war is a grinding machine causing heavy material and human losses for both sides but Ukraine with international support have better odds than sanctioned Russia. And frankly it's a bargain for the European democracies to support Ukraine now and later get a better aligned energy supplier and a weaker ideological enemy.

What's at play for Russia is the monopoly over European energy as Donetsk and Crimea have large recent-discovered oil & gas reserves. An independent Ukraine would certainly take over this market.

Ukraine will never be equal to Russia militarily. Its 1/10th the population.

It’s in Ukraines best interest to find some co-existence with Russia at an acceptable cost.

NATO is not going to do it for them and in fact is happy to sacrifice Ukraine if it benefits the overall security of Western Europe.

Israel is 1/10th of the population of Egypt and survived the Arab War where it was attacked by Egypt, Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. And the Arabs received Soviet support. Also the US lost at Vietnam. The Soviets lost at Afghanistan and Russia is a shadow of what the Soviet Union was.

Total population means nothing as it ignores that Russia demographics is skewed towards old women and that a large share of the youngers are from ethnic minorities. Russia is struggling to replenish losses and haven't mass conscripted. And sheer numbers alone aren't enough to win a war. Equipment, training, moral, tactics and logistics are also important.

Ahem, more than 1/4 (41.2M vs 145.5M).

"acceptable cost" here is losses in fighting for freedom or genocide. There is no choice at all, in case of fighting you have chances, in case of giving up it's death/rape/torture/gulags/deportations anyway.

Sure Sure. And the encirclment of Kyiv will be complete any day now.

Will Russia take the entire country? No.

Will the war end with a much smaller Ukraine? Most definitely.

It is possible but there are at least two serious vulnerabilities for Russia's forces. If UA can recognize them and exploit fully, large part of Russian army will collapse.

>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).

This isn't really fair to the context in which he's saying a negotiated settlement is the best option. Its more like he's saying its the least bad option.

Russia has not been doing well, but they are not on the verge of defeat and if they fully committed to it they could probably continue fighting for a year or more. The entire time they would continue their scorched earth policy that has already done so much damage that it will likely take decades to recover from.

Chomsky seems to believe that because Russia was considered a formidable opponent on the world stage before this conflict and many assumed they would win in a few days, that Putin is going to come to the conclusion that his only option for remaining in power is to keep fighting and escalating. Chomsky thinks that this will lead to the destruction of Ukraine without intervention from powerful allies.

He also thinks that the intervention of a nuclear power would significantly increase the chance of a nuclear war. He thinks that if a nuclear war happens that it is very possible for it to spiral out of control into a global nuclear annihilation.

So a more honest assessment of his promotion of a "negotiated settlement" is that he simply thinks that its preferable to the near total destruction of either just Ukraine or the entire world.

Note that I'm not saying his three imagined possibilities are infallible, just pointing out that he isn't ignoring all of the things that make a negotiated settlement a bad option.

> 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.

I don't think it's 19th vs 20th vs 21st century terms or whatever.

It's political-economic interests and contradictions and competing interests around global capital. A fight over who controls resources and which country's capitalist classes get dominance over resources and markets. Aka a classic imperialist war.

And clearly the Russians are willing to mobilize 19th century Tsarist style "Great Russian" nationalism + a heaping dose Duginist Russo-fascism in service of this agenda. But I think it's naive to think that Lavrov (Mouth of Sauron) and Putin and the people lining up behind them actually truly believe this cack.

That's for all the useful idiots.

Actually, Putin does believe it. He's stated many times, as have his subordinates, that his goal is the absorption of "Little Russia" and the rebirth of the Russian empire to stand at her rightful place as a primary power in the world (and as payback for the many humiliations she has suffered at the hands of the West).

You can see it in how quickly Russia installs collaborators in Ukrainian regions who suddenly declare that they wish to be annexed by Russia.

These kinds of idealistic psychopathic people do exist, and they are incredibly dangerous if they get into positions of power.

If you have time

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...

I see your point, but at the end of the day, when it really is two imperialist powers, USA vs Russia actually calling the shots, does it matter that western intellectuals aren't acknowledging the Ukrainian perspective? From my outside perspective, the Ukrainain perspective isn't what people focus on, simply because Ukrainians have no choice, or rather, there is only a singular choice. And they are entirely dependent on the whims of the two imperialist powers fighting a proxy war with Ukrainain blood.

American politicians couldn't care less about the actual Ukrainian people. This is about either crippling Russia and scoring the political points to say they did it, or securing money either for their personal coffers or feeding their local Military Industrial Complex.

I personally think that the Ukrainian perspective matters, but we(westerners) won't care until it's too late. Tangentially related, our most recent home grown white supremacist shooter was inspired at least in part by Azov battalion, he wore a black sun patch and lifted several parts of his manifesto from Brendan Tarrant directly, another neo Nazi that actually spent time in Ukraine, with the Azov battalion being an inspiration. I imagine Russia will also be facing internal unrest for generations for what's happening in Ukraine. Maybe this is their Chernobyl moment.

Actually it's the entire Western world against Russia. I've never seen such unity in Europe over a single issue, nor has there ever been such a big military investment here since the second world war. Even SWITZERLAND picked sides! This isn't anything like those old silly USA-led NATO adventures where the European "partners" would send some token troops and try to keep quiet about it back home.

This invasion has woken the sleeping European giant.

The counter argument is the Western elite are thinking the world has changed while every other country including Russia are still playing by 20th century Sphere of Influence geopolitics.

The US invaded Cuba when the Russians installed missiles, so is it surprising in the least that Russia is intervening when NATO moves up to their border?

Problem in Russia is that they imagine that they are a superpower in some capacity. They are not. It was believed in the West that perhaps they have modernized their army but they have not.

If you have serious interest to understand what delusion started this war then please read this text https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/16/ivan-ilyin-putins-p...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com