Noam Chomsky: A No-Fly Zone Over Ukraine Could Unleash Untold Violence

[Raze]

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine-could-unleash-untold-violence/?utm_campaign=Truthout+Share+Buttons

Quote

As war rages on in Ukraine, diplomacy continues to take a back seat in spite of the heartbreaking devastation Russia’s invasion has wrought. The post-World War II global architecture is simply incapable of regulating issues of war and peace, and the West continues to reject Russia’s security concerns. Moreover, there are calls in some quarters for a declaration of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, although the actual enforcement of such a policy would quickly escalate violence, with potential consequences nearly too horrible to speak. The idea of a no-fly zone is profoundly dangerous, warns Noam Chomsky in this exclusive interview for Truthout.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, nearly two weeks into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces continue to pummel cities and towns while more than 140 countries voted in favor of a UN nonbinding resolution condemning the invasion and calling for a withdrawal of Russian troops. In light of Russia’s failure to comply with rules of international law, isn’t there something to be said at the present juncture about the institutions and norms of the postwar international order? It’s quite obvious that the Westphalian state-centric world order cannot regulate the geopolitical behavior of state actors with respect to issues of war/peace and even sustainability. Isn’t it therefore a matter of survival that we develop a new global normative architecture?

Noam Chomsky: If it really is literally a matter of survival, then we are lost, because it cannot be achieved in any relevant time frame. The most we can hope for now is strengthening what exists, which is very weak. And that will be hard enough.

The great powers constantly violate international law, as do smaller ones when they can get away with it, commonly under the umbrella of a great power protector, as when Israel illegally annexes the Syrian Golan Heights and Greater Jerusalem — tolerated by Washington, authorized by Donald Trump, who also authorized Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara.

Under international law, it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to keep the peace and, if deemed necessary, to authorize force. Superpower aggression doesn’t reach the Security Council: U.S. wars in Indochina, the U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq, or Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, to take three textbook examples of the “supreme international crime” for which Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg. More precisely, the U.S. is untouchable. Russian crimes at least receive some attention.

The Security Council may consider other atrocities, such as the French-British-Israeli invasion of Egypt and the Russian invasion of Hungary in 1956. But the veto blocks further action. The former was reversed by orders of a superpower (the U.S.), which opposed the timing and manner of the aggression. The latter crime, by a superpower, could only be protested.

Superpower contempt for the international legal framework is so common as to pass almost unnoticed. In 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned Washington for its terrorist war (in legalistic jargon, “unlawful use of force”) against Nicaragua, ordering it to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the judgment with contempt (with the support of the liberal press) and escalated the attack. The UN Security Council did try to react with a resolution calling on all nations to observe international law, mentioning no one, but everyone understood the intention. The U.S. vetoed it, proclaiming loud and clear that it is immune to international law. It has disappeared from history.

It is rarely recognized that contempt for international law also entails contempt for the U.S. Constitution, which we are supposed to treat with the reverence accorded to the Bible. Article VI of the Constitution establishes the UN Charter as “the supreme law of the land,” binding on elected officials, including, for example, every president who resorts to the threat of force (“all options are open”) — banned by the Charter. There are learned articles in the legal literature arguing that the words don’t mean what they say. They do.

It’s all too easy to continue. One outcome, which we have discussed, is that in U.S. discourse, including scholarship, it is now de rigueur to reject the UN-based international order in favor of a “rule-based international order,” with the tacit understanding that the U.S. effectively set the rules.

Even if international law (and the U.S. Constitution) were to be obeyed, its reach would be limited. It would not reach as far as Russia’s horrendous Chechnya wars, levelling the capital city of Grozny, perhaps a hideous forecast for Kyiv unless a peace settlement is reached; or in the same years, Turkey’s war against Kurds, killing tens of thousands, destroying thousands of towns and villages, driving hundreds of thousands to miserable slums in Istanbul, all strongly supported by the Clinton administration which escalated its huge flow of arms as the crimes increased. International law does not bar the U.S. specialty of murderous sanctions to punish “successful defiance,” or stealing the funds of Afghans while they face mass starvation. Nor does it bar torturing a million children in Gaza or a million Uighurs sent to “re-education camps.” And all too much more.

How can this be changed? Not much is likely to be achieved by establishing a new “parchment barrier,” to borrow James Madison’s phrase, referring to mere words on paper. A more adequate framework of international order may be useful for educational and organizing purposes — as indeed international law is. But it is not enough to protect the victims. That can only be achieved by compelling the powerful to cease their crimes — or in the longer run, undermining their power altogether. That’s what many thousands of courageous Russians are doing right now in their remarkable efforts to impede Putin’s war machine. It is what Americans have done in protesting the many crimes of their state, facing much less serious repression, with good effect even if insufficient.

Steps can be taken to construct a less dangerous and more humane world order. For all its flaws, the European Union is a step forward beyond what existed before. The same is true of the African Union, however limited it remains. And in the Western hemisphere, the same is true for such initiatives as UNASUR [the Union of South American Nations] and CELAC [the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States], the latter seeking Latin American-Caribbean integration separate from the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States.

The questions arise constantly in one or another form. Up to virtually the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the crime very possibly could have been averted by pursuing options that were well understood: Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground. There was little pressure to induce Washington to pursue peace. Nor did Americans join in the worldwide ridicule of the odes to sovereignty on the part of the superpower that is in a class by itself in its brutal disdain for the notion.

The options still remain, though narrowed after the criminal invasion.

Putin demonstrated the same reflexive resort to violence although peaceful options were available. It’s true that the U.S. continued to dismiss what even high U.S. officials and top-ranking diplomats have long understood to be legitimate Russian security concerns, but options other than criminal violence remained open. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers had been reporting sharply increased violence in the Donbas region, which many — not just Russia — charge was largely at Ukrainian initiative. Putin could have sought to establish that charge, if it is correct, and to bring it to international attention. That would have strengthened his position.

More significantly, Putin could have pursued the opportunities, which were real, to appeal to Germany and France to carry forward the prospects for a “common European home” along the lines proposed by De Gaulle and Gorbachev, a European system with no military alliances from the Atlantic to the Urals, even beyond, replacing the Atlanticist NATO-based system of subordination to Washington. That has been the core background issue for a long time, heightened during the current crisis. A “common European home” offers many advantages to Europe. Intelligent diplomacy might have advanced the prospects.

Instead of pursuing diplomatic options, Putin reached for the revolver, an all-too-common reflex of power. The result is devastating for Ukraine, with the worst probably still to come. The outcome is also a very welcome gift to Washington, as Putin has succeeded in establishing the Atlanticist system even more solidly than before. The gift is so welcome that some sober and well-informed analysts have speculated that it was Washington’s goal all along.

We should be thinking hard about these matters. One useful exercise is to compare the rare appearance of “jaw-jaw” with the deluge on “war-war,” to borrow Churchill’s rhetoric.

Perhaps peacemakers are indeed the blessed. If so, the good Lord doesn’t have to put in overtime hours.

Speaking of the need for a new global architecture and diplomatic practice to adopt to the present-day global dynamic, Putin repeated, in a recent telephone conversation he had with French President Emmanuel Macron, the list of Russia’s grievances against the West, and hinted at a way out of the crisis. Yet, there was, again, rejection of Putin’s demands and, even more inexplicably, complete suppression of this ray of light offered by Putin. Do you wish to comment on this matter?

Regrettably, it is not inexplicable. Rather, it is entirely normal and predictable.

Buried in the press report of the Putin-Macron conversation, with the routine inflammatory headline about the goals of Putin, was a brief report of what Putin actually said: “In its own readout of the call, the Kremlin said that Mr. Putin had told his French counterpart that his main goal was ‘the demilitarization and neutral status of Ukraine.’ Those goals, the Kremlin said, ‘will be achieved no matter what.’”

In a rational world, this comment would be headlined, and commentators would be calling on Washington to seize what may be an opportunity to end the invasion before a major catastrophe that will devastate Ukraine and may even lead to terminal war if Putin is not offered an escape hatch from the disaster he has created. Instead, we’re hearing the usual “war-war” pronouncements, pretty much across the board, beginning with the renowned foreign policy analyst Thomas Friedman. Today The New York Timestough guy counsels, “Vladimir, you haven’t felt the half of it yet.”

Friedman’s essay is a celebration of the “cancellation of Mother Russia.” It may be usefully compared to his reaction to comparable or worse atrocities for which he shares responsibility. He is not alone.

That’s how things are in a very free but deeply conformist intellectual culture.

A rational response to Putin’s reiteration of his “main goal” would be to take him up on it and to offer what has long been understood to be the basic framework for peaceful resolution: to repeat, “Austrian-style neutrality for Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism reflecting the actual commitments of Ukrainians on the ground.” Rationality would also entail doing this without the pathetic posturing about sovereign rights for which we have utter contempt — and which are not infringed any more than Mexico’s sovereignty is infringed by the fact that it cannot join a Chinese-based military alliance and host joint Mexico-China military maneuvers and Chinese offensive weapons aimed at the U.S.

All of this is feasible, but it assumes something remote, a rational world, and furthermore, a world in which Washington is not gloating about the marvelous gift that Putin has just presented to it: a fully subordinate Europe, with no nonsense about escaping the control of the Master.

The message for us is the same as always, and as always simple and crystal clear. We must bend every effort to create a survivable world.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned NATO’s decision not to close the sky over Ukraine. An understandable reaction given the catastrophe inflicted on his homeland by Russian armed forces, but wouldn’t a declaration of a no-fly zone be a step closer to World War III?

As you say, Zelensky’s plea is understandable. Responding to it would very likely lead to the obliteration of Ukraine and well beyond. The fact that it is even discussed in the U.S. is astonishing. The idea is madness. A no-fly zone means that the U.S. Air Force would not only be attacking Russian planes but would also be bombing Russian ground installations that provide anti-aircraft support for Russian forces, with whatever “collateral damage” ensues. Is it really difficult to comprehend what follows?

As things stand, China may be the only great power out there with the ability to stop the war in Ukraine. In fact, Washington itself seems to be eager to get the Chinese involved, as Xi Jinping could be the only leader to force Putin to reconsider his actions in Ukraine. Do you see China playing the role of a peace mediator between Russia and Ukraine, and perhaps even emerge soon as a global peace mediator?

China could try to assume this role, but it doesn’t seem likely. Chinese analysts can see as easily as we can that there had always been a way to avert catastrophe, along lines that we’ve discussed repeatedly in earlier interviews, briefly reiterated here. They can also see that while the options are diminished, it would still be possible to satisfy Putin’s “main goal” in ways that would be beneficial to all, infringing on no basic rights. And they can see that the U.S. government is not interested, nor the commentariat. They may see little inducement to plunge in.

It’s not clear that they would even want to. They’re doing well enough by keeping out of the conflict. They are continuing to integrate much of the world within the China-based investment and development system, with Turkey — a NATO member — very possible next in line.

China also knows that the Global South has little taste for “canceling Mother Russia” but would prefer to maintain relations. The South may well share the horror at the cruelty of the invasion, but their experiences are not those of Europe and the U.S. They are, after all, the traditional targets of European-U.S. brutality, alongside of which the suffering of Ukraine hardly stands out. The experiences and memories are shared by China from its “century of humiliation” and far more.

While the West may choose not to perceive this, China can certainly understand. I presume that they’ll keep their distance and proceed on their current path.

Assuming that all diplomatic undertakings fail, is Russia really in a position to occupy an entire country the size of Ukraine? Couldn’t Ukraine become Putin’s Afghanistan? Indeed, back in December 2021, the head of the Russian Academy of Science’s Center for Ukrainian Research, Viktor Mironenko, warned that Ukraine could become another Afghanistan. What are your thoughts on this matter? Hasn’t Putin learned any lessons from Afghanistan?

If Russia does occupy Ukraine, its miserable experience in Afghanistan will resemble a picnic in the park.

We should bear in mind that the cases are quite different. The documentary record reveals that Russia invaded Afghanistan very reluctantly, several months after President Carter authorized the CIA to “provide … support to the Afghan insurgents” who were opposing a Russian-backed government — with the strong support if not initiative of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, as he later proudly declared. There was never any basis for the frenzied pronouncements about Russian plans to take over the Middle East and beyond. Again, George Kennan’s quite isolated rejection of these claims was astute and accurate.

The U.S. provided strong support for the Mujahideen who were resisting the Russian invasion, not in order to help liberate Afghanistan but rather to “kill Soviet Soldiers,” as explained by the CIA station chief in Islamabad who was running the operation.

For Russia, the cost was terrible, though of course, hardly a fraction of what Afghanistan suffered — continuing when the U.S.-backed Islamic fundamentalists ravaged the country after the Russians withdrew.

One hesitates even to imagine what occupying Ukraine would bring to its people, if not to the world.

It can be averted. That is the crucial point.

 

[no_name]

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/07/putins-invasion-of-ukraine-reveals-the-moral-and-intellectual-rot-of-the-anti-war-left/

“Here’s something every scholar of international relations knows to be true about Chomsky: when you read him as a college sophomore, you think he’s the most profoundly brilliant man on the planet. When you re-read him as a graduate student, you come to regard him as an individual blinkered by his own myopia.

In the mind of Chomsky – and, by extension, the collective minds of the anti-US imperialist and anti-war movements he has inspired around the world for the past five decades – there exists only a single imperialist power: the United States.

And while that may have been a somewhat reasonable but not entirely accurate assessment of the period spanning the collapse of the Soviet Union and the first major US withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, the recent emergence of a multi-polar international system – one comprising three great powers and more than a dozen middle powers – has made the Chomsky view of the world obsolete.

In fact, Russia’s imperialist ambitions in Europe and central Asia, along with China’s military expansionist policies in Indo Pacific, has made him and his anti-US imperialist and anti-war brethren appear thoroughly delusional – if not downright dangerous. 

Europe has been reawakened by the well-known Latin proverb ‘si vis pacem, para bellum‘ – ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’, as noted by Foreign Policy columnist Caroline de Gruyter. As every student of international relations understands, the international system rewards nations that prepare for war and punishes those that don’t.

Were you to condense a four-year undergraduate degree in international relations into a single paragraph, it would read like this: an international system absent a global authority or police force, or what scholars call a state of anarchy, leaves each country responsible for its own security, and because no country can never truly know the intent of its neighbours or rivals, it must accumulate as much power as possible to safeguard its sovereignty. 

Tragically, this realist lens of the world not only encourages arms races – but also invites both insecure and ambitious states to do awful things to their neighbours, rivals and pesky minorities. This is not the way the world should be, but it is the way it is. 

More to the point, it explains the conditions that produce war and peace. It gives reason, not justification, to China’s occupation of Tibet, persecution of Uyghur Muslims along its north-western frontier, and military aggression in South China Sea, along with its recent and ongoing military threats against Taiwan. It also explains, not justifies, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Buying into Russian Propaganda

This simple reading or understanding of the world as it is is one lost on large segments of the anti-war left, specifically those who continue to wrongly believe that US foreign policy is the root of all evil. This includes veteran Australian journalist John Pilger, who has won numerous awards for exposing injustice and promoting human rights.

His commentary during the Russian military build-up typified the anti-war left’s response to the war in Ukraine. Pilger – not once, but five times – mocked the US for warning of a Russian invasion tweeting that “Russian aggression in Europe is a fraud”, while accusing the US and UK Governments in an article on selling a fictitious war for the “restoration of imperial mythology” and “permanent enemy”.

Worse, he parrots Kremlin propaganda by smearing and dehumanising Ukrainians as a land of “Nazi cultists” – a bogus claim that has been regurgitated across the leftist blogosphere, which serves only to undermine global solidarity for the besieged Ukrainian people.

Unsurprisingly, they tend to be the same individuals and outlets that parroted Kremlin propaganda and conspiracy theories during the Syrian civil war, including those that dehumanised opponents of the Assad regime as ‘violent jihadists’, civilians killed under Russian aerial bombardment as ‘crisis actors’, and first responders in rebel-held territory as ‘al Qaeda propagandists’.

Ibrahim al-Assil, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, says progressive millennials are facing an “intellectual dilemma” because they have never lived with a threat from another great power, having grown up in a US-dominated international system. Their world views were shaped under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, when the US did whatever it wanted, unchallenged.

“The main global event for progressive millennials was the invasion of Iraq,” says al-Assil. “While they spent their adult life criticising it, it left them with a deep sense of guilt and shame… The sense of guilt, coupled with a distorted view of global politics, where the US is always secure and dominant, resulted in progressive millennials buying into two notions they loath: American supremacy and tolerating imperialism as long as it’s anti-US dominance.

He believes that this view – which posits the US as the sole bad actor – has left progressive millennials blind to crimes committed by rivals to American power, which explains why many ignore and even whitewash the “horrible and unprecedented human suffering” caused by Russia in Syria and Ukraine; Iran in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon; and China in Xinjiang.

“They saw the war in Syria as a pure foreign power intervention, ignoring the main role of Assad and how much Syrians didn’t want to live under him no matter what,” he observes. “In Ukraine, many argue that it was the West’s fault ignoring that Ukrainians made their decision to look West.”

They ignore that polls conducted in 2014, 2017 and 2022 showed that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians wished to join the EU and NATO and to shun Russia. They ignore NATO is a voluntary association. They ignore that eastern European countries Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia pleaded to join NATO to protect themselves from Russian aggression. They ignore that Russia has 3,000 combat tanks, 1,900 warplanes and one million soldiers within uninterrupted walking distance to the Ukrainian border. Most significantly, they ignore that there wasn’t a single NATO soldier on Ukrainian soil prior to the Russian invasion.

In other words, there is no legitimate reason to excuse Russia’s criminal actions against a sovereign country that posed zero threat.

Europe has been jolted wide awake to the necessity of hard power to resist Vladimir Putin’s imperialist ambitions, having learnt the hard way that ‘soft power’ – ideals, culture, and persuasion – isn’t enough to counter kinetic and hybrid military threats and attacks.

But to attain and maintain peace, Europe will need to commit to building an even stronger military alliance and spending more on defence – as the US has long demanded – which means that the Chomsky, Pilger and their ilk should quietly take a back seat. Their time has now passed.”

Edited March 11, 2022 by no_name

[Leo Gura]

I've actually been feeling that the US could challenge Putin with air strikes and he would still not start a nuke war.

It's risky, but the US is acting way too scared. Putin isn't an idiot. He's not gonna retaliate with nukes. If the US did a no fly zone Putin would respond with conventional warfare.

For Putin to respond with nuke he would have to be suicidal. It's a bad assumption to think he is.

[Vrubel]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I've actually been feeling that the US could challenge Putin with air strikes and he would still not start a nuke war.

It's risky, but the US is acting way too scared. Putin isn't an idiot. He's not gonna retaliate with nukes. If the US did a no fly zone Putin would respond with conventional warfare.

For Putin to respond with nuke he would have to be suicidal. It's a bad assumption to think he is.

This will bring a whole new escalation with a nuclear threat. If Putin is cornered and losing he lashes out. This much is proven. Nukes are definitely one of his possibilities.

What's more, even if the two nuclear powers go to war without launching nukes. This will set a future precedent where it's no longer taboo for nuclear powers to fight it out. I think Nato/US is right in withholding from the fight. 

[vizual]

Establishing a no fly zone in Ukraine would be the dumbest decision in international strategic warfare history. They would be gambling with the devil. And the result will be that from 44 million people involved in this conflict(Ukraine citizens), it will go up to a billion people directly involved in this conflict(NATO countries citizens). With the added prospects of nuclear warfare. You can't make such a gamble based on assumptions.

[BlueOak]

Noam Chomsky isn't a very rational man when it comes to crisis, his take on covid to force unvaccinated people to starve in their homes was ill thought out and terrible. I mean how was that going to be enforced? He overexaggerates the fear. I have fear of nuclear war, but the west is letting Putin dictate to them how to act as well. Here he's again missed the region's perspective entirely, and thus the reasons for the war.

Some people just want the NATO vs Russia to blind them from the reality of the region or what's going on. Asking for demilitarization when the entire region is more militarized than ever is never going to happen practically. Asking for surrender when the country is on fire, is unlikely. Asking for no Reaction initially when that would split NATO east to west, or country to country is also unwise. A reaction to neighbors being invaded is inevitable whether its done by NATO or others, at least this way NATO somewhat dictate the reaction. Especially given the history of Russia in Eastern Europe and recently.

I heard a great speaker the other night say, there should be no red lines on the NATO side because we shouldn't let Putin know how we are going to react. Nothing should be denied, nothing should be told to Putin that we will or won't do. NATO is making mistake after mistake telling Putin how we will react and giving him confidence to proceed.

Airstrikes on the convoys would of course help but are not as necessary as people talk about, Russians are freezing in those vehicles at 0 to -10 at night for weeks with inadequate food. Also russians have started to bring in civilian vehicles to bring food to the front, so taking out these logistic runs is having an effect slowly to erode the frontline. Interception of Russian jets dropping bombs on cities, especially if they are chemical I am favor of.

I feel it was stupid politically not to ship those polish jets. If NATO did that, NATO could say we've met their request and we've got no planes of our own in the air. Practically long range missiles are more what's needed to stop chemical attacks before they happen, more drones searching for them and searching for the artillery hitting cities. Perhaps no fly zones over refugee corridors would be an acceptable risk, this is Ukraine's airspace not Russia's.

Edited March 11, 2022 by BlueOak

[Yarco]

A no fly zone puts NATO at obligation to shoot down any Russian jets that enter the airspace. This puts the US at war with Russia by default if (when) it happens.

Maybe nukes get involved, maybe they dont. But the action sends the clear message that we are willing to start WW3 over Ukraine, and probably would.

Conventional warfare on a global scale for the next 4-5 years would be hell enough even without nukes. Dont think that just because it didnt come to the shores of the US during WW2, that you'll be safe at home this time.

If the options are WW3 or give Russia a couple provinces and hope they dont do it again in a few more years, I'm gonna go with the latter.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Yarco

[BlueOak]

4 minutes ago, Yarco said:

But the action sends the clear message that we are willing to star WW3 over Ukraine, and probably would.

Why.

You have to break this down. Why does shooting jets down equal using nukes.

*You edited your post and I agree with the bottom part, I was hoping that was the outcome from the start.

Edited March 11, 2022 by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

49 minutes ago, Yarco said:

If the options are WW3 or give Russia a couple provinces and hope they dont do it again in a few more years, I'm gonna go with the latter

It's not two provinces, it's being defeated by someone using force. but I agree, it would be better to give in and seek the defeat of the adversary by a slow economic death. total suffocation until they call free elections. this war would be very cruel too and not easy at all

[Scholar]

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

This will bring a whole new escalation with a nuclear threat. If Putin is cornered and losing he lashes out. This much is proven. Nukes are definitely one of his possibilities.

What's more, even if the two nuclear powers go to war without launching nukes. This will set a future precedent where it's no longer taboo for nuclear powers to fight it out. I think Nato/US is right in withholding from the fight. 

Once this kind of norm breaking occurs the future is unpredictable. Russia would not stand a chance against NATO in a conventional confronation. At that point Russia might use tactical nuclear warheads, and NATO might not respond with full nuclear escalation because they would know once they did, it would be the end.

This is the thing about these kinds of norms, they work well until they are actually tested. They are kind of designed so that there is a big inhibition so that they are never tested, and so that it is never revealed that they are just an illusion.

 

It's like we have two people with dead man's switches, and they both say "If you punch me we both die". Well, sure that's a threat, but if you do punch them, will they actually do it? And once you realize that they will not, what is going to happen then?

Edited March 11, 2022 by Scholar

[How to be wise]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Putin isn't an idiot.

This invasion proved he is.

[BlueOak]

28 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

This invasion proved he is.

Its more like acting on a fantasy rather than reality. You can be a smart person and put yourself in your own bubble of reality oblivious to the outside world. Covid isolation didn't help and nor did his desire to be surrounded by yes men. Even going as far to shape his country around his identity in this way, and making himself almost indistinguishable from his own countries history and it from him. I used to date someone with an IQ of 180 and believe me she still made mistakes but looking through it you can see why. I've seen great film directors ignore all advice around them and make terrible movies or decisions in the same way.

I can also call it both sides not wanting to see the other for what it is. The west has been covered well in ignoring Russia's concerns, Russia has demonstrated it didn't want to look at or understand Ukraine or its own status in the world right now. The military plans seem so rigid they can't adapt to the changing conditions. And almost nobody looked (looks) at or understands Eastern Europe, myself included but I am trying. The west also hasn't and doesn't want to recognize the slow expansionist tendencies of Putin. Putin doesn't recognize in the same way we do, where his countries borders end and others start. The west has to be aware of that. Nobody really wants to admit how brutal Russia still is but they are getting a reminder. Russia doesn't want to admit its smaller than NATO and eventually will lose if it carries on.

The longer this goes on the more things come to light that everyone was ignoring or couldn't see. Like Russia still thinking its on an even standing to China, or once again reminding us that the west form of democracy isn't best for everyone. The horrors already carried out by western countries in war, came to the surface again. These misunderstandings go through life like a crack. Its also because Putin is older, and the older you are the more you can get set in a certain mindset reinforced by experience.

I think everyone buried their head in the same way after Syria, again at Crimea, but things get to a point where they can't. Maybe Putin gambled everyone would just sit on their hands again because they'd done so over and over.

Edited March 11, 2022 by BlueOak

[axiom]

@no_nameI'm not sure whether the issue is restricted to progressive millennials. After all, Chomsky and several of his peers suffer(ed) the same bias. 

Whilst it is clear that Russian aggression in Europe is no fraud, it cannot be disputed that there has been, and there remains, a Nazi and latterly Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine with roots stemming back to the OUN movement of the late 1920s. Today, ultranationalist politicians occupy positions at the highest levels of government. This is immediately verifiable for oneself and is not propaganda. Rather, Western propaganda now seeks to downplay this reality having previously taken it very seriously for many years. 

In addition, NATO has never intended to admit Ukraine as a member nation, yet it has stoked the fires of dissent leading up to the Western-backed coup in 2014 and in the aftermath. Regardless of what the Ukrainian people want, joining NATO has never been a realistic goal. It has just been an exercise in chest-beating - a needless provocation with predictable results.

The lesson here is that Western propaganda is just as bad as Russian propaganda. Russia's actions cannot be excused, but they can be understood.

[hello1234]

1 hour ago, axiom said:

Whilst it is clear that Russian aggression in Europe is no fraud, it cannot be disputed that there has been, and there remains, a Nazi and latterly Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine with roots stemming back to the OUN movement of the late 1920s. Today, ultranationalist politicians occupy positions at the highest levels of government. This is immediately verifiable for oneself and is not propaganda. Rather, Western propaganda now seeks to downplay this reality having previously taken it very seriously for many years. 

I am Ukrainian and I think I am more of an expert on Ukraine and it’s history than most people on this forum. Ukrainian history is a lot more complicated than 1-2 YouTube videos. Plus during the Soviet times, it was widely distorted, my parents were taught completely different history in school than what I was taught. 

What you are saying is nothing else but Russian propaganda. Far-right political party in Ukraine during our most recent election in 2019 only got 2% of votes. In fact, Ukraine has a lot less far-right population than any “western” country. Our president is also Jewish. 

Honestly, whenever I tell my friends that some people outside of Russia actually believe Ukraine has a “Nazi” problem, they can’t stop laughing. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by hello1234

[hello1234]

1 hour ago, axiom said:

leading up to the Western-backed coup in 2014 and in the aftermath. 

Again, more russian propaganda. Have you considered learning Ukrainian perspective on this situation? You know.. people who actually lived through this.. who can tell you why they came out to protest in 2014? Or, like russia, you don’t consider Ukraine to be a sovereign country with its own culture, ideas, wants and believes? So why bother asking? 

Edited March 12, 2022 by hello1234

[BlueOak]

5 minutes ago, hello1234 said:

I am Ukrainian and I think I am more of an expert on Ukraine and it’s history than most people on this forum. Ukrainian history is a lot more complicated than 1-2 YouTube videos. Plus during the Soviet times, it was widely distorted, my parents were taught completely different history in school than what I was taught. 

What you are saying is nothing else but Russian propaganda. Far-right political party in Ukraine during our most recent election in 2019 only got 2% of votes. In fact, Ukraine has a lot less far-right population than any “western” country. Our president is also Jewish. 

Honestly, whenever I tell my friends that some people outside of Russia actually believe Ukraine has a “Nazi” problem, they can’t stop laughing. 

Its even more farcical than that. Russia has a significantly worse far right problem. Maybe they will be invading themselves next. This entire war is fueled by far right nationalism. Its going to recreate what they say they are against further in the countries surrounding Russia as a move to protect their identity and themselves.

If we are playing the labelling game:  Chechen General Magomed Tushayev who was recently killed was famous for his purges of people based on sexuality, or Vladimir Zhoga the Russian backed commander in the DPR was a torturer with links to Neo Nazi groups. They recently gave him state funeral I believe and heralded him a hero.

But there is no need for this as you say because the whole premise is a lie to try and support an invasion. There is no country without a far right, especially those in a war.

What the poster is giving you though is an insight into the propoganda machine in Russia and has been recently been pointed out to me, people in Russia and collectivist societies on some level prefer to be told what the truth is. So I have come to accept that due to this collectivist mindset its not just Putin that is at war with Ukraine, its Russia as a whole. In the west we separate out people from politicians, individual from state, in Russia they don't.  So appealing to the population like we are doing is a western way of looking at society, not an eastern one.

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, axiom said:

@no_name

In addition, NATO has never intended to admit Ukraine as a member nation, yet it has stoked the fires of dissent leading up to the Western-backed coup in 2014 and in the aftermath. Regardless of what the Ukrainian people want, joining NATO has never been a realistic goal. It has just been an exercise in chest-beating - a needless provocation with predictable results.

What you don't understand taking the Russian perspective is. People and the state are separate in democracies. There is no way to do what you say without the popular will to do it.  On the extreme, suppression of protest, and the government shooting protestors works the opposite in western countries than it does in the east. It causes instability not stability. When the government started doing that in Ukraine they already lost. In this war they've already lost because they are doing the same thing. Only if the entire liberal and Ukrainian nationalist will is crushed or removed will there be any hope of Russia controlling that country long term. Which they are attempting but it won't be done quickly, war breeds nationalism. 

As for them joining NATO not being a realistic goal, it almost happened. Chest beating no, western ignorance. NATO doesn't and didn't understand Russia and its obvious from reading Russian posts they don't understand NATO either.

[hello1234]

58 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

people in Russia and collectivist societies on some level prefer to be told what the truth is

That is what I’ve been observing in a lot of street interviews where russians are being asked what they think about the war, many answers were of following nature:

• “I’ve been following this professor at so and so institute, and he supports the war. If the person this smart supports it, who am I to disagree, I support it too”
• ”I am not a politician, it’s none of my business, if the government decided we need the war, it must be true”
• ”I trust my government to do what is needed”
• ”I’m not interested in politics, let the professionals do their thing and make such decisions”
• ”Putin is a smart guy, he knows what he is doing”

It was mind blowing to hear these responses to me.

I think you’re right, it is a collectivist society thing. Blue is definitely like that, I can see it in green as well.

Edited March 12, 2022 by hello1234

[Leo Gura]

59 minutes ago, hello1234 said:

That is what I’ve been observing in a lot of street interviews where russians are being asked what they think about the war, many answers were of following nature:

• “I’ve been following this professor at so and so institute, and he supports the war. If the person this smart supports it, who am I to disagree, I support it too”
• ”I am not a politician, it’s none of my business, if the government decided we need the war, it must be true”
• ”I trust my government to do what is needed”
• ”I’m not interested in politics, let the professionals do their thing and make such decisions”
• ”Putin is a smart guy, he knows what he is doing”

It was mind blowing to hear these responses to me.

I think you’re right, it is a collectivist society thing. Blue is definitely like that, I can see it in green as well.

Have you never seen street interviews of average Americans? They are idiots. They couldn't tell who the vice president it.

This is why society is not run by average people, but by exceptional people.

- - - - - -

Hard right wing and nationalist elements exist in every country. Nothing new or interesting in that. Doesn't justify an invasion or overthrow of an elected government.

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura It’s hard to believe that Putin actually thought he could end this in days. It makes you wonder what planet he’s on.