Noam Chomsky on Ukraine and Beyond (Lecture)

“Meanwhile, by extending the conflict instead of seeking to end it, we impose severe costs on Ukrainians, drive millions of people to death by starvation, hurtle the burning planet even more rapidly to the sixth mass extinction, and — if we are lucky — escape terminal war.”

In this presentation, Noam Chomsky will touch on the roots of the Ukraine war and potential paths to a sane resolution through an all-out effort of diplomacy and statecraft. He will examine the disastrous strategy the U.S. is presently pursuing in Ukraine and the implications of Finland and Sweden joining NATO. But he will expand the scope of his analysis by looking at the frightening impacts that the decisions of “world leaders” toward this “criminal Russian invasion” are having far beyond Ukraine. For instance, he sees the perpetuation of the war as basically a program of mass murder through starvation throughout much of the Global South.

But a major focus of this presentation will be the impact of the Ukraine war and the way the world has responded to it on the prospects of the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced: the prospects for human survival itself. He will examine the specific ways in which the decision of U.S. leaders to exploit the invasion to `harm Russia’ and possible Russian responses are increasing the likelihood of terminal nuclear war as well as hastening our demise through global warming if we should somehow dodge that nuclear bullet.

The presentation raises a fundamental question: whether the gap between our technical capacity to destroy and the human moral capacity to control that technical capacity can be bridged. Always the optimist about human capabilities when confronted with injustice, gruesome wars or now, with extinction itself, Noam will remind viewers that — as the history of social movements has shown — “it is within our power to bring about the answer that we all hope for, but there is no time to waste”.

Sponsored by Massachusetts Peace Action

[meawilliams]

It is great to hear Noam in this "unprecedented time". Noam, thanks for being with us, for sharing your critical comments with us! Stay safe & be well!!

[ApolloBassGuitar]

Wow Noam Chomsky might be the most humble and active guest in media

[floydwilkes]

A grand soul! A true elder. A cultural hero, champion of truth, seer and revealor. Without truth and reconciliation, healing is not possible.

[gerdfehlbaum]

It is hard when you have a good friend, uncle America, the shining city on the hill, and you love his culture, dance his tune, move over there and live with him, but slowly but shurely you find out what a brutal guy he is, what a bully, what a history he has. Really hard! I try to stay as far away from that friend now....
Big cheers to Noam, the shining candle in the night!

[RainmanCT]

Please post the date of this interview, it helps to have a context for his remarks. I believe that this is at least a few months old.

[luperamos]

Wasn't this video conducted a while back? I think it may have been posted some weeks ago.

[antonemilit]

I see Noam is taking on the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberlain.

[paifu.]

What is the date of when this was recorded please?

[ardijanzenuni]

what does he say on inflation he is good on economy as well

[moderneurope]

Dear Professor Chomsky,

We are a group of Ukrainian academic economists who were grieved by a series of your recent interviews and commentaries on the Russian war on Ukraine. We believe that your public opinion on this matter is counter-productive to bringing an end to the unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine and all the deaths and suffering it has brought into our home country.

Having familiarized ourselves with the body of your interviews on this matter, we noticed several recurring fallacies in your line of argument. In what follows, we wish to point out these patterns to you, alongside our brief response:

Pattern #1: Denying Ukraine’s sovereign integrity

In your interview to Jeremy Scahill at The Intercept from April 14, 2022 you claimed: “The fact of the matter is Crimea is off the table. We may not like it. Crimeans apparently do like it.” We wish to bring to your attention several historical facts:

First, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 has violated the Budapest memorandum (in which it promised to respect and protect Ukrainian borders, including Crimea), the Treaty on Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation (which it signed with Ukraine in 1997 with the same promises), and, according to the order of the UN International Court of Justice, it violated the international law.

Second, “Crimeans” is not an ethnicity or a cohesive group of people—but Crimean Tatars are. These are the indigenous people of Crimea, who were deported by Stalin in 1944 (and were able to come back home only after the USSR fell apart), and were forced to flee again in 2014 when Russia occupied Crimea. Of those who stayed, dozens have been persecuted, jailed on false charges and missing, probably dead.

Third, if by “liking” you refer to the outcome of the Crimean “referendum” on March 16, 2014, please note that this “referendum” was held at gunpoint and declared invalid by the General Assembly of the United Nations. At the same time, the majority of voters in Crimea supported Ukraine’s independence in 1991.

Pattern #2: Treating Ukraine as an American pawn on a geo-political chessboard

Whether willingly or unwillingly, your interviews insinuate that Ukrainians are fighting with Russians because the US instigated them to do so, that Euromaidan happened because the US tried to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, etc. Such an attitude denies the agency of Ukraine and is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who are risking their lives for the desire to live in a free country. Simply put, have you considered the possibility that Ukrainians would like to detach from the Russian sphere of influence due to a history of genocide, cultural oppression, and constant denial of the right to self-determination?

Pattern #3. Suggesting that Russia was threatened by NATO

In your interviews, you are eager to bring up the alleged promise by [US Secretary of State] James Baker and President George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev that, if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin NATO, the US would ensure that NATO would move “not one inch eastward.” First, please note that the historicity of this promise is highly contested among scholars, although Russia has been active in promoting it. The premise is that NATO’s eastward expansion left Putin with no other choice but to attack. But the reality is different. Eastern European states joined, and Ukraine and Georgia aspired to join NATO, in order to defend themselves from Russian imperialism. They were right in their aspirations, given that Russia did attack Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Moreover, current requests by Finland and Sweden to join NATO came in direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, consistent with NATO expansion being a consequence of Russian imperialism, and not vice versa.

In addition, we disagree with the notion that sovereign nations shouldn’t be making alliances based on the will of their people because of disputed verbal promises made by James Baker and George H.W. Bush to Gorbachev.

Pattern #4. Stating that the US isn’t any better than Russia

While you admittedly call the Russian invasion of Ukraine a “war crime, ” it appears to us that you cannot do so without naming in the same breath all of the past atrocities committed by the US abroad (e.g., in Iraq or Afghanistan) and, ultimately, spending most of your time discussing the latter. As economists, we are not in a position to correct your historical metaphors and, needless to say, we condemn the unjustified killings of civilians by any power in the past. However, not bringing Putin up on war crime charges at the International Criminal Court in the Hague just because some past leader did not receive similar treatment would be the wrong conclusion to draw from any historical analogy. In contrast, we argue that prosecuting Putin for the war crimes that are being deliberately committed in Ukraine would set an international precedent for the world leaders attempting to do the same in the future.

Pattern #5. Whitewashing Putin’s goals for invading Ukraine

In your interviews, you go to great lengths to rationalize Putin’s goals of “demilitarization” and “neutralization” of Ukraine. Please note that, in his TV address from February 24, 2022, marking the beginning of the war, the verbatim goal declared by Putin for this “military operation” is to “denazify” Ukraine. This concept builds on his long pseudo-historical article from July 2021, denying Ukraine’s existence and claiming that Ukrainians were not a nation. As elaborated in the “denazification manual” published by the Russian official press agency RIA Novosti, a “Nazi” is simply a human being who self-identifies as Ukrainian, the establishment of a Ukrainian state thirty years ago was the “Nazification of Ukraine, ” and any attempt to build such a state has to be a “Nazi” act. According to this genocide handbook, denazification implies a military defeat, purging, and population-level and “neutralization” imply the same goal—without weapons Ukraine will not be able to defend itself, and Russia will reach its long-term goal of destroying Ukraine.

Pattern #6. Assuming that Putin is interested in a diplomatic solution

All of us very much hoped for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement, which could have saved many human lives. Yet, we find it preposterous how you repeatedly assign the blame for not reaching this settlement to Ukraine (for not offering Putin some “escape hatch”) or the US (for supposedly insisting on the military rather than diplomatic solution) instead of the actual aggressor, who has repeatedly and intentionally bombed civilians, maternity wards, hospitals, and humanitarian corridors during those very “negotiations.” Given the escalatory rhetoric (cited above) of the Russian state media, Russia’s goal is erasure and subjugation of Ukraine, not a “diplomatic solution.”

Pattern #7. Advocating that yielding to Russian demands is the way to avert the nuclear war

Since the Russian invasion, Ukraine lives in a constant nuclear threat, not just due to being a prime target for Russian nuclear missiles but also due to the Russian occupation of Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

But what are the alternatives to fighting for freedom? Unconditional surrender and then elimination of Ukrainians off the face of the Earth (see above)? Have you ever wondered why President Zelenskyy, with the overwhelming support of the Ukrainian people, is pleading with Western leaders to provide heavy weapons despite the potential threat of nuclear escalation? The answer to this question is not “Because of Uncle Sam, ” but rather due to the fact that Russian war crimes in Bucha and many other Ukrainian cities and villages have shown that living under Russian occupation is a tangible “hell on earth” happening right now, requiring immediate action.

Arguably, any concessions to Russia will not reduce the probability of a nuclear war but lead to escalation. If Ukraine falls, Russia may attack other countries (Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Finland or Sweden) and can also use its nuclear blackmail to push the rest of Europe into submission. And Russia is not the only nuclear power in the world. Other countries, such as China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are watching. Just imagine what will happen if they learn that nuclear powers can get whatever they want using nuclear blackmail.

Professor Chomsky, we hope you will consider the facts and re-evaluate your conclusions. If you truly value Ukrainian lives as you claim to, we would like to kindly ask you to refrain from adding further fuel to the Russian war machine by spreading views very much akin to Russian propaganda.

Should you wish to engage further on any of the above-mentioned points, we are always open to discussion.

Kind regards,

Bohdan Kukharskyy, City University of New York
Anastassia Fedyk, University of California, Berkeley
Yuriy Gorodnichenko, University of California, Berkeley
Ilona Sologoub, VoxUkraine NGO

[flxjay]

This is wrong point of view. The old man has his magnifying glass only on american geopolitics.

[moderneurope]

The philosopher Chomsky, who made his reputation on targeting the power apparatuses of manufacturing consent is advising the country fighting fascism to consent to it.

[petestanton]

Beautiful young woman. There's hope?

[rezakarampour]

Search : ' Noam Chomsky : US Terrorism '

[rodgerasai]

It's become difficult for me to take the aging Mr. Chomsky seriously anymore - ever since his unambiguous statements about isolating unvaccinated people (of all ages) and letting them starve. My mind pairs this with M. Albright's callous statement ending with, "...well, we think it was worth it."

[jocheah]

I live in Asia but I hope Russia will put America to Rest In Peace as most nations has enough of American tyranny.

[nikosgeorgakas]

Very many wise words from Prof.Chomsky. But what is that the Americans do not anderstand ? Donbass and Tauris (the north Black see coast, Odessa included) will return to Russia. The rest west Ukranie , dominated by nationalist fools, will be totalyy neutralised and remain "indipendent" (to the dissappontment of Pollacks). After this, and in a multipolar World, maybe, we will be sane enough (?), to discuss {and solve ?) Worlds problems.

[helveticaification]

Time to give up, Noam, before any more of the synapses burn out.

[mattbrody]

Master of truisms, stating the obvious, rambling about basic facts, diplomacy 101 etc. Why do we need this guy to say what we already know by using our common sense, waste of time on this overrated master of truisms and pathetic conclusions.