Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[grumbler]

Noam is and has always been an absolute idiot on history, foreign policy etc. He is a linguist by training and shows little aptitude for anything else.

Agreed.  Like Jordan Peterson, he Peter-Principally his way into speaking incompetently.

As for Ukraine--my main thought right now is Putin cannot allow the war to end in a way that doesn't include some level of victory for Russia. It would do too much to unravel his idea of rebuilding the Russian Empire. So, what out does Russia have that lets Putin get some kind of win?

I have to think at least on some level he still assumes that given enough time his country's greater resources and population will win the day.

I think Putin is delusional and getting horrific advice because none of his yes men want to find themselves trying to fly out the window without an airplane.  None of them grasp the significance of the vast gulf in fighting motivation between the two sides.  The Ukrainian troops want the Russian troops out, and so do the Russian troops.

[Jacob]

I don't think Republican electoral victories are a major risk. Trump actually did more than Obama ever did to funnel money and support to Ukraine, for example. It's not that I don't think there are Russia-favoring people in the GOP, or even that Trump himself doesn't favor Russia to some degree, it's that the situation is such that the GOP and Trump can't look "weak" on Russia in comparison to a Democrat. That's a more powerful motivator than most would think.

You may be right. I hope you are. But the Putin-shilling of folks like Tucker Carlson makes me nervous.

[Razgovory]

I admit I have a selfish reason to support Ukraine (besides the obvious moral ones), and that's a victory by Putin will embolden the autocrats in the West.  Conversely, a defeat weakens them. Ukraine is helping keep us safe from the Le Pens and Trumps of the world.

[Valmy]

I admit I have a selfish reason to support Ukraine (besides the obvious moral ones), and that's a victory by Putin will embolden the autocrats in the West.  Conversely, a defeat weakens them. Ukraine is helping keep us safe from the Le Pens and Trumps of the world.

Yeah they love Putin and Viktor Orban as culture warriors. It is possible that Putin defeated and Orban isolated would be a good thing for my own political objectives domestically. Kind of weird really, but I think that's true.

[The Minsky Moment]

Re Chomsky, I think it's only fair to read what he said in full in the interview and not just the pulled quotes in the letter responding to him:

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill/

He begins by saying that "I think that support for Ukraine's effort to defend itself is legitimate"
He makes a lot of dubious statements and non sequiturs about US foreign policy but at least in this interview he is not denying Ukrainian agency, rather he is emphasizing the known Ukrainian interest in reaching a fair negotiated settlement.  He is not denying Ukraine's will to fight and agency in doing so, but he is highlighting the serious human cost of continued fighting.

The contours of the settlement he suggests is one where Russia retains Crimea and the fate of the Donbas is determined by an internationally supervised referendum. He does not state explicitly what happens with the other territories but the clear implication is that they would revert back to Ukraine.  As such, the settlement is not an unreasonable outcome; indeed, it is consistent with orthodox realism.

Chomsky is frustrating to read and hear because he does not hold democratic and authoritarian regimes to the same standard.  He holds democratic regimes to a much higher standards and focuses almost all of his critical gaze on them. He has always been very open about this - his reasoning is that as a citizen of a democratic regime his primary moral obligation is to critique the shortcomings of his own society; he also thinks that the defects of authoritarian regimes are obvious and are already heavily covered in Western media, rendering his additional participation in that critique superfluous. 

I don't agree with that approach because it's hard to persuade people that they really need to focus on the hamsters in the room and just ignore that elephant. The natural response is the one expressed in the open letter; to accuse Chomsky of suggesting moral equivalence between the US and Russia, Biden and Putin. It's easy to make that leap, but not accurate. He's not a tankie or a fanboy of those authoritarian regimes, even though the tankies and fanboys often take aid and comfort from his work.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's another section in there that is vintage Chomsky

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. It's also true that the United States totally blocked the ICC. But notice there's nothing new about that. There's even a stronger case, which has been deep-sixed. The United States is the only country to have rejected a judgment of the International Criminal Court — of the World Court. They used to have two companions, Hoxha of Albania and Qaddafi in Libya. But they are gone. So now the U.S. stands in splendid isolation in having rejected the judgment of the World Court, that was in 1986, dealt with one of Washington's minor crimes, the war against Nicaragua. The court condemned the United States for — the words were — "unlawful use of force," meaning international terrorism, ordered the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations.

Well, there was a reaction by the Reagan administration and Congress: Escalate the crimes. That was the reaction. There was a reaction in the press: The New York Times editorial saying the court decision is irrelevant, because the court is a hostile forum. Why is it a hostile forum? Because it dares to accuse the United States of crimes. So that takes care of that. So the reaction is to escalate the crimes.

. . .


There is a Genocide Convention. The United States finally ratified it after, I think, about 40 years, but with a reservation saying inapplicable to the United States. We are entitled to commit genocide. That came to the international tribunals: Yugoslavia tribunal, or maybe it was the World Court. I don't remember. Yugoslavia charged NATO with crimes in its attack on Serbia. The NATO powers agreed to enter into the details of the court operations. The U.S. refused. And it did on grounds that Yugoslavia had mentioned genocide. And the United States is self-immune, immunized from the charge of genocide. And the court accepted that correctly. Countries are subject to jurisdiction only if they accept it. Well, that's us.

This is the kind of Chomskyite rhetoric that pisses people because of the suggestion of moral equivalence.  But it's not really.  Reading carefully, Chomsky is saying the Russia's crimes in the Ukraine are "major war crimes" whereas the 1986 Nicaraguan intervention was "one of Washington's minor crimes".

The point that Chomsky is making, while a bit exaggerated and rhetorically overblown, has merit.  The US does take a hypocritical position as to accountability for human rights violations. The ICC did indeed find that the US had violated international law in Nicaragua and it had some justification for doing so (it is notable that even the dissenting US judge found that the US violated international law in mining the harbors but dissented on the technical ground that the mining harmed third country rights). The US did indeed respond by blocking enforcement of the ICC reparations order.

Chomsky is wrong to say the US took the position "We are entitled to commit genocide" but he is correct that the US signed the Genocide Convention with the reservation that no case could be brought against it under the Convention unless the US consented to it.  And it is fair to characterize that position as one of de facto self-immunity.

It's fair to charge Chomsky with the criticism that this is not the time nor place to put US foreign policy in the dock.  But playing devil's advocate, Chomsky would likely respond - if not now, then when?   What better time to raise these issues than now in the context of the Ukraine war where Russian war crimes have drawn attention to the issues of war crimes and the strength (or lack thereof) of international enforcement and sanction.

[celedhring]

Also, I've been to a couple of Chomsky's lectures and he's always come across to me as being genuinely terrified of WWIII, hence why he seems to lean on appeasament so often. I think he's wrong, but these views come from a morally respectable place. He's less unreasonable than he sounds if you just pick soundbites.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Here's the issue with all the Chomsky apologia--he's in his 90s. His words have been deliberately used by autocrats and autocrat favoring people to support autocracy for decades. It's fine to say, "oh but people just misunderstand him", but he is a public figure who has seen the effect of his communication for decades. If his espoused principles are true, he has probably done more to work against them than for them throughout his life, which is why it is fair to question exactly how much he really does have the views you claim (and he claims) he does. It seems quite reasonable to suspect he is just sympathetic to certain types of autocratic regimes. I think he is personally enamored with some of the cultures that are prominent anti-American forces in the world. On a meta level I don't think he is "okay" with autocracy, but he is willing to be blind to its faults.

The claims about U.S. immunity and such are complete, abject piffle. The United States enforces laws against genocide, and war crimes, using its domestic court system. There is no particular need for it to participate in international tribunals, and given those tribunals have largely been exercises of power by Western countries who only put developing nations in the docket, there is good evidence to suggest they are not particularly good institutions to begin with.

[The Minsky Moment]

The United States enforces laws against genocide, and war crimes, using its domestic court system.

It enforces such laws against individuals and against foreign states.  But not against its own acts of state.  Thus, for example, the mining of Nicaraguan harbors did violate international law but as an act of state there was no redress.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The United States enforces laws against genocide, and war crimes, using its domestic court system.

It enforces such laws against individuals and against foreign states.  But not against its own acts of state.  Thus, for example, the mining of Nicaraguan harbors did violate international law but as an act of state there was no redress.

There is no appropriate redress for that in a judicial form. Nicaragua can use normal diplomacy if it feels it is wronged, and the United States can respond accordingly. Most countries operate this way.

[Barrister]

Living in a country where so many things are named after things from Europe it amuses me that there is a town in Ukraine named New York.

Mind you as I checked the Wiki page for New York, Ukraine, it becomes more sad when I learn it was a Mennonite community (lots of mennonites back home in Manitoba), but that all the original Mennonite inhabitants were deported to Kazakhstan by Stalin in 1951.

[Malthus]

There's another section in there that is vintage Chomsky

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. It's also true that the United States totally blocked the ICC. But notice there's nothing new about that. There's even a stronger case, which has been deep-sixed. The United States is the only country to have rejected a judgment of the International Criminal Court — of the World Court. They used to have two companions, Hoxha of Albania and Qaddafi in Libya. But they are gone. So now the U.S. stands in splendid isolation in having rejected the judgment of the World Court, that was in 1986, dealt with one of Washington's minor crimes, the war against Nicaragua. The court condemned the United States for — the words were — "unlawful use of force," meaning international terrorism, ordered the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations.

Well, there was a reaction by the Reagan administration and Congress: Escalate the crimes. That was the reaction. There was a reaction in the press: The New York Times editorial saying the court decision is irrelevant, because the court is a hostile forum. Why is it a hostile forum? Because it dares to accuse the United States of crimes. So that takes care of that. So the reaction is to escalate the crimes.

. . .


There is a Genocide Convention. The United States finally ratified it after, I think, about 40 years, but with a reservation saying inapplicable to the United States. We are entitled to commit genocide. That came to the international tribunals: Yugoslavia tribunal, or maybe it was the World Court. I don't remember. Yugoslavia charged NATO with crimes in its attack on Serbia. The NATO powers agreed to enter into the details of the court operations. The U.S. refused. And it did on grounds that Yugoslavia had mentioned genocide. And the United States is self-immune, immunized from the charge of genocide. And the court accepted that correctly. Countries are subject to jurisdiction only if they accept it. Well, that's us.

This is the kind of Chomskyite rhetoric that pisses people because of the suggestion of moral equivalence.  But it's not really.  Reading carefully, Chomsky is saying the Russia's crimes in the Ukraine are "major war crimes" whereas the 1986 Nicaraguan intervention was "one of Washington's minor crimes".

The point that Chomsky is making, while a bit exaggerated and rhetorically overblown, has merit.  The US does take a hypocritical position as to accountability for human rights violations. The ICC did indeed find that the US had violated international law in Nicaragua and it had some justification for doing so (it is notable that even the dissenting US judge found that the US violated international law in mining the harbors but dissented on the technical ground that the mining harmed third country rights). The US did indeed respond by blocking enforcement of the ICC reparations order.

Chomsky is wrong to say the US took the position "We are entitled to commit genocide" but he is correct that the US signed the Genocide Convention with the reservation that no case could be brought against it under the Convention unless the US consented to it.  And it is fair to characterize that position as one of de facto self-immunity.

It's fair to charge Chomsky with the criticism that this is not the time nor place to put US foreign policy in the dock.  But playing devil's advocate, Chomsky would likely respond - if not now, then when?   What better time to raise these issues than now in the context of the Ukraine war where Russian war crimes have drawn attention to the issues of war crimes and the strength (or lack thereof) of international enforcement and sanction.

I got a totally different impression from reading this.

"One of Washington's minor crimes" struck me as a rhetorical device - meaning Washington has committed major crimes, but these aren't currently being discussed by him.

Above all, he seems to lean in to whataboutism. Who cares that the US once committed crimes? Russia is committing them right now. Ukrainians are rightly pissed off that guys like him can see nothing but a contest between the US and Russia, as if Ukraine was just a pawn.

[grumbler]

Chomsky is not, in my opinion, intellectually honest at all.  He uses what even he refers to as "one of Washington's minor crimes" to make the claim that "the United States totally blocked the ICC."  Then he goes on to show how the court was not "totally blocked" at all, but leave the dishonest rhetoric because it serves his purpose, which to me has always seemed to be virtue signaling. The US has always maintained a certain distance from the court on the grounds that the US Constitution is the highest law that the US government recognizes.

[The Brain]

Chomsky loves authoritarian regimes. Quacks like a duck etc.

[Barrister]

Ukrainian citizens living in Russian-occupied territories who accepted Russian passports are being turned away at the Russian border and told to present their Ukrainian passports:

https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1570370006936072193