Noam Chomsky – Interview on the war in Ukraine

Ukraine and the separatist held areas of Donetsk and Luhansk

JVL Introduction

This interview with Noam Chomsky is helpful and thought provoking. Even though it seems highly unlikely that the US would join in the war; there is much more here than the title would suggest. He outlines the importance of analysis even in the middle of a “hot war” and also the realistic (and very unsatisfactory) possibilities for negotiation open to Zelensky.

This article was originally published by Truth Out on Tue 1 Mar 2022. Read the original here.

Noam Chomsky: US Military Escalation Against Russia Would Have No Victors

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took much of the world by surprise. It is an unprovoked and unjustified attack that will go down in history as one of the major war crimes of the 21st century, argues Noam Chomsky in the exclusive interview for Truthout that follows. Political considerations, such as those cited by Russian President Vladimir Putin, cannot be used as arguments to justify the launching of an invasion against a sovereign nation. In the face of this horrific invasion, though, the U.S. must choose urgent diplomacy over military escalation, as the latter could constitute a “death warrant for the species, with no victors,” Chomsky says.

Noam Chomsky is internationally recognized as one of the most important intellectuals alive. His intellectual stature has been compared to that of Galileo, Newton and Descartes, as his work has had tremendous influence on a variety of areas of scholarly and scientific inquiry, including linguistics, logic and mathematics, computer science, psychology, media studies, philosophy, politics and international affairs. He is the author of some 150 books and the recipient of scores of highly prestigious awards, including the Sydney Peace Prize and the Kyoto Prize (Japan’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize), and of dozens of honorary doctorate degrees from the world’s most renowned universities. Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT and currently Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona.

C.J. Polychroniou:

Noam, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken most people by surprise, sending shockwaves throughout the world, although there were plenty of indications that Putin had become quite agitated by NATO’s expansion eastward and Washington’s refusal to take seriously his “red line” security demands regarding Ukraine. Why do you think he decided to launch an invasion at this point in time?

Noam Chomsky: Before turning to the question, we should settle a few facts that are uncontestable. The most crucial one is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a major war crime, ranking alongside the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland in September 1939, to take only two salient examples. It always makes sense to seek explanations, but there is no justification, no extenuation.

Turning now to the question, there are plenty of supremely confident outpourings about Putin’s mind. The usual story is that he is caught up in paranoid fantasies, acting alone, surrounded by groveling courtiers of the kind familiar here in what’s left of the Republican Party traipsing to Mar-a-Lago for the Leader’s blessing.

The flood of invective might be accurate, but perhaps other possibilities might be considered. Perhaps Putin meant what he and his associates have been saying loud and clear for years. It might be, for example, that, “Since Putin’s major demand is an assurance that NATO will take no further members, and specifically not Ukraine or Georgia, obviously there would have been no basis for the present crisis if there had been no expansion of the alliance following the end of the Cold War, or if the expansion had occurred in harmony with building a security structure in Europe that included Russia.” The author of these words is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, one of the few serious Russia specialists in the U.S. diplomatic corps, writing shortly before the invasion. He goes on to conclude that the crisis “can be easily resolved by the application of common sense…. By any common-sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the ‘color revolutions’ — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?”

Matlock is hardly alone. Much the same conclusions about the underlying issues are reached in the memoirs of CIA head William Burns, another of the few authentic Russia specialists. [Diplomat] George Kennan’s even stronger stand has belatedly been widely quoted, backed as well by former Defense Secretary William Perry, and outside the diplomatic ranks by the noted international relations scholar John Mearsheimer and numerous other figures who could hardly be more mainstream.

None of this is obscure. U.S. internal documents, released by WikiLeaks, reveal that Bush II’s reckless offer to Ukraine to join NATO at once elicited sharp warnings from Russia that the expanding military threat could not be tolerated. Understandably.

We might incidentally take note of the strange concept of “the left” that appears regularly in excoriation of “the left” for insufficient skepticism about the “Kremlin’s line.”

The fact is, to be honest, that we do not know why the decision was made, even whether it was made by Putin alone or by the Russian Security Council in which he plays the leading role. There are, however, some things we do know with fair confidence, including the record reviewed in some detail by those just cited, who have been in high places on the inside of the planning system. In brief, the crisis has been brewing for 25 years as the U.S. contemptuously rejected Russian security concerns, in particular their clear red lines: Georgia and especially Ukraine.

There is good reason to believe that this tragedy could have been avoided, until the last minute. We’ve discussed it before, repeatedly. As to why Putin launched the criminal aggression right now, we can speculate as we like. But the immediate background is not obscure — evaded but not contested.

It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful.

As often before, I’m reminded of a lesson I learned long ago. In the late 1960s, I took part in a meeting in Europe with a few representatives of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (“Viet Cong,” in U.S. parlance). It was during the brief period of intense opposition to the horrendous U.S. crimes in Indochina. Some young people were so infuriated that they felt that only a violent reaction would be an appropriate response to the unfolding monstrosities: breaking windows on Main Street, bombing an ROTC center. Anything less amounted to complicity in terrible crimes. The Vietnamese saw things very differently. They strongly opposed all such measures. They presented their model of an effective protest: a few women standing in silent prayer at the graves of U.S. soldiers killed in Vietnam. They were not interested in what made American opponents of the war feel righteous and honorable. They wanted to survive.

It’s a lesson I’ve often heard in one or another form from victims of hideous suffering in the Global South, the prime target of imperial violence. One we should take to heart, adapted to circumstances. Today that means an effort to understand why this tragedy occurred and what could have been done to avert it, and to apply these lessons to what comes next.

The question cuts deep. There is no time to review this critically important matter here, but repeatedly the reaction to real or imagined crisis has been to reach for the six-gun rather than the olive branch. It’s almost a reflex, and the consequences have generally been awful — for the traditional victims. It’s always worthwhile to try to understand, to think a step or two ahead about the likely consequences of action or inaction. Truisms of course, but worth reiterating, because they are so easily dismissed in times of justified passion.

The options that remain after the invasion are grim. The least bad is support for the diplomatic options that still exist, in the hope of reaching an outcome not too far from what was very likely achievable a few days ago: Austrian-style neutralization of Ukraine, some version of Minsk II federalism within. Much harder to reach now. And — necessarily — with an escape hatch for Putin, or outcomes will be still more dire for Ukraine and everyone else, perhaps almost unimaginably so.

Very remote from justice. But when has justice prevailed in international affairs? Is it necessary to review the appalling record once again?

Like it or not, the choices are now reduced to an ugly outcome that rewards rather than punishes Putin for the act of aggression — or the strong possibility of terminal war. It may feel satisfying to drive the bear into a corner from which it will lash out in desperation — as it can. Hardly wise.

Meanwhile, we should do anything we can to provide meaningful support for those valiantly defending their homeland against cruel aggressors, for those escaping the horrors, and for the thousands of courageous Russians publicly opposing the crime of their state at great personal risk, a lesson to all of us.

And we should also try to find ways to help a much broader class of victims: all life on Earth. This catastrophe took place at a moment where all of the great powers, indeed all of us, must be working together to control the great scourge of environmental destruction that is already exacting a grim toll, with much worse soon to come unless major efforts are undertaken quickly. To drive home the obvious, the IPCC just released the latest and by far most ominous of its regular assessments of how we are careening to catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the necessary actions are stalled, even driven into reverse, as badly needed resources are devoted to destruction and the world is now on a course to expand the use of fossil fuels, including the most dangerous and conveniently abundant of them, coal.

A more grotesque conjuncture could hardly be devised by a malevolent demon. It can’t be ignored. Every moment counts.

(CJP) The Russian invasion is in clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Yet Putin sought to offer legal justifications for the invasion during his speech on February 24, and Russia cites Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria as evidence that the United States and its allies violate international law repeatedly. Can you comment on Putin’s legal justifications for the invasion of Ukraine and on the status of international law in the post-Cold War era?

There is nothing to say about Putin’s attempt to offer legal justification for his aggression. Its merit is zero.

Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin’s crimes. Kosovo, Iraq and Libya did, however, have direct implications for the conflict over Ukraine.

The Iraq invasion was a textbook example of the crimes for which Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, pure unprovoked aggression. And a punch in Russia’s face.

In the case of Kosovo, NATO aggression (meaning U.S. aggression) was claimed to be “illegal but justified” (for example, by the International Commission on Kosovo chaired by Richard Goldstone) on grounds that the bombing was undertaken to terminate ongoing atrocities. That judgment required reversal of the chronology. The evidence is overwhelming that the flood of atrocities was the consequence of the invasion: predictable, predicted, anticipated. Furthermore, diplomatic options were available, [but] as usual, ignored in favor of violence.

High U.S. officials confirm that it was primarily the bombing of Russian ally Serbia — without even informing them in advance — that reversed Russian efforts to work together with the U.S. somehow to construct a post-Cold War European security order, a reversal accelerated with the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Libya after Russia agreed not to veto a UN Security Council Resolution that NATO at once violated.

Events have consequences; however, the facts may be concealed within the doctrinal system.

The status of international law did not change in the post-Cold War period, even in words, let alone actions. President Clinton made it clear that the U.S. had no intention of abiding by it. The Clinton Doctrine declared that the U.S. reserves the right to act “unilaterally when necessary,” including “unilateral use of military power” to defend such vital interests as “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.” His successors as well, and anyone else who can violate the law with impunity.

That’s not to say that international law is of no value. It has a range of applicability, and it is a useful standard in some respects.

(CJP) The aim of the Russian invasion seems to be to take down the Zelensky government and install in its place a pro-Russian one. However, no matter what happens, Ukraine is facing a daunting future for its decision to become a pawn in Washington’s geostrategic games. In that context, how likely is it that economic sanctions will cause Russia to change its stance toward Ukraine — or do the economic sanctions aim at something bigger, such as undermining Putin’s control inside Russia and ties with countries such as Cuba, Venezuela and possibly even China itself?

Ukraine may not have made the most judicious choices, but it had nothing like the options available to the imperial states. I suspect that the sanctions will drive Russia to even greater dependency on China. Barring a serious change of course, Russia is a kleptocratic petrostate relying on a resource that must decline sharply or we are all finished. It’s not clear whether its financial system can weather a sharp attack, through sanctions or other means. All the more reason to offer an escape hatch with a grimace.

(CJP) Western governments, mainstream opposition parties, including the Labour Party in U.K., and corporate media alike have embarked on a chauvinistic anti-Russian campaign. The targets include not only Russia’s oligarchs but musicians, conductors and singers, and even football owners such as Roman Abramovich of Chelsea FC. Russia has even been banned from Eurovision in 2022 following the invasion. This is the same reaction that the corporate media and the international community in general exhibited towards the U.S. following its invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq, wasn’t it?

Your wry comment is quite appropriate. And we can go on in ways that are all too familiar.

(CJP)Do you think the invasion will initiate a new era of sustained contestation between Russia (and possibly in alliance with China) and the West?

It’s hard to tell where the ashes will fall — and that might turn out not to be a metaphor. So far, China is playing it cool, and is likely to try to carry forward its extensive program of economic integration of much of the world within its expanding global system, a few weeks ago incorporating Argentina within the Belt and Road initiative, while watching rivals destroy themselves.

As we’ve discussed before, contestation is a death warrant for the species, with no victors. We are at a crucial point in human history. It cannot be denied. It cannot be ignored.

Comments (18)

  • Doug says:

    Putin will withdraw with his demands in place, leaving Ukraine and the West guessing what will happen if they dont behave
    Humanity might like to thank him as he has laid bare the nonsense behind the Nuclear deterrent
    What do you do when your opponent says I’m prepared to end life on the planet if you interfere
    Do you accept the consequences of a conventional war or do you defend a principal of collective security and obliterate the human race

    Trident
    Is neither a deterrent nor independent
    Michael Portillo Tory Defence Minister

    0
    0
  • Stephen Richards says:

    “The fate of all mankind I fear is in the hands of fools.” King Crimson.

    0
    0
  • Mary Dwyer says:

    Brilliant interview.

    0
    0
  • Linda says:

    A splendid overview and analysis – but I quarrel with some of the conclusions. As just one example, I don’t see anti-Russian feeling (just anti-Putin feeling) in the UK press articles I read and in conversations with friends and family.

    UK citizens’ respect and sympathy for the Russians’ plight could well have increased by hearing more of the circumstances they have to deal with. We have a fellow feeling with the Russians over the bad governance both societies face – we too struggle with a government that seems corrupt, unaccountable and acting against our interests.

    To illustrate, many of us are AWESTRUCK by the sheer courage of those Russians protesting against their country’s invasion of Ukraine. They can reasonably expect a beating for protesting (whether by nameless thugs or by the police). They risk penalties like losing their children and premature death if / when they’re jailed. Yet they still protest in their thousands in more than 50 Russian cities.

    We feel huge SYMPATHY for the Russian conscripts (whose status as conscripts should have protected them from fighting) who were conned and bullied into participating in this war.

    0
    0
  • Jack T says:

    Chomsky has made it perfectly clear that unlike the view of some on the left, Putin has absolutely no excuse or justification for his murderous invasion of Ukraine. He, just like Theresa May who attacked Syria, Tony Blair who invaded Iraq, and Netanyahu for his destruction of Gaza, is a war criminal. It is almost certain however that the last three hypocritical criminals will be calling for the head of the first but that none of them will ever face justice.

    0
    0
  • Sabine Ebert-Forbes says:

    I listened today to an interview held by Jeremy Vine with some Nato person on BBC radio. The Guy told the audience that Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear missiles which it apparently inherited after the break-up of the Warsaw Pact on the condition that Nato gave the undertaking to guarantee Ukraine’s security.which it promised it would, but has not done since ( neither 2014 nor likely to ever do). The undertaking was apparently given in1994. So Nato has been doing things in bad faith?
    In my opinion Nato is well past its use by date. Its purpose seems to have generally been to ensure that US interests are always coming first, a very expensive ‘crowd funder’ co-financed by 29 other countries.
    And whilst these power games between Nato and Russia are going on, innocent people get murdered and seem to be seen as collateral damage. That cannot be acceptable to anyone!!!

    0
    0
  • There is no doubt, as Chomsky has outlined, what the causes of the present crisis is. Putin and his cronies felt that they had no alternative to the present barbaric invasion. I suspect that NATO heads are rubbing their hands with glee that Putin fell into their trap.

    Why did the United States not take the obvious step of saying that Ukraine would never be allowed to join NATO? For the very reasons they helped overthrow the Yanukovych regime in 2014.

    America’s economy is driven by its military-industrial complex. It has an economic and political incentive to ensure that there are wars and to pour weapons into conflict areas. Pouring petrol on the flames is the policy of all western arms suppliers.

    What do we do? Well we give support for the Russian opposition. We should also oppose sanctions, which are war by other means. Obviously we support the entry of Ukrainian refugees. However the Zelensky regime, which presided over the integration of fascist militias into their armed forces deserves no sympathy especially since it presided over the hidden war against the breakaway republics.
    And we should also note that Israel is once again fishing in a trouble spot to see if it can extract potential settlers – always providing that they are ‘pure’ Jews. All those others its slapping with a 10K Shekel deposit to ensure they leave again as soon as possible

    0
    0
  • John Noble says:

    We must take the lesson from this terrifying work by Chomsky, offer the olive branch to Putin accept that we (the West) have been out of order and see if things can be toned down before we obliterate ourselves.

    0
    0
  • steve mitchell says:

    I note there is a concerted attack on left wing journalists and international experts like Chomsky. I have just read an article in Byline Times which makes me so angry. I subscribe to the journal which I admire. What the article attempts to do is persuade us that the US is not the global danger it was . Times have changed since Pilger and Chomsky and others began warning about US plans for global hegemony. I have watched US interference all my adult life. We should not forget their terrible record of invasions ,slaughtering millions. When Chomsky points out the criminal activities undertaken by the US and Nato( one and the same thing) since the collapse of the Soviet Union .It is plain for all to see that the US has not changed. Its advance to the Russian border was not justified. Russia was derided and humiliated. It has to bear some responsibility for this tragedy. This doesn’t mean I have any time for Putin . Russia is now ,in my opinion a Fascist state. I am horrified at its actions. Chomsky is absolutely right when he calls them a War Crime. I agree with Corbyn when he says there will have to be a political solution. Both sides will have to make concessions or the conflict will drag on for years.

    0
    0
  • Agnes Kory says:

    Not a word about the Nazi AZOV battalions bombarding/killing Russians for the past eight years in Donbass or about the unopposed worshiping of Stepan Bandura (with the road leading from Kiev to Babi Yar named after him). Etc.
    Why not?

    0
    0
  • Margaret West says:

    The problem is that as a result of what Putin did – all the ex-Warsaw pact countries now want to join NATO. And who can blame them?

    At the very least Ukraine** wants to be part of the European sphere of influence and who can blame it? There was already an antipathy between it and Russia*** because of the bad history between the two countries and who can blame it either?

    ** a majority of the ordinary people of Ukraine.
    There is an exception in the people of the Donbas – as a result of the 8 year war.

    *** ie Soviet Russia and its current representative in Putin
    who some call the Zsar .

    0
    0
  • John Noble says:

    Reading the comments some of us know a great deal about the intricacies of the history behind this awful story, nevertheless lets keep our eye on the prize. If this war escalates, even if the West won what would it win? To try to recover in a world suffering the biggest rise in Global Warming at the precipitous moment would make the recent pandemic when 6 millions have died look like chicken feed. The prize is survival.

    0
    0
  • John Lyst says:

    I think that the interview lets the present regime in Ukraine “off the hook”.
    There is no mention of the war in the East of Ukraine which has been ongoing for eight years. The post 2014 Ukrainian regimes have taken sides in the contest between the USA and Russia. Since the end of the original cold war I have heard many commentators say that NATO is an institution going around the world creating problems for itself to solve. Are we seeing that scenario play out here? I think the present regime in Ukraine is being used by the USA to give Russia a problem. The ultimate aim being regime change in Moscow.

    0
    0
  • Diamond Versi says:

    The generally accepted view is that the Russian aggression in Ukraine is unprovoked and is a war crime. I agree but the US and British aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan was similarly unprovoked. We went in there and killed a lot of poor people. Did we commit war crimes? Was there such an outcry? I guess this is happening in our backyard and that is why we are all enraged. Also is it because they are different colour and different religion ie not Christian?

    0
    0
  • Jack T says:

    The hegemony of the USA, the attacks on Russians in East Ukraine and the crazy decision of Zelensky to allow the Azov brigade to operate from within the Ukrainian army, do not give Putin any justification whatsoever for his war on Ukraine. One of Putin’s confidants said recently that Putin made it clear years ago that his aim was to reconstruct the USSR.

    0
    0
  • Margaret West says:

    Diamond – there WAS an outcry – millions demonstrated
    in opposition beforehand. There was a demand
    afterwards that Tony Blair be prosecuted but
    unfortunately it was overturned. See the
    following – it is an interesting read !
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/31/tony-blair-prosecution-over-iraq-war-blocked-by-judges

    0
    0
  • Jim Monaghan says:

    This model resolution from the Ukraine solidarity Campaign might connect. https://ukrainesolidaritycampaign.org/2022/03/08/table-our-model-motion-for-unions-and-labour-party/

    0
    0
  • Bernard Grant says:

    There are comments that I agree with and others that the writers appear not to know the truth. We have had nonstop propaganda from the MSM, the BBC being the worst.
    This war is down to the US. The Peace Treaty that ended the Cold War, they’ve broken it several times. The agreement was, NATO wouldn’t expand Eastward, yet they allowed all ex Russian Countries to not only join NATO, the US have built fully armed Military Bases, including missiles.
    ,Then in 2014 the US funded a Coup in the Ukraine, which saw the overthrow of the elected Government, it was replaced with a Rightwing government that was ready to do deals with the US, including applying to join NATO.
    Imagine if the Russians made an alliance with Mexico and built fully armed Military bases along its border, the U.S. would have had a full scale war with Mexico.
    Putin had warned that he wouldn’t stand by and would retaliate.
    Zelensky has been portrayed as a wonderful leader, yet he invited the Nazis to join the army. Read this article about him from the Guardian, it isn’t what you would expect after reading and listening to the propaganda that tells us he’s basically a hero.
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy?fbclid=IwAR2QY7iCGbMwEgmyMzENAS7AJgp_aVN8lCH4T27C_uEtlyzYTM3X9aGxV7k

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.