Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”

Chomsky is pointing out that the US, who Ukraine is still very dependent on for military weapons, and Russia, who is invading Ukraine, have the power here. That’s the reality of imperial hard power, they don’t give a shit about Ukrainian Sovereignty. They only care about economic resources. Of course Ukraine should have sovereignty, the issue is that the US and Russia have no interest in respecting their sovereignty. They have robbed Ukraine of it for financial gain. Imperialist powers always rob countries of their sovereignty and natural resources.

On February 24th, Putin invaded, a criminal invasion. These serious provocations provide no justification for it. If Putin had been a statesman, what he would have done is something quite different. He would have gone back to French President Emmanuel Macron, grasped his tentative proposals, and moved to try to reach an accommodation with Europe, to take steps toward a European common home.

The U.S., of course, has always been opposed to that. This goes way back in Cold War history to French President De Gaulle’s initiatives to establish an independent Europe. In his phrase “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” integrating Russia with the West, which was a very natural accommodation for trade reasons and, obviously, security reasons as well. So, had there been any statesmen within Putin’s narrow circle, they would have grasped Macron’s initiatives and experimented to see whether, in fact, they could integrate with Europe and avert the crisis. Instead, what he chose was a policy which, from the Russian point of view, was total imbecility. Apart from the criminality of the invasion, he chose a policy that drove Europe deep into the pocket of the United States. In fact, it is even inducing Sweden and Finland to join NATO — the worst possible outcome from the Russian point of view, quite apart from the criminality of the invasion, and the very serious losses that Russia is suffering because of that.

So, criminality and stupidity on the Kremlin side, severe provocation on the U.S. side. That’s the background that has led to this. Can we try to bring this horror to an end? Or should we try to perpetuate it? Those are the choices.

At least use quotes from a full interview instead of from someone intentionally framing snips that go against statements Chomsky has already said.

https://chomsky.info/20220616/

Most Taiwanese want no change from the current situation. They don’t want any escalation whatsoever.

But that image of Lloyd Austin announcing the deployment of U.S. forces to four new bases, in addition to five U.S. bases where U.S. troops are deployed in the Philippines, making a total of nine, potentially, in days and months to come, that’s precisely the wrong image and precisely the wrong direction that the U.S. should be going in. The United States, the Biden administration and a larger foreign policy elite, I’m sad to say, has hijacked our foreign policy and is currently escalating military tensions with China at precisely the moment we need to be moving in the other direction. We need to be drawing down U.S. military bases and forces in the region, while building up our diplomatic presence.

The U.S. Has 750 Overseas Military Bases, and Continues to Build More to Encircle China

Sixty percent of Taiwanese support maintaining the “status quo,” with 34 backing it “indefinitely,” and 26 percent favoring either declaring independence or unifying with China at a later date, depending on the conditions.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2024/12/05/2003828000

Reflecting on our conversation, I came across a passage in an essay from Chomsky’s 1970 book At War with Asia. “As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue,” he wrote. “Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others.” These words seem to me to be more applicable to the war in Ukraine than anything Noam Chomsky said during our conversation 53 years later.

Russia completely withdrawing is still the correct thing for Russia to do. Good luck convincing Putin, many thousands in Russia have already been arrested for protesting the war. See what Chomsky has said on the anti-war movement in the US and it’s effects on the US withdrawing, then see if that’s applicable to the citizens of Russia protesting the war having an impact on Russia foreign policy. The US does not have the power to force Russia to do a full withdrawal, and that’s assuming the US is interested in protecting Ukrainian Sovereignty which it’s not. Chomsky is critiquing US foreign policy and how it fails to be in any genuine interests of protecting Ukrainian Sovereignty.

The longer the war persists, the more destruction and devastation there will be, the more what’s called collateral damage elsewhere, massive starvation because of the closing off of Black Sea exports — there’s some relaxation of that, but we have little information about it — threat of nuclear war increases, and perhaps most significantly of all, and least discussed, is the fact that as the war continues, the limited efforts to deal with the overwhelming crisis of climate destruction, those reverse.

2nd part of the DemocracyNow interview

Now Putin has moved on to the anticipated escalation, “targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure over the last few weeks and stepping up its strikes in the eastern region of the country.” Putin’s escalation to the U.S.-U.K.-Israel model has been rightly condemned for its brutality — condemned by those who have accepted the original with little if any objection, and whose ghastly gamble laid the groundwork for the escalation, exactly as was warned throughout. There will be no accountability, though some lessons may have been learned.

https://chomsky.info/20221116-2/

Is reading the headline as far as you got? The US was incredibly brutal when invading Iraq. That doesn’t mean Russia isn’t also very brutal when they target civilians and civilian infrastructure, it means the US has historically been more brutal than Russia currently is when the US invaded other sovereign countries. If you think Chomsky doesn’t consider Russia’s invasion criminal, brutal, and unjustifiable, that’s just not correct. If you actually read the interviews, his analysis is on what aspects of US foreign policy are prolonging the conflict. The US has never cared about Ukrainian Sovereignty, the US only cares about continuing US foreign policy of Neo-colonialism. Funding Ukraine militarily was/is the correct thing to do, that doesn’t mean the US in invulnerable to criticism in all aspects of it’s foreign policy on Ukraine. Like how they went weak on sactions, or how they refused to give iron dome tech to Ukraine.

Yet those who take a “Genocide is okay because it’s expensive or hurts my fee-fees to oppose 🥺” position gets a pass from you on one genocide, but infinite criticism and accelerationism for the other.

What drugs are you smoking? I’ve never been ok with any genocide for any reason. Unlike many liberals who were fine with Biden funding genocide because “it’s not an important issue”. I’ve always been against genocide and accelerationism. Quote me proving otherwise or get your pathetic strawman out of here.

Noam Chomsky & Vijay Prashad: U.S. Must Stop Undermining Negotiations with Russia to End Ukraine War

So yes, it is the exact position that you criticized mainstream Dems on, just for Palestine.

You get that Israel and Russia are the ones committing genocide against Ukraine and Palestine, right? Yeah, I support Ukrainian and Palestinian resistance against fascist forces and their rights to sovereignty and self-determination.

Until the question of doing anything about it comes up, in which case it very quickly turns to “Well, suddenly I’m a fiscal conservative” or “Russia has Legitimate Security Interests 🥺”

No, I’ve always supported arming Ukraine fighting against imperialism. My criticism of the US and Europe has been that they were not sending enough and should send in troops to assist Ukraine in fighting back against Russia. My other criticism was that the US was not genuine with the process for a ceasefire, regardless of whether Russia is serious or not (it’s still a critical pressure point) and instead prioritized prolonging the war with Russia the same way the Afghanistan proxy war was used against the USSR, at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Russia may have legitimate security interests concerning NATO from a geopolitical standpoint, but the invasion is unjustifiable and only justifies the necessity of a security pact. I’d prefer a different security pact where all European countries participate Democratically, since the US only cares about NATO as a form of US Hegemony and not about the well-being and sovereignty of any European country.

Isn’t that the exact position you criticized mainstream Dems for, just on Palestine?

I criticized the Dems and the Republicans for funding, defending, and facilitating a genocide. As anyone with a conscience should. We should be doing everything possible to fight back against imperialism and genocide. That’s what international law is supposed to be about.

Sorry that I think Ukrainian genocide is bad.

Obviously Russia’s Genocide of Ukraine is bad. That’s not up for debate.

https://blowback.show/ A podcast by Brendan James and Noah Kulwin on US Foreign Policy. All their info is sourced and can be found on the website for each season. Can be found for free wherever you get your podcasts from

Brendan James is a staff writer for International Business Times. He previously worked as a reporter for Talking Points Memo and Yahoo! News. His writing has also appeared in Newsweek, VICE and Salon.

Noah Kulwin is a writer for the new statesman, the intercept, jewish currents, defector, the drift, new york magazine, the new york times, the baffler, the new republic, the american prospect and elsewhere

https://blowback.show/Season-1 - The invasion of Iraq in 2003 constitutes the greatest crime of the 21st century.

https://blowback.show/Season-2 - After a critically-acclaimed retelling of the Iraq War, season two of Blowback presents the unlikely story of the Cuban Revolution:

https://blowback.show/Season-3 - After covering the Iraq War and the Cuban Revolution, in season three Blowback co-hosts Brendan James and Noah Kulwin now turn to the Korean War.

https://blowback.show/Season-4 - After covering the Iraq War, the Cuban Revolution, and the Korean War, in season 4 the Blowback co-hosts Brendan James and Noah Kulwin now turn to Afghanistan

Season 5 on Cambodia is not out yet

They haven’t, neoliberalism is in opposition to genuine progressive policies. The closest we’ve gotten are piecemeal such as the ACA. Which, don’t get me wrong, was a phenomenal improvement over the previous healthcare system, but was still a Republican written bill and was only implemented due to the grassroots movements and organization that demanded concessions.

Biden, on the domestic front, was certainly the most progressive since FDR. Specifically when it comes to labor but also some debt relief. But the admin did a terrible job communicating this. Additionally, these policies, while they certainly have helped, were not enough to genuinely address the material needs of everyday Americans. People want radical change. Incrementalism has not stopped the working class from being squeezed between rising costs of living and stagnant wages. However, his foreign policy was far from progressive and deeply unpopular. If the campaign did run on the radical progressive change people want, as indicated at every opportunity, they would have been far far more likely to win

He was able to, it was a deliberate decision not to

Along with the (at a minimum) thousands during the genocide, and more currently through their illegal restriction of letting in humanitarian aid in violation of the ceasefire

If they did that they’d have to admit that Israel keeps violating the ceasefires on a daily basis

No one who’s aware of the details of the Abraham Accords under Trump’s first presidency would think that Trump was in anyway better.

So how was Trump able to come off as the ‘dove’ candidate? He did this same strategy of framing himself as a peaceful ‘dove’ in 2016 against Clinton. I put dove in quotes because anyone who pays attention to Trump’s actual foreign policy knows that’s not remotely true. High propensity voters aren’t fooled by this but plenty of low propensity voters sure can be. Trump was only effective as framing himself as a Dove because of how terrible the Biden admins Foreign policy was for the last fifteen months. If Harris pivoted from Biden on Palestine, as the vast majority of all voters wanted and as required by domestic and international law, Trump wouldn’t have been able to frame himself as a Dove. I’m fact, if Harris not only pivoted but harped on Trump’s connection to Netanyahu, it would’ve been incredibly easy to frame Trump as a warmonger cozying up to genocidal fascists

This was also pushed for by the Biden admin behind closed doors. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has had bipartisan support for decades. The main difference is that Trump can’t help himself from saying the quiet part out loud

We went from Genocide Joe to Genocide Don. If the Democratic Party actually listened to the demands of their constituents, demands that were vastly popular (and not just on Palestine), we wouldn’t be in this fascist Trump regime

Anti-zionism is not Antisemitism. Your conflation of the two is genuinely antisemitic.

Zionism is anti-Semitic at it’s core, it other-izes Jewish people, and justifies the violent settler colonialim of Israel as in the defense of all Jewish people, which only serves to further fuel genuine Antisemitism at the expense of Jewish people globally. Zionism is also an inherently fascist ideology. The ethnic cleansing of the native people of Palestine has always been fundamental since it’s inception as a colonialist movement. Adi Callai, an Israeli, does a great analysis of how Antisemitism has been weaponized by Zionism during its history.

The IDF using Palestinians as human shields is nothing new.

On some domestic policy issues it is, it’s not on foreign policy or immigration. It is in the sense that it delays Fascism, it’s not on the sense that it doesn’t change that Fascism is the inevitable outcome of neoliberalism. Either way that doesn’t change my main point about the parties and grassroots opposition

At least she and Biden attempted to negotiate peace.

No, they really didn’t. That was the whole problem

The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.

Year of Empty Rhetoric From the White House on Israel’s Wars

The diplomat said Egypt rejected similar proposals from the Biden administration and European countries early in the war, which was sparked by Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack into southern Israel. The earlier proposals were broached privately, while Trump announced his plan at a White House press conference alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-egypt-trump-displacement-bc1c43f80655190824a5de4eb1d310cc

While I do agree that voting for the lesser evil is the correct thing to do for harm reduction and advocated for people to do so during the campaign, ultimately this points to a much larger issue with our supposedly representative institutions.

Unfortunately, the reality is the vast majority of people do not vote on the basis of harm reduction or lesser evil. Most people are too busy working paycheck to paycheck and tuned out of politics. That said there any plenty of popular policies that would gain their interest, policies that would improve their material conditions. Both good policy and good communication is needed here. As well as good politics to follow through and deliver those policies.

The much larger issue is whether the Democratic Party, which is supposed to represent the working class (at least since the New Deal), is genuinely interested in listening to and fighting for their voter base (working class people) or are instead prioritizing the desires of the Donor Class who provide a significant amount of money to the Party (as well as the Republican Party) and who’s capital interests are opposed to the voter base. To me it seems clear that the Democratic Party prioritizes the donors at the expense of the voters.

And if that is the case, we have a serious issue. No one is genuinely representing the material interests of the vast majority of Americans. Both parties are completely captured by corporate interests and one only serves as a controlled opposition, creating a rachet effect towards Fascism.

In that case, I think the only way forward is grassroots. Community organizations and unions that do genuinely represent the material needs of the working class. Which is also a problem because unions have been systematically dismantled for decades, we are only recently seeing a resurgence. Non-profit organizations are under serious threat of being labeled terrorist organizations and cut out from all federal funding with no evidence needed. Despite that, I still think it’s the only real way forward. Especially with the Democratic Party refusing to recognize the reason for their loss (they instead decided to blame it on their advocation of trans rights, which is completely unacceptable and untrue)

They did apply a lot of pressure during the primary. The total uncommitted in the Primary was 706,591 (Which may have been undercounted) which is absolutely massive for a primary. On average, general turnout is twice that of primary turnout. The Democratic Party knew that at they were risking at least 1.4 million votes by ignoring the issue. Here Are 34 Polls That Show A Ceasefire & Weapons Embargo Help Kamala Win. They also knew throughout the whole campaign that a vast majority of their constituents wanted weapons embargo and permanent ceasefire (required by domestic and international law), plus a majority of independents and Republicans. There was no valid reason for the Democratic Party to ignore the demands of that many voters, especially if trying to win an election

You clearly have no idea how US elections work at that level. The single candidate with the most votes wins.

Which is exactly why in order to win an election, a campaign needs to offer concessions to voters to earn as many votes as possible.

Something the Democratic Party’s Campaign decisively chose not to do, and in fact do the opposite.

Instead of trying to secure hundreds of thousands to millions of constituents by supporting a permanent ceasefire and weapons embargo, a policy vastly supported by the Democrats own voter base (in addition to the majority of also independent and Republican voters), they instead alienated those voters by more than just ignoring their valid concerns.

They chose to arrest thousands of student protestors, gave billions of dollars to a genocide at the tax payers expense consistently for 15 months, actively suppressed the voices and representation of the main victims of the genocide, and campaigned with Liz Cheney (who was actively involved with the Bush-Cheney foreign policy in the middle east and enthusiastically pro ethnic cleansing of Palestinians). They chose to do all that instead of represent the view of the majority of their constituents and abide by domestic/international law.

And that was just one of the major issues, along with immigration and the economy, that tanked the approval of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party wanted to actually win against Trump they would have done everything to gain as many votes as possible. They chose not to. They threw the election and let an unpopular fascist win.

Israel has definitely violated the terms repeatedly, in both Gaza and the West Bank they’ve been killing Palestinians regardless of the ceasefire

ISIS is what happened when left to its own devices.

Is what you said within the context of the entire middle east. As if the whole population of many different people with different beliefs are all somehow in support of theocratic fundamentalism. That is bigoted and ignorant of the history of the region both before and during colonialist/imperialist intervention.

ISIS is no different than Israel or Dominion Christian Fundamentalism. Nor are any of those reflective of the majority of people they claim to represent.