How to critique Chomsky on Ukraine

Noam Chomsky's views on the Ukraine war have received much publicity. To critique them, we need to have broader look at Noam Chomsky's work and his vast contribution to our culture.
We start by looking at Noam as a linguist, philosopher and scientist, and end by talking about him as a public intellectual, a voice of moral outrage.
This is a comprehensive introduction to respectfully critiquing Chomsky on politics.
00:00 Intro
01:15 What to know about Chomsky's work
08:48 Chomsky on Ukraine
13:30 Critiquing Chomsky in Ukraine
18:43 Critiquing Chomsky on politics
Owen Jones Interview with Noam Chomsky
• Noam Chomsky on Ukrain...

[@marekfalda95]

As Pole, when someone is saying that the West is „diminishing Russian sphere of influence”. My response is „great, now give me some bad news”.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Indeed.

[@kernowpolski]

@@VladVexlerChat As a half Pole - I loved that comment and loved Vlad's response! Thanks both of you :-)

[@invisible8267]

No country should have sphere of influence including the United States.

[@rayromcas]

So, you are biased, nice.

[@kernowpolski]

@@rayromcas We are all biased and if you knew anything of the immense suffering the Poles have suffered from Russians and Germans and Turks then you would be a bit more respectful in your comments. My grandfather was killed by the SS, one of my uncles died of pneumonia after being marched into a freezing lake by the Germans in retaliation for the Polish resistance killing SS killers (I am named after him). My father's female cousin was sterilised by the SS in Ravensbruck concentration camp as part of the Nazi plan to exterminate Slavs. My father fought the Germans (and the invading Soviets in 1939 who were German allies then) for the full length of the war in Europe in Poland, France and Britain and then in France and Belgium. After the war many of his comrades went back to Poland and were shot or served long jail terms under Polish Bolsheviks simply because they fought against the Germans while the Soviets were German allies and Stalin supplied Germany with masses of raw materials in the deluded view that Hitler would not attack him.

[@creativeandaliveat65]

I am Finnish and I identify to a degree with the Ukrainian fate. I was astonished when Noam said in this same interview: "It doesn't make any sense" that Finland is afraid of Russian invasion, when Russia is only capable of attacking few cities close to Russian border... It sounded as if I should consider myself overzealous if I want to keep my country intact - including cities close to the border. I was also alarmed to hear that an invader (whatever his inner logic for the invasion may be) needs to be considered as a legitimate beneficiary of the invasion. To say that it is unreasonable somehow for Ukraine to expect an invader to concede completely, but rather having to come up with some "face saving" or concession for the hassle the invader had to go through by invading.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Peaceful and safe wishes to you! Thanks for watching.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

With regard to “face saving” and “off ramps” for an invader, it’s not really the job of the defender to formulate or offer such things. If the invader is seeking such a thing, he will suggest it himself. If the invader is not seeking an exit, no offer of off ramps will persuade him. If anything, they encourage him. When agreements are negotiated between people in opposition, it is important to know what the other side sincerely wants. It is also common that one side doesn’t wish to disclose what they really want-especially true when they are not negotiating in good faith or when they aren’t truly interested in negotiating a deal. Negotiating a strategy becomes a means of maintaining the current set of circumstances. We can discern what the bad faith negotiator wants by his actions. If he is using violence to steal, we know he is a violent thief. And that is what we have in Russia with its thief-in-chief Putin. It is of little use to analyze his psychology to determine what he really wants in terms of security against NATO, or his revanchist dreams of Russian greatness, because his behavior tells us everything we need to know: Putin is a warlord happy to murder innocents to steal what is theirs, not his.

[@zzzzzzppprrrr8182]

@@MarcosElMalo2 Well said

[@gustavalexander8676]

For Russia to attack Finland simply because they attacked Ukraine is akin to assuming that the invasion of Iraq might have precipitated an invasion of Iran too. It ignores all the specific reasons for the Ukraine conflict (rapid NATO expansion, the US fasttracking Ukraine for NATO membership before the invasion) in favour of a banal view of russian foreign policy: As an unreasonable, unthinking brute with no overarching interests except to cause mayhem. It doesnt make sense imo.

[@waterfrodo4304]

The argument is that Russia will not attack if it knows that it can only reach few cities. That Putin invaded Ukraine only because he thought it would be easy. So it was effectively a trap set for Putin by the US. And that it's not only Putin who is in the trap, but also hundreds of thousands of innocent people, both Russian and Ukrainian. And maybe Putin is worth it. But that moral problem is quite different from "Ukraine good. Putin bad. We good. We help Ukraine!" which is apparently the dominant narrative of consent-manufacturing ecosystem targeted on lowest denominator common people. If you believe that it matches reality more closely than Chomsky's perspective, and you call yourself a philosopher, then it is your job to prove it.

[@damianprendergast9170]

Sadly Noam has fallen into the eternal trap of ideological warriors: upholding a side rather than a principle. Hating the US has become more important than the principles that led him to hate them.

[@ilunghi]

Nailed it

[@NathanLGrossman]

Exactly.

[@DHEspana]

He really seems to have become so anti-American imperialism he's pro-Russian imperialism

[@slmille4]

False, he has said many times that his consistent criticism of the US is simply because they are the global hegemon, and if it was a different country he would be criticizing them.

[@peterfireflylund]

Fallen into? No, he crawled willingly into it. He has never been one of the good guys -- and he is a pretty crappy linguist and philosopher as well.

[@christiansantfournier2794]

A couple of weeks ago Chomsky said that Finland and Sweden need not join NATO because the Russian military is not as strong as predicted. In other words Finland or Sweden can protect themselves against a potential Russian invasion without assistance. So having the Russian army get bogged down in a grinding war in your country, is not so bad and reason enough to want to deter an invasion in the first place. They should only seek to join NATO if the Russians are strong enough to take the country in a quick surgical sweep. Absolutely pathetic argument.

[@HelsinkiFINketeli_berlin_com]

Finland does not need to join the NATO, but we are very willing and very able to updgrade the NATO to stay strong, vigilant, and highly professional and become even more effective in the future. We like to give and share our intelligence, and the special expertice on the military strategies, operative knowhow and innovative tactics based on the centuries of experience ever since the Golden Horde retreated from the area nowadays called Russia. It will be very interesting and also fun to do that with the good old Sweden.

[@aramisone7198]

As a Swede I have to say he is right Sweden doesent need NATO for many reasons . I have to say what many in the world said in 2014 that the biggest Western powers did the same thing in 1999 in Yugoslavia as Russia is doing in the Ukraine but of course the politicians always have an excuse. Many are breaking a UN resolution where it says that Serbias borders and territorial integrity must be respected and other things in the resolution and that's the worst hypocrisy. The second war in Iraq was started by the Bush administration lied to the world and the UK was in on it and after the war they confesed. To start a war for no good reason is aggression but people usually only critisize a bit but its never the same reaction as it is if a non NATO country does it. So I question if we should be a part of a organization is not always the good guy and is used by the US for its interests . Of course propaganda is used and politicians always say that a war is started for good reasons but no one is helping anyone just to be nice that is not how politics works , its always about interests first hand .

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@HelsinkiFINketeli_berlin_com And we citizens of other NATO member countries should thank you Finns for joining us even if you don’t have to do so. Y’all have my personal gratitude, and also thanks to your Volvo-making cousins on your western border. 😄 The fact that Russia is stripping its border defenses to continue its invasion of Ukraine demonstrates that NATO was never an existential threat to Russia. That has always been a pretext to justify the Russian state’s criminality. The truth is that a criminal state always needs a “buffer”, if it can take it. When Belarus has been incorporated into Russia, it will need a friendly government in Poland to be the buffer. When it has taken Poland, it will need Germany to be the buffer. Perhaps Russia will finally feel safe when it has consumed Portugal.

[@ivanbrezina7632]

I'd say it is vice-versa. You can also say: Finland waited for decades for opportunity to join NATO. Now when Russia is weak, Finland can join a Russia can not do anything about that. So finally they can fully secure their sovereignty, never be invaded again.

[@fanta4897]

That argument is bullshit. However there is something that can be taken from that argument that makes sense: NATO does not have a purpouse anymore. It was created on the basis that nations in Europe could not defend themselves from invasion by USSR in any other way but through this gargantuan alliance. When USSR fell and its' power was diminished, it was argued that Russia effectivelly replaced USSR. I'd say that's debateable considering Russia's power back then but fair enough. However now that we see how much of a paper dragon Russia is, then this behemoth of an alliance called NATO is no longer neccessary. It can be effectivelly replaced by smaller alliances which would be more suited for conditions of NATO's countries (I'd propose 3 different alliances: Eastern and Central Europe, which would focus on keeping Russia in check, Western Europe which would be there just to maintain power of Western European countries, focus of them would be on threats from Africa and dealing with french territories, and then finally USA possibly with UK and possibly with some new members which would come from South America and Pacific, which would focus on maintaining peace in Pacific).

[@jeffreyhanc1711]

My 2 cents: so many older voices on the left, particularly here in the US, have a hard time letting go of the idea of Russia as an inherently Left entity that despite its failings and shortcomings is perpetually a victim to western capitalist imperialism (starting of course with the US). There is literally nothing “Left” about the Kremlin today, yet I don’t think these voices want to see this. That and the oddly - ironically - American Exceptionalist idea that ONLY the US has the powers, willingness and capabilities of acting in a destructively imperialist way today.

[@Focke42]

i would suggest, older people on the left may be more focussing on the failing of our western world, and then ignoring the participation(?) of problems of the rest of the world. im not sure with the word participation.

[@JeepCherokeeful]

Yeah, it’s as if the USSR still exists and today is a raving utopia success!

[@hotstixx]

He states clearly that all states when they get to a certain size behave as expansionist empires and has been extremely critical of Russia.

[@jeffreyhanc1711]

@@hotstixx he also said something to the effect that these things are unfortunately inevitable - larger stronger countries subjugating weaker ones - and the best and most prudent thing to do was for the weaker to work out a peaceful resolution as quick as possible even if not ideally in its favor (as well as for zelendky to stop doing his “Winston Churchill impression.”) My question is: would Noam Chomsky EVER say anything like that if it involved American imperialist aggression (like in the case of Iraq, to name one of many)? Somehow the moral outrage of the latter situation which would have fallen entirely on the aggressor state has now dissipated into some sanfroid realism in which the moral outrage is no longer focused squarely on the aggressor.

[@hotstixx]

@@jeffreyhanc1711 You have to be a bit more specific than 'he said something like'.There's a long history of those that distort,twist and deliberately misconstrue what he has said.I'm not saying you have,im just saying a quote or article would be great.This specific question is about the very real risk of nuclear conflagration.He's written so much on Empire,colonialism,neo-colonialism,hegemony etc. it would be difficult to capture his whole perspective in one quote/article.Also,this oft used sentiment that he uniquely picks on the U.S has been laid to rest on numerous occasions - That the U.S has been the dominant power/hegemon for so long invites criticism and moreso if you happen to be born there and have co-written a seminal book on the propaganda system,which goes to extraordinary lengths to conceal its crimes and create false narratives. Also,the notion that NATO are the necessarily the good guys is just such fatuous bull.That the U.S positions its strike weapons on the Russian border and calls it defence is farcical.I am not condoning Russian aggression at all,its utterly criminal.

[@tacticoolrick5562]

My friend and I had a conversation about Noam Chomsky. To put it in context, he defended the Khmer Rouge in the 70s. So no, he's not senile, he's just wrong.

[@peterfireflylund]

He's not even a good linguist.

[@winstonwolfe340]

Obviously wrong!

[@PerBuer]

So your statement is that we should reject all of Chomsky's thinking because he was wrong 50 years ago? I'm not sure I agree.

[@tacticoolrick5562]

@@PerBuer - No, we should reject Chomsky's thinking because he's a genocide apologizer.

[@hadronoftheseus8829]

That's an outright lie for which I guarantee in advance you can cite no sources.

[@michaelw6277]

Chomsky is a shining example of someone who is an unparalleled genius in one area who thinks his opinion is important in other areas.

[@DjeauxSheaux]

On linguistics? Pretty smart. On Cambodia? Not so much.

[@T4ppi]

Or on serbia

[@Maelli535]

..... and is seriously in error in that respect.

[@Maelli535]

@@DjeauxSheaux Not even on linguistics, if you know a bit about that subject.

[@DjeauxSheaux]

@@Maelli535 didn't he come up with the universal grammar theory?

[@Matlacha_Painter]

Professor Chomsky sells his political analysis with his academic accomplishments like a Hollywood celebrity who is self-taught on the other complicated issues of our time and expounds from their carrel in the library. Now the good professor is without question possessed of superior intellect. But “you don’t know what you don’t know”. Thank you Vlad for all your kind and balanced critique of his view of the world. You truly hit the nail on the head and after listening to you……I think it was indeed obvious…… and that you are correct once again.

[@oreoandoz7723]

Chomsky is an icon. The most important thing we learn in the academy, though, is critical thinking. So that we CAN disagree with professors, even icons. I think even Chomsky would agree that accepting any perspective without question is ultimately the more dangerous scenario. Hence, propaganda proliferates in cultures that discourage critical thinking and disagreement.

[@sillysad3198]

Chomsky is an icon of schizophrenia

[@fdr3898]

Some might even say "brand".

[@jnagarya519]

"Icon" = ossified.

[@roderickcampbell2105]

@@jnagarya519 Agreed J Nagarya. Chomsky is useless. The people who "cover" or follow him are even worse. He stopped making sense many decades ago.

[@DeviousDumplin]

Yes, but Chomsky has a long history of accusing people who disagree with him of false consciousness, and thus are not arguing from a real point of view. Sure, he says that debate is important. But if you debate with Chomsky he's not even going to engage with you, he's going to simply say that you're a puppet of western propaganda. It's the most intellectually dishonest, and least academic way to engage with a debate. He only advocates for vigorous debate because he realizes his political beliefs are wildly unpopular and indefensible. It is a purely self interested position for Chomsky.

[@tomlxyz]

He seems to be the kind of person who seeks peace in any way possible, ignoring if it could cause even more conflict in the future. It's kinda like being so tolerant that you also tolerate intolerance

[@dan_taninecz_geopol]

Yup. It's been called the paradox of tolerance.

[@BigPimp238]

No, he's a tankie He sees the US as the source of all evil, thinks more favourably about the USSR than Putin. He's defended the Kmer Rouge and Milosovic in Serbia. Anything anti US and NATO is positive to him regardless.

[@user-ns7qw9hd5y]

well put, thank you! and i say that as an admirer of chomsky.

[@NoManOdysseus]

Disagree as such - Noam appears to hold War as The Worst Thing instead of merely Very Bad. For example, many different things can be called Tyranny, but people can disagree what level of Tyrrany is worth War to avoid. Noam appears to rate being a civilian in Russia to be better than being in a warzone, while the Ukrainians have concluded the opposite. (Given their cultural and geographic proximity to Russia, I think the Ukrainians are closer to understanding what life is like in Russia than Noam)

[@kirillvourlakidis6796]

@@NoManOdysseus very insightful comment that pretty much captures the whole war in a rather concise way, thumbs up

[@vbpash2]

As Ukrainian myself I can say: all I hear every day from local politicians and ordinary people is that west in general and the USA in particular should send more weapons and faster so more lives of Ukrainians can be saved by counter-striking russian attacks, in particular the shelling the Ukrainian major cities with ballistic cruise missiles.

[@vbpash2]

@walter - to somebody who has never visited Ukraine and uses russian propaganda as a single source of information your “argument” might even make sense. Otherwise it is 🤮

[@vbpash2]

The rumor is that russian cruise missiles have special sensor equipped with language recognition and when they shell residential areas of Kharkiv the missiles aim only at houses of Ukrainian-speaking civilians while Russian-speaking citizens are well protected P.S. - just in case - that was a sarcasm

[@BennyGeserit]

Take air defence of cities. That has to be a very good thing. America gets to be front and centre because for better or worse they have the surplus nobody else has. Yes I believe the Pentagon wants Russia in the quagmire as they have written the book on lost military operations. They want Russia's abilty to make their numerous threats vastly reduced.

[@greenl7661]

@walter - their Jewish president is literally speaking Russian language

[@FelixDaleth]

@walter - You immediately start with a faulty foundation - there're few Russians even in Donbass, never mind Southern Ukraine. These regions are populated by Russian-speaking *Ukrainians* who are largely bilingual, as is the rest of the country. And in Ukraine Russian-speaking does not even mean "pro-Russian", nevermind "willing to join Russia". Ask an Irishman how he feels about joining England on account of speaking English, you'd get the picture. Half the Ukrainian army speaks Russian, cities like Kyiv, Sumy, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Mykolaiv do as well. And they all fought Russia tooth and nail. Furthermore many Russian-speaking Ukrainians support Ukrainization efforts promoted by the government, because everybody realizes that they speak Russian in the first place due to centuries old Russian policy to eradicate Ukrainian language, and that Russia uses its language as a weapon. Which is why you haven't seen any language policy unrest in Ukraine.

[@deanmalik5538]

Chomsky falls into the same catagory of Thomas Freidman. Very intelligent, highly regarded, and more often than not-completely wrong. What Chomsky calls “negotiation” and “diplomacy” is in reality “surrender.” Russia only understands the language of force and “might = right” you cannot “negotiate with such an entity. He’s completely projected his own radical left-wing fallacies upon Ukraine. It’s actually infuriating when you think about it. You are correct he’s a 0 out of 10 on all counts.

[@sillysad3198]

i happened to learn about Chomsky's "academic contribution" DECADES BEFORE i discovered hs political insanity. i must disappoint you, his "academic work" is just as empty and insane as his politics.

[@francisdec1615]

@@sillysad3198 I agree. We studied Chomsky's transformational grammar when I studied languages at the university. Not impressed by it at all.

[@sillysad3198]

@@francisdec1615 it is like he made it purposefully counterintuitive and avoiding to reflect all the important and natural features of langs.

[@laserbrain7774]

Hysterical.

[@conallgeneral8136]

@Eric Estrada what’s the wrong cause ? The one you don’t support ?

[@mrbubblewand]

Some things I'm not quite clear on with Chomsky's take on Ukraine: 1) Is Chomsky not clear on the premise of how the war started? That it was instigated by solely by Russia/Putin seemingly for imperialistic reasons? That there was already somewhat of a ceasefire/peace agreement for the past 8 years (Minsk accords) which Russia was the one to break in the first place? 2) Why does he (and some of his supporters) seem to completely disregard Ukrainian agency in regards to the fate of their own country?

[@VladVexlerChat]

I think what I keep emphasising is that Ukrainians agency isn't just a moral matter, but a political one. If you deny it, you won't be able to predict how Ukrainians will react to a colonial invasion. Re Putin, I am guessing Noam thinks Putin has a set of predictable, partly reasonable and partly unreasonable concerns - which in no war justify this war. I disagree with him here, because I don't believe Putin has a concrete set of demands towards Ukraine. Ukraine is a frontier on a wider pattern of escalation - the expression I keep repeatedly using in my videos.

[@mrbubblewand]

@@VladVexlerChat Thank you for the response, Vlad! I am not an intellectual or philosopher or such. But I like to watch video essays on KZbin. I only recently found your videos and they've helped me understand things a bit better as a regular person regarding this war.

[@Bisquick]

Ok soo I think you guys are missing an enormous historical continuity here to say the least, but I certainly can't fault anyone for not knowing this stuff as it's pretty intensively hidden by cultural/ideological lacunas that are cemented and reified constantly. I just want to point out really quickly before elaborating that there is a huge chasm between normative and descriptive claims, and this video and really none of the replies I've read either have addressed the descriptive claims Noam is making which is really the entire point, ie the _material_ interests that ground, shape, and direct our social/ideological orientation - which I will now attempt to briefly (well, with any luck lol...) outline: The US has positioned itself as the "consumer of last resort" at the end of the global supply chain to absorb inevitable overproduction of capitalism through cheap consumption or of course through our favorite activity of war/arms sales (military Keynesianism, the only button we can push at this point clearly). NATO is an arms distribution network for the military industrial complex and essentially the public face of a European sphere of US domination, covertly enforced by a "strategy of tension" template seen in things like Operation Gladio in Italy (see: "years of lead", Aldo Moro assassination, Bologna bombings, etc.) with parallel operations in _every_ NATO country (and even the ostensibly "neutral" countries like Belgium, Sweden _and_ Finland - Austria in fact having done an extensive internal investigation after discovering this if I recall) where the CIA directed fascist paramilitary insurgencies to stoke public fear toward particular goals favorable to US corporate/finance capital and continued US hegemony. Far from a "defensive military alliance" as is endlessly parroted without question (see: Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq), its internally recognized function as succinctly put by its first secretary general was/is to _"keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out"_ and wouldya look at that, it continues to do exactly this. Surely goes without saying, but as I was getting at in the first paragraph I'm explaining this because of course this is merely the basic understanding of the actual material/historical context/continuity left missing for Russia's invasion of Ukraine; to be clear - not a justification, merely an explanation, "is" not "ought" as Hume would put it. Far from being a spontaneous "unprovoked attack" as is _also_ constantly parroted without question, this issue has been highlighted by Russia since the immediate aftermath of the USSR's collapse in '91, James Baker promising Gorbachev NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" in seeking reunification of Germany (see: transcript of this in natsec archives). In being far from a surprise, many have densely highlighted exactly this for decades, plenty of folks like John Mearsheimer, Chomsky obviously (as in there are interviews from decades ago where he mentions this), George Kennan (long telegram author, basically declared the original "cold" war), now-CIA director William Burns' wikileaked memo "Nyet means Nyet" from '08 declaring a conscious understanding of their security concerns, hell even the demonic arcon Henry Kissinger himself (responsible for planning most of the callous and grotesque war crimes of the 20th century in the name of US empire) noted this increasingly exacerbated situation would eventually lead to a larger conflict and have been doing so for decades (not an exaggeration, you can find any of them, hell you can find _Biden himself_ saying this decades ago). One could also refer to a few RAND corp studies published years ago called things like "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia", as it reveals how intentionally calculated this entire thing was - uncoincidentally the _very first_ thing on it is to flood Ukraine with "lethal aid" to goad Russia. Also maybe check out The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski (the entirety of this work pretty densely illuminates the macro global "full spectrum domination" plan for US hegemony via control over global oil markets), cold warrior architect of Operation Cyclone, which is basically the _first_ time we did this to the then-USSR in Afghanistan before/during/after the Saur revolution in order to, in his words, "give the USSR its own Vietnam" ie 'overextend' them. If circumstantially unfamiliar, this was a covert operation in Afghanistan in which the CIA funded/trained the Salafi-jihadist mujahideen separatists to goad the USSR into an unwinnable resource draining insurgency, hence the "cyclone"; that insurgent faction later fractures into Al Qaeda and the Taliban..."oops"; revealing too toward current events in Europe and NATO's functionality for US economic domination over Europe as this is basically the Operation Gladio template applied to the western asia (middle east) region (in fact, if FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is believed, Al Qaeda was _directly_ coordinated in some sense via the CIA's direction, she claims this was Gladio-B). Actually, probably the best or rather most grounded place for one to start to understand the current situation more clearly (and a good microcosm one can extrapolate further to the mechanics behind the thin blood-soaked curtain here) is to understand that we (the US) orchestrated a coup in '14 that is often painted in mainstream corporate media, if mentioned at all of course, as a "revolution of dignity", which obscures the reality here that is betrayed by a leaked phone call of Victoria Nuland that anyone can listen to where she says "f*ck the EU" (the only thing the corporate media focused on at the time, I would say intentionally so to distract from more damning conclusions about this) and "magically" picking the next Ukrainian president after Yanukovych is ousted. She says, _“I don’t think Klitsch_ [Vitaly Klitschko] _should go into government… I think Yats_ [Arseniy Yatseniuk] _is the guy…“_ The immediate issue was whether to accept a loan from the International Monetary Fund which was going to require a 40% increase in natural gas bills or to accept a loan from Russia with the inclusion of cheap oil and gas. The opposition wanted the Yanukovych government to take the EU/IMF loan. The opposition was comprised of different factions, undeniably including the neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and Right Sector. And there is where it all connects to financial empire of the US, as usual for "western" corporate media situations like this cannot always be flattened into manichean nonsense, as this economic decision is not "pro-Russia" so much as it is _an objectively better deal_ on energy, similar to the absolute mess - the very real _disunity_ behind the public façade in terms of material vs. ideological/subordination to US "full spectrum domination"- we are _demanding_ of Germany with the SPD now once again selling out the working class (see: split between national/international socialists pre-1918 over war credits) by signing its death warrant in terms of energy acquisition (see: Nord Stream II). There's "freedom" and "sovereignty" in the _reality_ of geopolitics, which is to say the overarching global financial empire run at the behest of the US. Cui bono? As usual, the military industrial complex of the US and the protected "exceptional" corporate/finance capital which it serves. The empire feeds off the republic. This is all an extremely basic outline, the tip of the imperialist iceberg but check out Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in particular to understand the marxist aka the _materialist_ analytical framework of concentrated and global monopoly capital, particularly with how finance (or as Marx appropriately called it, fictitious capital) merges with military industry toward the goal of solidifying hegemony via empire (also see: optimates of the late Roman empire for a juxtaposition). Some books coming to mind for anyone interested, less about the economic side and more about the "cold" war history conveniently ignored/overlooked by the hegemonic cultural memory and its hagiographical palimpsests of history (but of course any awareness of the "cui bono?" of this stuff will understand that these things are entirely inseparable): Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky/Herman of course, The Devil's Chessboard by David Talbot, Killing Hope by William Blum, The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins, The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski as mentioned (in which he mentions using Ukraine as a "battering ram" if I recall), War is a Racket by Smedley Butler (also see: "business plot" _actual_ fascist coup plot against FDR by wall street which he was asked to lead revealing to him he had been the fixer for the "gangsters of capitalism" and to wall street's chagrin turned this down and instead exposed it and the evils of capitalism he had been unwittingly party to; was crucial to the "banana wars" Monroe Doctrine policy for United Fruit Company in like Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, et al. - origin of the term "banana republic"), etc. Or of course just look up "US involvement in regime change" or any of the CIA's operational history while persistently asking the _only_ political question of 'who benefits?'

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@Bisquick Took you long enough to get to the usual excuses. Muh NATO expansion. Confusing Al Qaeda and Taliban for the Mujahideen. The Victoria Nuland call somehow making Ukrainians brainless puppets against the fair and benevolent Yanukovych.

[@JonathanAcademic]

@@VladVexlerChat "Ukrainian agency" means what exactly? Is it purely endogenous after this country gets billions and billions of dollars of weapons from other countries and is tied to a superpower's sanctions? Is it unform (unitary state) when part of Ukraine shells civilians in another part? Is the "civil war" thing just Russian propaganda? Are Biden's attempts at goals beyond defense of Ukraine not part of the calculus in which weapons are transfered to affect "Ukrainian agency"? This concept begs so many questions, yet is a big platitude that circulates in many a brain. And what about peace talks that require compromise? Would that damage or restrict "agency" and so what if it would? When we have had arms control agreements and peace treaties, does that not limit agency? When the left spins the same kind of arguments used by Republicans to attack the United Nations, one really has to wonder.

[@e1123581321345589144]

It'not just him. The percentage of people who underestimate the non instrumental forms of nastiness is too damn high

[@dawoifee]

I know of it and I also sometimes fall into that trap. It is just a form we are primed trough narrative structures in literature and films I assume. I haven't done any research about it tough, just my thoughts as a layman. If a fall into this trap a take a step back, take a deep breath and read some more an an issue.

[@judyweeks1480]

I feel very fortunate to have come across your channel. I am not an intellectual but you explain things so well and the more I listen, the more I can clear the cobwebs and engage my brain. It's been a few years since I've found it necessary to sit and focus on a topic to this degree. Having a clearer understanding of what is happening certainly helps me collect my thoughts much better within it. I am not one of those bearing the brunt of this horrific travesty, as I don't live in Ukraine, nor am I Ukrainian. I am very grateful for the Ukrainian people's immense sacrifices, for the world, I believe. I am well aware of the possible repercussions for the rest of the world due to this unnecessary aggressive act by Russia. I have high regard for Mr. Chomsky's views but my instincts certainly waved red flags to hear him say that Ukraine did not want so much weaponry and that they were being over weaponized. That Ukraine's want for weapons is part of the west's propaganda, particularly the U.S. I agree that his intense focus on the U.S. in this particular situation is off the mark and I believe only serves to feed the Russian Federation's propaganda efforts. I do agree that the U.S. wants to help Ukraine weaken Russia, Lloyd Austin, their Secretary of Defense stated as much, in an interview, after he met with President Zelensky in Ukraine. Not to say that he said it in the same way you did. Thank you, again, for offering these very informative videos.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thank you so much for feeling this is of value. I am looking forward to a big Q&A later in the week on this channel, and hopefully a video on the main channel on Sunday.

[@judyweeks1480]

@@VladVexlerChat You are such a gracious person.

[@AndyWallWasWeak]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but feels like both Soviets then and Ukrainians recently wanted first of all more dignifying standards of living. Having bought into the 'West' idea, Russians accepted defeat in Cold War and dissolution of USSR. Those (who wanted to live like in America) were of course immediately proven naive, with country becoming more like a South American failed state - drugs, mobs, poverty, exports as only profitable sector, plus also complete dismantling of industries, loss of 'intelligentsia' to bootleggers, AIDs, terrible demographics (very telling of populace's 'hopes', proving my point I believe). The West even betrayed democracy in Russia, accepting and collaborating for decade with its current leadership. After 90s the naivete went further in Ukraine, hopeful that by joining EU or NATO it can again attain better living standards. Well, we now see how it's playing out, with country losing even its territory, lives not just livelihoods. Not only West never offered aid, even their support for independence was questionable until Biden rallied the allies. I hope I will be proven wrong, and war stops, and there will be some kind of Marshall plan to rebuild it. This is mercantilist cut-throat world, especially in business. I'm still grateful how people reacted in the West (despite polarisation and declining own standards of living), bringing attention and potentially stopping even worse atrocities "somewhere far away in EE", or that at least Poland after own betrayal by allies decades ago didn't collude with Russia to conquer Western Ukraine or something crazy like that. Perhaps, there is some light in all of this. But looks like over long-term the whole region is worse off, even more division, global capitalism influence (including China), further undermining human rights and freedoms globally... Multi-lateral order is further diminished with allies simply following U.S. without discussion, which is what Noam (!) seems to be more afraid of: uncontrollable, unquestionable hegemony of a country failing to step up to help own citizens let alone defend freedoms and dignity around the globe, as it presents itself as leader of free world.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@VladVexlerChat You are completely off the Mark. Completely

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@VladVexlerChat Ukraine needs urgent free elections of a new government because the current government can not provide safety for the people....or else, The cost of the Sanctions against Russia would have to be recovered from Ukraine. There is no other way for the Russians, they must take over the entire country and recover what they lost from sanctions. Save Ukraine by electing a new government or else it will be taken over by the Russians or enslaved by the West.

[@sailawayteam]

Spot on Vlad. What I found particularly alarming in Chomsky's comment was the idea that American or English "propaganda" drives this situation. I find it very anglocentric view especially when he is supposed to be critical towards anglocentricism - he seems to fall for it himself. I live in Finland and our newspapers and TV stations have many good correspondences in Ukraine, in Russia, who know the countries - I don't need CNN to tell me what's going on at the moment (or Chomsky for that matter). We know people from these countries, refugees from both of these countries, at no point is US "propaganda" needed here to form a view of the current situation.

[@meatrealwishes]

He is on Russian payroll. Many like him got exposed this time in the US for not getting there was a change in how we were getting raw updates on the war because of starlink and russia’s inability to learn how to conceal their communication. We didn’t ignore what the main Russian source Putin was saying on his state channel. Most of the exposed minions are keeping a low profile right now.

[@TinyPirate]

You’ve identified a common bias in Anglo lefties, I’m afraid.

[@robinpage2730]

Noam Chomsky is a solid example of the fact that no person, no matter is perfect, even if they're extremely intelligent. We all get it wrong at times, some get it wrong more often, others get it wrong bigger, but we can all get it wrong.

[@jonaseggen2230]

He denied that there was a genocide going on in both Cambodia and later Kosovo. The man is on autopilot when it comes to anything that can be seen as a conflict between USA and anyone else. It's always: "My team bad, therefore the other team good."

[@veronicamaine3813]

Chomsky may be intelligent but he works exactly like a stupid person according to cipolla - he fulfills law 2 in spades - The probability that a certain person be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. And also law 3 A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses and finally law 5 A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

[@sillysad3198]

@@jonaseggen2230 "My team bad, therefore the other team good."..... hello "conservative" pootin supporters?

[@dr.nihilus2632]

@@jonaseggen2230 Absolutely agree.

[@pabis6817]

@@jonaseggen2230 💯

[@sparrowsparrow4197]

thanks again vlad taking time and energy to care for us and share insights

[@hamzariazuddin424]

I love the way you dissect everything. Again my first time on this channel. Big respect. Very clear and concise. And you actually talk through what Chomsky is saying in good faith. Some people just completely misrepresent him

[@FatUberUddersOfChaos]

It is not just Chomsky. As a lefty most of the left wing commentators, intellectuals i often listen to have opinions on Ukraine I disagree with. They are so stuck in an western anti-imperialist view.

[@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube]

Boy oh boy, isn't that true. Chomsky, like every other human has ideological barriers to being purely objective. The problem with him and people of his ilk is that they have been propped up as prophets so they see themselves as nearly flawless in their thinking. Cheers.

[@peterhardie4151]

Arming Nazis to fight a nuclear power. No credible left wing argument against that.

[@peterhardie4151]

No rational argument against handing billions of pounds to weapons manufacturers despite much of the equipment not being useful and or gets destroyed as soon as it enters Ukraine.

[@peterhardie4151]

No left wing argument against the use of sanctions which impoverish people in Russia and Europe but do virtually nothing to bring about a peaceful solution.

[@happyhappynuts]

Yes, Democracy Now leans heavily that way

[@toi_techno]

Great video. The idea that self-defence is a form of aggression is leading to the anti-war movement looking ridiculous in it's opposition to the Ukraine war, a war that can only be unilaterally ended by Russia.

[@HegelsOwl]

You got the wrong war. Ukraine's war is cultural. Only Ukraine can end the war, by acknowledging and respecting the basic human rights of its Russian-speaking people.

[@EugeneMuratov]

​@@HegelsOwl c'mon putin's army primarily bombs russian speaking Ukrainians. If this is a cultural war then your putin aims to destroy every russian speaker of Ukraine.

[@ericconnor8419]

@@HegelsOwl Russia invaded Ukraine, they are the aggressor you are talking complete nonsense

[@HegelsOwl]

@ Eric Conor I'm "talking nonsense"? Only to liars. The war started in 2014, and EVERYBODY knows it. Correct?

[@JustinFisher777]

@@HegelsOwl It would be nice if Russia would respect the rights of Russian speakers by not shelling them in the Donbass and arresting them for speaking out at home.

[@angelikaskoroszyn8495]

There're two things he simply can't acknowledge 1. Peace talks and negotioations have already failed Ukraine. He seems to think that the war has just started, that it's a completly new developedment. And yet the conflict continues for centuries already. It doesn't mean it cannot be resolved today but to achieve it you need good faith actors. Putin's Russia has been proven to be untrustworthy 2. Ukrainians no longer see Russia as a brotherly country. Just like Polish national identity developed under German/Russian occupation now Ukrainians are starting to see themselves as seperate from the country. Which is great for the West but bad for any possibility for appeasement. They cannot give up any lands and any people to Russia anymore. There're no longer ethnic pro Russia Russians or historic Russian lands. There's only Ukraine

[@judithcampbell1705]

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and thoughts. We appreciate 🙏 very much.

[@tikiman1323]

I'm an Lithuanian and I can't listen to such people like Chomsky without getting angry. All the fear and anger just bubbles up. So thank you for the video, it helped to listen, think about it, and keep in check my urges to strangle the old man. By the way, I was his fan at some time. It's so strange how such intellectuals can't understand that there are more than one empire in the world. And that smaller nations attacked by one empire appreciate another empire that comes to help. Uh, I feel I'm getting angry again :D

[@JamesRowlandsRocks]

That's because you're the descendant of an inherently violent and angry people, who willingly participated in the Holocaust.

[@tikiman1323]

@@JamesRowlandsRocks What urged you to write this comment? What's its purpose?

[@negy2570]

At some point we all felt that intellectuals knew it better, but they don't. They're more often walking on a thin thread that is actually of little utility.

[@mornnb]

I spend a lot of time with Ukrainians in supporting protests and the general attitude appears to be is that Ukraine can make certain compromises such as staying neutral and out of NATO, but the redline is territory (no compromises on Donbas or Crimea). Chomsky seems to be completely unaware of what the Ukrainians want in this and is seeing it as an American and Russian decision which is bizarre and shows he is viewing everything through the prism of imperialism. Yes this might be part of a larger war between the west and Russia, but Ukraine is in full control of the frontline. Indeed they will proudly say they are fighting for the free world. And the Ukrainian perspective is, weapons are badly needed to handle a much more armed enemy, as for the moment peace negotiation though badly wanted doesn't seem possible as Russia is insisting on territory demands. Chomsky seems to me to be someone who is trapped in a certain perspective of the world and is not looking outside a conceptual box he has created.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Narrow anti imperialism can become a kind of compliment to imperialism in reverse.

[@mornnb]

​@@VladVexlerChat Yes! I think this is a common intellectual blindness that can be seen all over the place that we can all fall victim to - the desire to frame complex problems and systems into the elegance of a single narrative, when in actuality many problems in reality are an ugly mess of multiple narratives.

[@watching99134]

@@VladVexlerChat Chomsky starts every discussion with the premise that the U.S. is to blame.

[@twodivision]

I think that Noam actually makes a very common mistake for western scholars: he's viewing the war between russia and ukraine as a war between governments, while it is in fact a war between nations (it's not putin and zelensky fighting, but rather russians and ukrainians). The absolute majority of russians support the complete dismantling of ukrainian independence, while the absolute majority of ukrainians support at the very least the return of full sovereignty, with a vast portion of population willing to go as far as to dismantle the russian state completely. When looking at the conflict through this lense, it becomes clear that any compromise is impossible and will lead to the complete defeat of ukraine. Basically, such statements as Chomsky's are the result of a lack of the information on the context of this conflict and the political context of the whole region.

[@gregb5683]

Hi Yevhen, My 2 cents as it relates some US scholars…especially in the context of global politics. I find that they are extremely critical of US actions around the world. Which I don’t think is generally bad think to do. The criticism is important. But I think his miscalculation is related to his moral objection to US overwhelming influence globally. With his baseline being Vietnam. And the reality of the outcomes of working with bad actors like Russia and China in good faith. I truly think he just wants to stop the human suffering and is angry the US didn’t find someway to give putin something to not invade…like remove the sanctions put in place from 2014. But what he and other like Jeffrey Sachs get wrong is letting their own goodness cloud their understanding of what negotiations with a Putin leads too. It only leads to a stronger Putin rewarded for his bad deeds. It won’t stop his future crimes.

[@twodivision]

@@gregb5683 you are absolutely right, but I'd like to add that especially in case of Russia a lot of the older leftist scholars tend to percieve it as if it still was somehow "leftist" or "communist" and therefore blatantly defend its actions, dismissing criticism as "western/capitalist propaganda". What is also worth mentioning is that a lot of left political movements like those chomsky took part in during his younger years were financed by USSR and some are still financed by Russia, causing an obvious bias in the views of such movements and their participants.

[@gregb5683]

@@twodivision perhaps. Though he never wouldn’t classify the Soviet Union or Putin as leftest states in execution. He does despise capitalism and does align with the modern Marxist view. So it’s probably a bit of both.

[@gregb5683]

@@twodivision are you from Ukraine?

[@twodivision]

@@gregb5683 yes

[@robertbrennan2268]

This is a very valuable conceptual analysis of Chomsky's method and his reaching for a kind of "pie in the sky" moral endpoint when it comes to Ukraine, viz. that USA/UK are seeking to provide more lethal weapons in order to prolong the war and avoid a negotiated settlement. The idea is that Ukraine does not really need (or perhaps want!) this level of weaponry. The notion of "negotiation" as the road to peace here is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting - since, as you explain, Putin's goals are focused on fragmenting Nato in the process of subjugating Ukraine which he sees as in reality essentially Russian territory. The risks in accepting a Chomskian position of "forcing" onto Ukraine a settlement based on ceding territory recapitulate the gamble of Munich 1938 , enforced at the expense of Czechs, and in any case, rapidly superseded by further aggressive acts. Thank you Vlad.

[@VladVexlerChat]

My pleasure!!!!

[@johnlavers3970]

the usa shouldn't have supported the maidan coup that started all this. it over threw the elected government and brought two fascist and one nazi party into the governing coalition. these three couldn't get over seven per cent in the election but their militias are now in the ukrainian military

[@nancywysemen7196]

pleased by your shared curiosity and conversation. thank-you.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thank you Nancy!

[@ralphclark]

As a long time admirer of Professor Chomsky and yet having sometimes been confused and disappointed by the occasional apparent manifestation of blind spots in his worldview, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful contribution here Vlad.

[@VladVexlerChat]

My pleasure.

[@richardfinlayson1524]

Yeah ,you hold a similar position to me ,it seems

[@danielshepard2315]

He has the same position that he has on every other war....

[@the0ne809]

​@@danielshepard2315 he did mental gymnastics for the Bosnia genocide. some people on the left who I agree on many issues are incapable of either criticizing Russia or any country align with Russia or love to do both sides and whataboutism. Lula, who want to win in the Brazilian election, comes to mind. he literally did both sides are equally responsible.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@the0ne809 Name his "mental gymnastics for the Bosnia genocide" Apparently Noam isn't one of those people because he harshly has criticized Russia his entire life. But nice try...

[@sshender3773]

Vlad, thank you for answering the call on Chomsky. Looking forward to similar topical videos of the other "It's all the West's fault" proponents. The comments section is truly heartwarming; Rarely have I seen such an intellectually honest and profound audience on any YT channel. Speaks volumes about the quality of the crowd you attract. My 10 cents: 1. I've no idea about his Linguistic achievements, but most of the thinkers I find authoritative, including his detractors on the political stage, seem to agree on his bona fides, so far be it from me to challenge that. 2. His political analytical prowess has been utterly exaggerated and inflated by his ideological fellow travelers, who make up a disproportionally large chunk of Western academia. In effect, the result of an echo chamber. 3. Chomsky's intellectual track record is a mixed bag, but his belittling and borderline denial of not one, but 2 genocides - Cambodian and Bosnian - I think should have relegated him to the fringes, however, point #2 made sure that didn't happen, and he was instead elevated to intellectual stardom. 4. The first time I came across him was in relation to the Arab/Israeli conflict (through Norman Finkelstein), back when I was still toying with radical leftism in my youth. However, even then, in spite of the fact that he was "on my side" of the isle, I found his theories dubious and simplistic at best, and outright factually false in many other instances. As time passed by, I exchanged my knee-jerk reactionary cheering for the underdog kind of leftism for a balanced and learned view of that conflict, I realized that my suspicions were right all along, and Noam is simply bats**t crazy. 5. Noam seems little different to your average Tankie whose entire modus opernadi is obsessed with the US, and where EVERY fart anywhere in the world can somehow be tied back to the latter's nefarious scheming. It can really be boiled down to US = Bad. Ergo, anyone in opposition to it is by definition an ally, whose transgressions should be either denied or at least downplayed. Reminds of that time when Judith Buttler "welcomed" Hamas and Hezbollah into the "global left". (one of the starkest examples of the so-called "horseshoe" theory). 6. Listening to his "negotiations and diplomacy" argument, I can't help but get a déjà vu from Jeffrey Sachs. 7. His ignorance of what is actually going on in Ukraine (the war gains) and the stance of the Ukrainians themselves is jaw-dropping. Wouldn't be the first time he's pushing a narrative that is built on empirically false premises. 8. I agree with your take that the US doesn't mind, and in fact welcomes, the Russian quagmire in Ukraine. However, I fail to see anything wrong with that. If the interests of both Ukraine and the West obviously converge, so why not take advantage of it? It's one (morally reprehensible) thing to instigate it - which is what Chomsky et al. seems to suggest - and completely another to jump on the opportunity when it presents itself. Nothing conspiratorial about it. 9. I also agree with your line of argument about the tactical nukes being to our advantage in driving a wedge between Russia and the fence sitters. 10. Noam is a dogmatic ideologue of the worst kind. Completely closed-minded and lacking any self introspection. Not once have I heard him preface his utterings with "I may be wrong, but" or "it seems to me that". Instead, it's all categorical" truth" delivered as gospel.

[@TheAlchaemist]

Great 10 cents! I fully agree. Now, something that is often unnoticed in these conversations is that is not being right what makes you "win", but the actual cost-benefit of gaining the land. And as Russia has been such a sloppy disaster with a cartoonish evil lord, even including genocide, makes things much easier.

[@radishpineapple74]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

[@crivsmum4820]

how could he deny the genocide in Bosnia? I was in close quarters with soldiers who were posted there and they were sick from what they saw, leading to breakdowns and divorces and ptsd so it must have been bad, as they weren't new recruits ...

[@danielshepard2315]

2. If you knew anything about Chomsky, you would know that other academics mostly despise him, he is almost never invited on mainstream media despite being one of the most cited intellectuals of all time. Chomsky is also harshly critical of academia, and since they mostly just serve power. 3. Not sure what "borderline denial" means but Chomsky doesn't "deny" anything that happened in Cambodia or Bosnia, and no one has ever been able to point out where he has. He has criticized the US for lying and exaggerating those atrocities for their own interests, he doesn't deny or downplay them. 4. This isn't really an argument and is mostly just platitudes, I don't know what " a balanced and learned view of that conflict," means but "I was a leftist but then I grew up and became a liberal" is such a tired old trope 5. Do you know what a "tankie" means? A tankie is someone who supports Stalinism/the USSR, Noam is one of the harshest critics of the USSR on the left. What you are saying here is a complete strawman that has nothing to do with anything Noam actually said. Also, this has nothing to do with Chomsky, but if Judith Buttler welcoming Hamas proves "horseshoe theory" then what does American liberals welcoming Azov battalion, the Mujahedeen, the IDF, Al Nusra, and Nicaraguan death squads prove about that theory?

[@jnagarya519]

@@danielshepard2315 "He has criticized the US for lying and exaggerating those atrocities". How does one "exaggerate" an atrocity? -- unless, of course, you aren't the subject of it? And, no: liberals did not approve of such as the Mujahadeen or Nicaraguan death squads. You far leftists have so painted yourselves into a tiny corner that you've become untethered from moral reasoning - no different from the far-right with the same harangue: do as I say even though I don't do as I say. Chomsky is irrelevant, and made so by self-bullshitting arrogance. He lives for the praise he gets from dunderheads. Putin is a Neo-Stalinist. You criticize the academy as "serving power," and praise Putin because he IS the power. Well, at least your safe, for now, being near upper floor windows.

[@robertclark6992]

Just caught this video from a while back. Thanks for a very insightful and balanced critique. My son would find Chomsky validating on this issue. You've provided a great assessment for me to share

[@thunbergmartin]

Hey! I just got this video suggested too me, What a great, informed, and tasteful critique. I really enjoyed this analysis, thank you!

[@MikeD-qx1kr]

These days, I genuinely get excited when I see a new video by Vlad. Like a child in front of a new toy. What a great feeling! Thank you.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Mike thank you so much, I hope you've had a lovely Sunday!

[@MaudMargretheRex]

Word

[@DezorianGuy]

Please grow up.

[@patrickdowney1995]

@@DezorianGuy Does getting excited mean one hasn't grown up?

[@MikeD-qx1kr]

@@patrickdowney1995 :D quiet the opposite if you ask me. I agree with you.

[@jonathanellwood]

Love how you respectfully deal with an opposing intellectual proposition, so well argued, so logical. Not something that I have as yet found on KZbin. So impressed with your channel. Thankyou!

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thank you Jonathan - I am a bit more unbuttoned here on the second channel, but it’s easy with Noam, as he so clearly has integrity.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@VladVexlerChat It seems, Electricity goes away this year, fuel supply goes away by the Spring of next year. The merciful Russians still allow transport to exist for the people to move. But next year, the planting and harvesting of the crops will be done with horses and carts because fuel will be targeted. ... unless, Ukraine elects a new government that will provide safety for its people.....or else, The cost of the Sanctions against Russia would have to be recovered from Ukraine. There is no other way for the Russians, they must take over the entire country and recover what they lost from sanctions. Save Ukraine by electing a new government or else it will be taken over by the Russians or enslaved by the West.

[@ruygranja]

Thank you again Vlad. A great pleasure to watch!!!

[@kathrynoreilly6064]

i enjoyed this, along with the audio {Caruso} and visuals, I love how you articulate what I often feel, intuitively

[@tommitchell6307]

This is superb commentary. Thank you so much! I've forced myself to listen to everything Chomsky has said on Ukraine and the Owen Jones interview was the hardest to continue to the end (I was much more annoyed with Jones nodding along than Chomsky being Chomsky). You've articulated all my intuitions about where and why Chomsky is dead wrong in a way so elegant that I'm rather in awe. I'd add that, even in linguistics, where he is universally revered, he has blind spots. His student and fellow public intellectual Steven Pinker points out that, despite having identified universal grammar and formalised its structure, he refuses to acknowledge that it evolved. Bizarre but true. Thanks again.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thanks so much Tom. I was considering a longer episode on this on the main channel, but ended up doing a casual chat on the clips channel. People were asking for comment after that interview with Owen!

[@misterpinkandyellow74]

Chomsky is wrong farming Russia as an aggressor.

[@emom358]

Thank you. I've wondered, now and then, how my reading of situations could be so far off from Chomsky (and other great men), but being a mere factory worker I must be wrong, but I don't feel wrong.

[@VladVexlerChat]

But please don't just trust me either! Thanks so much for watching!

[@emom358]

@@VladVexlerChat I don't. I check other sources as well, where possible. And not just online.

[@DeviousDumplin]

Chomsky isn't a 'great man.' He's a washed up professor coasting on his academic work 40 years ago, who uses his remaining fame to make excuses for genocidal dictatorships. You are a more intellectually honest and morally respectable person that Chomsky will ever be. Because I'm pretty sure you have never publicly denied a genocide, let alone two, like Chomsky has.

[@martycrow]

Please don't misunderstand my comment as anything more than a warm one. So, as you say "Chomsky (and other great men)" may read a situation one way - and they have built their careers and reputations on reading situations. You, on the other hand, read situations out of interest and that says something about you! All the best!

[@misterpinkandyellow74]

you are so far off because you are a person with no ethics.

[@EvelynnEleonore]

Thank you very much for this video. It shed a lot of light on a philosopher who I've had complicated feelings about for years. also the automatic subtitles say "gnomes" when you say "Noam's" and I got a hearty chuckle out of that

[@lenhindle1108]

Thank you for such an even-handed, astute and accurate critique of an exceptional modern moral philosopher. Your respect for Noam is evident and warranted and that makes your presentation so powerful. I look forward to viewing all your KZbin content.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thank you! This is my second channel for casual conversations - my main channel contains more polished videos.

[@lenhindle1108]

@@VladVexlerChat can you send me a link to your bio? I'd like to learn more about your life and work.

[@VladVexlerChat]

There is a tiny snippet of a bio in the About section on the main channel (not this Clips channel). For more I will send my website live in a few weeks and you will find a long one there!

[@lenhindle1108]

Thank you....you seem like a 'mensch'...lol....I find your combination of humanity and intelligence admirable. Keep up the great work.

[@secretdiva9414]

I’m so glad you are speaking about this. I heard the talk too and I found his view to be very narrow and generally ignorant of Putin and Russia as they are currently. Thanks Vlad.

[@sillysad3198]

he fundamentally denies any personal agency whatsoever -- he is a communist -- everything that happens is a work of some "powers".

[@VladVexlerChat]

Pleasure. Basically, there is an anti-colonial movement in Ukraine. Chomsky is missing the extent of it. And, Putin didn't start this war to take Donbas and a couple of minor towns - it's a wider project of escalation.

[@secretdiva9414]

@@VladVexlerChat yes indeed.

[@nousnavi2167]

You are projecting your own ignorance. Read his other talks and writings on the issue. He can't give an exhaustive analysis in one talk. Btw, he has called the Russian assault on Ukraine "criminal aggression".

[@secretdiva9414]

@@nousnavi2167 thanks for your comment. I actually have a deep and abiding respect and admiration of Noam Chomsky. I have listened to him for decades and read his books before that. I appreciate what your saying about not being able to cover things in one talk too. His stance against the US military industrial complex and American exceptionalism I still fundamentally agree with despite my opinion above. I just think that Noam made a biased assessment in this case based on his own stance against American culture and is somewhat ethnocentric. What do you think?

[@VladVexlerChat]

Comment on the comments. Chomsky's fault is not dishonesty, but the opposite - a quaint child-like simplicity in political judgement. Calling him dishonest is to replicate his own fast declarations that opponents are immoral or untruthful. Plus, it's a boring insult - the world is full of dishonest people, and there are plenty of opportunities to direct it at the right target. Great intelligence and integrity are compatible with poor judgement in politics - when Isaiah Berlin met Einstein he called him socially and politically child-like. Ps. The favourable and unfavourable comments calling this video ‘balanced’ are reacting to the tone, not the content. In content, this video is eviscerating. But nobody has noticed 😉 It's just that I have no doubt about Chomsky's integrity.

[@johnnygreen1376]

Here's how I critique Chomsky: he's a linguist. If what he's talking about is outside the field of linguistics, he's probably ill-informed and just chasing audience. Anyone who says Ukraine should chase a ceasefire has a profound misunderstanding of how Putin works.

[@henriikkak2091]

And how Russia works. For pete's sake, there's nothing new about how Russia has behaved in Ukraine. It's been centuries of the same old.

[@johnnygreen1376]

@@henriikkak2091 Spot-on. as if they're going to agree to take a small part of Ukraine, stop, and be peaceful. It's ridiculous.

[@stretchydave]

Excellent video ....Very skillfully presented......thank you

[@martifingers]

This is a model of how to engage with the moral and political debates of our time. I come away from it with more to think about and with a fog of confusion partly cleared. Thank you Vlad.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thank you!

[@Duckieperson]

‘I have more in common with people who disagree with me than with people who agree but think that my position is obvious.’ This. Thanks for putting it into words. I’ve been wondering for years now how it’s possible that I’m surrounded by left-wing friends, but can only really talk about politics with the one right-wing guy I know.

[@Poirecorp]

Man, that sentence really put words in my situation too. Despite being sympathetic for left-leaning ideas out of rational consideration, leftists make me feel so ideologically pressured to agree lest I'm evil that I often end up feeling closer to their critics from the right.

[@spacemanx9595]

​@@PoirecorpI just tell them to shut up and listen. They usually do because they can't fight.

[@JobHuntingAbroad]

Thanks so much for breaking that down Vlad, I was confused when I heard NC's views on Russia/Ukraine...this helps me understand better. You are a real blessing, thank you.

[@kernowpolski]

I am constantly puzzled by the high regard in which Chomsky is held. He is certainly highly intelligent and his linguistic theories are interesting, but those theories have failed to be proven by the evidence so far acquired by biologists, so it remains just a theory. His unwavering self-hatred of Western civilisation against his conspicuous silence on the imperfections and horrors of other systems shows a lack perspective, while his insults against those who disagree with him as "fascists" or similar is pretty infantile. Still I haven't read much of his work, so maybe I would be enlightened by reading his philosophical analysis - any recommendations?

[@ShallowHal9000]

Manufacturing Consent

[@robleahy5759]

I have read them all. Immaculate footnotes but all special pleading. Nanoshit.

[@usernameandnumber540]

Спасибо за видео. Я из Киева. У меня плохой английский (хватило чтобы понять видео, но написать могу с ошибкой), поэтому оставлю отзыв на русском. Меня тоже сильно коробят высказывания о Хомском а-ля "маразматичный дедушка" и еще более уничижительные. Я бы так сказал, в чем, как мне кажется, Хомский неправ: 1) Он говорит, что если поставлять Украине много оружия, это увеличит ядерные риски. Я согласен, что ядерные риски должны быть приоритетом №1, но есть обратная сторона - что если "дать спуск", то, во-первых, Путин не факт, что остановится, а во-вторых это создаст прецедент, который может повлечь ядерный шантаж от других стран в будущем. Т.е. даже в плане ядерных рисков все не так однозначно. 2) Наверное, он правильно обвиняет США и их союзников в двойных стандартах, если сравнивать их реакцию на ситуацию в Украине и на ситуации в других местах планеты. (Половина каждого его интервью об Украине - это критика политики США в прошлом.) Но тут же нельзя просто сделать "swap". 3) Хочет ли сейчас Украина перемирие больше, чем оружие - сложный вопрос. Ответ зависит от того, что это будет за перемирие. Вроде никто не верит в возможность адекватного перемирия, поэтому Украина хочет много-много оружия.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Я прочитал. Поддерживаю твой анализ. Слава Україні. - and well done for your excellent English!

[@stukafaust]

I really enjoy your talks Vlad, and hope you will continue to speak on topical matters as often as you can

[@adobeb98]

I love the delicate and intellectually honest way you have handled this topic. In your other vids, I think you have analysed Putin's character extremely well now that it has been exposed for what it is for the whole world to see.

[@vasilzahariev5741]

Chomsky's had some particularly bad takes on other wars too and on the politics that surround them (the Yugoslav wars come to mind), so I believe that people shouldn't pay too much attention to him, when he expresses his opinions on that. He may be a fantastic linguist and scientist, etc. I have to admit that I have had no interest in his works and I've only heard about him in the context of wars and politics, but he gives off an old communist vibe, for which I have a very strong dislike.

[@danieleden2550]

His critiques of the soviet union are pretty brutal. He doesn't fit under "old commuist" label. He has a classic libertarian socialists position that is very skeptical of Marxism , especially the big communist experiments.

[@BimpytheWimpyShrimpy]

Labeling him an "old communist" rings resoundingly _hollow,_ seeing as he's one of the most influential developers of Anarcho-Syndicalism. A proposed opposition to Marxist-Leninism.

[@pappapaps]

Particularly bad takes such as? If you can find _anything_ beyond the constantly mentioned non-issue regurgitated by myopic supporters of state violence that "Chomsky won't personally use the word genocide very often" then please share. "Old communist vibe" Oh, you have no clue do you?

[@danielshepard2315]

He isn't well known for his contribution to linguistics, he's known for his critique of US foreign policy, and his "bad takes" are just criticisms he makes you don't like...lets be honest. Your argument is literally "old communist vibe"...there is nothing wrong with being a communist.

[@danielshepard2315]

@@danieleden2550 Well he is a communist, he believes in worker council communism, he just doesn't think what the USSR does is communism.

[@elizabethmorton4904]

Thank you so very, very much for this! It is spot on! Noam is such an important moral voice, but he is so very wrong on this conflict it absolutely infuriates me. Like so many on the left (far left?), he is so obsessed with the idea of the US as an intentionally malicious evil empire that he can't see the errors/ambiguities of other actors with any kind of clarity. The irony here is that he tends to rob all other actors of any kind of agency at all - every problem is traced back to the machinations of the evil empire. And you are so right that much of the evils in the world are actually due to the human capacity to just fuck things up. Those who see the world from the kind of moral stance that Chomsky takes assume far too much competence on the part of decision-makers!

[@VladVexlerChat]

With you.

[@jnagarya519]

What Chomsky seems not to understand is that EVERY nation acts in its own SELF-interest. That includes Russia. Reality is much more complicated than Chomsky understands.

[@danielshepard2315]

This has nothing to do with Noam "not seeing the errors/ambiguities of other actors" Noam is harshly critical of Russia, and doesn't deny or downplay any of the brutalities carried out by the Russian government. He doesn't say Russia has no agency, the difference is that you are concerning yourself with who to blame more, and Chomsky is concerning himself with finding actual solutions and what we can do to achieve them. When you are looking at geopolitical conflicts like this, moralizing is the LAST THING that either Russia or the US are thinking about. Just blaming Russia for the invasion (which Noam has said he agrees with) does nothing to actually solve the problem and stop the war. All Noam is really saying that the US shouldn't of contributed to this conflict by expanding it's sphere of influence into the Eastern Bloc, and that the US should now take opportunities available to negotiate and end the war. Neither of those things should be controversial to say for anyone who is nominally on the left...

[@jnagarya519]

@@danielshepard2315 I heard what Chomsky said: WHILE being ILLEGALLY invaded by Russia, Ukraine should be "neutral". Why not tell a rape victim to lay back but NOT enjoy it. ASSHOLE: You are ignorant of HISTORY: The United States was sucked into two world wars which were started by imperialist European nations. 1. NATO was established to put and end to the hundreds of years of war among imperialist European nations. That has SUCCEEDED. 2. NATO is a mutual DEFENSE pact: if one member is attacked, all other members come to the DEFENSE of that nation. 3. NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance against IMPERIALIST RUSSIA. Members can vote to join, but they do not become members unless the members of the alliance APPROVE it. 4. NATO is the United States' first line of defense against IMPERIALIST RUSSIA -- better that THEY fight Russia THERE than WE fight them HERE. NATO is NOT the United States. The United States initiated its establishment after THE UNITED STATES won WW II FOR Europe. The NATO nations have skin in the game: let them defend it, with the US's backing if necessary, instead of the United States having to step in and pull their bacon out of the fire. Chomsky is an asshole: if someone half way around the world farts, Chomsky accuses the United States of being behind the fart. He is FULL OF SHIT. RUSSIA has a history of hundreds of years of being IMPERIALIST -- but with Chomsky it's everything is the fault of the United States. The eastern European nations -- having been invaded and subjugated by IMPERIALIST RUSSIA, have every right to join NATO if they choose, and NATO agrees. They ARE NOT the United States, and they ARE NOT a threat to Russia. Stupid people like you swallow Chomsky -- who is spouting PUTIN'S Neo-Stalinist line based on ignorance of history, and being high on Chomsky's distorted worldview. But that's not new: there were a significant number of Americans who sided with Hitler before WW II. You're as stupid as they were.

[@jnagarya519]

@@danielshepard2315 NATO didn't exist when Stalin invaded and subjugated Ukraine and the east European nations. So the idea that eastern European nations chose to become members of NATO because of the United States is a total red herring. But if you want to blame the United States for Russia's illegal invasion you'll buy into Putin's Neo-Stalinist excuse for his genocidal imperialism. As for your nonsensical accusation -- straight from Putin -- that Ukraine is committing genocide by defending its territory against Russia's illegal invasion: you have nothing to say about Putin's genocidal missile attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools, THROUGHUT Ukraine. Will you next defend Putin if he follows through with his threat to use nuclear weapons? You are not a "leftist"; you are defending right-wing fascist Putin. And on one hand your "moral" position is as a "leftist," but then you dispense with morality -- we wouldn't want to both claim to be morally concerned, and NOT apply that moral measure to Putin. Only the United States is subject to MORAL criticism. I am not an ideologue, and you are a troll.

[@JulianPardoe]

Vlad, have you got a reference/link for what John Gray said about "americocentrism"?

[@elviejodelmar2795]

Chomsky is a brilliant man, but I would be amazed to find out that he has ever been the victim of physical aggression. When the choice is defend yourself or die, choices have a way of becoming much clearer and esoteric philosophical arguments meaningless.

[@marshalltito]

He experienced low level social conflict and incarceration back in the Vietnam era, martial conflict not so much.

[@TheGhostOf2020]

High society philosophy quickly becomes useless when it’s ‘game time’. Mike Tyson’s “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth” comes to mind.

[@NJIT22]

@@marshalltito He was systematically abused by catholic school boys, due to his Jewish background, as a kid when he was walking by there school on a way to Philadelphia central HS

[@marshalltito]

@@NJIT22 Please define "systemically abused" I didn't think of it when posting but I do remember him saying something in an interview about being ostracized as a child due to his familial beliefs. Kids being mean to each other and bombs being lobbed at your home and the berserkers rolling in on tanks are far apart on the spectrum

[@franny5295]

Noam Chomsky and Vladimir Putin seem to have the same fundamental approach. In terms of their limited capacity to see beyond a very narrow system of information and both seem to think it's so obvious that's something's wrong with anybody who doesn't see it the way they do. That's both interesting and a little scary. I wonder what the implications of that might be? Kind of off topic but thanks Vlad. This has been helpful in reconciling what I thought I remembered and what I recently came across.

[@sillysad3198]

yes, they are both communists

[@tbirdparis]

Vlad, on the topic of Noam's age and whether it has any impact on the quality of what he says. Do you think there's a potentially valid distinction to be made between someone being sharp and on the ball (despite advanced age), and that same person's capacity to think outside the box of their lifelong career - an inability to fight against or indeed even see past potential blindspots due to a lifetime of their own intellectual momentum? I say this because I feel that with advanced age, of course there are many examples of people who manage to remain as sharp as a tack. But I genuinely wonder if this is not the only factor that matters when it comes to intellectual pursuits. Surely there's some risk of intellectuals of a very advanced age becoming somewhat tunnel-visioned, finding it hard if not impossible to see things in any other ways than through the prism they've built up during their entire career - regardless of whether they're still able to appear sharp in a debate or not.

[@martycrow]

Very valid observation. I suppose one specializes over time and once you are know as a specialist, you are trapped in a particular viewpoint, methodology and working assumptions. It is rare for someone in an advanced academic career to say, "I have completely changed my mind" Does that happen? If it does, it must be rare!

[@tbirdparis]

@@martycrow indeed, well it even took a great toll on Einstein when it started to become apparent that, despite his brilliant work still standing, underneath it all there were other levels of subatomic physics that behaved in apparently completely random ways that would not fit into any of his models - no matter how hard he or anybody else tried. He hated the implications of what was coming to light in physics in the latter part of his career, and yet he could not ignore it either. Which in fact I think was a further testament to his greatness - the fact that he never turned his back on irrefutable evidence that complicated the underlying framework of his own theories (even if they still worked) and was able to admit, however reluctantly, that there must still be more things going on that he could not account for.

[@martycrow]

@@tbirdparis Nice one! Did Steven Hawkin change his mind or position much later on? I vaguely recall that he did but given that I don't understand the offside rule, I'm unlikely to make inroads in quantum theory!

[@jacasadia]

Insightful video. Thank you.

[@NathanielKane81]

The true vs obviously true distinction is such a great point, thank you.

[@musiqueetmontagne]

I have to confess that I have little regard overall for Chomsky. Yes his work as a linguist is highly regarded but to me his political thinking is way off the mark far more often than it is correct. I find him so arrogant and dismissive of others' ideas and a bigot. I have less regard for Owen Jones, a particularly obnoxious individual. Of course Chomsky is right about quite a few things but I find, in the end, his whole slant is so anti Western culture and I can't understand how a man of "such intellect" can't see where his political ideas would ultimately lead humanity. I think Vlad's take in this video on what is right and wrong with Chomsky's politics is spot on. Thank you Vlad for your wonderful interpretations and opinions. Sorry for such a negative post, it's about the content characters, not your wonderful videos. Regards, Robert.

[@gabriellakadar]

Chomsky is superannuated and past his best by date decades ago. It would be better if he stays with the subjects at which he excels and not dabble in topics like the Ukraine/Russian conflict. And the fact he's given so much exposure in the media based on what? He does not have credibility in the current crisis but he just HAS to open his mouth. The man is so self important. As far as I can tell Ukraine is going to keep at it until they drive out the Russians at whatever cost. That's the plan and negotiating isn't happening because neither side wants it. Welenskyy has made it clear he wants the Russians to withdraw, which they clearly are not. He wants Ukraine's' borders back to how they were before 2014 and that includes Crimea. What the Ukrainian government needs to do is recognize the language variants spoken in the country and not force everyone to speak Ukrainian. Leave people be who they are and not cause conflict in country. Nothing good ever comes from enforcing language and cultural changes.

[@VladVexlerChat]

Thanks so much for watching. I felt important to parse this as people on both sides were hurling insults at one another over Chomsky's recent comments. Neither of these parties can be helped by a video like this. But many others, curious or perturbed, can be.

[@ferrariguy8278]

I'm 100% with you on Chomsky. I mean we remember Marx, but not in a good way. It almost would be better if we could forget Marx. I feel the same more or less about Chomsky.... I don't think you can separate his HORRIBLE HORRIBLE interpretations of reality and blindness to his own immorality (and erroneous interpretation of other's morality) from errors in his supposedly insightful philosophy. I still love watching Vlad even if I think he gives Noam wildly more deference than he deserves.

[@Djaybird]

23:40 this!!!! Yes! Thank you for speaking about this! Since the invasion began I've seen scores of leftists all recite the exact same words over and over again like some ghastly choir, "America did the same thing, don't forget about America", and while they're obviously not wrong, you can't boil down the whole worlds geopolitical history into "AMERICA BAD". LOTS of other countries have imperial pasts and horrible history's too. I'm not an intellectual or an academic so I don't have much of a foot to stand on here, but I've got to be honest as it's all we can do in life. I've felt very let down by the response of a lot of the Left to Putin's brutal war in Ukraine. I find it eye-rollingly naive to think Putin wants to negotiate anything, so yes let's arm and support Ukraine until every Russian soldier is back over the border. Thank you for your calm, cool and collected thoughts as always Vlad! You've become a very important voice for helping me understand this mess a lot better.

[@karlvonbahnhof6594]

I'm Czech, I'm Slavic, my language is Slavic, our culture is kind of similar to Russians, but that's about it, we wanna be free and independent, what Russians don't seem to understand, they should ask themselves, why most eastern European countries rushed to join NATO after fall of Iron curtain? Because we cannot trust them, if we were able to make some sort of security agreement, we are sure, they don't break, ok, no need for NATO, but Russia is NOT a democracy, so NATO is essential for stability and peace in my country, and our obligation now, is to help countries, who wanna be free and democratic, the Orcs will be defeated, the truth is on our side, Sláva Ukrajině, Glory to Ukraine ✌️🇺🇦

[@timzgoll1006]

amazed to have found you

[@VladVexlerChat]

Welcome!!!!

[@AlteredState1123]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy your reasoning process.

[@Focke42]

i like the characterization of this specific subprocess in the forming of opinion of a state 17:06. (i would like to use the german word for forming of opinion, 'Meinungsbildung', which seems to me, to lose its connotation, when its literal translated.) The characterization doesnt has a need to imply, that a state has some clear will, which controls its action, but instead its sufficient to describe some forces, which may influence the political agenda.

[@quixoticPrancer]

Noam is 100% open to interviews, reach out to him and I'd love to see a conversation between the two of you!

[@geraldh.8047]

There really is no need to provide a podium for Putins apologists. It’s not like you could change his mind. He is way to old and senile to ever change his mind now.

[@BennyGeserit]

Actually I am glad we have Elders held in high esteem that may well be wrong. I would never entertain the idea that my 95 year old step Dad is wrong because he is 95. My respect for him is too great and... Him being 95 means he brings so much to a discussion without ever scoffing at others.

[@geraldh.8047]

@@BennyGeserit I would not disrespect someone just because of his age. But if someone is wrong then someone is wrong. And the willingness to change one's mind decreases with age, although of course there are lots of 20-30 years olds who are intellectually rusty and unflexible, which is even worse then...

[@bigredracingdog466]

@@BennyGeserit Scoffing at others is what Vlad was talking about when he showed the difference between "true" and "obviously true" 20:33 Nearly everything Chomsky says drips with an "obviously true" tone of condescension.

[@parityviolation968]

@@bigredracingdog466 given that the definition of "obvious" is way too subjective it is quite disappointing to be seeing so many "intellectuals" overblowing almost arbitrary subjective distinctions such that they feel entitled to overemphasize tone over content, or even ignoring the latter altogether. There certainly is a place for discussing tone or the lack of humility in statements, but when you're becoming a snowflake offended by Chomsky's arrogant-ish style of presenting the facts that you end up not addressing them altogether, then I dont think arrogance is the root of the problem rather than an excuse for ignorance of unpleasant positions. A fate Sam Harris suffered during his encounter with Chomsky.

[@maciejbultowicz8786]

Thanks for sharing your insightful opinion. I was also a bit shocked by Chomsky's stand of russian-Ukraine war. I would like to share my view if I may. I live in Poland and as a neighbouring country we have a completely different point of view on russia. It is mainly because we still remember Katyn, where 25 000 Polish officers were aressted and murdered with a shot in back of the head by russian NKWD, or gulags where Polish oposition and intelectuals were sent left to die during communism, as well as many other conflicts that were started by russia during our long history. This guys sums it up pretty neatly in 1:30 min. kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3S3hZSHm7N3p6M Chomsky speaks as if this is solely a power play between USA and Russia, completely neglecting Ukraines sovereign decisions. Ukraine was brutally attacked. Ukrainians wanted to fight for their country, needed help and got it. The motivations of certain countries may differ but in this case, does it really matter? We have got a common goal and it is morally right, which is not always the case. There was a time when nations of the world did not want to intervene in hope that the conflict would not spread and... we got II World War. I am glad that Ukraine got the help, Poland did get in 1939. Secondly, some experts argue that russia only understands arguments of power. The reason the war in Ukraine escalated in the first place, they say, is because USA appeared to be weak after pulling back from Afghanistan and having internal problems (riots in the Capitol). Additionally Europe got almost completely demilitarized, spending (before the escalation of 24th February) no more than 1% of GDP on weapons. It is worth mentioning that for many years the only country in Europe that was rapidly arming itself was russia (4,1% of its GDP in 2021). England was the exception, but something tells me that after russia's chemical attack of 2018 on British soil and having the best intelligence sources (USA and UK combined), they started preparing for a conflict earlier. Source www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-top-10-countries-by-military-spending/ Agreeing to Russia's demands, will only result in more aggressive actions. After all, before escalation from 24th February, putin said that he wants NATO to pull back to the borders from before 1997. This means abandoning countries like Poland, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania, Slovakia, Czech Republic. I personally and all other countries of this region strongly oppose that kind of demands. Just after conflict escalated there was a genuine fear in Poland, that after putin defeats Ukraine, he will prepare for invasion of other former soviet countries. Are we also to be sacrificed on Chomsky's altar of false peace? Finally, the USA is not a saint but in modern history it has repeatedly been proven that if you cherish freedom and relative sovereignty, you choose US over China and Russia - hence Poland, Slovakia, Baltic states, Taiwan, Korea. Ukraine is just another country to realise that in order to secure its freedom it has to choose and the choice is obvious. Unless another superpower offers better alternative for world order, an alternative that may be discussed and accepted by majority, I think no free society will aree for a change. Especially if the change is imposed by a brutal, manipulative, unforgiving and, let's face it, ideologically hollow regime like russia.

[@varghejo]

Very helpful video.

[@dempsey2023]

Hi Vlad, love your videos. What are your thoughts on Noam vs NATO generally? Noam has some bad ideas about the organizations role, especially during the Yugoslav wars. There seems to be a pattern in his thoughts of derangement of anything western.

[@VladVexlerChat]

So I made a video about whether I think NATO was objectively a threat to Russia - also here on my second channel. Noam would disagree with me. He would go more directly than me from NATO explanation to an explanation of the causes of this war.

[@Bodhike]

Very good work. Congrats.

[@mnoot7209]

Vlad, I am so happy you put out this discussion... and titled it as you did. I am not "an intellectual" as are you & Noam. (I'd label myself an independent thinker & autodidact.) Like you, I have tremendous respect for Noam... for all the reasons you espouse. Given my acknowledged limitations, and my respect for Noam, I find it daunting and on dangerous ground to attempt a critique of Noam. And yet I did. Noam & an Indian-American intellectual (whose name I regrettably forget) had a KZbin discussion about Ukraine a month or so ago that disturbed me for many of the reasons you have just enumerated... so much so that I felt driven to respond to Noam et al. I am grateful to you for taking on this issue so clearly, respectfully and articulately - so much more so than myself, limited by my layman's capacity and spotty traditional education. I do hope that Noam has an opportunity to consider our critiques of his thinking on Ukraine. Thanks again, Vlad. I love what you do, your heart as well as your mind (and mindfulness). I wish you health & happiness in the New Year... as well as "Glory, Independence & Freedom to Ukraine." Lol!

[@itopal63]

I don't see him as recognizing his own bias in his moral outrage. He has a clear emotional bias against the USA. Specifically the military-industrial complex and the pentagon. Why this is personal to him I am not certain. I am not sure if the pentagon used his theories, as strategy or how it was applied in military computer systems (1960s). But, I do believe he worked for them at one point and some MIT research was funded by the military. He seems to think people don't have personal agency (or doesn't acknowledge its profund influence), and countries as an expression of a collective will don't either. He ignores or denies this very human-relavent aspect. In his personal narrative framework he reminds me of Zizek. Not everything is thought in a controlled narrative of an ideological framework. People are influenced by so many other things too. Propoganda? I don't think so, a unipolar clear messaging system doesn't exists here. Presidents and their staffing are temporary regimes automatically disintegrated and replaced every 4 to 8 years. The framework for a USA propoganda machine that only is interested in the advancement of the corporate military-industrial complex is just not true. It can feel true, but it isn't. Its a headless dragon. Its like a lot of other collective human efforts that only exist in a distributed manner. Team is a collective made of individuals that come together and then after completing a task disperse back into their individuality. The inertia of change, technological progress, and culture, is a distributed messy often random process, that can be local to a single tiny point then global soon after. The historical inertia for change though exists in the living minds of people. Governments even the pentagon is an empty building at night. It is populated with living minds during the day. Those minds here in the USA do not often share the same worldview, same religion, same liberal views, same conservative views, or same beliefs in what is relevant and what is not. Trying to predict the USA is difficult. A democracy collective is a headless dragon often at times. No one is controlling the power. Power is location and geography, natural resources, industrialization, higher learning, technology, applied science, adaptation, etc. At best you can ride the dragon, steer it a direction for a brief time, but you cannot control it. And you cannot predict the when, where or how of singular points of advancement or change.

[@SianaGearz]

Vietnam war. Can you think of someone who wasn't influenced by it? Some more than others. Depends on friends, connections, the informational environment. Fundamentally he is not a Free Will denier, not a determinist though. But i don't know if this is a concept he internalised either, seems not quite. If you think about it, it's a little absurd, it runs counter to just about everything you know about humans, about the underlying machinery, the cells, the neurons, the neurotransmitters and related chemicals, etc. And yet it also seems like a necessary prerequisite to human behaviour. It has traits of an emergent property.

[@numap4701]

@@SianaGearz Noam Chomsky is 100% Correct. The true problem on Earth are the Warmongering Psychopaths and SociopathsUSA and GB! End!

[@billsvoboda4459]

I agree somewhat-but also feel like you are making it a little TOO mysterious and complex. American imperialism is a thing. The military industrial complex is a thing. They are tremendously complex systems, yes, but they exist-and are a major consumer of tax dollars- and producers of arguments/rationalizations for their existence as moral and/or benign. There surely are other, non American actors in the world today with their own very real agency-but that doesn't negate the actions and goals of the most powerful country on earth.

[@hisnibs1121]

Excellent! A really interesting and thought provoking 'chat'. Thank you. There'd still be a lot of food for thought there, even if one were not in the slightest interested in either Chomsky or Ukraine (though I am). The distinction between 'true' and 'obviously true' is new to me, but so (dare I say it?) obvious ;-) now you're stated it so clearly. Very useful. I certainly also very much relate to what you said about discomfort with people with whom one may agree but who are convinced of that position's 'obvious-ness', and easier to relate to people you may disagree with but who recognise the choices and uncertainties involved in reaching one's position.

[@VladVexlerChat]

So glad it was useful!

[@morpheuskrueger8535]

I so relate, very deeply, to those who disagree with me more than those who unquestioningly believe the same beliefs. Our attitude towards our ideologies are just not the same. Thank you for expressing that, I feel less alone in these ideological times

[@r0gue15]

Vlad, thank you for this video! The distinction between the "true" and "obviously true" is profound!

[@Ninosninosninos]

Another great video, thank you! I like the way you are attempting to balance things out and not be on the extreme side of anything. If I can ask a couple of questions as silly as they may sound: 1) If anything that is done by humans, including darker actions like genocide, is human nature would that mean that we would be all capable of commiting them if the circumstances were right and we were 'properly' conditioned? 2) If Noam Chomsky is relying on the 'paper-clip' method to assess a situation what would constitute a more reliable method of doing so? For example, what gives you the confidence to assess the situation in Russia or Ukraine without actually being there? Contacts with people or intellectuals who live there? Relatives who live there? Statements of politicians? Books? Perhaps a combination of all these sources?

[@VladVexlerChat]

Oh my word. Two phenomenal questions. Thank you. I will answer them in the next Q&A on this channel! By the way, I don't believe in balance. Sometimes the truth is extreme. I would have been perfectly fine to make a video calling my subject a stupid liar. If that were the case!

[@Ninosninosninos]

@@VladVexlerChat Cheers! Yes, I should have pointed out that your methodology seems to be 'balanced', not your conclusions - if that makes sense.

[@BigHenFor]

I think that Dietrich Bonhoeffer essay 'On Folly' in his "Letters and Papers from Prison" addresses this. Although Bonhoeffer is influenced by his religious beliefs, his grasp of human psychology I think has validity. The capacity for folly is inherent in human nature, and no-one is immune. All it takes is the right circumstances, and our instincts and emotions can subvert our intellect. And on a mass level things like economic crises, political upheaval, personal suffering, and deliberate conditioning by bad faith actors can make shape our perceptions of what is real. We have to accept that the Enlightenment view of Rationality is misleading. How we interact with our environment is both rational and irrational. Once our fears and our survival needs are triggered, folly is not far off. And as no-one is immune, we have to tread carefully. And we have to accept that we might not be seeing as they truly are, and we have to interrogate our understanding, and not take things for granted. Critical thinking can help, but also an awareness that one lives on a Ship of Fools, and one is part of the crew. Lol. So questioning is essential. One idea that is interesting right now is that of the Moral Imagination. I think it's hard for Chomsky to exactly walk a mile in the shoes of the Ukrainian people. He's right to be sceptical of the West, but he needs to be sceptical about Putin too. After all, to what extent does Putin's actions serve the needs of his people? How much are Zelenskyy's actions serving the needs of his people? What sort of settlement would serve the needs of both the Ukrainian and Russian people? Certainly not redrawing maps by force. So Chomsky's comments come from a good place, but the the thinking behind them reflects his biases. Plainly, we don't live in that world. And we have to deal with things the way they are, rather than how we wish they would be. Negotiating with bad faith actors is pointless. Putin doesn't want peace, he wants victory. And his actions reveal no desire for compromise, because he is asking the Ukrainians to surrender their sovereignty, and their agency. Yes, one may argue for a pragmatic solution, but there is even a limit to that. Finland sacrificed the Karelia region to ensure the survival of the rest. But at what cost? And who are we to dictate the price the Ukrainian people should pay? It is their decision, and the West must make its own decisions too. At least they can decide. The Russian people - not so much. There is a ending to the conflict that will emerge. What it will look like, we do not know. All we do know is that it's not up to us to decide. Helping the Ukrainians at least gives the time to decide.

[@Ninosninosninos]

@@BigHenFor Some pretty interesting insights, thanks!

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

The world is confusing and chaotic so it's unfair to expect anyone, even clever people like Noam, to be right about everything all the time. Confusion and chaos makes us feel unsafe so we look to others for simple explanations of complex situations. There is a temptation to put clever people like Noam on a pedestal and outsource our thinking to them. Better for us to admit that the causes of complex problems are usually multifactorial and that there is always going to be a degree of uncertainty about chaotic situations. Regrettably chaos can lead to moral ambiguity. We cannot always be certain what the most moral/ethical/least bad thing to do is. When we are not in control of a situation doing the right thing is often a question of choosing what seems to be the least bad option. I agree with Vlad. Just because there is always a best/least bad option that does not mean its obvious! In relation to arming Ukraine I also wonder if the west is giving them enough weapons to avoid defeat but not enough to secure victory. We should have given them jets.

[@chrisanderson7820]

"Better for us to admit that the causes of complex problems are usually multifactorial and that there is always going to be a degree of uncertainty about chaotic situations. Regrettably chaos can lead to moral ambiguity. We cannot always be certain what the most moral/ethical/least bad thing to do is. When we are not in control of a situation doing the right thing is often a question of choosing what seems to be the least bad option." This is such a huge issue in businesses and politics today, people are gripped by analysis paralysis, they can't accept that EFFECTIVE decision making is information and time bound. Sometimes decisions just need to be made with 90% information and chances taken on the outcome. If you wait for perfect understanding of every issue you will make no decisions. You need to risk assess (again to the best of your ability) and say "how critical are the potential consequences" and "how much time do I have to make a decision before the decision changes anyway" and then adjust your level of comfort with information completeness in order to make a decision. Paying an extra dollar for a sandwich =/= causing a nuclear reactor meltdown but people act like it is.

[@micahleamer2704]

I love the idea that the distance between those you agree with and think it's obvious is further than those you disagree with, but also don't think it's obvious. I've usually thought of this in terms of those who idealize an issue, versus those who rely on reason, but formulating it in terms of the social implication of what is obvious and what is not is more approachable than putting it in terms of ideology versus argumentation.

[@MultiZirkon]

This was really good 👍

[@jornzander1285]

I could always feel that same wall of newspaper clips around intellectuals in my area but I could never put my finger on it. Didn't know that was a thing. This is quite effective, because if you haven't read that article of that certain journalist that came out two years ago on a Sunday, then you look like an idiot or worse, someone from the middle class. Just a quike side note - Vlad you make the best faces on the internet!

[@VladVexlerChat]

Hee hee thank you Jörn!!

[@dissidentart5603]

Noam looks through everything through the lens of American imperialism and then when he talks to people seeing things as they are he calls THEIR view distorted.

[@dh1380]

I love this channel. Just want to let you know that when you said "I'm gonna say something philosophically mysterious and then I'm gonna clarify it" really made me laugh for some reason 😁

[@jerzykaltenberg298]

Sorry, Vlad, I simply can't go along with your kind ( I won't say naiive), extremely charitable interpretation of Noam Chomsky. You know as well as anyone that what we're dealing with is naked , opportunistic aggression, which can only be quelled with a military defeat for the Russian regime and perhaps even an economic collapse to follow. Prof. Chomsky proposes to reward Putin's aggression by negotiating peace, which in no uncertain terms would mean that Ukraine would be at the very least be partitioned. I note, this is what Chamberlain agreed to, what Munich in 1938 realized for Czechoslovakia. It did not then end Hitler's drang nach ost, as this proposed peace will not now, end Putin's territorial ambitions which are its reverse. I would like to add that that this is uncharacteristic for Noam, but I would be lying if I did. Noam has consistently defended the indefensible, starting with denials of eyewitness testimony to the Cambodian genocide. I wouldn't say that - as Christopher Hitchens said of George Galloway - "The man's search for a tyrannical fatherland never ends!" . No, i don't think Noam Chomsky could be comfortable anywhere else but in the US. Outside of it, politically at least, he would be just another rabidly anti-American malcontent.

[@wegder]

In recent years I have wondered why I ever listened to Noam.

[@paulneilson4106]

Thank you for this. I was left frustrated and disappointed by Chomsky's talk. Not being anywhere near this field I could only critique his (ironically) use of language. A load has been taken off my mind.

[@pedtrog6443]

Appreciate the thoughtfulness and intelligence. Thank you.

[@jackperson3626]

Thanks!

[@MyLieu]

I appreciate your respectful critique of Chomsky. I watched the video with Owen Jones with a friend who is highly offended by any critique of Chomsky, so it's very difficult to say anything but praise and veneration, which shuts all meaningful conversation down. I deeply admire Chomsky, but I agree with your critique, especially as he doesn't really know the cultures involved. A couple of things you said that are thought provoking is that human nature can never send normative signals, that anything that happens is part of the capacity of human nature; and the true vs obviously true. I'm with the person who feels they have a new toy each time you put out a new video! Thanks...keep it up!

[@malcolmmann436]

Just come across you and your videos today. This is an incredibly good analysis - thanks so much, and please keep up the good work! There's just one thing I'd maybe like you to have considered, which is Chomsky's views not just in isolation but in the broader context of the far left and the 'Stop The War' campaign, because he's not alone in this thinking - although of course some on the far left have come to the conclusion that the Chomsky view is untenable.

[@VladVexlerChat]

That’s a great consideration and I will include it in the next Q&A on this channel. There will be a timestamp to you. Glad you found the videos - the ones on the main channel are more polished. Here is have causal chats and answer questions.

[@ogopogohunter69]

Great analysis.

[@jps0117]

Brilliant analysis, as usual.

[@apolloskyfacer5842]

Noam Chomsky is certainly a 'deep thinker' when it comes to all things political and social, but he certainly has a fixation on what's called 'American Imperialism'. . I don't think, that in his long life, he did all that much traveling to other countries.

[@hotstixx]

Whats called 'American imperialism' ? - George Washington himself called America an 'infant Empire' and the long and brutal history since then attests to its murderous expansion.To be 'fixated' on the most powerful state in the world seems prudent insofar as the effects of its machinations are potent and often life threatening - America sneezes and the world catches cold, to use the euphemism.I can give you a link to the timeline of American hegemony if you like ?

[@RobinTurner]

A really good analysis. I've always admired Chomsky even though I'm closer to George Lakoff when it comes to linguistics, and maybe half way between them in politics. Great intellectuals tend to come up with one brilliant idea then spend the rest of their career pushing it farther than it will really go (think Marx and control of the means of production, Freud and the unconscious mind or Jung and archetypes). Chomsky actually managed to do this in two different fields, which is impressive even when he's wrong.

[@garykeleher2117]

What I appreciate about Dr Chomsky, is his willingness to be critical of his/our society. Self criticism can be devastating in terms of an individual’s psychology. But the capacity to criticize one’s own nation is vitally important in the quest for a just and well functioning country. That must take a lot of courage.

[@martinvanoene7192]

THank You !!

[@pavilshawkins7288]

Vlad, thank you for all your videos. I would love to see your take on Peter Zeihan, in particular regarding his views on Russia's geopolitical goals (expanding to "formerly Russian" states in E Europe + controlling 7 strategic corridors around Russias perimeter of defense), and if you can speak to the country's demographic situation, in a de-globalized/ing world or otherwise.

[@Primitarian]

Yes, Noam Chomsky is one of the greatest intellectuals alive and yes, from time to time, he has been mistaken. These propositions are not mutually exclusive, even if he remains as mentally sharp at 93 years than most people decades younger. Thank you not only for holding out such a possibility, but also taking the even more important step of explaining exactly how this may be so. In just 25 minutes you have done much to develop my own view. What a refreshing change from the usual response, that of just taking sides.

[@zwcdamien]

It's definitely not the first time he's been wrong. His views on Yugoslavia and the Bosnian genocide is extremely faulty.

[@1000kennedydk]

A kind and comprehensive answer. A good reminder for me.

[@sebastiansperception]

Regardless any agreement or disagreement, excellent work!

[@danielgrant9213]

This is fun. I get to evaluate someone in a just few words somethin I'm basically never capable of), and I get to quote myself. A while ago my cousin gave me an interesting book for X-mas on the runup to WWII and the start of the Holocaust by that was written by a professor here in the States who was a professor at a Quaker college. The professor, was very obviously a Quaker himself. He had unusual views of the US and the Western Allies. Some of his points were good. But the book followed a chronology, and the harder the line Britain and (eventually) the US took against Hitler (and eventually Japan) the worse his points got. This lead me to observe that "The implacable expansionist" (or something like that) with no morals "is the great corrupter of the pacifist". Chomsky, whether he knows it, or acknowledges it, or not, is a pacifist. As such, when confronted with someone who will take anything they can get by force with no regard whatsoever for morals (which whatever he once may have been, is certainly what Putin is now), will turn into a collaborator. Hence the soundbite he produced. He's not stupid, he's not senile, and (despite the planets apart that his politics are from mine), he's not dishonest either. He's just bound by his own beliefs and desires to not abandon pacifism for any reason, and as such, when faced with an implacable aggressor, the only position he's left with is collaboration. Basically, his idealism has led him astray again, in spite of his vast intellect. Hardly for the first time.

[@thomasdurant7907]

Personally, I have done some reading about how the Quakers had handled various conflicts before WWII. I have always struggled with my own tendency toward pacifism and wanted to find some kind of framework that was grounded in reality instead of sticking to the theoretical. I was always impulsively offended at the mere mention of the phrase anti-American. It took me many years to understand what that meant in the context of a different time in history. During the cold war, anti-American simply meant voicing any unpopular opinion about US military spending and tactics intended to "oppose communism." I may be wrong, but I have come to the understanding that being anti- American means, historically, to say or do things that are intended to undermine our society as we know it. The whole break everything and re-build it better, that never works, versus gradually trying to make things better. I am afraid I am starting to see a lot speech through this lens and not necessarily from one side or the other. I really feel like this impulsive whataboutism with regard to the US military and it's wrongs, past or present, is a form of careless anti-Americanism. The real test of this is how people feel when they hear people say these things like they are a nervous tick, they are always having to dump on the US then get onto what they are asked about. In the real world, it upsets people and they are turned off by it. The whole idea that the US is eager to over arm a country for some nefarious advantage is bordering dangerously on conspiracy theory. Very much like the conspiracy theories coming out of the Kremlin about NATO "expansionism." I wish I could have just become a simple Quaker, but we live in too complicated of a world now that it feels immoral not to support people being aggressed against completely unprovoked. At the same time, I could never justify direct US involvement and I do worry about the US going beyond the consensus of NATO countries if they decide they know better. And I worry about a certain person getting into the highest office and removing all US support for said invaded country, or worse.

[@nickn2794]

It is beyond me how you consider pacifists astray from reality, like Ukraine has any change against a nuclear superpower. If anything, Chomsky is a realist that knows very well what USA wants. In fact, Putin 5 days before invasion had said that he wanted to do agreements with Biden and Zelensky, or he would have invaded. They said no.

[@danielgrant9213]

@@nickn2794 Your reply is a perfect example of what I just described. You: 1, Begin in favor of both Chomsky's position and of pacifism more generally. 2, Then immediately segue into complete acceptance of the talking points of the aggressor-nation and its dictator as the entire truth. It is impossible to tell whether you are implacably idealistic (far more idealistic than I am myself), and unwilling to accept any inconsistency in your personal philosophy, or whether you are simply pro--Putin. This is precisely because he is an implacably aggressive dictator with no morals. When faced with such a person in such a situation, you have 2 choices. You can be inconsistent in your philosophical commitment to pacifism, or you can let him corrupt you and become a his mouthpiece. Having foresworn the stick (for surely only the noblest of reasons), you are left trying to influence people only with carrots. This is fine for most situations, and in dealing with most people, its probably the most moral position to take. But if you are faced with someone who is implacably aggressive and had no morals, where the only negotiating position is "Do exactly what I want or die", this breaks down. Putin's "negotiating position" was that Ukraine needed to stop resisting the last (incomplete) invasion and give up any capacity to do so, and the US, (and also the UK and Canada) should unilaterally reneg on our security guarantees to the Baltics. Those were the "intolerable" and "existential" threats to his nation that you also call a "superpower", that somehow required the response of an all out ground invasion of Ukraine with over 200,000 troops. If you fail to allow reality to compromise your idealism (though I'm sure it comes from a noble place), the twin commitments to pacifism and consistency can lead you to some dark places. Here's the other telltale. If someone as smart as Chomsky can't resolve it either and even his intellect isn't capable of mounting a particularly compelling argument to support his position, then that's a very powerful indicator that the position is not accurate.

[@danielgrant9213]

@@thomasdurant7907 Ironically, I have not read much on Quaker positions on any other war. I would also assume (in most situations) they would be highly moral, as WWII was a relatively unique conflict. Also I did not mention this in my last post because I usually run on too long and wanted to be brief, but that one book I read, (the title was "Human Smoke" by the way), was actually kind of an unintentional dichotomy on pacifism because it was a series of quotes and excerpts from newspapers interspersed with commentary from the professor who compiled them, and as I try to describe it now, I think he may actually have corrupted himself as an intellectual during the process of writing/compiling the book. Below is a more in-depth description of the book I'm referring to, as its essentially the entire basis for my conclusion, and also because I should probably give a little more detail on the "good points" and how exactly the "corruption" I refer to developed. Ironically, as I review this in my head, while I think the author was corrupted by his philosophy and his topic, I do not really think the people he quoted who were living through (and sometimes dying partway through) the events were really corrupted. They just seemed to get to a point where they could no longer process events and function (which could have happened to anyone caught up in WWII). Anyway, the "good points" he had that I referred to, were essentially a collection of sober early warnings in the 30's that Nazism, Fascism, and (maybe also a few on Showa Statism), were evil, juxtaposed with the more general attitudes of the majorities in western democracies at the time, which viewed these ideologies with indifference and occasionally even approval. The strange thing (as I noted in my last post), was that as the world slid into a hot conflict, and Britain and then the US began to shift their opinions to oppose, and then fight the nations swallowed by these truly evil ideologies, the tone shifted, and ascribed more and more blame to the US and Britain at the point where our actions were arguably improving. And I have to acknowledge, that could have been fair enough if the context was "Why did Britain and the US wait until these monsters got so powerful before finally attempting to confront and destroy them?" but that wasn't it at all. Instead the context was that Britain and the US were to blame BECAUSE they finally, belatedly (the US obviously more belatedly than Britain) confronted the monsters, and even though the book earlier had no problem describing say the Kristallnacht as an unprovoked evil, it ultimately kind of tried to lay blame for the Holocaust at the feet of Churchill, taking the half-promises of the Hitler of all people and his "Madagascar Plan" as complete truth, and assuming that if only Churchill had been more reasonable, and had made peace and not blockaded the Nazis, Hitler would never have systematically enacted a giant multi-year, multi-nation plan to create industrial facilities of mass murder that killed 6 million Jews and 5 million other victims. And though the book's chronology ends in 1942, it actually manages to get even worse than the above example at the very end. Anyway, that's a very long-winded way for me to say that this one book (which again is the entire reason for my thesis on an implacable aggressor with no morals being readily able to corrupt pacifists) actually shows pacifists (and specifically Quakers) at their best early on (where they truthfully, soberly and rightly) condemn Nazism, Fascism, and (to a lesser extent) Japanese militarism before it was really popular to do so in the US, France, or Britain (and some even did this in Germany itself or in Austria in the 30's), but then as the author chronicles the outbreak of hot war, he goes off the rails and turns into someone who is at best something of a Nazi apologist, and at worst something of a general purpose Axis propagandist. The change was extremely stark and something I never would have expected at the start of the book.

[@johnlavers3970]

the implacablr expansionists in WWII era was the usa and britain, and they tried to manipulate gutler into destroying the ussr for them, and it back fired. now the implacable expansionist usa and uk are try to get the ukrainians to destroy russia. see a pattern? the old dream that if only we could get russia's resources and eliminated russian political and military power then all of europe would be under the control of the usa

[@cherrycherryreikikirschblu2185]

I have been wondering how someone who is a genius level authority in one field can turn into an intellectual guide in a different field. It usually does not work very welly. Chomsky is like a biologist talking about astronomy. Political science is as complex as language studies. Linguists should trust the scholars of the international relations and history and culture and know their limits.❤ Thank you for your very helpful video.

[@ThePizzaGoblin]

Doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.