Video transcript here:
https://theintercept.com/2022/04/14/russia-ukraine-noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill/
Noam Chomsky makes a compelling argument in this interview:
- There are only two ways for a war to end; either one combatant wins, or both combatants agree to a negotiated settlement.
- Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia.
- Therefore Ukraine must either lose or seek a negotiated settlement.
Chomsky goes on to explain that published U.S. policy flatly rejects the possibility of a negotiated settlement. That is, the U.S. could facilitate a resolution to the conflict, but chooses not to.
I agree with Chomsky’s analysis. That is, we (America) could be the good guys in this crisis, but we aren’t trying to be.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It troubles me greatly to find myself largely in agreement with Chomsky. At least he sees past the cheerleading and posturing.
LikeLike
RE: “It troubles me greatly to find myself largely in agreement with Chomsky.”
I had a similar thought while listening to the interview. I wondered: Has Chomky changed; have I changed; has the world changed?
I don’t think Chomsky has changed much over the years since he became well-known as a political dissident. For my part I have grown far more skeptical of the establishment than I used to be, and more open to Chomskian critiques.
I think mainly that the world has changed. Back in 1988 when Chomsky published his book, Manufacturing Consent, it was easy to dismiss his ideas as overly esoteric. Today we see the processes of cultural and political engineering he wrote about right before our eyes, all the time.
In any case, his critique of the war in Ukraine isn’t much different from his critique of the war in Vietnam. It is more obvious now than it was then that the narratives we consume are not as reliable as we might like them to be.
LikeLike
“It is more obvious now than it was then that the narratives we consume are not as reliable as we might like them to be.”
Especially fascist narratives.
LikeLiked by 1 person