• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Noam Chomsky on NATO...

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
He correctly points out that there are consequences for actions. He also points out that the U.S. leadership was not entirely honest or trustworthy in verbally promising to not expand NATO, then going ahead and doing so because "there was nothing in writing."

As if our leadership had degenerated to fine-print shysters and sleazy used car salesmen. It's indicative of the mafia economics and moral degeneracy which dominated the Reagan and post-Reagan eras. That's why our government is so reviled and mistrusted, not just in the outside world, but also within America itself (as exemplified by civil disturbances by both the left and the right in the past few years).

The Warsaw Pact existed independently from the Soviet Union.
But it was undone probably because there was the intention to create a new alliance between USA and Russia.
If we analyze all the Yeltsin years...it is all about that.
But something went wrong.
Evidently someone still considered the NATO an organization that was meant to exclude Russia a priori.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You can pretty much predict what he will say on any issue before you read him which is always a bad sign in a pundit. It's just paint by numbers.

Are there any pundits or politicians where one can't pretty much predict what they will say on any issue?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I also want to be clear that the US backed invasion of Iraq was also a similar colonial venture....
It isn't colonial if there's no colonization.
This doesn't make the war right...but Iraq
wasn't & isn't a US colony.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is different.
It's about conquering a country to make
it part of the Russian Empire.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It is a threat to many NATO States, often threatens NATO statesyand elected politicians have even threatened to nuke a NATO state (Poland)

...NATO states which are all vassals to the USA.

The Russian Army has never crossed the Atlantic to deploy forces along the US borders.

The US armies do cross the Atlantic to deploy their armies along the Russian borders.

I see doublestandardism has been normalized.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
It isn't colonial if there's no colonization.
This doesn't make the war right...but Iraq
wasn't & isn't a US colony.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is different.
It's about conquering a country to make
it part of the Russian Empire.

Like Europe, basically...;)
 
Are there any pundits or politicians where one can't pretty much predict what they will say on any issue?

There are people who continually offer good insights that you hadn't thought of.

Not sure any politicians though,and they tend not to be your generic, brand name pundits either as to be a generic brand name pundit you have to opine beyond your expertise
 
...NATO states which are all vassals to the USA.

The Russian Army has never crossed the Atlantic to deploy forces along the US borders.

The US armies do cross the Atlantic to deploy their armies along the Russian borders.

I see doublestandardism has been normalized.

I see childish specious logic has been normalised.

You seem to forget countries have agency.

Why do you think Canada and Mexico have not invited the Russian army in to safeguard their nations while European countries, especially those who have been subjected to Russian imperialism, have welcomed America?

You may have this strange fantasy about Russian benevolence and how "the devil made them do it".

Eastern Europeans certainly do not. The idea they only do it because they are vassals is delusional. They would take 10 times the US presence if they were offered it. They beg for more assistance.

I don't believe you genuinely think that they are forced to do it against the popular will.

You claim to be for the people, but in this case you are as arrogantly elitist as they come.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
IF NATO plays with fire
THEN don't wine if it backfires

Don't play with fire if you can't handle the heat

Though, knowing they are no "fools",
I am convinced it is exactly going as they planned
Probably more of us are inclined to this (as to drinking it) but whine is the word to use here. :oops:

Nah, you are wrong, Putin has done far more damage than he anticipated and since he isn't the type to admit failure, he will rather go down with the ship than admit his mistakes, but others won't be so forgiving.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
He correctly points out that there are consequences for actions. He also points out that the U.S. leadership was not entirely honest or trustworthy in verbally promising to not expand NATO, then going ahead and doing so because "there was nothing in writing."
NATO played with fire and lost

If I throw around gasoline all aver the place, but others light it, then I am also guilty and should not point fingers at others

Yesterday I saw/heard someone claim that were Trump given another 4 years, he would have dropped NATO. Good to realize how easy some Presidents sacrifice people and countries. That would have made Putin's day though
 
NATO played with fire and lost

If I throw around gasoline all aver the place, but others light it, then I am also guilty and should not point fingers at others

Why do you assume Putin would have shelved his irredentist tendencies had NATO 'been nice' to him?

Why do you believe the devil made him do it, rather than his fierce nationalism and irredentist ideology made him do it?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Nah, you are wrong, Putin has done far more damage than he anticipated and since he isn't the type to admit failure, he will rather go down with the ship than admit his mistakes, but others won't be so forgiving.
Hearing Putin on the first day, he was quite arrogant advising Ukrainian soldiers to give up in advance, so yes, it's much tougher than Putin anticipated

Putin anticipates also that no one dares to fight his nukes. It seemed to me Putin played Russian Roulette,although with his nuclear power I guess no one dares to challenge him
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
He's a legitimate linguistics scholar who is cited about politics because he eloquently says the kinds of things people with a particularly ideology want to hear.

You can pretty much predict what he will say on any issue before you read him which is always a bad sign in a pundit. It's just paint by numbers.

What would you say are some of his profound political insights that stand the test of time and mark him as being insightful rather than simply a famous ideologue?

I think it's an oversimplification to put down the citations of Chomsky to his supposedly telling people what they want to hear. The sheer volume of his contributions to different fields, including political analysis, seems to me a much more logical explanation as to why he's so widely cited.

He also has some non-mainstream views that have still generated a lot of discourse despite not being popular (e.g., his anarcho-syndicalism, which is far from a common worldview). A lot of his critics take the time to analyze his views and elaborate on their opposition to them--something I doubt they would do if they didn't take him seriously.

Some of his political insights that I find particularly relevant include (but are not limited to) his calling out of U.S. interventionism (e.g., in Iraq) and opposition to it, as well as his generally straightforward criticism of hawkish and unnecessarily adventurist U.S. foreign policy. His criticism of corporate influence on politics also strikes me as quite relevant, especially nowadays when climate change is reaching a tipping point largely due to unchecked industrial exploitation.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
Why do you assume Putin would have shelved his irredentist tendencies had NATO 'been nice' to him?
Russians don't like smiling people, so better not be "nice". But the West "go back on their promise" is the issue here

I don't assume he would never invade, probably the opposite

Yesterday I heard an American woman say that Trump might have taken America out of NATO if he would have been given 4 more years. That would have been very convenient for Putin to invade.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
I also want to be clear that the US backed invasion of Iraq was also a similar colonial venture made on false pretexts that cost many many lives. So I am, in no way shape or form saying that somehow USA is great or just or whatever. They (USA) have committed similar crimes in the past as well and got away with it. NATO however, was not involved in IRAQ war....which again shows that NATO is not some American controlled coalition as Chomsky suggests.

The problem for Russia is NATO has been growing and adding countries from Eastern Europe, like Poland, with Ukraine also wishing to be part of NATO. This is very unsettling to Putin and Russia, so a gesture was made to reverse this trend back to the security of the former USSR; buffer zones around Russia instead of an old Cold War enemy on your doorstep.

His main source of fear is connected to the USA. This is a unique time politically in the USA, with a social Civil War being instigated from both sides but mostly from the side that hates America; Left. The Democrats are not new to starting Civil Wars, since they did this in the 1860's to maintain slavery.

This is not the same USA, as during the era of the dismantling of the USSR. Then the USA was more unified and under common sense control. But since then, the American Left and has tried to alter the country into Big Government into Socialism and in doing so has created international insecurity, since all economies needs a strong USA capitalist partner.

Putin is more old fashion and could accept the America of the late Cold War Era. This was the American cultural background for dismantling the USSR. But he is paranoid of the new divided America, since it has become an unpredictable wild card based on elections, false charge and fake news. This is not the same nation Putin semi-trusted, as before, when it was considered safe to dismantle the USSR and expose Russia.

The Conservatives are more old school and are less feared by Putin, since they don't talk with two faces like the Left; ends justify the means. For example, we all knew where Trump stood, whether we agreed with him of not. He did not wave in the wind or do surveys to manipulate the undecided. He is still the same. Biden used to be down the middle, but has swung extreme left. Putin needs solid reassurance from people with the one face for conviction, or else he will continue to fortify his nation via USSR expansionism.

The Left is also the side that is preaching Globalism. If we did achieve globalism, where does the Left see itself? In the drivers seat. This is an international threat to sovereign nations. One way to have globalism is some type of war; physical or economic, since not everyone wants this or feels safe by this goal. Resistance is strong, so the approach may need to become stronger.

I tend to think that after the midterms, and the Republican win seats in both Houses and control the Senate and House this will settle down. Globalism ambitions, will be done for now. However, the Left is predictable and may start riots and claim voter fraud, while ignoring their poor record. They will blame everyone bur themselves for their disaster.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think Russia should have invaded Ukraine. But I can see why he is paranoid with the current USA. If you political goal was to destabilize the USA, with division, you will also destabilize the rest of the world. People like Putin will feel this first. USA needs to find a common front, that does not look like impending civil war, with fake news fanning the flames. There may be some useful changes made by the new Majority in the fall of 2022, such as holding social media's foot to flames, since they contribute to instability with two faced censorship.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I see childish specious logic has been normalised.

You seem to forget countries have agency.

Why do you think Canada and Mexico have not invited the Russian army in to safeguard their nations while European countries, especially those who have been subjected to Russian imperialism, have welcomed America?

You may have this strange fantasy about Russian benevolence and how "the devil made them do it".

Eastern Europeans certainly do not. The idea they only do it because they are vassals is delusional. They would take 10 times the US presence if they were offered it. They beg for more assistance.

I don't believe you genuinely think that they are forced to do it against the popular will.

You claim to be for the people, but in this case you are as arrogantly elitist as they come.
You can try denouncing her claims. But they're unassailable.
Why? Because they are relationships hidden from all scrutiny.
They can't be disproven. There's no firm evidence to be
debunked, nor analysis to be argued against.
It's like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin.
 
Top