Noam Chomsky on NATO...

[Augustus]

So what's the reality?

That the "war for pipelines" trope got wheeled out for Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.

Yet the people promoting it never notice that their predictions never matched a pipeline reality.

Still there's always the next war...

 

[Augustus]

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

Outside his speciality, linguistics, what are these contributions though?

He's like a Neil Tyson figure, a populariser who has name recognition, not someone who advances the field.

His most cited stuff seems to be the "manufacturing consent" propaganda model of media which was pretty mediocre at the time, let alone with hindsight.

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

That seems to reflect his a generic ctivism/preaching to the crowd, not anywhere he has produced compelling, original scholarship.

 

[Augustus]

Although the Russians had a longstanding enmity with Turkey going back centuries, the British somehow viewed it as a threat to their empire, which is kind of curious when you think about it. Russia was essentially landlocked, and whatever outlets to the sea they could gain were frozen much of the time.

They were worried about Russia expanding by land through central Asia, Afghanistan and into India.

It wasn't curious at all.

 

[Stevicus]

They were worried about Russia expanding by land through central Asia, Afghanistan and into India.

It wasn't curious at all.

Why would the Russians want to do that? Did they ever say they were planning that? Is there any historical evidence that that was a long-term geopolitical objective?

If not, then, yes, it was curious.

 

[Augustus]

Why would the Russians want to do that? Did they ever say they were planning that? Is there any historical evidence that that was a long-term geopolitical objective?

If not, then, yes, it was curious.

Why would a country with ambition aim to expand in an era of imperial expansion?

This was "the great game", between Britain and Russia, and there is evidence it was at least considered by Russia although people disagree on how much it was considered.

Great Game - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

Nonsense.

You may want to ask a few Eastern Europeans before peddling such obvious delusions.

Why do you fawn over Russia but are so contemptuous and patronising towards Eastern Europeans?

Do you even count them as real Europeans?

It is dictatorial Brussels who does not count them as real Europeans.

And it is them who restlessly insult Hungarians and Poles for electing Orbán and Morawiecki.
Because these two leaders were democratically elected.
It deals with Nations who suffered under a dictatorial USSR....but they will not let another dictatorship called EU rule them.

Unlike Frau Von der Leyen, I do empathize with these glorious nations. Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria...etc...

 

[Stevicus]

Why would a country with ambition aim to expand in an era of imperial expansion?

This was "the great game", between Britain and Russia, and there is evidence it was at least considered by Russia although people disagree on how much it was considered.

Great Game - Wikipedia

Yeah, although it still seems rather sketchy and speculative. I don't think the Russians could have ever done anything like try to attack India through Central Asia. The logistics would be formidable.

However, they always did have a long-term goal of wanting to retake Constantinople, so their enmity with Turkey was real. I doubt it was being used as a pretext for an eventual attack on British India. But from a practical standpoint, taking control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles would have given Russia an outlet to the sea. That was their other major foreign policy goal - a seaport which was ice-free year round.

The whole idea that Russia might have wanted to go around the world grabbing other countries' colonies doesn't even make any sense. They had such an enormous landmass already, which was almost impossible to govern. They were hardly in much of a position to take on overseas colonies.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, although it still seems rather sketchy and speculative. I don't think the Russians could have ever done anything like try to attack India through Central Asia. The logistics would be formidable.

However, they always did have a long-term goal of wanting to retake Constantinople, so their enmity with Turkey was real. I doubt it was being used as a pretext for an eventual attack on British India. But from a practical standpoint, taking control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles would have given Russia an outlet to the sea. That was their other major foreign policy goal - a seaport which was ice-free year round.

The whole idea that Russia might have wanted to go around the world grabbing other countries' colonies doesn't even make any sense. They had such an enormous landmass already, which was almost impossible to govern. They were hardly in much of a position to take on overseas colonies.

I still think that a NATO-Russia.military alliance would have prevented all this.

But Chomsky is 100% right. Evidently there is a Deep State that does want to take possession of those resources in Russia.
So such an alliance would have been counterproductive.

 

[Augustus]

It is dictatorial Brussels who does not count them as real Europeans.

And it is them who restlessly insult Hungarians and Poles for electing Orbán and Morawiecki.
Because these two leaders were democratically elected.
It deals with Nations who suffered under a dictatorial USSR....but they will not let another dictatorship called EU rule them.

Unlike Frau Von der Leyen, I do empathize with these glorious nations. Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria...etc...

You don't empathise with them. They are a game to you to be used to support whatever you want to be true.

You deny them agency and claim they really love Russia as it's only America who is suspicious, never Europeans.

You see them exercising their own agency as being under control of America/EU/Soros which is the classic elitist position of people being too stupid to think for themselves.

You ignore Russian historical violence and modern threats to them so you can fawn over Russia as an enemy to your enemies.

Comparing the EU to Soviet mass murder is delusional and disrespectful towards its victims.

That isn't empathy, that's elitist contempt.

 

[Estro Felino]

Comparing the EU to Soviet mass murder is delusional and disrespectful towards its victims.

Seeing what the Troika did to Greece, the Troika is worse than what the Soviet Union has been.
And I can demonstrate it in any national and international court of justice.

That said, I will always defend Visegrad, Romania, Bulgaria against invasions and acts of aggression.
And we all celebrate the heroic Budapest youth and Prague Spring. I do know what these nations suffered under Bolshevism.

But the EU publicly dissing Orbán snd Morawirlecki to please tragic and destructive individuals like Soros, is no better.

 

[Augustus]

Seeing what the Troika did to Greece, the Troika is worse than what the Soviet Union has been.

I'm not going to defend EU actions in Greece, but the Soviet Union killed maybe 30 million people directly or via starvation and subjugated half of Europe through violence.

Its leaders publicly stated we have to abandon ideas of the sanctity of human life as it was "Quaker Papist babble" and an impediment to progress.

The EU, while flawed and with a significant democratic deficit, is an organisation that countries join and leave voluntarily (see Brexit). Greece could have left the Euro/EU and it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths

In what way is the EU worse than the USSR?

But the EU publicly dissing Orbán snd Morawirlecki to please tragic and destructive individuals like Soros, is no better.

I don't think you will find many Poles who agree with you on that one.

Why do you think you understand their experiences better than they do?

 

[kaninchen]

Yeah, although it still seems rather sketchy and speculative. I don't think the Russians could have ever done anything like try to attack India through Central Asia. The logistics would be formidable.

There's an argument that the history of Russia is a case of acquiring territory as part of the process of protecting territory that it's just acquired - something not uncommon with imperialist/colonialist countries, of course, but likely to bump into the interests of other powerful countries from time to time.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not going to defend EU actions in Greece, but the Soviet Union killed maybe 30 million people directly or via starvation and subjugated half of Europe through violence.

Its leaders publicly stated we have to abandon ideas of the sanctity of human life as it was "Quaker Papist babble" and an impediment to progress.

The EU, while flawed and with a significant democratic deficit, is an organisation that countries join and leave voluntarily (see Brexit). Greece could have left the Euro/EU and it wouldn't have resulted in millions of deaths

In what way is the EU worse than the USSR?



I don't think you will find many Poles who agree with you on that one.

Why do you think you understand their experiences better than they do?

That is why I harshly condemn Bolshevism (Lenin was certainly not a Christian...), as I think it is unchristian.

That said, the Troika is a triumvirate that did disrespect the sanctity of human life, and the evidence collected by Greek lawyers is overwhelming.
As for Poland, Morawiecki was chosen by the Polish people. It is called democracy. Something the Troika will never understand.
Vox Populi, Vox Dei.

 

[Stevicus]

There's an argument that the history of Russia is a case of acquiring territory as part of the process of protecting territory that it's just acquired - something not uncommon with imperialist/colonialist countries, of course, but likely to bump into the interests of other powerful countries from time to time.

Yes, although the British seemed to be okay with other countries grabbing territories in close proximity to theirs. The empires of France and Britain coexisted side-by-side, and Britain even seemed okay with tiny Belgium and Netherlands going out and grabbing colonies.

Germany also grabbed for overseas colonies, and it wasn't really a problem for Britain until they tried to grab Morocco from France in 1905. Then, suddenly, Germany became a threat to Britain.

But for whatever reason, Britain had an inordinate fear of Russia beyond what would seem normal or rational, considering the more immediate physical threats closer to their homeland. I don't believe they were ever really that worried about Russian expansionism (because there's no sense to that argument), as much as they just had some kind irrational hatred of Russia.

 

[kaninchen]

But for whatever reason, Britain had an inordinate fear of Russia beyond what would seem normal or rational, considering the more immediate physical threats closer to their homeland. I don't believe they were ever really that worried about Russian expansionism (because there's no sense to that argument), as much as they just had some kind irrational hatred of Russia.

We'll ignore the various tussles of the British and French over colonies - the smaller countries got what the French and British weren't so bothered about.

From the point of view of the Imperialists, India was the Empire, it outweighed everywhere else in significance and was also key to the security of trade routes in both south Asia and central Asia (where Russia was seen to be expanding). A threat to the 'jewel in the Crown' of the Empire was not to be entertained under any circumstances and Russia's tendency to territorial and influence expansion was a fact of European and Asian history.

 

[Stevicus]

I still think that a NATO-Russia.military alliance would have prevented all this.

But Chomsky is 100% right. Evidently there is a Deep State that does want to take possession of those resources in Russia.
So such an alliance would have been counterproductive.

Even before the end of the Cold War, it seemed the dynamics of the world and geopolitics were in a state of flux. The borders in Europe were stabilized; it seemed extremely unlikely that either side would suddenly kick off and start WW3.

By the 1980s, the US was far more worried about communism as an ideological threat (such as in Nicaragua). It was quite obvious by that time that the right-wing capitalists were far more frightened of ideas than they were of any alleged physical threat from the Soviet military. In their eyes, a single labor leader in Central America was a greater threat to the security of the U.S. than a million Red Army soldiers.

I don't know who or what the Deep State might be. To me, it doesn't really matter about that part, since we can clearly look at the actions of government, along with the tone and focus of the rhetoric of public figures (politicians, pundits).

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, although the British seemed to be okay with other countries grabbing territories in close proximity to theirs. The empires of France and Britain coexisted side-by-side, and Britain even seemed okay with tiny Belgium and Netherlands going out and grabbing colonies.

Germany also grabbed for overseas colonies, and it wasn't really a problem for Britain until they tried to grab Morocco from France in 1905. Then, suddenly, Germany became a threat to Britain.

But for whatever reason, Britain had an inordinate fear of Russia beyond what would seem normal or rational, considering the more immediate physical threats closer to their homeland. I don't believe they were ever really that worried about Russian expansionism (because there's no sense to that argument), as much as they just had some kind irrational

Even before the end of the Cold War, it seemed the dynamics of the world and geopolitics were in a state of flux. The borders in Europe were stabilized; it seemed extremely unlikely that either side would suddenly kick off and start WW3.

By the 1980s, the US was far more worried about communism as an ideological threat (such as in Nicaragua). It was quite obvious by that time that the right-wing capitalists were far more frightened of ideas than they were of any alleged physical threat from the Soviet military. In their eyes, a single labor leader in Central America was a greater threat to the security of the U.S. than a million Red Army soldiers.

I don't know who or what the Deep State might be. To me, it doesn't really matter about that part, since we can clearly look at the actions of government, along with the tone and focus of the rhetoric of public figures (politicians, pundits).

I know both Russians and Italians living in Russia.
Most Americans probably ignore how americanized the Russia of the big cities it.
It is a nation that loves the West, culturally.
Putin did ask the NATO to join in 2000..there is the evidence.
Russians did anything to be accepted as Westerners, after the fall of communism.

But the NATO has always covered it up. Because, evidently their purpose is to keep the NATO as an anti-Russian organization.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know who or what the Deep State might be. To me, it doesn't really matter about that part, since we can clearly look at the actions of government, along with the tone and focus of the rhetoric of public figures (politicians, pundits).

Since McNamara confessed the Tonkin incident was faked, it means a Deep State exists.
And not only..there are tens of other examples...like Kissinger and the Operation Condor.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes, although the British seemed to be okay with other countries grabbing territories in close proximity to theirs. The empires of France and Britain coexisted side-by-side, and Britain even seemed okay with tiny Belgium and Netherlands going out and grabbing colonies.

Germany also grabbed for overseas colonies, and it wasn't really a problem for Britain until they tried to grab Morocco from France in 1905. Then, suddenly, Germany became a threat to Britain.

But for whatever reason, Britain had an inordinate fear of Russia beyond what would seem normal or rational, considering the more immediate physical threats closer to their homeland. I don't believe they were ever really that worried about Russian expansionism (because there's no sense to that argument), as much as they just had some kind irrational hatred of Russia.

I don't think there was ever any irrational hatred of Russia - in the UK. They might have been fearful as to their intent - the leaders, that is, and as to how they tended to dominate and suppress all those who were forcibly servile under them. Given that we did witness the various uprisings and put-downs over the decades. Why would we respect or trust them?

 

[Augustus]

Yes, although the British seemed to be okay with other countries grabbing territories in close proximity to theirs.

No they didn't

They took control of 1/3 of Africa mostly to stop others taking it.

Britain mostly cared about strategic ports, but keeping these secure requires controlling inland areas too if there were rival colonial powers.

Much of the empire was a drain on resources.

The agreed partition of Africa was to avoid unnecessary conflict.

But for whatever reason, Britain had an inordinate fear of Russia beyond what would seem normal or rational, considering the more immediate physical threats closer to their homeland. I don't believe they were ever really that worried about Russian expansionism (because there's no sense to that argument), as much as they just had some kind irrational hatred of Russia.

The East India company took over India, financed by Indian elites (who saw them as more likely to pay debts than the Mughals) and using mostly Indian troops.

Even after coming under crown control, it was a long way from Britain and could only be held with the support of local elites.

A European power with land routes to India and the ability to attract local elites was a threat.

Britain conquering Afghanistan was a threat to Russian interests.

Hence the great game.

Remember this is before modern transport and communications technologies where the world was shrouded in a fog of uncertainty and it could take months or years to respond to any actions in far away lands.

The idea it was some strange Russian hatred is bizarre seeing as Britain generally sided with whoever kept the balance of power best.

Peter the Great lived in Britain and learned about ship building there prior to his expansionist career.