Noam Chomsky on NATO...

[ajay0]

Noam Chomsky offers some penetrating insights on NATO...


Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

What's the purpose of NATO? Well actually we have an official answer. It isn't publicized much, but a couple of years ago, the secretary-general of NATO made a formal statement explaining the purpose of NATO in the post-Cold War world is to control global energy systems, pipelines, and sea lanes. That means it's a global system and of course he didn't say it, it's an intervention force under US command, as we've seen in case after case. So that's NATO.


It has been known for some time that a major nuclear war might lead to nuclear winter that would destroy the attacker as well as the target. And threats are now mounting, particularly at the Russian border, confirming the prediction of George Kennan and other prominent figures that NATO expansion, particularly the way it was undertaken, would prove to be a "tragic mistake," a "policy error of historic proportions."



[Mikhail] Gorbachev said that he would agree to the unification of Germany, and even adherence of Germany to NATO, which was quite a concession, if NATO didn't move to East Germany. And [George] Bush and [James] Baker promised verbally, that's critical, verbally that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east," which meant East Germany. Nobody was talking about anything farther at the time. They would not expand one inch to the east. Now that was a verbal promise. It was never written. NATO immediately expanded to East Germany.



[Mikhail] Gorbachev complained. He was told look, there's nothing on paper. People didn't actually say it but the implication was look, if you are dumb enough to take faith in a gentleman's agreement with us, that's your problem. NATO expanded to East Germany.


Okay, NATO expanded to East Berlin and East Germany. Under [Bill] Clinton NATO expanded further, to the former Russian satellites. In 2008 NATO formally made an offer to Ukraine to join NATO. That's unbelievable. I mean, Ukraine is the geopolitical heartland of Russian concern, quite aside from historical connections, population and so on.



Right now, where do we stand? Well right at the Russian border, both sides have been taking provocative actions, both sides are building up military forces. NATO forces are carrying out maneuvers hundreds of yards from the Russian border, the Russian jets are buzzing American jets. Anything could blow up in a minute.


Around 2008 and again in 2013 NATO officially offered the Ukraine the opportunity to join NATO. That's something no Russian government is ever going to accept. It's right at the geopolitical heartland of Russia.



Right at the beginning of all of this [Ukraine to join NATO], serious senior statesmen, people like [George] Kennan for example and others warned that the expansion of NATO to the east is going to cause a disaster. I mean, it's like having the Warsaw Pact on the Mexican border. It's inconceivable. And others, senior people warned about this, but policymakers didn't care. Just go ahead.

 

[sayak83]

Noam Chomsky offers some penetrating insights on NATO...


Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

Ukraine is a separate country, not Russia. It can ally with whoever it wants and Russia (or other countries) can have no say on that at all (apart from maybe sanctions). To invade a country to overthrow its government and reinstate a puppet regime is nothing short of colonialism.
The idea that one should pander to a dictator and its tyrannical regime just because he threatens with nuclear weapons is nonsense.

 

[sayak83]

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.

 

[Augustus]

Yay pipelines ftw

Strangely enough we are yet to see any of the pipelines that we were assured were the "real reason" for the wars in Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, et al.

When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you only have a moribund post-Marxist hack, everything looks like oil or pipelines.

Their ability to completely ignore reality in favour of wheeling out the same hackneyed trope is as predictable as the sun rising.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Ukraine is a separate country, not Russia. It can ally with whoever it wants and Russia (or other countries) can have no say on that at all (apart from maybe sanctions). To invade a country to overthrow its government and reinstate a puppet regime is nothing short of colonialism.
The idea that one should pander to a dictator and its tyrannical regime just because he threatens with nuclear weapons is nonsense.

Everything about this post succinctly describes the way a fair world should work. The problem is, the world doesn't work that way in reality, and it looks like the bad guys are going to have to win this round. I know, it's bad that it's like that.

But I don't think we can face down a nuclear power, unless we are technologically confident that we can actually detect and intercept enemy nukes. And it would help to be able to disperse a population by having it live in space, or in highly fortified, half-subterranean cities. You can't face down the bad guys, if you are not equipped to.

 

[sayak83]

Everything about this post succinctly describes the way a fair world should work. The problem is, the world doesn't work that way in reality, and it looks like the bad guys are going to have to win this round. I know, it's bad that it's like that.

But I don't think we can face down a nuclear power, unless we are technologically confident that we can actually detect and intercept enemy nukes. And it would help to be able to disperse a population by having it live in space, or in highly fortified, half subterranean cities. You can't face down the bad guys, if you are not equipped to.

Of course one can if one has nuclear weapons as well which NATO does of course. If Putin is mad enough to ensure mutual annihilation by launching nuclear weapons, then NATO should try to get him assassinated by covert operations. Until that point, one should consider such things as empty threats and pursue policy to prevent and neutralize Russian aggression outside its national borders.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Of course one can if one has nuclear weapons as well which NATO does of course. If Putin is mad enough to ensure mutual annihilation by launching nuclear weapons, then NATO should try to get him assassinated by covert operations. Until that point, one should consider such things as empty threats and pursue policy to prevent and neutralize Russian aggression outside its national borders.

I think mutual annihilation is the opposite of a deterrent, what we need is the asymmetric capacity to stop whatever they launch, or detect whatever they have that can launch

 

[ajay0]

In the case of an unfortunate event or worse case scenario of a thermonuclear holocaust wiping out the U.S, Europe and Russia, future students of history, political science and international diplomacy and law, would find this sequence of events an interesting case study of crisis creation and escalation, and might provide them with intellectual tools and frameworks to prevent such crises and their escalation to conflicts or war in the future.

As Otto von Bismarck stated, " Fools say that they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others experience."

 

[Glaurung]

This war is about blood and soil, not NATO. Putin denies the legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty because in his worldview Ukraine is Russian land; a province of 'Russkiy Mir' to be forced back into the imperial fold. This war is a temper tantrum thrown by Russia because it is no longer able to dominate its Slavic and Baltic neighbors.

NATO is not a threat to Russia. It is a roadblock to Putin's fantasies of imperial domination over Eastern Europe.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

not NATO

Hope it stays that way, some of those conflict marks they are showing on different maps are looking too close to Poland

 

[ajay0]

Please do not derail the thread with subjective outlooks which may have nothing to do with reality.

If possible discuss or debate the points given by Chomsky in the OP.

Thank you very much.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I suspect that when - if - the history of this conflict comes to be written, it will be recognised that the expansion of NATO since 1989 will have been a factor in the development of a paranoid mindset in the Kremlin. Russia was always going to protect it’s interests geopolitical interests, in exactly the same way as the US has repeatedly protected it’s interests in Central and South America and the Caribbean. The tragedy for Russia is that they have sleepwalked into tyranny, and are led by a kleptocrat gangster who lacked the imagination to protect those interests by any but the most extreme and brutal methods.

 

[stvdv]

New Noam Chomsky offers some penetrating insights on NATO...

Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

Hence I don't blame Putin alone on this

IF NATO plays with fire
THEN don't whine 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

 

[Estro Felino]

This war is about blood and soil, not NATO. Putin denies the legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty because in his worldview Ukraine is Russian land; a province of 'Russkiy Mir' to be forced back into the imperial fold. This war is a temper tantrum thrown by Russia because it is no longer able to dominate its Slavic and Baltic neighbors.

NATO is not a threat to Russia. It is a roadblock to Putin's fantasies of imperial domination over Eastern Europe.

And Russia is not a threat to NATO.
Since Russians could not care less about the United States.

 

[stvdv]

NATO...


Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

"What's the purpose of NATO? Well actually we have an official answer. It isn't publicized much, but a couple of years ago, the secretary-general of NATO made a formal statement explaining the purpose of NATO in the post-Cold War world is to control global energy systems, pipelines, and sea lanes. That means it's a global system and of course he didn't say it, it's an intervention force under US command, as we've seen in case after case. So that's NATO."

Very clear description. This proves they started working towards "1984 kind of world" at ca. the same date Orwell wrote his book. Makes me wonder...Coincidence or on purpose...why/when this book was written?

Only recently their goal (global control) has been put on fast track using covid 19. Again too much coincidence for me. Interesting times nevertheless, glad I didn't die last November, I am curious how all this unfolds. How many more conspiracy theories are proven reality the coming years.

 

[stvdv]

Noam Chomsky offers some penetrating insights on NATO...

Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

Thank you for sharing. Confirms a lot what I have been thinking past few years

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yay pipelines ftw

Strangely enough we are yet to see any of the pipelines that we were assured were the "real reason" for the wars in Kosovo, Syria, Afghanistan, et al.

When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you only have a moribund post-Marxist hack, everything looks like oil or pipelines.

Their ability to completely ignore reality in favour of wheeling out the same hackneyed trope is as predictable as the sun rising.

Whether or not Chomsky is right about this specific issue, he's one of the most cited intellectuals and political analysts of all time for a reason. I certainly wouldn't describe him as a "hack": he's prone to being too sure of a one-dimensional analysis of events, but he also has a wealth of insightful, thought-provoking input on numerous other issues. In my opinion, that's enough reason to at least consider his views even when I disagree with them.

 

[Stevicus]

Noam Chomsky offers some penetrating insights on NATO...


Noam Chomsky Quotes About Nato | A-Z Quotes

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).

 

[Augustus]

Whether or not Chomsky is right about this specific issue, he's one of the most cited intellectuals and political analysts of all time for a reason. I certainly wouldn't describe him as a "hack": he's prone to being too sure of a one-dimensional analysis of events, but he also has a wealth of insightful, thought-provoking input on numerous other issues. In my opinion, that's enough reason to at least consider his views even when I disagree with them.

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?

 

[Augustus]

If Putin is mad enough to ensure mutual annihilation by launching nuclear weapons, then NATO should try to get him assassinated by covert operations. Until that point, one should consider such things as empty threats and pursue policy to prevent and neutralize Russian aggression outside its national borders

If you were perfectly rational, you would get the best outcome by making people think you are mad enough to use a nuke, and expecting the "rational adults" to back down to avoid risk.