Why is Russia like it is?

[DevonDamo]

Good open letter to Chomsky:

Good response from Chomsky:

https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content ... -27-22.pdf

I haven't cut and pasted it, as it consists of his replies against each of their points in turn, and it would fill up the page. If anyone wants to read it, he's being clear and concise and his responses are highlighted in bold so you can quickly get to them. But for those can't be bothered: he was being misrepresented in that letter.

I don't like playing citation ping-pong like this. I'd prefer to say what I personally think and respond to what others personally think.

[slowster]

He said they're isolated for their determination to undermine any possibility of negotiation.

Chomsky asserting that in a Youtube video is not evidence or proof.

The point he's making is that there is nothing to be lost, and potentially many lives to be saved, by continually seeking to negotiate a settlement, which is how this situation will ultimately end anyway. Any prohibition on negotiation can only do harm. Do you think he's wrong to take this position?

Yes, because it is a flawed and facile understanding of the nature of such negotiations. Firstly, Ukraine and Russia are already communicating with each other, as demonstrated by the recent high profile prisoner exchanges involving Azovstal fighters amongst others. Negotiations to end the war do not just suddenly happen - the two sides will be maintaining contact to be ready for the moment when they can see and agree that there is sufficient common ground for negotiations to take place on a formal basis. Neither side will want those communications and discussions publicised, partly because they would be deemed by their own public (especially the more pro-war) to be undermining their war effort, and partly because publicity could cause the communication and any initial negotiation to collapse, e.g. ukrainian public opinion currently would probably not accept any settlement that might be acceptable to Putin. Similarly the Russians gave no advance indication that it would exchange prisoners from Azovstal, because it knew that it would be strongly opposed. The FSB advised Putin against it, and the pro-war constituency was furious when it learned of the exchange.

Describing it as a 'prohibition on negotiation' pre-judges the issue, because it presumes a prohibition when you have given no evidence for one. The support of the US, UK and the rest of NATO and of other countries is obviously conditional, as is the extent to which Ukraine will not always do just as it wants without regard to what its allies request, and to a degree the nature of that conditionality on both sides can be inferred, and will also change depending upon the events on the battlefield. To describe the US as blocking a peace settlement is yet again to refuse to recognise the agency of the Ukrainians.

Lastly, the Ukrainians are aware of exactly what they are dealing with in Putin and Russia. They simply do not trust Putin based on their own experience, and that will probably remain the biggest obstacle to peace negotiations.

[DevonDamo]

I've not seen evidence that uk/us are currently blocking negotiations? Chomsky appears to be speculating based on the April incident, which according to the original source, has been rather misrepresented

The main pressure appears to be domestically if anything.

I don't know if that source was misrepresented or not. Johnson is certainly on official record as encouraging other nations not to negotiate: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-c ... 6-may-2022 He's actually saying 'don't negotiate if it may paint the Russians as anything other than unjustified aggressors.' I agree that Russia is an unjustified aggressor, but I don't understand how entering negotiations risks changing the world's perception of that.

I've got no inside knowledge on this one so I don't know whether Chomsky is right about the US blocking negotiations. My instinct is to believe him over Biden, Johnson and Truss, but if it turns out that he's wrong and all sides are genuinely keen to look for any chance of a negotiated settlement, then I'm very happy about that.

He said they're isolated for their determination to undermine any possibility of negotiation.

Chomsky asserting that in a Youtube video is not evidence or proof.

Errr.... It's proof of what I said in my last reply to you, i.e. that you were wrong in what you claimed he was saying. If we can agree that what he actually said is that the UK/US are isolated in their non-negotiating stance, then I'll happily admit that I have no idea what evidence Chomsky has for making this claim. That doesn't matter to me - seeking a negotiated settlement to conflict is always a good idea, regardless of whether the world's politicians or electorates think so.

[slowster]

I'll happily admit that I have no idea what evidence Chomsky has for making this claim. That doesn't matter to me

Since he is your 'go-to for sane analysis of world politics', your eager acceptance of his assertions without seeking evidence or coroboration is akin to a lot of other modern beliefs held in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of evidence completely to the contrary), e.g. Trump/MAGA, anti-vax etc.

For an academic, it is telling that he is making these statements in media interviews where he is given an easy ride and there is no one to challenge those statements. If he has good arguments to make about this war, he should be putting them down in detailed written articles, as most important commentators - especially from academia - have already done. It's much easier to get away with flawed reasoning in media interviews, than in a written widely published article that will be carefully read and analysed by people with a lot of knowledge of Ukraine, Russia and strategic relations.

seeking a negotiated settlement to conflict is always a good idea, regardless of whether the world's politicians or electorates think so.

No it isn't. In World War 2 the Allied powers decided that they would accept nothing less than Germany's unconditional surrender. That was the right decision.

[DevonDamo]

Since he is your 'go-to for sane analysis of world politics', your eager acceptance of his assertions without seeking evidence or coroboration is akin to a lot of other modern beliefs held in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of evidence completely to the contrary), e.g. Trump/MAGA, anti-vax etc.

Go back to the previous page, look what I wrote and you'll see your mistake. I never commented on whether his statement about UK/US isolation was true or false. I only cited it because it was not what you had claimed he had said. You'd made up a falsehood and attributed it to him. Making stuff up is another characteristic of Trump/MAGA/anti-vaxxers etc. etc.

For an academic, it is telling that he is making these statements in media interviews where he is given an easy ride and there is no one to challenge those statements. If he has good arguments to make about this war, he should be putting them down in detailed written articles

Do yourself a favour. At least Google him. Look on Wikipedia. Something. He's one of the most widely published authors on contemporary politics, and he's not shy of a debate. If nothing else, type 'Chomsky debate' into YouTube and see what you get. His views are controversial, but the reason you don't read about them in The Daily Mail is not that he isn't writing the articles, it's that they don't publish them. (Sorry - just getting into this 'you're MAGA - no, you're a Daily Hate Reader' Punch and Judy format.)

seeking a negotiated settlement to conflict is always a good idea, regardless of whether the world's politicians or electorates think so.

No it isn't. In World War 2 the Allied powers decided that they would accept nothing less than Germany's unconditional surrender. That was the right decision.

Seeking a negotiated settlement would obviously have been a good idea at the end of the war. A negotiated settlement that ended the war on the same terms (unconditional surrender) one day earlier, would have been a better outcome. As I said before, you can seek whatever you want by negotiation and the worst that can happen is.... nothing. Doesn't stop you from continuing the military campaign - a negotiation doesn't require a ceasefire.

[slowster]

Do yourself a favour. At least Google him. Look on Wikipedia. Something. He's one of the most widely published authors on contemporary politics, and he's not shy of a debate. If nothing else, type 'Chomsky debate' into YouTube and see what you get. His views are controversial, but the reason you don't read about them in The Daily Mail is not that he isn't writing the articles, it's that they don't publish them.

There are plenty of alternative publishers, and I do not believe he would have any major difficulty finding a publisher for an article on the war. His own website lists recent articles he has written for various publishers. He could even self-publish on his own website.

Seeking a negotiated settlement would obviously have been a good idea at the end of the war. A negotiated settlement that ended the war on the same terms (unconditional surrender) one day earlier, would have been a better outcome.

There is no such thing as a negotiated settlement on the same terms as an unconditional surrender.

Go back to the previous page, look what I wrote and you'll see your mistake. I never commented on whether his statement about UK/US isolation was true or false. I only cited it because it was not what you had claimed he had said. You'd made up a falsehood and attributed it to him. Making stuff up is another characteristic of Trump/MAGA/anti-vaxxers etc. etc.

Your repeated nit-picking of my misinterpretation of his comment about US/UK isolation in blocking negotiation, while acknowledging that you have "no idea what evidence Chomsky has for making this claim" (having previously offered his comments on the war as being worth listening to), and also while ignoring the other criticisms I have made, is bad faith argument.

[Ben@Forest]

Good open letter to Chomsky:

Good response from Chomsky:

https://www.counterpunch.org/wp-content ... -27-22.pdf

I haven't cut and pasted it, as it consists of his replies against each of their points in turn, and it would fill up the page. If anyone wants to read it, he's being clear and concise and his responses are highlighted in bold so you can quickly get to them. But for those can't be bothered: he was being misrepresented in that letter.

I don't like playing citation ping-pong like this. I'd prefer to say what I personally think and respond to what others personally think.

I don't think Chomsky's response (as in the link) is a good one. He comes across as a rather petulant, irritable old university professor (the last bit of which l guess he is) and this seems to be his modus operandi in various spats with other intellectuals or commentators. His 'dismissal' of the various points put feels very much like 'l know better than you - now shut up'.

My personal view of Chomsky is that a university professor of linguistics is no more knowledgable about American foreign or domestic policy than other people, whether they be academics, politicians, senior civil servants or simply well-informed citizens. He seems to have a worldview of 'America is bad' and that any other country either isn't as bad as America and, if they are, then it doesn't matter because 'America is bad'.

I have never really understood why Chomsky's political views or theorising are given such weight. And when his works or views are found to be wrong or mistruths he won't back down or apologise. I'm not saying other commentators aren't guilty of this, but Chomsky is equally flawed.

I like your 'I'd prefer to say what I personally think and respond to what others personally think'...l find the demands for 'link please' one of the most depressing things in a 'Tea Shop'.

[DevonDamo]

I don't think Chomsky's response (as in the link) is a good one. He comes across as a rather petulant, irritable old university professor (the last bit of which l guess he is)

In his defence, he was responding to a lengthy series of misrepresentations about himself, so was probably being extra petulant/irritable/whatever, but fair enough - if he simply gets up your nose, then I'll back off(!)

There is no such thing as a negotiated settlement on the same terms as an unconditional surrender.

There is absolutely no rulebook which dictates what the outcome of a negotiated settlement can or can't be. If you want to convince anyone otherwise, then you'll have to cite that rulebook.

There are plenty of alternative publishers, and I do not believe he would have any major difficulty finding a publisher for an article on the war. His own website lists recent articles he has written for various publishers. He could even self-publish on his own website.

Complaining that Noam Chomsky does not do enough to get his work published is like complaining that Jeremy Clarkson is too pro-cycling. The problem is a combination of Murdoch Media etc. having no interest, and this:

I watched the first part of the video you posted...

I watched the first two minutes of that video.

I tried watching more of the video, but gave up when he commented that [untruth you falsely attributed to him]...

You're complaining about 'bad faith argument. You entered this debate by making a criticism of one of Chomsky's interviews and implying that you'd actually watched it, when you hadn't. I'm not complaining by the way - I enjoy a good duck shoot.

[Stevek76]

I don't know if that source was misrepresented or not. Johnson is certainly on official record as encouraging other nations not to negotiate: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-c ... 6-may-2022 He's actually saying 'don't negotiate if it may paint the Russians as anything other than unjustified aggressors.' I agree that Russia is an unjustified aggressor, but I don't understand how entering negotiations risks changing the world's perception of that.

The source (by which I refer to the author of the original article containing quotes from the usual 'off record' sources) says his article was misrepresented/misunderstood, I'm inclined to take his word on that...

Regarding negotiations, as slowster points out, they are ongoing, but there's very little point in either side entering what I guess could be called 'formal' negotiations if it is obvious they're so far from agreement that it's just not happening. This is particularly the case as any negotiations, if accompanied by a cease fire, provide space for the other side to regroup and plan another attack, and it's not like Russia doesn't have a recent habit of this is it?

As above, I think anyone calling out for negotiate/talk/peace really needs to set out what they think are an acceptable set (or range) of terms on which that peace is to be founded as it really is just lazy virtue signalling otherwise.

If he has good arguments to make about this war, he should be putting them down in detailed written articles,

There are transcripts of the ones in question, which is what I've been using as I struggle with video generally as a information source (slow, full of waffle etc)

[Nearholmer]

think anyone calling out for negotiate/talk/peace really needs to set out what they think are an acceptable set (or range) of terms on which that peace is to be founded

And, I would suggest that there are actually at least three, probably more, ‘parties’ in all this: Ukraine; Russia; and, “everyone else”, in the sense that certainly European countries, which then means our allies in the US by extension, probably Turkey and Middle Eastern countries, China because of precedent, and indeed others, have very real interests in the form of any negotiated settlement, assuming one could be reached.

My instinct is the best that could be done right now is ‘exploratory conversations’, which I think is the role that Macron is trying to play, or has tried to play. The big question to try and answer through such conversations must surely be “What are the primary war aims of the two combatants?”. Put another way “What would constitute success, and failure?” for each. A lot of stuff swills about on this topic, and both leaders make statements, but I’m not at all sure we actually know, and it’s particularly important to elicit what each considers “failure” to be.

[DevonDamo]

I don't disagree with anything @Stevek76 and @Nearholmer say above. I.e.(1) I don't personally have any evidence that proves the US is blocking negotiations with Russia, and (2) the prospects of negotiations resulting in a major breakthrough right now seem very small but could nevertheless by useful in understanding positions.

Whether or not the US is blocking negotiation with Russia is the central issue here. Chomsky is claiming this to be the case and arguing that this is for reasons which aren't necessarily in the best interests of Ukraine. Evidence to prove/refute this is thin on the ground as international diplomacy is secretive, especially when hidden behind the fog of war. Yes, there is clearly some dialogue between the warring parties, but have certain discussions been declared off-limits? As mentioned before, my instinct would be to take notice of what Chomsky is saying as he's got a track record of being right about this stuff, whereas politicians have a track record of lying where necessary. And, to bring this back to the original topic, Adam Curtis' documentaries are staggering because they expose the huge misinformation perpetrated on us during major global events after the facts have finally come out. They tend to vindicate what Chomsky was saying, which at the time was being dismissed as mad anti-US nonsense. The fact that he's been equally scathing of Russia and Sadam Hussein et al. is conveniently ignored.

[Sweep]

Has anyone been trudging through the marathon that is Adam Curtis' seemingly endless series of video montages of the recent history of post-Soviet Russia and its relationship with the other members of the erstwhile Soviet union? Apart from the slightly unattractive fact that they have no plot, no dialogue, no easily identifiable theme and little humour other than ironic... they've all been really interesting so far.
They all available on BBC's iPlayer.

Do I do just search for his name?
seen some of his other stuff and once went to a talk he did at the beeb.
Interesting stuff if at times rather mind-bending.

[Sweep]

I'm feeling v. sorry for the Russkie. What a past! And they have to put up with all that snow. That's enough to make anyone grumpy. And although communism was less than ideal, millions of people had a living from the system. All those dodgy Olly Garks took advantage of Yeltsin's crazy & ill-advised efforts to rush through a transformation to captialism and wrecked the lives of many ordinary peeps. Also, there's loads of dodgy vodka... still none of that in anyway justifies illegal invasion and annexation. So sad - all those poor Siberian mothers trying to come to terms with the news that their lovely sons have been splatted to burnt mince in a crappy tank. What for?

Yep - have long thought that Russia has one of the saddest histories on the planet.
The ignorant Tsar, sad sad end of his family, a revolution which became hijacked by nutjobs and shysters, purges, game-playing by egomaniacs that makes you long for simple office politics, slaughter in WW2 (much the fault of the leader), rape of national resources by more nutjobs and shysters.
If life is getting you down, thank your lucky stars that you aren't Russian.
I travelled in the old eastern block a fair bit and went to the Soviet Union - though a leftie had few illusions about it.

[squeaker]

Do I do just search for his name?

Searching for 'Russia' gets there faster..
HTH

[Sweep]

Do I do just search for his name?

Searching for 'Russia' gets there faster..
HTH

Thanks - had already found - thanks to simon for recommending - will definitely watch along with the other iplayer stuff of his - though one of the shorter ones (non Russia) tried to cover way too much ground in about 6 minutes - interesting that unless I missed some snarkiness he is/was a fan of Roy Jenkins - for his 60s work.