Ukraine

[Frances_iom]

... Nevertheless it still looks like a land grab to me, and if there were very real concerns in the past I find it fairly implausible that reasonable methods of resolution could not have been found.

Maybe you can suggest reasonable solutions to Northern Ireland (a land grab now near 400 years ago) and Israel/Palestine now getting on for 100 years.
It appears all too easy to exploit difference between people with different languages, religions or social organisations - the old Soviet Union tended to move people from different regions into newly established industries within the Soviet Empire - there was a brief discussion of the approach of Estonia in trying to avoid such exploitation with their large Russian speaking minority, most of whom were descendants of the post WW2 Russian immigrants after the Baltic states were absorbed into the Soviet Union in From our Correspondents today on R4.

[Dave2002]

Maybe you can suggest reasonable solutions to Northern Ireland (a land grab now near 400 years ago) and Israel/Palestine now getting on for 100 years.

Presumably the Battle of 1690 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne wasn't just a grab for NI, but for the whole of Ireland. It then took over 200 years for Ireland to be split up, and for Eire to become a separate country.

[Bryn]

My attention was recently drawn to this: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2022/05/1...a-ukraine-war/ It appears to me to be a well-argues rejoinder to Chomsky, regarding relations between Russia, Ukraine, and other states on the former's borders.

[Frances_iom]

Presumably the Battle of 1690 .

No - the Elizabethan campaign a century earlier which saw Ulster emptied of its leading men and shortly afterwards the plantations of King James - these plantations, highly akin to the settler towns in occupied West Bank, were to be occupied by Scots who were given significant rights denied to the locals, hence forming the antagonism of the local population that continued to today.

[french frank]

It appears to me to be a well-argues rejoinder to Chomsky, regarding relations between Russia, Ukraine, and other states on the former's borders.

Thank you for posting that. The idea of conceding anything to Putin as a means to a diplomatic solution and an end to this horrendous war seems to me muddle0headed. 'If Putin can't get something out of the war, goodness knows what he might do.' But there are grounds for saying, 'If he gets anything at all, goodness knows what else he will do.'

Is Zelensky being intransigent in refusing to concede any land at all to Russia? What evidence is there that Putin would be satisfied and stop there? This is the man who assured the world that the claim that the alleged military build-up on the Ukrainian border was preparation for invasion was total nonsense.

It's hard to know who can be considered scrupulously honest, but Putin's former prime minister, Mikhail Kasyanov, blames the west in some measure. Not for reasons that accord with Chomsky's but for not realising that Putin should have been stopped in his war-mongering tracks years ago.

[Dave2002]

My attention was recently drawn to this: https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2022/05/1...a-ukraine-war/ It appears to me to be a well-argued rejoinder to Chomsky, regarding relations between Russia, Ukraine, and other states on the former's borders.

My thanks also for posting that. This seems to make much more sense, rather than an article written by someone who perhaps should have stuck to theories of language and mind.

[Joseph K]

but for not realising that Putin should have been stopped in his war-mongering tracks years ago.

How the west could have done that, I don't know. Perhaps the west was more preoccupied with its own warmongering.

Thanks for the link, Bryn. Chomsky is not unbiased, though not all the points made in the open letter are valid e.g. no. 4, and I take issue with insinuation that only countries such as China, India, Pakistan or North Korea would use the 'nuclear blackmail' and not any country in the west.

[Joseph K]

My thanks also for posting that. This seems to make much more sense, rather than an article written by someone who perhaps should have stuck to theories of language and mind.

I've read about half a dozen books by Chomsky - all political, though I knew a bit about his linguistic work from English Language A-level - and for the most part he's very good. There are issues I take with some aspects of his analyses of things and he does have a tendency to see things from a very particular world-view, which isn't always on-point and wholly applicable. Have you read any of his books, Dave? They are well researched and well-argued. As for Ukraine, it may well have to 'fight for freedom' as the article says, but I am unsure whether concessions would lead to an increase in the likelihood of nuclear war. There seems to be a contradiction, that Russian propaganda relies on the notion that Putin is being rational, but at the same time is wishing to commit genocide.

[RichardB]

This seems to make much more sense, rather than an article written by someone who perhaps should have stuck to theories of language and mind.

Perhaps. But if he had we wouldn't have had the crucially important Manufacturing Consent, and the insights in everything he writes born decades of research into many geopolitical issues. Nobody is perfect of course, but dismissing Chomsky out of hand is somewhat foolish I think. Apart from that, when I see passionate appeals to the rights of "sovereign nations" I think to myself (as does Chomsky no doubt) that such concepts are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

As for "giving something to Putin", I guess whether that is a valid argument depends on how important a role is played in one's thinking of the present suffering of all those people in Ukraine. Shouldn't bringing that to an end be the overriding priority? What is muddle-headed about that?

[french frank]

How the west could have done that, I don't know. Perhaps the west was more preoccupied with its own warmongering.

Yes, perhaps so. But comparisons can be made: Iraq was a horrendous mess following the west's intervention. But let's not forget Saddam Hussein's brutal massacre of marsh arabs from the 1980s onwards and his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was arguably more brutal than that of the US. Syria? Russia and the US both involved.

Point #4 is just pointing out that Chomsky has a tendency to try to 'balance' any criticism of Russia (or anywhere else) by returning to the misdeeds of the US and the west. As do others. The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be on quite a different plane from US 'warmongering' and no comparison with the US/west bears scrutiny.

[Joseph K]

Shouldn't bringing that to an end be the overriding priority? What is muddle-headed about that?

According to some, the only two options are endlessly fighting for freedom or giving concessions to Putin i.e. the complete destruction of Ukraine.

I detest Putin, but perhaps we should reflect on the fact that his rise to power was in the wake of Yeltsin whose own rise to power had more than a little bit of help from the USA.

[Joseph K]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be on quite a different plane from US 'warmongering' and no comparison with the US bears scrutiny.

This is completely untrue and why the scare quotes round the word warmongering? Are you aware, just to take one example, of the first 9/11 of Chile, where the democratically elected leader Allende was toppled by US-backed Pinochet?

Also, regarding Iraq, surely you must know why someone like Saddam Hussein got into power in the first place? The Ba'athists were preferred by the West. Same with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, to this day. And the democratically elected government in Iran was overthrown, again in a coup backed by the West, in 1953.

[french frank]

This is completely untrue and why the scare quotes round the word warmongering? Are you aware, just to take one example, of the first 9/11 of Chile, where the democratically elected leader Allende was toppled by US-backed Pinochet?

I agree with you entirely over Allende - a socialist (a term which Americans even now seem to equate with the excesses of Stalinist communism), but 1973 was 50 years ago. Though I do remember it . It was a different world.

Also, regarding Iraq, surely you must know why someone like Saddam Hussein got into power in the first place? The Ba'athists were preferred by the West. Same with Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, to this day.

And yet, and yet, they presumably weren't supporting anyone to engage in genocide or the military invasion of a neighbour.

And the democratically elected government in Iran was overthrown, again in a coup backed by the West, in 1953.

That was 70 years ago. My comments were intended to refer to the contemporay political situation. So I repeat: I don't see anything that the west has done comparable to Putin's war in Ukraine.

[Joseph K]

I agree with you entirely over Allende - a socialist (a term which Americans even now seem to equate with the excesses of Stalinist communism), but 1973 was 50 years ago. Though I do remember it . It was a different world.

And yet, and yet, they presumably weren't supporting anyone to engage in genocide or the military invasion of a neighbour.



That was 70 years ago. My comments were intended to refer to the contemporay political situation. So I repeat: I don't see anything that the west has done comparable to Putin's war in Ukraine.

The Saudis are destroying Yemen to this day. Why is it we're arming the Saudis and not Yemen?

And why is invading a neighbour any worse than invading a country on the other side of the world? Do Ukrainian lives count more than Iraqi ones simply because of the provenance of the perpetrator?

[french frank]

TAnd why is invading a neighbour any worse than invading a country on the other side of the world? Do Ukrainian lives count more than Iraqi ones simply because of the provenance of the perpetrator?

I'm not saying that the proximity made it worse, but the intent. I frankly don't understand why the US invaded Iraq in 2003 - unless they actually believed their own rhetoric: that Saddam Hussein posed a threat - the fear of Iraq's WMD went back a few years and it had already been a trouble spot. If they didn't believe it was true, why did they invade? The difference for me is that I do understand what Putin is about. I do understand the propaganda and the lies. People who have analysed Putin explain that it's all down to his view of history and Russia's rightful place in the world which is not a reason to invade another country.

To be clear, I'm not defending the west's - or the US's - military interventions, but I'm not sure that the motivations are comparable.

(By the way, I've just checked the details of the Chilean business: Nixon was president, the worst American president of recent years bar Trump, though NIxon was more destructive).

My reference to invading a neighbour referred to Saddam invading Kuwait, not Putin invading Ukraine.