Good analysis, Peter. I am looking forward to your talk with Chomsky. Shortly before he did that controversial interview you referenced with Nathan Robinson, I listened to one he gave to Jeremy Scahill. Much was the same. But unlike the Robinson interview, in answer to a specific question Chomsky acknowledged that the US/Nato military su…
Good analysis, Peter. I am looking forward to your talk with Chomsky. Shortly before he did that controversial interview you referenced with Nathan Robinson, I listened to one he gave to Jeremy Scahill. Much was the same. But unlike the Robinson interview, in answer to a specific question Chomsky acknowledged that the US/Nato military support and sanctions up to that point were probably necessary. He didn't particularly emphasize the point, and Chomsky's emphasis all along has been the need for serious negotiations -- knowing that unpalatable compromises will have to be made. But my interpretation was that he was acknowledging that under the circumstances, Ukraine needs to negotiate from a position of strength. His position may have shifted since then, but it struck me at the time that pragmatically he was somewhere in between Mearsheimer (who in your interview plainly stated his opposition to providing Ukraine with any military support whatsoever) and Timothy Snyder, who emphasizes the need for an outright "win" by Ukraine.
Since these interviews we have seen the growing hubris and loose talk coming from Washington, as you so rightly point out and put into sad historical context. In the face of this stupidity (I mean, hell, even Thomas Friedman is calling it out as dangerous), I doubt Chomsky will want to talk about the need for providing defensive arms in what is now looking like a war of attrition. But you may want to ask.
Good analysis, Peter. I am looking forward to your talk with Chomsky. Shortly before he did that controversial interview you referenced with Nathan Robinson, I listened to one he gave to Jeremy Scahill. Much was the same. But unlike the Robinson interview, in answer to a specific question Chomsky acknowledged that the US/Nato military support and sanctions up to that point were probably necessary. He didn't particularly emphasize the point, and Chomsky's emphasis all along has been the need for serious negotiations -- knowing that unpalatable compromises will have to be made. But my interpretation was that he was acknowledging that under the circumstances, Ukraine needs to negotiate from a position of strength. His position may have shifted since then, but it struck me at the time that pragmatically he was somewhere in between Mearsheimer (who in your interview plainly stated his opposition to providing Ukraine with any military support whatsoever) and Timothy Snyder, who emphasizes the need for an outright "win" by Ukraine.
Since these interviews we have seen the growing hubris and loose talk coming from Washington, as you so rightly point out and put into sad historical context. In the face of this stupidity (I mean, hell, even Thomas Friedman is calling it out as dangerous), I doubt Chomsky will want to talk about the need for providing defensive arms in what is now looking like a war of attrition. But you may want to ask.
Thank you very much for the work you are doing.