The US and Europe are not interested in negotiations
The Nation publishes an interview with Noam Chomsky about the situation in Ukraine. According to the philosopher, there are two scenarios: to negotiate or to aggravate the conflict. However, the US and Europe do not want a diplomatic resolution, explains Chomsky.
David Barsamian
Do you even remember when it all started? Don't you feel like this has been going on for ages? And the time frame – if in the context of eternity it is appropriate to talk about them at all – turned out to be simply supernatural (read – immeasurably destructive). No, I'm not talking about the attack on the Capitol on January sixth, 2021, with all the ensuing consequences, including the incessant hearings in the format of TV broadcasts. I'm talking about the conflict in Ukraine. It turned out that the story that has not left the headlines of the media for many weeks, which the major television networks sent the best correspondents and presenters to cover, is now flashing somewhere on the periphery of news channels and public consciousness.
The seemingly endless conflict in the heart of Europe, as TomDispatch columnist Rajan Menon said, turned into a catastrophe, including on a global scale, threatening mass starvation in most countries of the so-called "third world". The barely noticeable, but much more devastating news about the amount of carbon that humanity, absorbed by more pressing problems, emits into the atmosphere, also does not inspire optimism.
Below you can read an interview with a regular TomDispatch interlocutor, 93-year-old Noam Chomsky, who presented the conflict in Ukraine in the most destructive context. He talked with David Barsamian from Alternative Radio as part of the “Chronicles of Dissent" column. The interview is published in an abbreviated form. — Tom Engelhardt
David Barsamyan: Let's talk about the most obvious nightmare of today, namely the conflict in Ukraine and its consequences, which are felt by the whole world. But first, a little background. Let's start, perhaps, with President George H.W. Bush's assurance to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO will not move “an inch to the east” - a documented promise, please note. My question to you is the following: why didn't Gorbachev demand written guarantees?
Noam Chomsky: He made a gentleman's agreement, as is often the case during negotiations. A simple handshake is enough. Moreover, having this promise in paper form would make little difference. Contracts fixed in writing are constantly being torn up. Integrity is important. And the elder Bush, the first Bush, clearly respected the agreement. He even took steps to create a partnership in the interests of peace, which would include all the countries of Eurasia. No one would dissolve NATO, it would simply lose its political influence. Countries that are not formal members of NATO, such as, for example, Tajikistan, would be able to join the partnership. And Gorbachev was satisfied with this, because it represented the first step towards creating a "pan-European house" in the absence of any military alliances.
Clinton kept that promise for the first few years, too. Experts say that he started saying things that were directly opposite to each other around 1994. He promised the Russians to continue to adhere to the agreements reached, and the Polish community in the United States and other ethnic minorities – membership in NATO. Around 1996-97 . Clinton almost openly said this to his friend, Russian President Boris Yeltsin, whom he helped win the 1996 elections. He said: do not be zealous on the issue of NATO; we are going to expand, but the need for this is due to the desire to enlist the support of the ethnic minorities of the United States in the upcoming elections.
In 1997, Clinton invited the countries of the so-called Visegrad Group represented by Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania to NATO. The Russians didn't like it, but they didn't raise much fuss. Then the Baltic countries joined the alliance – the same reaction. In 2008, the younger Bush, whose policy was significantly different from his father's, invited Georgia and Ukraine to NATO. All American diplomats were well aware that from the point of view of Russia, these countries represent red lines. It could tolerate expansion in other places, but not in these geostrategic territories, not in its deep rear. The next stage was the Maidan uprising of 2014, as a result of which the pro-Russian president was forced to leave office, and Ukraine headed West.
In 2014, the United States and NATO began arming Ukraine, supplying it with modern weapons, providing military training for the personnel of the Armed Forces of the country, conducting joint military exercises and taking steps to integrate the country into the military command of the Air Force. No one made a special secret of this. Everything was completely transparent. Recently, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even decided to brag about it, saying that the alliance has really been doing this since 2014. Of course, all this was done deliberately for the purpose of provocation. They knew that they were encroaching on what every Russian leader considered unacceptable. In 2008, France and Germany vetoed Ukraine's entry into NATO, but under pressure from the United States, the issue remained on the agenda. And NATO, the United States, has taken steps to accelerate the actual integration of Ukraine into the NATO military command.
In the 2019 elections, Vladimir Zelensky won by an overwhelming majority of votes – as I recall, about 70% – with his promises of a peaceful settlement in the Donbas and the conclusion of appropriate agreements with Eastern Ukraine and Russia. He began to move in this direction and, in fact, wanted to go to the Donbass, Russia-oriented eastern region, to implement the so-called Second Minsk Agreement. This would mean a kind of federalization of Ukraine with the granting of certain autonomy to Donbass, which, in fact, he sought. By analogy with Switzerland or Belgium. Zelensky was prevented from doing this by right-wing armed formations, who threatened him with reprisals in case of further efforts in this direction.
Well, he's a manly man. With the support of the United States, he could have gone all the way, but Washington refused him. No support, nothing – he was simply abandoned to the mercy of fate, as a result he had to back down. The United States was determined to pursue the policy of gradual integration of Ukraine into the NATO military command that I mentioned. The process accelerated after Biden was elected president. In September 2021, the relevant information appeared on the White House website. The general public was not informed about this, but the Russians, of course, knew about it. Biden announced the acceleration of the process of military training, conducting military exercises and increasing the supply of weapons as part of the “expanded program” of preparation for NATO membership, as members of his administration dubbed it.
In November, the process accelerated even more. I note: all this happened before the start of the Russian special operation. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken signed the so-called charter, which, in fact, expanded these agreements and gave them official status. The State Department acknowledged that before the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States refused to discuss any concerns about Moscow's security issues. All of this is part of the backstory.
On February 24, Putin launched a special operation. Even the above-mentioned provocations do not justify him. If he had been a real politician, he would have acted completely differently. He would have remembered the proposals voiced earlier by French President Emmanuel Macron, and would have tried to negotiate with Europe, take steps to create a pan-European house.
The United States, of course, has always opposed this, ever since the Cold War, when French leader de Gaulle advocated the creation of an independent political organization of European countries. As he put it, Europe should be united “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” which implied Russia's integration with the West – a completely natural compromise, conditioned by trade considerations and, obviously, security considerations. If real statesmen were surrounded by Putin, they would seize on Macron's initiatives and try to figure out whether it is realistic to integrate with Europe and prevent a crisis. Instead, the choice was made in favor of a policy that, from the standpoint of Russia, turned out to be completely unreasonable. In addition to the criminal component of the special operation, his policy drove Europe under the hood of the United States. In fact, this pushed Sweden and Finland to join NATO, and this is the worst possible outcome for Russia.
So, the atrocity and stupidity on the part of the Kremlin, the cruel provocation on the part of the United States – this is the background that brought us to the present moment. What are we going to do: try to put an end to this nightmare or make it worse? That's the choice.
There is only one way to put an end to this – negotiations. By definition, this means that both sides are ready for a diplomatic settlement. They don't like it, but it is the lesser of evils, the choice in favor of which will give Putin a backup option. This is one of the possibilities. The other is to prolong the conflict in order to find out how much everyone will suffer, how many Ukrainians will die, what losses Russia will suffer, how many millions of people will die of hunger in Asia and Africa, how close we will get to the moment when the environment heats up to such an extent that there will simply be no conditions suitable for human existence. These are the options. The United States and most of Europe are one hundred percent likely to lean towards the non-diplomatic option. They are definitely determined to continue to harm Russia.
You probably read articles in the New York Times, the Financial Times of London, and other publications throughout Europe. The general refrain is: we must make Russia suffer. It doesn't matter what happens to Ukraine or anyone else. Of course, as a result of this adventure, it is supposed to push Putin to the limit, leave him without a way out, force him to admit defeat, accept the inevitable and refuse to use the weapons he has for the devastation of Ukraine.
Surprisingly, Russia did not do many seemingly obvious things, which puzzled Western analysts a lot. In particular, its troops did not attack the supply lines from Poland, through which weapons are sent to Ukraine. They could very well do so, but this would lead to a direct confrontation with NATO, that is, with the United States. How it will end is not difficult to guess. Anyone who has ever watched military exercises knows that the situation will escalate until it results in a nuclear war.
So, we are playing a game where the lives of Ukrainians, Asians and Africans are at stake, as well as the very existence of civilization, in order to weaken Russia and make sure that it has suffered enough. Well, those who want to play this game should at least honestly declare it. There are no moral grounds for such a thing. From a moral point of view, all this is simply monstrous. If you think about the cost and consequences, then those who admire our actions are simply moral freaks.
– In the media and among the representatives of the political class of the United States and, probably, Europe, there is a lot of indignation about the barbarism, war crimes and atrocities of Russia. Without a doubt, they take place, as in any armed conflict. Doesn't this righteous anger seem somewhat selective to you?
– Righteous anger is quite appropriate. Righteous anger must be present. At the same time, in developing countries, people simply cannot believe their eyes. Of course, they condemn the conflict and sympathize with Ukrainians. But then they address the question to the West: what are you guys talking about? You've always done this to us.
It's amazing to see the difference in the interpretation of the situation. For example, you read the New York Times and articles by its great thinker Thomas Friedman. A couple of weeks ago, he wrote a column where he literally throws up his hands in despair. He wonders, what can we actually do? How can you live in the same world with someone like Putin? We haven't seen anything like this since Hitler. We are at a loss as to what to do next, because we never imagined that something like this would happen again.
In the Global South, people do not know how they feel about such statements. We have war criminals everywhere in Washington. Well, we know how to deal with them. As an example, we can cite what happened on the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. Do not forget that it was absolutely unprovoked, and the entire world community strongly opposed it. The Washington Post newspaper interviewed its initiator and the main war criminal, George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq after Afghanistan, and the authors call him such a cute, stupid grandfather who plays with his grandchildren, jokes, shows portraits of famous people who met him painted by himself. Nice, friendly atmosphere.
So, we know how to deal with war criminals. Thomas Friedman is wrong. We're doing a great job with them.
Take, for example, the main war criminal of our time, Henry Kissinger. He is treated not only politely, but also with sincere admiration. However, it was this man who handed over to the Air Force the order of the then president about the massive bombing of Cambodia. “Anything that flies or anything that moves” – that's how he said. In the archival records, I have not seen a single comparable example of a call for mass genocide. The result was a very intense bombing of Cambodia. We don't know much about it because we don't investigate our own crimes. This case was described by Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan, recognized experts on the history of Cambodia. We also played a role in the overthrow of the government of Salvador Allende in Chile and the establishment of a brutal dictatorship there, as well as in many other things. Yes, we definitely know how to deal with war criminals.
Nevertheless, Thomas Friedman cannot imagine that there are many such Ukrainians in the world. There were no comments on his article, which means that the reader found his words quite reasonable. The word “selectivity" hardly applies here. It's just beyond comprehension. So, yes, righteous anger is more than appropriate. It's good that Americans are finally starting to be outraged about major war crimes.
– I have a little riddle for you in two parts. The Russian military is inept and mediocre. They have very low morale and weak command. And their country's economy is on a par with the economies of Italy and Spain. This is one side. According to the second, Russia is a military colossus that threatens to crush us. That's why we need more weapons. Therefore, we will expand NATO. How can these contradictory statements be reconciled?
– These two statements are standard for the whole West. I have just given a long interview in Sweden regarding the country's plans to join NATO. I noted that there are two contradictory points of view among its leadership, which you mentioned. The first is gloating over the fact that Russia has proven itself to be a paper tiger, which is not able to conquer even a handful of cities a few kilometers from its own border, and the latter is protected almost by civilians. That is, they are completely incompetent militarily. According to the second point of view, the Russians are ready to conquer the West and destroy us.
The name was invented by George Orwell at the time. He called it doublethink, the ability to keep two contradictory ideas in mind and believe in both. Orwell mistakenly believed that such a thing was possible only in an ultratotalitarian state, which he ridiculed in the book "1984". He was wrong. This can also happen in free democratic societies. We are seeing a dramatic example of this right now. And, by the way, this is not the first time this has happened.
This kind of doublethink is typical, for example, for the ideology of the Cold War. Refer to the main document of those years, the directive of the National Security Council-68 of 1950. Study it carefully and you will understand that militarily Europe – apart from the United States – was on an equal footing with Russia. And, of course, we needed a large-scale rearmament program to counter the Kremlin's plan to conquer the world.
This is only one document, and it proves that everything was done deliberately. Dean Acheson, one of its authors, later said that only those whose words sound "more convincing than the truth" can resist the government. We want to master this huge military budget, so we must be “more convincing than the truth” by inventing a kind of slave-owning state that is about to conquer the world. This ideology has been a red thread through the entire period of the Cold War. I could cite many other examples, but that's what we're seeing in action right now. You have correctly noted that the West has been dominated by two contradictory beliefs.
– It is also interesting that back in 1997, the diplomat George Kennan foresaw the danger of moving NATO's borders further to the east, as he wrote in a prophetic article for the New York Times.
– Kennan also opposed the directive of the National Security Council-68. He was the head of the planning department of the State Department. He was ousted and replaced by Paul Nitze, because he was considered too soft for the realities of a harsh world. He was a "hawk", a radical anti-communist, showed rigidity towards the positions of the United States, but at the same time understood the senselessness of military confrontation with Russia.
Russia, in his opinion, eventually had to collapse under the yoke of internal contradictions, and he was right. But everyone considered him a "pigeon". In 1952, he supported the idea of uniting Germany outside the NATO military alliance. The proposal came from the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Kennan was an ambassador to the Soviet Union and a specialist on Russia.
Stalin's initiative. Kennan's proposal, which was supported by some European countries. The Cold War would be over, and Germany would become a neutral, demilitarized country, not part of any military bloc. In Washington, all this was frankly ignored.
There was a respected foreign policy expert, James Warburg, and he wrote a book about it. I highly recommend reading it. It is called "Germany: the Key to Peace." In it, he urged to take this idea seriously. He was ignored and ridiculed. I mentioned the book a couple of times, and I was immediately branded crazy. What would help you believe Stalin? It became clear from the archives that he seemed to be talking absolutely seriously. Now, leading experts on the history of the Cold War, such as Melvin Leffler, admit that at that time there was a real possibility of a peaceful settlement, but it was rejected in favor of militarization and an increase in the military budget.
Now let's pay attention to the period of Kennedy's presidency. When John F. Kennedy took office, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev made a very important proposal to conduct large-scale mutual reductions of offensive weapons, which would significantly ease tensions. At that time, militarily, the United States had a significant advantage. Khrushchev wanted to move in the direction of Russia's economic development and understood that in the conditions of a military confrontation with a much richer opponent, this was impossible. At first, he voiced this proposal to President Dwight Eisenhower, but he ignored it. Then the proposal was addressed to Kennedy, and his administration responded with the largest peacetime military buildup in history – even though they knew that the United States was already vastly superior to the supposed enemy.
Then the United States came up with the so-called “missile gap". Russia, they say, is going to crush us thanks to the advantage of missiles. And then it turned out that this gap turned out to be in favor of the United States. Russia had maybe four of them at some airbase.
You can continue in the same spirit indefinitely. Politicians do not particularly care about the safety of the population. Security is for the privileged, the rich, the corporate sector, arms manufacturers, but not for ordinary people. This doublethink is permanent, sometimes conscious, sometimes not. This is exactly what Orwell wrote about, about hypertotalitarianism in a free society.
– In one of the articles in Truthout, you quote Eisenhower's speech “on the Iron Cross” in 1953. What did you find interesting in it?
– After reading it, you will understand my interest. He didn't make a better speech. This happened in 1953, when he was just taking office. In fact, he pointed out that militarization is a murderous attack on our own society. He–or whoever wrote this speech–expressed himself quite eloquently. Instead of one jet plane, you can build a school or a hospital. By increasing the military budget, we attack ourselves every time.
He outlined this point of view in some detail and called for a reduction in the military budget. He himself had a pretty terrible track record, but in this respect he hit the mark. And his words should be imprinted in everyone's memory. Biden recently called for a significant increase in the military budget, and Congress went even further and went beyond his wishes, which is a serious attack on our society, as Eisenhower tried to convey to us many years ago.
The justification is the statement that we need to defend ourselves from a paper tiger, so militarily illiterate that it cannot move away from the border even a few kilometers without any difficulties. Thus, because of the monstrous military budget, we will seriously harm ourselves and endanger the rest of the world, because in the fight against deep existential crises we will have to spend huge resources. However, we are busy stuffing taxpayers' money into the pockets of fossil fuel producers, helping them destroy our world as quickly as possible. This is what is fraught with both an increase in the production of fossil fuels and an increase in military spending. There are people who are happy about this. Go to the administrative offices of Lockheed Martin or ExxonMobil – everyone is delighted there. For them, this is a golden bottom. They even take credit for it. They are praised for saving civilization by destroying the prospects for the existence of life on Earth. Forget about the Global South. If there were aliens somewhere, they would definitely consider us all absolutely crazy. And they would have been right.
