Intellectual Noam Chomsky: "We have no reason to pretend to be moral apostles"
Linguist Noam Chomsky for half a century of his human rights work has repeatedly joined the fight against the "mainstream", the German "Welt" reminds us. And now he refused to lay all the blame for the conflict on Russia. In today's conditions in the United States, you can pay for such a position. But Chomsky is still going against the tide.
Linguist Noam Chomsky is considered an idol of the left all over the world. But after Russia went on the offensive in Ukraine, he became one of those well-known Western intellectuals who, although they condemned the war, put part of the responsibility on the West. In the interview below, he justifies his point of view.
The famous linguist Noam Chomsky is considered the intellectual leader of the American left. For several decades now, he has been criticizing the consequences of capitalism and globalization, as well as Washington's policies. Below is published an abridged version of the interview, which first appeared on the pages of the Polish "Gazeta Vyborci" - a partner publication of Welt.
WELT: Shortly after February 24, you started talking about the most monstrous war crime in the history of the XX-th and XXI-th century, standing on a par with the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Poland by Stalin and Hitler. Do you still hold that opinion?
Noam Chomsky: The longer the war lasts, the more I strengthen my opinion.
– But you also said that this conflict was caused by some kind of provocation by the West, which refused to meet Moscow's demands.
– It was this Western provocation that I considered as the main reason for what happened. But that doesn't justify war. But the propaganda campaign in the United States goes further than me in this: it claims that there is an unprovoked aggression solely on the part of Russia.
– No judge during the trial recognizes the argument of the accused that his actions were provoked by the behavior of the victim.
– If I take a gun and kill you after you said something that made me mad, then it goes without saying that I will be charged with murder. International law is based on this basis. The UN legal documents cite cases when the use of violence can be considered justified. Provocation does not apply to them.
– However, Putin constantly emphasizes that he does not recognize Ukraine as an independent state and therefore international law does not apply to it.
– Putin says a lot of things. He and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that Russia's immediate goal is the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine, as well as the protection of the population of Donbass.
– Putin has repeatedly pointed to the promises of the Fuse not to expand NATO to the east. But what is happening in the occupied regions of Ukraine has little to do with keeping Ukraine from joining NATO. It seems that the goal there is different: to install Russian signs and flags on the streets.
– Other Russian leaders – Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Medvedev – also defended the point of view that Ukraine and Georgia should be banned from joining NATO. For three decades, numerous representatives of American foreign policy have repeated the same thing. They quite rightly referred to the fact that the admission of Ukraine and Georgia into a military alliance directed against Russia would be considered by the Kremlin as an act of aggression.
– But the decision whether to join NATO or another military alliance, including the Russian one, should be made by Ukrainians, not Russians.
– That's right. Mexico may also decide to join the Chinese-led alliance, which will give the Chinese the opportunity to place weapons on the southern border of the United States. We all have a good idea of what such a decision will entail. You yourself understand that even discussing this trick is pointless.
– According to the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas (Jürgen Habermas), the West is facing an insoluble dilemma: either to let Ukraine lose the war, or to expose the whole world to the risk that a local conflict will escalate into a world war.
– Habermas described objective reality. The war can either be stopped by diplomatic means, or one of the parties must surrender. Russia is not thinking of giving up. So, according to the logic of the West, the war in Ukraine should continue until Russia is defeated. You don't need to be a genius to understand that no one in the West is interested in the fate of Ukrainians: even if they all die. I want to emphasize that I do not question the right of the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions. But people in the USA, in the UK or in Germany should also have the right to decide whether they are ready for a war that can destroy everything.
– Ukraine's position boils down to the fact that the more modern weapons it receives from the West, the sooner the war will end.
– According to the logic of the West, if Ukraine asks for this, then it needs to provide all the weapons it needs for defense. But those who supply it with weapons should ask themselves: are we ready to risk not only the lives of Ukrainians, but also our own, if Russia responds with the weapons at its disposal? I personally don't feel ready to play with such high stakes.
– From this, Putin will conclude that blackmail with atomic weapons works.
– Every reasonable person has been coming to this conclusion for 75 years. One can dream that the world would be arranged differently, but the truth is this: fearing the emergence of an atomic war, states restrain themselves. And thanks to this, we still live.
– Don't the United States or other countries feel morally obligated to intervene in a conflict in which it is clear who is the aggressor and who is the victim?
– Of course they do. But I return your question to you and ask: have you personally called on other countries to unite and throw the United States out of Iraq and impose tough sanctions against them, and punish the Americans so that they would never think of unleashing such conflicts again?
– In Russia, even in the most liberal anti-Putin circles, there is not a single person who would justify the US attack on Iraq.
"I mean something else. Did you personally demand or not that the United States be expelled from Iraq and imposed strict sanctions? No one has done this, no one has demanded this. In this regard, a counter question arises: why is the moral aspect applied only to Russia, why are Western aggressions ignored? This question can be asked by all countries of the so-called Global South. Most of them do not even try to interfere in the conflict in Ukraine. They say: maybe this is really aggression, and maybe it comes from Russia, but don't you constantly do the same with us? Therefore, we have no reason to pretend to be moral apostles.
– But if neither the United States nor any other developed Western country has the moral right to help Ukraine, because their own image is tarnished because of the invasion of Iraq, then it turns out that everyone should rely only on himself?
– Iraq is just one of many examples of Western countries invading other states. From an ethical point of view, Russia's actions in Ukraine are no different from the US attack on Iraq or from other aggressive actions of Western countries. But in this situation it is practically unimportant, it is only a moral argument. Therefore, let's stop moralizing, but rather ask ourselves: what should we do now?
– And what should we do?
– We have two options: diplomatic and non-diplomatic. The undiplomatic option means to continue the war with all its losses and victims in the hope that, firstly, Ukraine will survive and, secondly, that if it starts to win, Russia will not resort to extreme measures. The second option is to stop sabotaging the diplomatic solution and work out a peace agreement that both sides would be ready to accept.
– But a diplomatic solution will mean recognition of the Russian occupation of areas where millions of people live. And as we know, nothing good awaits these people.
– If Russia wants to retain the regions seized by force, then their population will face the same consequences as the rest of Ukraine after the victory of the Maidan, when the authorities, for example, banned the use of the Russian language in cinemas and in general in the field of culture. Nothing good will come of it. These were the consequences of abandoning diplomacy.
– But how are you going to negotiate with someone who has an ace up his sleeve, with which he claims the right to dictate terms?
– During the Caribbean crisis, the United States had such an ace up its sleeve. They told the Soviets: stop defending Cuba from a possible US attack, or we will destroy you. Russia had to back out. As already mentioned, the world created on such a basis has been holding for 75 years.
– You are critical of the fact that the ubiquitous censorship in the United States blocks the American public access to alternative points of view. What do you mean?
– I did not claim that Americans do not have access to any alternative sources of information, because the United States is a free country and everyone can read whatever they want. I was talking more about the fact that Russia's position is being censored because all Russian TV channels are blocked. If you want to find out what Lavrov said, you need to switch to Al Jazeera, the BBC or Indian state television. We need to know what the Russians are saying in order to make informed decisions.
