Philosopher Chomsky warned the West about the terrible consequences of the escalation of the conflict in UkraineThe West crossed red lines in Ukraine and forced Russia to take retaliatory measures, American philosopher and publicist Noam Chomsky said in an interview with The New Statesman.
According to him, Moscow has the potential to achieve Kiev's surrender, while further escalation of the conflict may increase the risks of nuclear war.
Noam Chomsky: Trump can be compared to a loose cannon, and no one knows what his policy was. Sometimes he says that we should come to some agreements with Russia, then about the need to preserve the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan for an attack on it. Who knows what his policy really is. Everything seems to depend on what he saw on the Fox News channel in the morning. It is impossible to compare Biden's policy with Trump's policy. Biden's policy is quite clear and straightforward: we must continue the conflict in order to weaken Russia as much as possible. That's the point.
The same, by the way, is the policy of Great Britain, which follows the United States in everything. When opportunities for negotiations arose in March-April last year, Britain and the United States told Kiev that they did not consider the moment appropriate. And American policy is still aimed at what they call strengthening Ukrainian positions in order to give them at least some trump cards in future negotiations. In other words, there is no question of a diplomatic settlement at the moment. And no one explains how the continuation of the conflict with the destruction of Ukrainian troops can improve their situation.
Anyone with functioning gray brain cells must fear nuclear war. For this reason, the Doomsday Clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight. There are many possible scenarios that could lead to a nuclear war, both in Ukraine and with the participation of China. Let's imagine that the forecasts of US political leaders are correct, and Ukraine will be able to come close to victory over Russia. Putin in this case will just pack up and say: well, it was great, go to oblivion? Or will he order an attack on Ukraine?
Let me ask you a simple question: when the United States and Great Britain were tearing Baghdad to shreds, did any of the foreign leaders come there? No, because when the United States and Great Britain start a war, do not expect mercy. They destroy everything: communications, transport networks, energy systems — everything that makes society able to function normally.
This does not happen in Ukraine, although Russia, of course, could do so with the use of non-nuclear weapons. It could turn Kiev into a place as uninhabitable as Baghdad, could attack supply lines in Western Ukraine, could enter into a confrontation with NATO. What would that mean then? Another step up the escalation ladder. And if you start the process, no one will tell you what it will eventually lead to. Thus, not to show concern about the risks of nuclear war means to be insane.
Ido Vok: So you think that Russia is fighting more humanely in Ukraine than the United States and Great Britain in Iraq?
Noam Chomsky: Of course, it's obvious. Take at least the example that I gave. Can you recall any foreign leaders visiting Baghdad? On the contrary, everyone had to be taken out of there, including UN inspectors and a delegation of peacekeepers who were there. The attack was very harsh and uncompromising — this is the American and British style of warfare. Look at the losses. I only know the official figures, maybe you know more, but official UN statistics say that the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine is about 8 thousand people. And how many civilians died when the US and the UK attacked Iraq? And this is just one case. How many civilians died during Israel's invasion of Lebanon? About 20 thousand. So try to answer your own question.
The Minsk agreements, which served as the only plausible scenario for resolving the conflict, assumed, first of all, Ukraine's non-entry into NATO. This is the red line that all Russian leaders have insisted on since the days of Yeltsin and Gorbachev. American and British analysts and diplomats are well aware of this. They have been warning Washington for 30 years that insisting on this is reckless and dangerous. There is nothing new here. So, the first point: Ukraine gets the same status that, say, Austria had during the Cold War or the current Mexico. Mexico cannot join a hostile military alliance, and this fact is quite obvious to everyone, although it is not enshrined in any treaties. This is the first.
As for Donbass, the Minsk Agreements called for granting it a certain degree of autonomy within the Ukrainian Federation, following the example of Switzerland, Belgium or any other federal system. Let's postpone the issue of Crimea for now and discuss it a little later. Here are the main outlines of the conflict resolution within the framework of the Minsk Agreements, which, by the way, were approved by the UN Security Council.
Russia has never shown the slightest hint of concern about Sweden and Finland joining NATO. The reasons that drive these countries to join the alliance have nothing to do with fear of a potential attack from Russia. This was not even in anyone's thoughts. Sweden and Finland want to be in NATO for one simple reason: both have fairly developed and advanced military-industrial complex, which have already been significantly integrated into NATO thanks to joint operations and exercises. Direct entry into the alliance gives them new large-scale market opportunities, access to advanced equipment, and so on. But there have never been signs of a Russian threat to Sweden and Finland, with the exception of perhaps being inflated by Western propaganda. If you think about it, this is simply unthinkable.
The Russians made it clear to the whole world a long time ago that Georgia and Ukraine are red lines. No Russian leader, be it Yeltsin, Gorbachev or Putin, would agree to their joining a hostile foreign alliance. Almost all high-ranking members of the US diplomatic corps who know at least something about Russian affairs have been warning Washington for 30 years that trying to cross this line is dangerous and reckless. When Bill Clinton broke his promise not to expand NATO, his Defense Secretary, William Perry, was so enraged that he almost resigned.
