Noam Chomsky interview: Russia "more humane" in Ukraine than US in Iraq | New Statesman

I'm edovo you're about to see an interview I recorded with Noam Chomsky but before we begin I want to provide some context on why we're running this interview I don't agree with a lot of what name Chomsky says here however it's important to recognize the points of view he puts forward these are influential and widespread views and Chomsky is one of their preeminent advocates in the interview Noam Chomsky says the US wants to keep the war in Ukraine going to weaken Russia this analysis gives no agency to Ukraine portraying it as a pawn of the US he says that Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO to gain New Market opportunities for their weapons which ignores that they ended Decades of neutrality just months after the invasion of Ukraine his view of Taiwan is one-sided blaming the us but ignoring China's undermining of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait I've written this interview up for the new Statesman and the link is in the description so you can read more there thanks so much for coming on the podcast Mr Chomsky um you've got this fascinating book of interviews uh just published it ranges over a period of a year of about a year from 2021 to 2022. obviously a pivotal period in um in the history of of the world um particularly because of the the invasion of Ukraine and that's that's where I want to start the second chapter is titled Biden's foreign policy is largely largely indistinguishable from Trump's and it's from 2021 and I think maybe one thing that the invasion of Ukraine shows is that I think Biden approached this crisis quite differently to Trump um do you share that assessment it's very hard to say because Trump is a loose cannon you have no idea what his policy was so one moment he says we have to work something out with Russia the next moment he says we have to keep the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for a base for attacking Russia who knows what his policy is it's whatever he saw on Fox news this morning so you can't compare Biden's policy with Trump's Biden's policy is pretty clear for explicit it's been stated we must continue the war in order to severely weaken Russia that's the policy same as Britain which follows along so when there were some possibilities of negotiations [Music] a year ago last March April uh both Britain and the United States informed give that they did not regard this as a good time for negotiations and the U.S policy continues to be to as they put it formally to strengthen Ukraine's position so it'll be in a better position for negotiations in other words no negotiations no diplomacy there's no way nobody explains how continuing the war with battering Ukraine is going to put them in a better position that's just uh presuppose somehow you can see the same in the uh the international relations literature so take a look at the last issue of Foreign Affairs the major International Affairs Journal article by two leading commentators saying exactly what I just said I have to continue the war to put Ukraine in a stronger position for eventual negotiations how that's going to happen is some miracle unexplained meanwhile Ukraine's getting battered devastated say then every I know even military commentators are pointing out that for the United States this is a bargain for a fraction of the Colossal military budget the United States is able to severely degrade the military forces of its own it's only real military adversary well whether that's the reason or not I don't know you can ask yourself but those are the facts is it wrong for the U.S to provide weapons to Ukraine so that they can continue the fight as long as they wish and join negotiations when they so decide I think it's reasonable to provide weapons to Ukraine to defend itself against aggression but the United States has a position is the U.S going to insist that there be no negotiations so that we can severely weaken Russia don't forget Ukraine is not a free actor in this they're dependent on what the United States determines in several of the interviews uh you warn of the risk of nuclear war um for instance you warned that if the U.S continues delivering weapons to Ukraine um the it's it's I think you said it's easy to see to to foresee a path to escalation that ends with nuclear war clearly over the past year uh that's not what we've seen we've seen weapons continually ramp up um for example the high Mars systems that the US provided and most recently of course these tank systems um are you still worried about the risk of nuclear war anyone who has a gray cell functioning should be worried about the risk of nuclear war that's why the Doomsday Clock Was set to 90 seconds to midnight there are many possible scenarios that could lead to nuclear war both in Ukraine and also in China with regard to China for example your current if let's imagine that the prognostications of U.S political leaders are correct suppose it turns out that Ukraine can come close to defeating Russia is is Putin just gonna pack up his bags and say well that was nice so go home to Oblivion or will he raise the attack against Ukraine and notice but let me ask a simple question when the United States and Britain were smashing Baghdad to pieces did any foreign leaders go to visit Baghdad no because when the U.S and Britain go to war they go for the jugular they destroy everything Communications Transportation energy anything that makes Society function that hasn't happened in Ukraine undoubtedly Russia could do it presumably with Conventional Weapons could make care of as unlivable as Baghdad was could move into attacking supply lines in Western Ukraine could be a confrontation with NATO then what happens well just another step up the escalation ladder and once you start on that nobody knows where it leads so to be to fail to be considered concerned about nuclear war is to be out of your mind are you implying that Russia is fighting more humanely than the US and UK were in Iraq I'm not implying that it's obvious just take what I just asked did anybody go did you remember foreign leaders going to bed in fact I had to withdraw everybody withdraw the U.N inspectors withdrew a peace delegation that was on the ground because the attack was so um severe and extreme that's the U.S British style of War take a look at casualties all I know is the official numbers maybe you know more so the official U.N numbers are about eight thousand civilian casualties how many civilian casualties were there when the US and Britain attacked Iraq and that's only one case how many civilian casualties were there when Israel invaded Lebanon about twenty thousand well ask yourself the question what kind of a settlement would be acceptable in Ukraine uh what kind of final outcome should the ukrainians uh obviously Ukraine's Western backers pushful well the obvious answer is the Minsk agreement Minsk too which offered a plausible settlement first of all Ukraine would not be a member of NATO that's the red line that every Russian leader has insisted on since Yeltsin and Gorbachev it's well known to U.S and British analysts and the Diplomatic Corps have all been warning Washington for 30 years that pressing this will be Reckless and dangerous that's nothing new so point one Ukraine gains the status of say Austria during the Cold War or Mexico today Mexico can't join a hustle military Alliance there's no treaty about it but it's perfectly obvious so that's point one with regard to Don Basque the Minsk agreements called for a degree of autonomy for donbass within a Ukrainian Federation so maybe something like Switzerland or Belgium or other and Federated systems with regard to Crimea it says we put it off for the moment let it be discussed later those are the basic outlines of a solution under the mince to agreement which incidentally is uh endorsed by the U.N security Council U.S and British Britain agreeing so would would Ukraine agree to that would Russia agree to that there's only one way to find out try in fact if you look at the official records as late as February last February 2022 a couple weeks before the invasion uh the Russians were didn't actually Advocate it but they mentioned the Minsk as a possible outcome so is it possible we don't know as long as you insist on not trying can't find out if the invasion of Ukraine were prompted by was was triggered by Ukraine moving towards NATO would Russia not have attacked Finland which has just joined NATO and announced its intention to join NATO about uh around a year ago around the time of the invasion of Ukraine there has never been the slightest indication of any Russian concern about Sweden and Finland the reasons for swinland Sweden and Finland moving to join NATO have nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack which has never been even conceived there's a very simple reason why Finland and Sweden want to join NATO Sweden and Finland both have quite sophisticated Advanced military Industries they've been pretty much integrated into NATO with joint operations and so on uh joining NATO directly gives them great New Market opportunities new access to Advanced Equipment and so on but there has never been any indication except for Western uh propaganda about Russian threats to Finland and Sweden and it's if you think about it it's just inconceivable I mean you recall George Orwell's concept of doublethink the ability to have two contradictory ideas in mind and believe them both that's NATO right now uh on the one hand they're gloating over the fact that the Russian military is so incompetent that they can't conquer towns uh 20 kilometers from the border on the other hand they're uh wailing in fear about the idea that the new Peter the Great is going to conquer Europe I mean that's why the whole Global South is looking at the US and Britain and collapsing in ridicule is there not a difference between Russia's intentions and Russia's capabilities um I mean its intentions were I think quite clearly to conquer most of Ukraine and its capabilities were uh somewhat far below that that objective you should certainly look both at intentions and capabilities both are clear the capabilities have become very clear during the failure of the Russian attempts in Ukraine that's what western analysts are gloating about totally incompetent military and that's the capabilities what are the intentions we have about 30 years of a documentary record on intentions the intentions begin with Gorbachev he had an arrangement an agreement a firm unambiguous agreement with President Bush first bush been a lot of Deceit about this so I suggest you look at the documents which are available online at the National Security archive unambiguous clear Promise by President Bush that if Gorbachev agreed to allow Germany to be unified and join NATO which is quite a concession in the light of History if he agreed to that NATO would not move one inch to the east of Germany firm explicit unambiguous promise well Bill Clinton came into the presidency after a year or two be violated it he said we're going to bring in uh uh former Russian satellites to the Russian border into NATO he explained to his friend Yeltsin why he was doing this it's a document he said to Yeltsin don't take it too seriously I just have to do it for domestic political reasons I need the Polish vote I need Eastern European vote so we'll carry this meaningless act out well the Russians tolerated that but they made it very clear early on all of them that Georgia and Ukraine were redlines right in the Russian geostrategic Heartland no Russian leader Gorbachev Yeltsin anyone would accept them joining a foreign hostile military Alliance practically the whole top U.S Diplomatic Corps with any knowledge of Russia has been warning for 30 years warning Washington that it is reckless and dangerous to try to cross this red line oh Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Perry was so Furious he practically resigned when Clinton broke the promise uh Hawks and doves all of them Robert Gates the hawkish defense minister of bush the two uh William Burns head of the CIA it's virtually unanimous warning Washington that this is extremely dangerous nobody ever mentioned Finland and Norway because it was never even an issue the only issue was Ukraine and Georgia so we know about the intentions and as I say there's a record right up to the invasion of Russian proposals which are no you no NATO membership and some kind of arrangement about the donbass region exactly what could only find out with negotiations which the U.S and British or Britain refuse so that's the we have very good evidence about intentions a very good evidence about capabilities we can therefore we have two options we can draw the rational conclusion or we can follow the party line as dictated by Washington and London those are the choices you've been clear about your opposition to uh to make to Nato membership for Ukraine and Georgia um but nonetheless uh NATO membership is very popular among ukrainians and Georgians I think polls show overwhelming support for joining why is uh NATO membership so popular among these people even if according to you it's not in the interest of their countries to join it's not me it's repeat the head of the CIA virtually the entire diplomatic or uh the former head of the CIA Robert Gates Paul nitzi Hawks Hawks and doves have all been saying for 30 years that it is reckless and dangerous to try to cross this clear red line and you understand that perfectly well suppose that Mexico decided to join a chinese-run international military Alliance and to get heavy weapons from China aimed at the United States move for interoperability of Chinese and Mexican military forces what do you think the United States would do well we don't have to ask because Mexico would be blown away as as soon as the first step towards this began well it's much more serious in the case of Russia the United States has not been invaded twice in the last century and virtually destroyed through Ukraine that's a parallel to perhaps what's happening in Ukraine in Taiwan which China has threatened to invade to reunify by force if necessary would it be right for the United States and other Western countries to defend Taiwan in case of an invasion well first of all let's go back to the facts about Taiwan instead of the American British propaganda line uh what has happened in Taiwan there has been a an agreement for 50 years the United States and China agreed back in the 70s on what's called a one China policy if you look at the propaganda line now it says it's a Chinese policy it's not it's a chinese-american policy you can read the documents very explicit the agreement is Taiwan is part of China and neither side will take measures to disrupt the peaceful Arrangements held for 50 years which is pretty good in international affairs the United States has been severely provoking China so far they have reacted only symbolically here that's described as Chinese aggression take a look at the facts Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House went to visit Taiwan changes the Diplomatic status no the Kevin McCarthy's doing it United States Senate Foreign Relations Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a Taiwan Policy Act calling for Taiwan to have the same diplomatic status as any non-nato member uh more weapon supplies interoperability of weapons pretty much the same steps that were taken by the burden Administration on the years prior to the invasion of Ukraine to move towards integrating Ukraine into NATO even giving them an enhanced program for NATO membership this is deemed duplicated by the United States and Taiwan furthermore the United States is carrying out a program in official terminology to encircle China with a ring of Sentinel States armed with Advanced Precision weapons provided by the United States aimed at China the ring is South Korea Japan Australia American protectorates Guam and so on backed by Major Naval Maneuvers in the Pacific the rimpac Maneuvers aimed at China the United States for the first time has established establishing permanent nuclear-capable B-52 bases in Guam and Northern Australia Norwin Australia uh flight can reach China from there providing Australia Britain and the United States providing Australia with nuclear submarines to operate in the South China Sea all of these are and in addition to this the United States has declared what the business press actually accurately calls War economic war against China to try to prevent China from developing technologically for a generation putting great pressure on European South Korean Japanese Industries to stop providing China with the means to develop its economy what is the threat of uh China at this point the threat is coming from the United States with of course Britain following it just a lack at this point it's not an independent country anymore but Britain United States and its British Lackey are provoking China openly now well is China a saintly country of course not China is violating international law in the South China Sea by fortifying some rocks that are disputed doing other things it's not a nice place but if you look at the talk about Taiwan it's coming from the West yes China is when the United States carries out some provocative act like house Speaker visiting Taiwan China carried out Naval activities demonstrating that it can blockade Taiwan it was in reaction to the visit another symbolic visits are taking place now could it explode could you know so far there's nothing on the Chinese side but could happen if you keep provoking it could explode so yes there's a threat of War there is it ever right for the United States to provide weapons to democracies under threat of invasion by dictatorships like Saudi Arabia for example where Britain and the United States are happy to pour arms into the one one of the most harsh dictatorships in the world which is furthermore carrying out has been carrying out military operations that killed about 350 000 people in Yemen yes Britain and the United States are happy to do that if they can make money from it all right named Chomsky thanks so much for your time if you enjoyed this video please subscribe to our YouTube channel where we release videos every week

Channel: The New Statesman

Views: 43,572

Keywords: politics, global affairs, political analysis, top news, current affairs, New statesman, new statesman podcast, Noam Chomsky, Chomksy, Chomsky, Ukraine, Noam Chomsky Ukraine, noam chomsky 2023, ukraine russia, war, russia war, russia ukraine war, war ukraine, ukraine news, russia nuclear, russia nuclear war, china, taiwan, joe biden, putin, xi, xi jinping, biden, us, USA

Id: tJGYmfTaFRw

Length: 26min 38sec (1598 seconds)

Published: Mon May 01 2023