Interview with Evangelos D. Kokkinos
In an interview with Pentapostagma, Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historical essayist and political activist, professor at the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy of MIT, commented on the course of the war in Ukraine and the involvement of the West.
The professor, noted that "the Russian invasion is a crime compared to the US invasion of Iraq, the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland", explains that US official policy is that Russia must be completely defeated, without any diplomacy, which is a "ghastly experiment".
He reiterated that the provocation did not justify the criminal attack by the fact that Putin did not explore peaceful options, which greatly extended the power of the United States by incorporating Europe as a subordinate.
Referring to the aftermath of the Ukrainian war in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greek-Turkish crisis and the Greek-Persian tanker war, Chomsky's assessments were "grim" and stressed that "each of these and innumerable other crises must be dealt with in its own specific terms, with the kind of rational and moral sensibility that is so painfully lacking in addressing the Ukraine war".
On the consequences of the invasion beyond Ukraine and on a global scale, he explains that there is a growing threat of nuclear war, reversing the meager efforts to address the climate crisis, while drawing attention to the fact that tens of millions of people are facing imminent famine as a result of the exports ban from Russia.
"Not considered – not even mentionable in the increasingly totalitarian culture of the West – are Russian proposals for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, perhaps unacceptable, but we cannot know unless they are explored", said Chomsky.
Commenting on the information war that the United States acknowledged it was waging against Russia, the professor gave a historical overview of World War I and the creation of propaganda mechanisms, noting that the intellectual community and the media are usually interconnected.
For this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos in the shadow of the war in Europe, the pandemic and the wider agenda of the Great Reset, Mr. Chomsky commented succinctly that these are mainly polite and empty talk.
Concluding, Mr. Chomsky referred to Einstein in response to the possibility of a Third World War.
"We should be dedicated to eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons from the earth", he said.
The full interview:
- With the war in Ukraine raging, what are your thoughts on its course and the involvement of NATO in general and the US in particular?
The central point is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a crime that is comparable to the US invasion of Iraq, the Hitler-Stalin invasion of Poland, and other acts of criminal aggression. Whatever the reasons or provocation, it has no justification.
A war comes to an end either with capitulation of one side or a diplomatic settlement, which both sides can at least tolerate. It follows that demand for total defeat of Russia is total opposition to diplomacy, whatever rhetoric is used to evade the fact.
US official policy is that Russia must be totally defeated, with no “off ramp” or “escape hatch”. That is, no diplomacy. What’s advocated, then, is that we undertake a ghastly experiment: Let’s see whether Putin will slink away in total defeat, or whether he’ll use the military force we all know he has to avoid total defeat by devastating Ukraine, with indescribable consequences beyond. Those who are calling for this ghastly experiment should be honest enough to say so, with no evasions.
Policy goes even beyond this incredible level. Russia must be “harmed” and “weakened” sufficiently so that it can never undertake such criminal aggression again. That is not only official policy, but it is also supported by a wide range of articulate opinion.
A moment’s thought suffices to show that the policy demands that Russia must be weakened far beyond the punishment of Germany at Versailles after World War I. How do we achieve that without blowing up the world? In the current mood of advanced irrationality, to raise such obviously critical questions is to be vilified as a “Putin lover” or worse. We must stand up heroically for principle: aggressors must be severely punished and weakened to the extent that they can never carry out such a crime again.
It is hardly surprising that much of the Global South is collapsing in ridicule at this performance, for which “hypocrisy” is much too weak a term.
US opposition to diplomacy is long-standing. Since 2014, NATO (meaning the US) has been moving openly to integrate Ukraine into the NATO military system, with heavy weapons, training, joint military exercises. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming mandate to seek peace, along the lines of the Minsk II agreement. He tried to do so, but was threatened with assassination by rightwing militias if he proceeded. With US support, he probably would have pursued the efforts. The US refused to offer any support. In September 2021, the US produced an official statement calling for expansion of the actions to integrate Ukraine in the NATO military system as part of an “enhanced” program of preparation for NATO membership. That was formalized in a November Charter, signed by the Secretary of State. After the Russian invasion a few months later, the State Department conceded that the US was never willing to discuss any Russian security concerns. In short, no diplomacy.
That strong opposition to diplomacy continues. NATO right now is somewhat divided on the matter. France, Germany and Italy have taken some initiatives towards diplomatic settlement. The US and Britain, the two NATO warrior states, are opposed. What matters of course is the stand of the US.
The US, and most of the political class, is dedicated to the ghastly experiment. It is of no little interest that that is considered to be a highly moral and principled position.
The ghastly experiment is far worse. Prolonging the war in the hope of total Russian capitulation also accelerates the race to destruction from global warming. The far too limited efforts to deal with the crisis have been thrown into reverse – and there is little time to spare. But it doesn’t matter. We must stand up for High Principle – which no one believes in for a moment, as easily demonstrated. Where are the calls to punish the invaders of Iraq, to take only one salient illustration?
These considerations tell us a lot about the political, intellectual, and moral culture of the great centers of global power, hence about the likely course of world affairs unless they can be civilized, without delay.
Apart from the criminality, Putin’s decision was extremely foolish. It handed Washington its most cherished gift, on a silver platter: Europe. Since this is one of the major consequences of his criminal invasion, it’s worth some attention.
Throughout the Cold War a live issue was whether Europe would become an independent “third force” in international affairs, perhaps along Gaullist lines, or whether it would subordinate itself to the US within the “Atlanticist” framework, implemented by NATO. The question arose sharply after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mikhail Gorbachev proposed the establishment of a “common European home” with no military alliances. The US proposal of a “Partnership for Peace” was not very different. It did not eliminate NATO, but marginalized it in a broader system. The PfP was undermined when President Clinton expanded NATO in direct violation of President George H.W. Bush’s promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond Germany. Since there has been much deceit and evasion about the matter, it is worth stressing that the promise was explicit and unambiguous, as can be checked in the National Security Archives. The PfP concept totally disappeared when Bush II opened the doors to NATO expansion, even including an invitation to Ukraine to join, in full knowledge that that would never be tolerated by any Russian leader as he had been warned by just about every high level official with any familiarity with the region.
France and Germany vetoed the proposal, but given overwhelming US power, it remained on the NATO agenda.
In today’s climate of irrationality it is necessary again to repeat the obvious: the provocation does not justify criminal aggression.
In fact, Putin had peaceful options. He could have explored Emmanuel Macron’s tentative proposals for accommodation, which offers enormous advantages to Europe. Instead of trying, he reached for the revolver. Along with the frightful consequences, that greatly expanded US power by incorporation of Europe as a subordinate.
- The aftermath of the Ukrainian war has extended to the Eastern Mediterranean, where Greece is a staunch ally of the United States. Turkey is threatening, Greek-Iranian relations are deteriorating in view of the tanker war in the Gulf and Athens is closely following the American line. In light of these events, what are your thoughts on Greece and the wider region?
In brief, grim. Each of these and innumerable other crises must be dealt with in its own specific terms, with the kind of rational and moral sensibility that is so painfully lacking in addressing the Ukraine war. The broader hope is that it will be possible to resurrect something like a “common European home,” or at least the Partnership for Peace, as an overall framework for progress in individual cases.
- What are the implications of this war on a global scale? Which areas will be most affected beyond Ukraine?
The implications are colossal, beyond the agony of Ukraine itself. That is no exaggeration. There is a growing threat of nuclear war. It is easy to construct likely scenarios, each of which leads up the escalation ladder to terminal destruction. That is a prospect. It is current reality, not a prospect, that we are marching resolutely to virtual suicide by reversing the meager efforts to address the climate crisis. There should be no need to elaborate. Furthermore, tens of millions of people are facing imminent starvation by Russia’s blockade of agricultural exports. The US reaction has been to provide Ukraine with weapons that could sink more Russian ships, in addition to the flagship of the fleet, already sunk. The assumption is that Russia will sit by quietly, not respond by highly ominous escalation of violence. Not considered – not even mentionable in the increasingly totalitarian culture of the West – are Russian proposals for a peaceful settlement of the crisis, perhaps unacceptable, but we cannot know unless they are explored.
- The United States has recently acknowledged that it is actively waging an information war against Russia, which is said to be carried out by the mass media. Is this an acceptable tactic or the beginning (or continuation) of information suppression and control policies?
This is quite normal. During World War I, Britain set up a Ministry of Information (meaning disinformation) with the announced goal of controlling the thought of the world, in particular, the thought of Americans, whom Britain desperately wanted to bring into the war. Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1916 on a program of Peace without Victory. He soon shifted that to Victory without Peace, and established a Committee on Public Information (another Orwellian term) to convert a pacifist population to raging haters of the evil Huns. Both efforts were quite successful, greatly impressing American liberal intellectuals who went on to extoll the wonders of “manufacturing consent” as a means to keep the “stupid and ignorant” masses in line, a core principle of liberal democratic theory. The same reactions led to the development of the huge Public Relations (advertising and marketing) industry, the world’s greatest propaganda agency. In later years the pattern has been replicated. The intellectual community and the media typically tag along.
- Do you consider World War III a possibility? If so, in what form will it be conducted and what can be done to avoid it?
Einstein was once asked a similar question. He responded that he didn’t know how World War III would be fought, but any war that follows would be fought with clubs and stones. Everything must be done to avoid it. We should be dedicated to eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons from the earth. There are many preliminary steps that can and should be taken right now, amply discussed elsewhere.
