âThe background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.â
To repeat, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
As Kaja Kallas keeps saying. The Russian negotiating strategy is to
1. Demand something that is not yours
2. Set ultimatums and threats
3. Not budge an inch in the ensuing negotiations
because
4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning.
This is precisely what Putin is doing here:
"He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. "
âThe background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.â
To repeat, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.
quite. Plus it's absolute bullshit. Putin's terms for a negotiated settlement are well-known and anyone with a finger and an internet connection can find them.
quite. Plus it's absolute bullshit. Putin's terms for a negotiated settlement are well-known and anyone with a finger and an internet connection can find them.
Chomsky continued, "Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn't refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion. By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can't find it. That's suppressed. You're not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this."
Regarding his views of the possible future scenarios, Chomsky said that "the war will end, either through diplomacy or not. That's just logic. Well, if diplomacy has a meaning, it means both sides can tolerate it. They don't like it, but they can tolerate it. They don't get anything they want, they get something. That's diplomacy. If you reject diplomacy, you are saying: 'Let the war go on with all of its horrors, with all the destruction of Ukraine, and let's let it go on until we get what we want.'"
By 'we,' Chomsky was referring to Washington, which simply wants to "harm Russia so severely that it will never be able to undertake actions like this again. Well, what does that mean? It's impossible to achieve. So, it means, let's continue the war until Ukraine is devastated. That's US policy."
Most of this is not obvious to western audiences simply because rational voices are "not allowed to talk" and because "rationality is not permitted. This is a level of hysteria that I have never seen, even during the Second World War, which I am old enough to remember very well."
While an alternative understanding of the devastating war in Ukraine is disallowed, the West continues to offer no serious answers or achievable goals, leaving Ukraine devastated and the root causes of the problem in place. "That's US policy," indeed.
Chomsky continued, "Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldn't refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion. By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you can't find it. That's suppressed. You're not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this."
Regarding his views of the possible future scenarios, Chomsky said that "the war will end, either through diplomacy or not. That's just logic. Well, if diplomacy has a meaning, it means both sides can tolerate it. They don't like it, but they can tolerate it. They don't get anything they want, they get something. That's diplomacy. If you reject diplomacy, you are saying: 'Let the war go on with all of its horrors, with all the destruction of Ukraine, and let's let it go on until we get what we want.'"
By 'we,' Chomsky was referring to Washington, which simply wants to "harm Russia so severely that it will never be able to undertake actions like this again. Well, what does that mean? It's impossible to achieve. So, it means, let's continue the war until Ukraine is devastated. That's US policy."
Most of this is not obvious to western audiences simply because rational voices are "not allowed to talk" and because "rationality is not permitted. This is a level of hysteria that I have never seen, even during the Second World War, which I am old enough to remember very well."
While an alternative understanding of the devastating war in Ukraine is disallowed, the West continues to offer no serious answers or achievable goals, leaving Ukraine devastated and the root causes of the problem in place. "That's US policy," indeed.
on a less two-dimensional note.. did the US try to exploit the weakness of the Russian Empire post 1990 to foster democratic revolutions in former Soviet satellite states? Of course it did.
The question is not if or why it tried. The question is why did the colour revolutions become so popular locally and why did every satellite state that could slip the surly bonds of Russian brotherhood immediately do so?
The more pertinent question would be why did the Americans and the collective west fail so miserably at reaching out to these states, Russia included.
The âcolor revolutionsâ that so alarmed Putin were, after all, the
manifestations of those countries daring to choose the West, or, rather
the way of life, governance and values the West represented, over
Moscow.
Putin has always been more concerned about the loss of control over Russiaâs perceived sphere of influence than about a NATO threat to Russia. Putinâs actual issue with NATO and the West has been that they offered an alternative path to countries that Putin thought fell in Russiaâs self-declared sphere of influence. The âcolor revolutionsâ that so alarmed Putin were, after all, the manifestations of those countries daring to choose the West, or, rather the way of life, governance and values the West represented, over Moscow.
...Putin had effectively blocked Ukrainian accession to the alliance by the time he launched his full-scale invasionâ clear evidence that Russian fears of imminent Ukrainian NATO membership did not drive the invasion.
'Russia is wrapped in a heavy, impenetrable cocoon, a cocoon of silence. How many crimes the Putin dictatorship has committed, how many foreign cities it has seized and devastated, how many killings and tortures it has meted out, and the response to all these outrages is a deafening silence.
Many prefer not to know what is happening, to close their eyes and stop listening. Many deceive themselves, wishing to be deceived - after all it is so easy to believe blindly what the television says, even if it is broadcasting the most monstrous lies.
But many know perfectly well what this vile regime is doing. They endure the burden of their dissent, their outrage, their anger. And all the same, they are silent.
Just as any crime is committed with somebody's tacit consent, so any dictatorship is maintained thanks to the people's silence. A colossus with feet of clay will be worthless if all the dissenters speak out.
But they are silent.
One person thinks that everything has been decided, and that there is no reason for them, a minor figure, to get mixed up in this. Another hopes that others will say everything - but those others also find excuses to remain silent.
The real reason for this silence is human fear, visceral fear. No dictatorship can make everyone believe in it - therefore it constantly resorts to fear, its first and last instrument for subjugating the people.
Germans in the era of Hitler obediently shouted 'Heil,' understanding the consequences of disobedience; Soviet people in the era of Stalin were afraid to whisper in their own kitchens for fear of being denounced. The steamroller of repression doesn't need to crush every dissenter, just a few demonstrative examples, and the rest will gag their own mouths.
The absurdity of Putinist repression has reached such heights that any trifle can become a pretext for persecution - and no one knows what one can say. The criminal in the Kremlin is satisfied; that's exactly what he needs. As long as everyone is silent, his own skin will be safe.
That is precisely why one cannot stay silent. No, human fear is understandable: it is very difficult to risk one's position, one's future, one's freedom. To say nothing of the fact that many have families - for these people, the fear is doubled. But will it be easier for these families to live under a dictatorship, under tightening screws, behind an iron curtain?
A dictatorship can continue to wreak its atrocities, its lawlessness, as long as it feels strength and power. Nothing will change as long as everyone remains submissively silent.
So perhaps the time has come to start speaking?
Everyone who can speak, must speak. The individuals who dared to speak up are now too few to move anything. Everyone must speak, who does not agree with the Moscow regime. Individuals can easily be put behind bars for their words, because they are individuals. But there are not enough prisons for everyone, for all the dissenters in Russia. Even if the regime builds just as many especially for them.
When, having overcome fear, everyone begins to speak out, it will time for Putin's gang to be afraid.
No evil lasts for ever, any dictatorship will inevitably collapse. It can collapse of its own weight, like the USSR, or thanks to the uprising of the people.
Don't let this dictatorship live any longer than it can. Speak out, people!