[tptacek]

The other way would be to look at the facts: for example, that in September 2021 the United States came out with a strong policy statement, calling for enhanced military cooperation with Ukraine, further sending of advanced military weapons, all part of the enhancement programme of Ukraine joining Nato. You can take your choice, we don’t know which is right.

The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine.

The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.

[nextstep]

It’s not a false dichotomy because he’s not presenting these two ideas as mutually exclusive. Maybe you misunderstood his argument (or what a dichotomy means).

His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.

[tgv]

By seeing this response as unavoidable, you’re turning out into a dichotomy.

[joejohnson]

This is not what a dichotomy is. Chomsky’s point is that both the expansion of NATO and Putin being a dictator played a part in the invasion of Ukraine. He’s presenting these two facts as the opposite of a dichotomy!

[tptacek]

The expansion of NATO didn't play a part in the invasion of Ukraine, in any moral or rational way. By framing it that way, Chomksy subtly creates a justification for the invasion that does not exist. Which is my point about how disingenuous this logic is.

[joejohnson]

He substantiates his claim that the expansion of NATO is a perceived threat to Russia. Your mischaracterization of this as a “false dichotomy” with the other point (that Putin is a murderous dictator, which he agrees is true) doesn’t have anything to do with your unsubstantiated claim that he’s being disingenuous.

[tptacek]

It has about the same moral valence as saying "Maybe Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is a twisted amoral dictator, and maybe they did it because of how Ukrainians voted in the 2021 Eurovision contest". But it's sneaky, because you can see immediately how ridiculous the Eurovision thing is, but the NATO thing is framed as if it might in fact have been casus belli. Obviously: it was not.