[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.

[joejohnson]

You keep insisting there’s absolutely no connection between the US signing a defense deal with Ukraine and Russia invading. Then what’s your theory as to why Putin invaded?