[rich_sasha]

I think Chomsky’s original sin here is his treatment of Russia as a sensible actor who will negotiate in good faith. Russia showed time and time again this is not the case, and that it responds only to strength.

His 2 ways of ending the war are of course correct, but in his follow-up he misses an possibility: weaken and tire your opponent before negotiating in earnest, to provide a better negotiation position. Russia is still in a mindset to plough ahead at any cost, and won’t settle for reasonable concessions. They want Ukraine beaten, humiliated and subdued to Russia.

What I’d imagine US “no negotiation” stance means is to call this game of strength, support Ukraine so that Russia’s continued war becomes untenable and then settle.

Is that pig-headed, arrogant or cavalier? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a recognition that right now Russia doesn’t respond to reason, only strength. So strength and resolve must be served up in copious amounts.