[matesz]

> Look at what he wrote on Russian invasion of Ukraine :)

Just let yourself think about what his counterparts in US were saying. That Russia would collapse and Putin's oppresionist government is going to be overthrown by protestors? Don't you see that what we get is Putin's approval rating a historic high?

And nobody in US wants to be seen as "weak on Russia".

Only now there is more people who start saying clearly that the war is not going to stop, it is going to last number of years, and impratant bit, Ukraine is going to be completely destroyed in the process. And what Ukrainian people are going to get in return? EU membership? Western valus? Freedom?

Once you get this, the whole narrative people like Chomsky are proposing, that in 2004 this, in 2008 that, can be seen in a new light. You can read "The Art of Diplomacy" by Francois de Callieres, about 17th century european politics, which is talking about how to do international relations. Really helpful to see that this situation in Ukraine is not new - in other words, what is happening now could be forseen before the war broke out.

ps. I know quite a few Ukrainians very well who escaped the war, many from the demolished easter cities. And it didn't even cross my mind to tell them that I oppose anything Ukraine is doing atm.

[ajuc]

If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 then none of this would happen. Chomsky was against that, i.e. his views are worsening the situation.

> Just let yourself think about what his counterparts in US were saying

Timothy Snyder for example? He's saying that Ukraine should be admited to NATO and EU, and that Russia needs to lose this war. What's wrong with that?

> Only now there is more people who start saying clearly that the war is not going to stop

All wars stop.

> Ukraine is going to be completely destroyed in the process

Already is. If you let Russia settle for peace on their conditions - they will rebuild and invade Ukraine again. Like they already did 2 times. So it's better to deal with that now than to give them more time to harm Ukraine.

> "The Art of Diplomacy" by Francois de Callieres, about 17th century european politics, which is talking about how to do international relations

There were no nukes, NATO, EU, UN. No relevance whatsoever.

[_kbh_]

> If Ukraine was accepted into NATO in 2008 then none of this would happen. Chomsky was against that, i.e. his views are worsening the situation.

This isn't the only time that this war could have been averted.

I also believe this war is partly because of the worlds weak response to the initial 2014 invasion, if the response to that was stronger then I think there was a decent chance the 2022 invasion would of never happened.

[ajuc]

Again Chomsky and other tankies were arguing we should appease Russia :)

How many times can you be wrong before you realize your assumptions are wrong?

[consilient]

> Again Chomsky and other tankies

Chomsky is literally an anarchist.

[ajuc]

Anarchist that supports a dictatorship :)

But it's ok, because it's a dictatorship far away. Other people will be opressed.

[_kbh_]

> Only now there is more people who start saying clearly that the war is not going to stop, it is going to last number of years, and impratant bit, Ukraine is going to be completely destroyed in the process. And what Ukrainian people are going to get in return? EU membership? Western valus? Freedom?

Are these things not worth fighting for?. If you don't fight for your freedom then what would you fight for?.

[matesz]

There are a few things worth fighting for for sure. And maybe in the long term current war is even better for Ukraine as a nation. Who knows really?

[ajuc]

Ukrainians know. It's their lives, their country and their decisions. And Chomsky is telling them to stop fighting and surrender to colonization so that his political views can stay the same :)

Fucking tankies man..