You said that the Khmer Rouge came to power with the help of the United States. This is entirely false. It is just another example of you having no idea what you’re talking about.
You won’t find me or presumably anyone else here talk about the support of the Khmer Rouge in the post Vietnam war as something that was needed or well done or a good thing
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1515765884094197769
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1515765885541261313
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1515765887155986436
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1515765888879845380
IF this happens, can we finally admit Mearsheimer and his ilk were completely, utterly wrong about how the US/NATO/The West should have proceeded with Ukraine?
Or will they still try to argue the loss of life wasn’t worth it to avoid becoming a Stasi-state, and the West should have nudged Ukraine toward immediate surrender by turning their back? Which totally would have happened of course because The West decides all of Ukraines actions.
We will only get fact free treatises about how it could have been so much smoother if the West hadn’t wested so hard.
I guess all the weapons and NATO intelligence just magically appeared, without rhyme or reason.
Sort of like Victor’s cognitive functioning.
Duh. Man that’s going to be annoying.
thank you guys. without some other pushback on the measheimer/NM nonsense i would have been triggered beyond belief itt. but i just keep reading, and you are saving me months and years lost to nervous breakdowns
Really sucks you guys were about to have universal Healthcare until the Russian invasion, than that earmarked money got used on javelins
For the record on Chomsky.
“I think that support for Ukraine’s effort to defend itself is legitimate.”
It’s right there at the start. He then goes on to say that the objective should be helping Ukraine not maximize US power in europe.
Like I said. Seems pretty uncontroversial.
And again. Reiterating that it’s really not complicated to be able to see Russia as fascists AND the US government as completely flawed and dangerous AND value democracy and a more free press
Ukraine is helped by minimizing Russian power.
Again, having some ice cold, uncontrovertial takes mixed in does not make the horrible statements go away.
Sure. But interests are not fully aligned. Which again. Seems uncontroversial.
What do you specifically object to?
As argued above, that the American policy of rejecting negotiations is why this war is still ongoing. That isn’t the American policy, and that policy has nothing to do with the continuing conflict.
Okay. I dont think that’s what he says, but I can see how you could draw that conclusion.
People need to stop calling up Chomsky, he’s 93, and come up with their own positions instead of dragging him out like some kind of Pope
Victor seemed to draw that conclusion too.
right, totally agree with this, but most of the HOT TAEKS criticizing chomsky that I saw were misrepresenting the uncontroversial stuff (i.e. the “ukraine should just roll over” stuff we saw earlier in the thread) and just totally ignoring the shitty stuff.
I was under the impression that 93-year-olds are clearly too senile to have anything useful to say about politics.
Have at him.
We can, however, look at the United States and we can see that our explicit policy — explicit — is rejection of any form of negotiations. The explicit policy goes way back, but it was given a definitive form in September 2021 in the September 1 joint policy statement that was then reiterated and expanded in the November 10 charter of agreement.
Of course, I’ve actually read the September 1 statement.
The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea and reaffirms its full support for international efforts, including in the Normandy Format, aimed at negotiating a diplomatic resolution to the Russian-led conflict in eastern Ukraine on the basis of international law, including the UN Charter. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to use the Crimea Platform to focus international attention and action on the humanitarian and security costs of Russia’s occupation of Crimea with the aim of peacefully restoring Ukraine’s control over this territory in accordance with international law. Together, we call on Russia to recommit to the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine and engage genuinely in conflict resolution efforts to end the war.
I think these are fair and reasonable goals for any negotiation. They may be unacceptable to Putin, but I’d argue that’s a Russia problem and not a US problem.
Chomsky says that this can only end in a negotiated settlement or the destruction of Ukraine, so he advocates for settling as soon as possible because he thinks every day this drags on brings a greater chance of Ukraine being destroyed or escalation.
I disagree with Chomsky’s belief that this has to end with the end of Ukraine if an agreement isn’t reached and I think the risk of escalation is an acceptable risk to support a war of resistance that Ukraine wants to fight and has absolute legitimacy to fight.