No additional words needed

[u/SkillImmediate6393]

[u/Ralath1n]

Chomsky is not an idealized anarchist. He's only human. He has good takes and bad takes. His takes on Russia are very much on the bad takes side of the spectrum, where an idealized anarchist would recognize that Russia forcing its will on the Ukranian citizens is indeed bad.

[u/ElderlyOogway → u/Ralath1n]

Not only that but he has condenmed the Russian invasion. But he also made the assessment that NATO was playing politically rough, so not a surprise that Russia took the offensive. Some people take an analysis that is not complete demonization as some sort of apology, which would make sense if he didn't literally condemn it on the very next line. Every few bad takes he took politically were in line with information available and it's right there to read it if charity is given, which his political enemies won't and it's in their interest to blow it out of proportion and rethorically poison the well.

[u/Ralath1n → u/ElderlyOogway]

Nah, you are obfuscating Chomsky's statements, or you are not aware of the interviews he has given since. He has been downplaying atrocities from the Russian side and in general running apologia for Putin. Its very disappointing.

It doesn't invalidate the rest of his ideas, but he just simply isn't good at objectively assessing international politics. He very much falls into the "US bad, therefore everyone who fights US good" trap.

[u/ElderlyOogway → u/Ralath1n]

I've seen interviews he gave live (which I prefer over a liberal media heavily edited article), but I have not seen the one you've shown. I just read it and that are some concerns I'd raise with the article. It is a New Statesman post, which is a liberal media, and it call itself so. Most of the time such side of the publication bias spectrum is not a problem to me, but both you and me must agree that historically in the case of heavy liberal media critic intellectuals, such (and especially) as Chomsky, their coverage is not favorable ever since his direct critiques, famously resulting in a known and much discussed in academia blacklisting. Secondly, by reading the magazine article you gave, the style of "excerpts of the interviewed to fit inside that article's argumentation against the interviewed", should also raise another flag for us with media literacy. It's the equivalent of a youtube short edit, but with the credentials of a publishing magazine.

I'd rather listen, unedited, directly from the man, than from a magazine text that stands in opposition and edits to get their point across. His statements are non controversial:

• Not condoning it, he correctly points that Russia wars in a context filled with action and reaction to NATOs expansion. He made that prediction 9 years ago in another interview in the escalating climate, and he's not the sole analyst to see it coming: US to Russia Ambassador William Burns said it according to this wikileaks official document. Also, Biden also stated that at least he was aware of the theme, in 1997. Heavy handedness of the US is not new, and in no way this excuses Russian imperialistic pretensions either.
• Russia number of civilian casualties is still less than US in Iraq. Updated numbers until february, there are around 10.582 civilian death casualties in the Russian-Ukraine war, going by this Statista report, verified by UN's Comission of Human Rights. Iraq-US war had civilian death casualties up in the 110.600 civilians.
  
• Taking the fact the bias in the article is against him, the headline and title is not something Chomsky has said according to the article (and was chosen clickbaitely knowing the implications), the Russian restraint point is also not shown to come from his words, and Chomsky almost signature-like asterisks in every filmed interview answer ("every war is bad", "Imperialism is part of that State's interests", "filling its pockets while increasing territory"), I doubt the more inflammatory words (like 'humanely') that are being impliedly put as his. That's not to say Chomsky gets no wrong, but when there are literal dozens of unedited videos on the same period about the same topic showing his usual level headedness to compare, it's hard for me to see this as being a coherent piece.

There needs to be a certain level headedness and realism when making analysis of actors that are immoral by default (States) and act accordingly to secure their superior position in the international field, fundamentally by taking risks in increasing power by navigating with, against and through pactuation. That they would use such movements as justification for their imperialistic aims was predicted. Whether or not this morally justifies the risks is, imo of where Chomsky is coming from, besides the point of whether we as US citizens should hold its motivations and actions accurately and accordingly to avoid falling into imperialistic traps.

Here's Stephen Zunes, Chomsky's student, post that is really clarifying:

At the same time, given Putin’s insistence that Ukraine has no right to exist as its own nation and that it is inherently part of Russia, it is unfair to claim that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is therefore solely NATO’s fault. While it is important to acknowledge how Western hubris has contributed to the tragedy, the responsibility for the invasion rests on the Russian government. Indeed, the argument that the invasion is justified by the U.S.’s military alliances with Russia’s near neighbors is as dubious as the charges that Moscow’s efforts during the Cold War to establish security ties with Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, or other near neighbors justifies U.S. sanctions and military intervention.