Just Chomsky

18. Dezember 2022

The United Sta­tes and Bri­tain are insis­ting their for­mal, for­mal poli­cy - for­mal for the last cou­p­le of mon­ths has been, the war must con­ti­nue to wea­ken Rus­sia so severely that it can never under­ta­ke an action like this again that’s offi­cial poli­cy, noti­ce that that poli­cy wha­te­ver you think about it, first of all it blocks diplo­ma­cy of cour­se, but it has - it’s taken on the basis of a ghast­ly gam­ble. The gam­ble is that if Rus­sia is facing defeat, Mr Putin will pack his bags quiet­ly and slink off to Obli­vi­on or worse and he won’t use the con­ven­tio­nal wea­pons, con­ven­tio­nal wea­pons that of cour­se he has and ever­yo­ne knows he has, that could devas­ta­te Ukrai­ne. That’s the gam­ble. The gam­ble with - if Ukrai­ni­ans want to accept the gam­ble that’s their busi­ness, we’­re tal­king about us. Do we insist on that gam­ble do we insist on blo­cking nego­tia­ti­ons as we’­ve been doing so in the most… - the­re is so litt­le inte­rest in this topic that it’s bare­ly cove­r­ed but the litt­le bare infor­ma­ti­on we have is that in April the­re were nego­tia­ti­ons bet­ween Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne and other Tur­kish aus­pi­ces. Boris John­son who’s still prime minis­ter flew to Ukrai­ne and inst­ruc­ted the ukrai­ni­ans that the US and Bri­tain don’t want nego­tia­ti­ons now. It was fol­lo­wed by Lloyd Aus­tin the U.S. Secreta­ry of Defen­se, we don’t know what he said becau­se there’s no coverage, but ever­ything we know is from the Ukrai­ni­an press - but he pres­um­a­b­ly said that what he always says, that the goal is to severely wea­ken Rus­sia so no nego­tia­ti­ons now. Well, then the nego­tia­ti­ons col­lap­se, we don’t know why may­be that was a fac­tor may­be not, but as long as we have that stance - the­re will be no diplo­ma­cy and we will con­ti­nue with the wre­cka­ge of Ukrai­ne and the side effects that are men­tio­ned that the­re are others like mil­li­ons of peop­le facing star­va­ti­on becau­se of the restric­tion on export of grains and fer­ti­li­zer from the Black Sea region.

As I say it’s up to the ukrai­ni­ans to deci­de what they want to do - so to us to deci­de what we want to do. If we want to con­ti­nue to block nego­tia­ti­ons and diplo­ma­cy, let’s be frank about it, we’­re taking a gam­ble with the fate of Ukrai­ne and the world becau­se of the­se thre­ats that are com­ing along - now it’s inte­res­ting that U.S. poli­cy is begin­ning slight­ly to sof­ten in inte­res­ting ways. Up until very recent­ly anyo­ne who men­tio­ned the idea of brin­ging the war to the clo­se through diplo­ma­tic means was a vili­fied, demo­ni­zed - even Hen­ry Kis­sin­ger the favo­ri­te War­hog could­n’t say it - it’s begin­ning to chan­ge a litt­le. The New York Times actual­ly publis­hed an op-ed by Charles Kup­chan - he is a high figu­re in the Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­ti­ons he said basi­cal­ly what I’ve been say­ing - no reaction.

For­eign Affairs, which is the lea­ding for­eign poli­cy jour­nal, has publis­hed a cou­p­le of arti­cles say­ing the same thing - they were allo­wed to get away with it. You might - I’m sure you noti­ced that some peop­le in con­gress led by the so-called pro­gres­si­ves cau­cus, Pra­mi­la Jay­a­pal put out a very mild state­ment - I mean, embarr­as­sin­gly mild, say­ing - let’s sup­port Ukrai­ne all the way give them all the wea­pons they want, but may­be we should think about a way to try to end the hor­rors. They had to with­draw it in one day becau­se of the cho­rus of den­un­cia­ti­on for dar­ing to say that may­be we should think of a way out of the­se hor­rors ins­tead of con­ti­nuing them in order to severely wea­ken Rus­sia and by now to test, say­ing open­ly - you can read it in the main­stream press - the U.S. is very inte­res­ted in tes­ting out new wea­pons, new methods of war­fa­re that will be very valu­able fort he future. Well mean­while let’s face the thre­at of nuclear war, let’s con­ti­nue the gam­ble with Ukrai­ne. Let’s keep des­troy­ing the envi­ron­ment becau­se we have to pour the incre­a­sed fos­sil fuel pro­duc­tion… - Very inte­res­ting news item today which may­be you saw, said that the Swe­dish government has just released some infor­ma­ti­on on the nord­stream pipe­line sabo­ta­ge - it’s a very, it’s one of the most important events of the recent mon­ths - bare­ly recor­ded which is an indi­ca­ti­on of its impor­t­ance. What hap­pen­ed is that the Nord­stream pipe­line was sabo­ta­ged. Swe­den now - I don’t know what the word is - con­ce­ded the obvious, pro­vi­ded evi­dence that it had been blown up, which was of cour­se obvious in the first place. Who’s likely to have blown up the Nord­stream pipe­line? It’s owned by Ger­ma­ny and Rus­sia for them it’s a dis­as­ter. Both of them. Can you think of any­bo­dy who has some­thing to gain by cut­ting the Nord­strom pipe­line and who’s been tal­king about it for years, say­ing stop it - we don’t want this, I can think of some­bo­dy. Can you think of some­bo­dy who has the capa­bi­li­ty to do it? Not very hard. In fact the U.S. just car­ri­ed out major Naval Maneu­vers right in the Bal­tic regi­on, right whe­re it was - but you’­re not allo­wed to draw the obvious con­clu­si­on from that, that would be a con­spi­ra­cy theo­ry, anti-americanism you know, one or ano­t­her it comes in wha­te­ver the latest term of vili­fi­ca­ti­on is, so nobo­dy can say that. If you have a brain in your head you can think it, but bet­ter not say it and it was­n’t said in this arti­cle just, you know, it seems to be sabo­ta­ge, yeah - obvious­ly it’s sabotage.

Q: Have the­re been indi­ca­ti­ons for a “war not prevented”?

Of cour­se very easy to show, for the last - first it goes way back, but this just take the last deca­de. The United Sta­tes has been per­fect­ly open­ly, not­hing secret, arming Ukrai­ne, taking steps to inte­gra­te Ukrai­ne into the NATO - mea­ning the U.S. mili­ta­ry sys­tem inter­ope­ra­bi­li­ty, wea­pons trai­ning - ukrai­ni­ans in hea­vy duty Ame­ri­can wea­pons, has been so extre­me that U.S. mili­ta­ry jour­nals, U.S. mili­ta­ry jour­nals, descri­bed Ukrai­ne as a de fac­to mem­ber of NATO. The Biden Admi­nis­tra­ti­on actual­ly took it bey­ond - in sep­tem­ber 2021 came out with a for­mal state­ment that Ukrai­ne is now part of a an enhan­ced pro­gram of pre­pa­ra­ti­on for the NATO inte­gra­ti­on (1,2,3). Now this against the back­ground of 30 years of warnings by high-level U.S. diplo­mats inclu­ding vir­tual­ly ever­yo­ne in the diplo­ma­tic corps who had any know­ledge of Rus­sia that Rus­sia will never accept Ukrai­ne wit­hin a hos­ti­le mili­ta­ry Alli­an­ce, that means the head of the CIA, who was a rus­si­an Ambassa­dor and a Rus­sia expert, Wil­liam Burns, his pre­de­ces­sor in the CIA, Robert Gates the defen­se minis­ter for Geor­ge W. Bush, Hen­ry Geor­ge Can­non the who­le, all along, Jack Mat­lock, Reagan’s ambassa­dor to Rus­sia and other Rus­sia Spe­cia­lists all along for 30 years were say­ing you should­n’t do this, it’s pro­vo­ca­ti­ve it’s reck­less, it’s dan­ge­rous the­re is no Rus­si­an lea­der who would have ever accep­ted it, it’s pret­ty obvious why. Take a litt­le bit of - look at histo­ry what hap­pen­ed a cou­p­le of deca­des ago, a cou­p­le of deca­des befo­re then, inva­si­ons of Rus­sia through Ukrai­ne, kil­ling 25 mil­li­on peop­le, prac­ti­cal­ly des­troy­ing the coun­try. Look at a topo­gra­phi­cal map, there’s no defen­ses bet­ween Ukrai­ne and Moscow and it’s per­fect­ly obvious why they’­re not going to be allowing it to be part of a hos­ti­le mili­ta­ry alli­an­ce. I mean would the united sta­tes allow Chi­na to bring Mexi­co into a major mili­ta­ry alli­an­ce with wea­pons aimed at the United Sta­tes? It’s not even thin­ka­ble. You know, it’s been reck­less, pro­vo­ca­ti­ve, … The­re has been a frame­work for nego­tia­ti­ons, we don’t, we can’t know if it could have worked, becau­se it was never tried - but the Minsk frame­work of Ger­ma­ny and Fran­ce, Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne had sett­led on a frame­work which inclu­ded cru­cial­ly neu­tra­liz­a­ti­on of Ukrai­ne which means Ukrai­ne has the same sta­tus as Mexi­co or Aus­tria through the Cold War - neu­tra­liz­a­ti­on of Ukraine’s - that’s not an inter­fe­rence with sov­er­eig­n­ty. Nobo­dy inter­fe­res with Mexi­can sov­er­eig­n­ty from the fact that they can’t join a chi­ne­se mili­ta­ry alli­an­ce. I mean - demi­li­ta­riz­a­ti­on, I mean no hea­vy wea­pons aimed at Rus­sia, put­ting off the Cri­mea issue, becau­se you can’t sett­le it right now it’s too com­pli­ca­ted - some kind of auto­no­my for the Don­bas regi­on, pre­fer­a­b­ly to be sett­led in terms of inter­na­tio­nal­ly run refe­ren­da, well that’s the basic framework. 

Right up to the inva­si­on Ukrai­ne sort of indi­ca­ted, semi-some degree of inte­rest in it. Rus­sia was cal­ling for it, we don’t know if it could have worked. Basi­cal­ly it was­n’t right - Sta­te Depart­ment con­ce­ded, publicly, that they had never taken Rus­si­an secu­ri­ty con­cerns into con­si­de­ra­ti­on. It’s just not an issue. Well, almost none of this gets repor­ted incidentally.

But it’s the­re. Could it have worked? Don’t know. Can it work now? The only way to find out is to try it. Actual­ly by now the opti­ons have been redu­ced. That’s what hap­pens when you go to war. Start a war, both sides har­den their posi­ti­ons more. Hat­red, ant­ago­nism, opti­ons are limi­ted. So what are they now? There’s one way to find out the way that you’­re not allo­wed to say. Say it in a whis­per. Cry. Okay. That’s the one way to find out. The who­le world wants that, almost the ent­i­re world is cal­ling for nego­tia­ti­ons and diplo­ma­cy, that even inclu­des much of Euro­pe. So take Ger­ma­ny, main Cen­ter in Euro­pe. About 75 per­cent of Ger­mans want nego­tia­ti­ons right now. Euro­pe is suf­fe­ring severely from this. United Sta­tes is gai­ning enor­mous­ly. I mean take a look at the exe­cu­ti­ve offices of the fos­sil fuel pro­du­cers and mili­ta­ry pro­du­cers they’­re just eupho­ric, you know the United Sta­tes is just gai­ning extra­or­di­na­ri­ly from this - Europe’s get­ting smas­hed, the effect of the waters to dri­ve Euro­pe into Washington’s pocket, hig­hest goal no more talk about an inde­pen­dent Euro­pe - so for the United Sta­tes it’s just all gains, for Euro­pe it’s all los­ses. Germany’s get­ting deindus­tria­li­zed, may not be able to pull out of it, uh so it’s not sur­pri­sing they want to see if there’s an end to this but the U.S. and Bri­tain they’­re the two war­ri­or sta­tes they don’t want to hear about it.

src: click

Jetzt ist es aber nur gut ver­ständ­lich, dass bei uns Redak­teu­re in der Pres­se fra­gen, ob wenn in Russ­land das GDP nur um 3.5% und nicht wie pro­gnos­ti­ziert um 6% sinkt, wir über­haupt auf die rich­ti­gen Indi­ka­to­ren schau­en - und die ABSOLUTEN WICHSERSCHWEINE die pro­pa­gie­ren Russ­land füh­re einen kolo­nia­len Krieg, bei dem es die Infra­struk­tur sei­ner Kolo­nie zer­stört - sie ver­ste­hen schon, nicht sofort - via Shock and Awe, wie die US, oder Groß­bri­tan­ni­en, son­dern erst ab Monat 9 vor dem Win­ter auf der EU Ebe­ne pro­mo­tet wer­den. Und Pro­fes­su­ren in Yale bekom­men, wenn sie die­se Anschau­ung gecoi­ned und welt­weit ver­brei­tet haben.

Lügen sind doch noch das Herz­blut die­ser Wertegesellschaft.

Lügen und von der Büh­ne getre­ten werden.

Und auf Tal­king points gebrief­te Pro­pa­gan­dis­ten, die die Tal­king­points nicht selbst her­lei­ten kön­nen in TV Dis­kus­sio­nen laden, und dann noch dazu­sa­gen, das sind freie ukai­ni­sche Jour­na­lis­ten, die jetzt unge­fil­tert im Stan­dard schreiben.

Haha, Freun­de! Sterbt.

Und was Polen wie­der macht… NATIONALE Allein­gän­ge!

Hinterlasse eine Antwort