What use is years and years worth of scientific research and intelligence if all it does is cause our own extinction? We are just like Ouroboros eating its own tail.
Even worse, authorities across the world are collectively cutting down about 15 billion trees per year, split roughly evenly across permanent deforestation, shifting agriculture (conversion of forest for farming), and logging: https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation#not-all-forest-loss...
But today we see exactly the opposite. That countries do not have a right for self determination and that unelected bodies can dictate form afar what countries should do whether or not they are signatories to an agreement or not. That imposition of extra national law is imperialism --not by a country but by elite leadership. If we were to vote democratically from one global pool of voters, would we agree to what the masses from those countries vote for?
I think there is plenty of reason for both pessimism and optimism, and plenty of reasons for neither.
>“What about Nato expansion? There was an explicit, unambiguous promise by [US secretary of state] James Baker and president George HW Bush to Gorbachev that if he agreed to allow a unified Germany to rejoin Nato, the US would ensure that there would be no move one inch to the east. There’s a good deal of lying going on about this now.”
No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda and if Chomsky had any shame he would be ashamed for parroting it.
Chomsky didn't say it was written down or announced. But there's no argument here - Baker simply DID say that there would be no eastward movement. It's not even remotely controversial.
Hinting at a moral equivalence -- because let's be honest, that's what's happening here -- between Russian expansion and NATO "expansion" is at the very least intellectually dishonest.
https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o...
This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.
Look, if Mexico tomorrow invaded Honduras because some diplomatic approach by the UK to Honduras (following similar ones to other Central American states) violated some commitment, not ever incorporated into any treaty, that a British official had made to Spain while the Viceroyalty of New Spain was still a thing, no one, anywhere, would take that as a serious excuse, no matter how much evidence there was that the official had, in fact, made the representation.
This is pretty much exactly the same thing; whether the discussion occurred is irrelevant; there is no scenario where it even slightly mitigates the enormity of, much less justifies, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the war crimes committed during that invasion.
The next President has his own ideals, and the next, and the next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...
Now, imageine you are one of ex-Warsaw Pact countries. You know very well NATO is the only thing that can stop Russia from changing their mind and taking over your country. What will your government do? They will do everything to join NATO. And this is exactly what happened.
Putin's propaganda is that NATO is a threat to Russia. Yet, NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO is, however, a threat to Russia's imperialism. After Ukraine they can turn to Kazakhstan and a few other countries that are not NATO members. He can't just invade the Baltics just as he invaded Ukraine - just because of that single reason. No wonder Putin is having a fir over it again and again.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
If your goal is to prevent NATO expansion, the Ukraine invasion makes no sense. In its wake it has caused multiple neutral countries to explore membership (Finland, Sweden) and has caused an otherwise austere Germany to increase defense spending. It has also laid-bare problems in the Russian military on the global stage. Massive unforced error.
The counterfactual where Russia never invaded Ukraine in 2022 or 2014, we'd still be talking about leaving NATO - something Trump was floating in 2016. There were rumblings about dissolving it prior to these actions. If Putin had simply waited, further entangled Europe into its fossil fuel industry, and continued overtures to western right-wing parties, he could have probably eliminated NATO as a "threat" to Russia within a decade. Without a single shot fired, without a soldier stepping foot on foreign soil.
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yel...
Baker's un-written assurances may have bound him (Baker) to personally help ensure his assurances held, if only to preserve his credibility in other negotiations, but all parties involved understood they were not being written into the agreement and therefore were not a formal agreement. These words had meaning, even when not written into the agreement, because Baker was telling Gorbachev the truth, which was that the US understood that moving the borders of NATO east would be a bad idea. Gorbachev heard that the US understood this. It wasn't a binding legal agreement, it was a statement about the political landscape at that time.
Baker is long gone from the diplomatic landscape and so is that assurance. This isn't actually a surprise.
I don't know what this sentence means, but you're not supposed to write arguments like this on HN. You can make your point without casting aspersions across entire populations.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Yeah, pretty much all of the world recognizes that there is a pretty big difference, especially as to applicability several decades later, between different governments (one one side not even of the same entity, but instead the entity that was a leader among those overthrowing the one directly involved in the initial conversation) between something one official said to another in the course of negotiation and a signed and ratified treaty.
(Not that even a signed and ratified treaty between Russia and every single member of NATO in 1989 being violated would be, under international law, a justification for invasion of Ukraine—who is not in any version of any story a party, except perhaps as co-inheritor of Soviet interests, to the alleged commitment—in violation of the UN Charter and, in the case of the original 2014 invasion, Russia’s treaty obligations to Ukraine, and not that even if there was a legal justification for the invasion it would justified Russia’s rampant war crimes during the invasion.)
I recently noticed the same thing. That this idea of innocent because of insufficient evidence (by some conveniently chosen, case by case, definition of insufficient) is pervading some Americans thinking on the variety of subjects including US foreign policy but also for example corporate responsibility.
The word of an administration is only good for the duration of that administration, assuming said administration is even trustworthy. If it isn't written down it's a pinky swear. To hold future administrations accountable for the 30 year old pinky-swears of previous administrations is just contriving excuses to blame America/NATO.
Did the the west screw over Russia? Sure, in many ways (support for color revolutions, not properly supporting Russia during it's economic transition in the 90s, denying it NATO membership, etc). But this latest bout of violence is all Putin's ego and Russian national insecurity. So long as they maintain the world's largest nuclear arsenal, no one is marching on Moscow regardless of where their borders are, and independent nations like Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic States should be free to make their own decisions without being held to the standard of Russian paranoia.
This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities.
As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too.
Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief...
Not in the form in which binding, durable, heritable international commitments are made it was not.
Not even the people most committed to spinning the evidence in favor of Russia bother to claim that (which is good, because it would be obviously false), they just try to get people to ignore that,and pretend what would even by the most favorable interpretation of the evidence be private assurances were binding commitments in future governments of the state whose representatives made them, in radically changed circumstances, inheritable by a state that didn't exist as an independent subject of international law at the time they were given, applicable after the state they were given to ceased to exist by, primarily, the action of the entity claiming to exercise them.
And they go further, and make arguments that rely not only on them being still binding, but on violation of them being an act equivalent in international law to an actual or imminent attack justifying war against third parties who aren't even under any theory involved in the supposed agreement except possibly as a co-inheritor with Russia of the interests of the USSR.
This is a common talking point with no relevance to reality. This is a war for resources (Crimea and the Donbas), a demographic injection to prop up Russia's own dwindling population, and, at the very least, a land bridge and warm water ports. How does subjugating Ukraine stop NATO exactly? Especially when NATO rejected Ukraine's bid.
It's a fig leaf. Any scrutiny at all reveals the true face of this conflict.
But even as an argument it conveniently denies self-determination, agency, hopes and dreams to the countries, nations and people who don't want to be ruled by post-soviet mafia.
The US has been incapable of putting ourselves in the shoes of a has-been empire, so when Russia sees expansion as a threat, we can't fathom what their fuss is about. But if you look at it from Russia's perspective, as a post Soviet Empire that is in severe retreat and is beset on many fronts, one can begin to understand some of their PoV, especially given the Syria-Ukraine-Caucasus entanglement stoked by Obama. Obviously a cretin like Putin takes all this as personal affront on behalf of all Slavs and results in this disaster.
A promise was made, and this is documented. It was just never a formal treaty or agreement. Also the people giving the promise was not in a position to speak for Nato as a whole, so arguably the promise was never valid. But it is wrong to say a promise was never made.
On the other hand, Russia promised to never attack Ukraine, which was Ukraine's condition for giving up their nuclear weapons. And this was a formal treaty.
Edit: Further, Gorbachev himself stated that he believed nations should be free to make their own decisions on whether to join Nato or not.
Edit: Looking for source led me to an interview with Gorbachev where he claims this "promise" never happened at all: https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbac...
I think this is an unfair criticism for a couple of reasons:
1. He rolled back his factual claims when more evidence came in. I don't think you can call him a denier in the present tense.
2. In a sense it is Chomsky's "job" to question everything the US media is saying and of course this will sometimes involve criticizing cases made that are actually right. (To say otherwise would be to suggest that the US media is always wrong, an extreme position for anyone.) Furthermore Chomsky can still be right in a sideways way when he criticizes true reports if the media does a hack job of reporting it, kind of like how criminals can rightfully get off on a technicality if the prosecution is incompetent.
His present views on the issue capture both of these points, although it would have been nice if he expressly said "oops, sorry:"
> As we also noted from the first paragraph of our earlier review of this material, to which we will simply refer here for specifics, “there is no difficulty in documenting major atrocities and oppression, primarily from the reports of refugees”; there is little doubt that “the record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome” and represents “a fearful toll”; “when the facts are in, it may turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct,” although if so, “it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population. The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may yet be discovered about Cambodia in the future.”
I don't think that needs to be called out any time Chomsky says anything; it's usually not relevant to what he's talking about. But in this particular instance, it seems extremely relevant.
Had a good friend from way back and former business partner offer to sell me his house last month, we never did have an official contract. In fact, we were supposed to go under contract on Monday but then he punted on it wanting to wait until ours was sold. The story kept changing and changing on us...
- For Sale @ $PRICE, R/E Agent Friend Waiving his 2.5% Fee
The wife and I eloped on our summer wedding, spent several thousand to have our condo squared away for sale, brought on the sale agent, and have an open-house this weekend.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Minor Issues (Old Fence, Old Carpet, Standard "5 Kids and 15 Years" Cosmetics)
At this point we were fine, although I was a bit miffed because I had to go back and inform our agent that he would no longer be doing a buy-side.
- For Sale @ $PRICE, FSBO, As-Is with Major Issues (New Roof, New HVAC, & Above Items)
There was no new information made, no home inspection done - these were all issues known to the seller who repeatedly changed his stories on wants and needs for the sale of the home. Now at no point did we have a formal contract, but we went through great pains on our side to work with a friend we felt was going to be acting earnestly and in good faith towards a better world for us both.
Turns out one of us wasn't intent on doing the right thing regardless of what is technically allowed per the rules of the game. Just because there isn't a piece of paper, that doesn't make it right.
I find Russian fears over Nato expansion to be very suspicious. Why are they so afraid of it? I can't think of an innocent reason for Russia to be afraid of Nato, which is merely an alliance between (almost entirely) liberal democratic nations. The alliance is needed in order to protect smaller countries from being invaded by bigger countries (which are almost certainly illiberal). Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
Because in 2007 the US unilaterally decided to base Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Eastern Europe NATO countries. Russia was concerned that continuation of such practices would destabilize Mutually Assured Destruction (by being able to intercept Russian nukes), and potentially signal US intentions to risk a first strike and regimen change operation against Russia. Considering that the US, at that point, had already invaded and regime changed two other countries in just the previous 6 years, it might make more sense why that would color Russia's strategic calculus.
>>>Russia could never have joined the alliance while it was under Putin because it's not a %@$&ing liberal democracy.
When Russia was first floating the idea of joining the EU and/or NATO circa 2001-2003, you could argue Russia wasn't significantly worse than Ukraine in relevant metrics. He only had a handful of suspiciously-dead journalists and potential false-flag bombings under his belt. I don't think they had a crackdown on western NGOs, LGBT rights, or totally rigged elections (Putin had, and continues to have, a lot of genuine support).
Oh, I actually had tried to look up this subject before. Didn't know there was no agreement and this would explain why I couldnt find it.
I think we could debate the need for Ukraine to be in NATO? Ukraine isn't exactly in the North Atlantic.
If Ukraine wanted a defensive alliance, there was many options other than NATO. There's even the option of creating your own. They did none.
If I were NATO. I would ignore Ukraine. Get the rest of the atlantic countries joined up. South and central america. West African countries.
TLDR: Chomsky reflexively took the anti-US position as usual and then refused to back down once he was proven completely wrong. He insisted with no evidence whatsoever that accounts from refugees fleeing the Khmer Rouge must have been fabricated by the US somehow. After being completely proven wrong, he gave a not-pology that comes with its own dose of victim blaming.
This is wrong, and there is ample evidence by now. More details and some interesting links:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
After accusing the "Khmer Rouge" (whatever that is) of genocide up until 1979, the US began arming them and fighting for them to keep their UN seat, which Chomsky opposed.
So who is the Khmer Rouge apologist - Chomsky, who did not want the US arming the "Khmer Rouge", or the US government?
> No such promise was made, ever, it was floated but it was never written down in any treaty or even publicly announced. It's putins propaganda
In 1995 the New York Times reported that former US ambassador to Russia Jack Matlock said "we gave categorical assurances" that "NATO would not be moved eastward".
So what you call "Putin's propaganda" is what the former US ambassador to Russia said, as reported in the New York Times.
> Vladimir Putin insists that the West cheated Russia by expanding NATO eastward following the end of the Cold War. Is there anything to his claims? The short answer: It's complicated.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
I'm sure some social critics thought the same of young people like Chomsky, who were thrown in jail for protesting the Vietnam War. I don't know if I'm being pessimistic or realist, but in the context of climate crisis & impirialism, we've seen history repeat itself enough time across enough generations that I'm not hopeful anymore that the kids will figure it out.
It’s easy to forget, but we’ve done this work before, and not too long ago.
I'm not saying millennials will figure everything out, but there's no denying the shift in values. It's not some idealistic cultural awakening, just a harsher reality forcing adaptation. In the long run we'll probably ameliorate climate change and screw a bunch of other things up.
If only we could go back to when life was perfect, like.. uh.. the 1950s.. wait no, things were better in the 1970s! I mean, not really since we had massive inflation and gas shortages.. uh, what about the 90s when crime spiked?
What mythical year was this where life was better than today?
At no point in history has the world been less violent and more accommodating for marginalized people. Or are you implying that is the problem?
Otherwise, I suspect you're just alluding to the high housing prices caused by every young person wanting to move to the same 5 cities and driving up prices? I mean, the US is big and housing is cheap in plenty of places. Starter homes used to be a thing.
That's called "whig history" and it's mostly an idea of religious origin: the idea that the world progresses to some moral or enlightened end.
Technology and scientific knowledge do accumulate over time. Actually, even those can be lost (tons of techniques were lost for centuries, and some are still unknown, when empires like Rome fell), but generally they accumulate, based on their technical and informational nature.
But society, morality, government enlightenment etc. don't accumulate. They can revert to totally worse than previous times at any point, and often have. That's based on human character (not so malleable outside of evolutionary time spans), interests (national, folk, and private), resource availability and contest for resources, who is in power, and trends, ideology and moral ideas prevalent at each era.
(E.g. post golden-era Athens compared to before, post-Roman empire medieval times, the Renessaince (the quentessential era of slaughter and war in Europe, and also when the Inquisition was founded and operated), WWI and WWII compared to the "belle epoque".
And those regressions was in regular, non existential danger times. What can happen under lack of resources like water (in most of the planet), climate change catastrophes, or even nuclear war, is even worse.
No, it does not.
It does show that it sometimes gets “sorted out“, but it sometimes just gets institutionalized. And even when it does get “sorted out“, sometimes the sorting out...unsorts.
They were the entire reason Ukraine sought foreign help.
Russia invaded Georgia too, lest we forget.
I notice many users on HN start their "history of Russia" with the invasion of Georgia in 2008....but Russia has been led by Putin since 1999. We might have short memories due to our governments changing every 4 years...but this country has been run by the same man for 23 years. And I'm sure he has a long memory. So what were the key events from 1999-2007 that could have shaped Putin's perspective regarding relations with the US, to the point that he felt invading Georgia (and all other hostility since) was the correct long-term strategy? That didn't happen in a vacuum. I leave researching this as an exercise for the reader (hint: you can dig through some of my older comments as I've covered it a few times...)
The logic of this argument doesn't work; it's a false dichotomy. On the one hand, he says, perhaps Putin is a monstrous, twisted dictator. On the other, the US extended military support to Ukraine.
The two statements have nothing to do with each other. Accepting military support from the US isn't grounds for an invasion, let alone the massacres at places like Bucha and Motyzhyn. I don't think Ukraine belongs in NATO anymore than Chomsky does. I also don't think people should steal packages from my porch. But when they do, I can't beat them to death with a hammer.
His point was that characterizing the invasion as simply the act of a monstrous, twisted dictator is so simplistic to be wrong; further, it ignores the actions of the US which did provoke a response.
[follow-up]
So there was a press 'release' (as opposed to an actual press conference) in January, where we find zero mention of the immense pre-invasion Russian military build-up that was happening at the time. It has been pointed out to me that the clock is not updated in response to real time events. I suppose, except they took 30s off the clock -- complete with an actual press conference -- within a week of Trump being inaugurated, citing his "disturbing comments" about nuclear weapons, among other things.
> The Clock is not set and reset in real time as events occur; rather than respond to each and every crisis as it happens, the Science and Security Board meets twice annually to discuss global events in a deliberative manner.
