Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

So Noam Chomsky recently gave an interview about the Russian interview of Ukraine (which, for the record, was promptly used against him in Israel).
https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-our-priority-on-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia/

I'm relieved to find the points I tried to make in his interview, though needless to say, he articulated them much better than I ever could.

On the priorities:

 

On the outcome of the conflict and on the paradox (cognitive bias?) regarding Putin being a "madman":

 

On US responsibility:

The bolded being essential here, because if it is true, then:

The sad truth may be that it is the US (and everyone parroting the American line) that has kept acting as if they knew "better what is best for Ukrainians than the Ukrainians themselves."

Chomsky could be wrong of course. It wasn't clear to me what Zelenskyy's position was exactly, but Chomsky addressed this in another interview:

Honestly, after W. Bush and Iraq (which so many here are so critical of), it really shouldn't be that hard to be suspicious of the "crazy dictator" narrative.

And so, back to the first point:

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

The question isn't whether it's a "win for Putin" but whether it's a win for Ukrainians. Period.

Ripp,

Given Russian actions… what basis do you or Chomsky… have to believe a Ukrainian surrender would result in an end to deaths of Ukrainians at Russian hands?

[Werthead]

We should also note that Zelensky has also been engaging in diplomacy with Russia and has also been engaged in a fairly clever game of realpolitick. He has castigated allies for equipment arriving too slowly and their support being insufficient, as a message he can send to Russia to explain why Ukraine is now more willing to talk to them. He has show a willingness to fold on several of Russia's key points (joining NATO, amending the constitution, declaring neutrality) and meet Russia halfway on others (ceding Crimea after a democratic process that everyone knows will end in Russia's favour). Ukraine's diplomatic position has been seen as reasonable (given the circumstances) by many of Russia's partners and allies and even some in the Russian media and political circles.  

It is Russia that moved the goalposts in the negotiations (it has downplayed and then reintroduced the "denazification" angle despite this being a vague demand of Russia's, at best) and has made negotiating harder by resorting to executing civilians. Hell, Ukraine was happy to negotiate even whilst Russia was indiscriminately bombing cities, it was only when Russia started targeting civilians deliberately that Zelensky became less keen to negotiate. And that is very firmly on Russia's shoulders. They did not have to do that, and in fact the switching to hitting civilian targets has hurt their own military chances (as the Battle of Britain showed, if your military is even partially targeting civilians, then you're just giving the enemy military a chance to recover).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Gorn said:

In my eyes, Chomsky disqualified himself permanently on all foreign policy questions by his Milosevic apologism in the 90s and his Srebrenica genocide denial. I see his recent views haven't evolved much from that.

Chomsky offered apologia for Pol Pot… that has always disturbed me.

[Toth]

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

The US literally has zero say in what Ukraine does with its territory. His vision of this conflict is patently absurd.

I read the Chomsky article a while ago myself and what struck me as odd is that he bases his reasoning also on sources that claim the EU association pact excluding a customs union with Russia also happened due to US meddling, because... well, certainly it must have been, because the EU is also just an US lapdog. It's all baseless speculation that runs counter to the US continuously decreasing their attention towards Ukraine before 2014, for example visible in the cut down USAID investment. The US only (re)started to take action in Ukraine after Russia already attacked it. There undoubtedly geostrategic interests are in play, mostly that standing aside and letting Ukraine wiped out for trying to join the western world reflects badly on us as partners, but also the fact that THEN Ukraine aggressively begged to be led into NATO (and kept getting shut down, due to the whole ongoing conflict being an issue there).

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

These aren't "western media narratives" suppressing Zelenskyy.  These are his direct and repeated words -- and when it comes to that, it is again Zelenskyy who is not willing to agree to the parameters Chomsky wrongly claims Zelenskyy supports (secretly or something I guess):

To be fair, Zelenskyy did try an approach of talking differently in statements directed at Russia than in statements directed as us. To us he keeps demanding all the support he can possibly and impossibly expect, while at the very least towards Russia he DID offer neutrality and a plebiscite about the occupied territories very early in the conflict, but the talks died due to not further elaborated details that Russia said they were not happy with. Then came Bucha and since then the dialogue has sombered quite a lot, with Zelenskyy both being aware that any people left in Russian occupied territory will suffer horrifically, while at the same time being elevated by actually having successfully repulsed the Russians on the northern front, while at the same time Russia somehow pivoting towards 'we only cared about the Donbass anyway' then 'only total victory is acceptable!' and now seemingly back to taking as much as they possibly can only the Donbass.

[Ran]

Chomsky is a stout anti-imperialist... when it comes to the US and its allies. For Russia and other nations, he is an ultra-realist, telling little countries like Ukraine that "that's how the world works, get over it." He wrings his hands together, worrying about the cost of human lives, but the onus is always on the victims to give up ... unless, of course, their enemy is the US, or Israel, or what have you; then it's absolutely necessary to resist imperialism no matter the cost.

He has some wise things to say about the US. But his foreign policy views have huge blindspots, blindspots that seem shared by many leftists.

@Gorn

In a similar vein, his communication with George Monbiot is a sobering read. Whataboutism to the nth degree.

[Maithanet]

 

Tim Mak is an NPR journalist in Ukraine.  He has a thread here about how the Ukrainian attitude towards negotiated peace vs fight to the end have definitely shifted since Bucha.  Not that Ukraine/Zelensky aren't willing to negotiate, but there is less appetite/tolerance for concessions than there was a month ago. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

The way you've framed your posts has come across, to me at least, like you are directly disagreeing with most people here though and advocating for forcing Ukraine to surrender whether they like it or not. The former doesn't jive with my read on the situation, but if it's accurate then I'd agree no one should be standing in the way of Ukraine negotiating peace.

In the meantime Zelensky keeps asking for more military aid from the US and Europe, which doesn't sound (to me, anyway) like him asking the US and Europe to stop strong-arming him to continue the war.

 

[Gorn]

Two different major facilities in Russia mysteriously caught flame on the same day: military research institute in Tver (which develops ballistic missiles) and Dimitrievski Chemical Plant.

Russian authorities said they are being safely towed back into Sevastopol port.

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

Chomsky is a stout anti-imperialist... when it comes to the US and its allies. For Russia and other nations, he is an ultra-realist, telling little countries like Ukraine that "that's how the world works, get over it." He wrings his hands together, worrying about the cost of human lives, but the onus is always on the victims to give up ... unless, of course, their enemy is the US, or Israel, or what have you; then it's absolutely necessary to resist imperialism no matter the cost.

He has some wise things to say about the US. But his foreign policy views have huge blindspots, blindspots that seem shared by many leftists.

@Gorn

In a similar vein, his communication with George Monbiot is a sobering read. Whataboutism to the nth degree.

I stopped listening or reading anything about or from Chomsky back in the 80s. I still see no reason to begin again.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Where are the Russians going… with this:

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Where are the Russians going… with this:

 

The Baltic States are as much of a mythic contrivance perpetuated by historical revisionists as Ukraine. Why should Russia entertain the existence of fictive states? 

[Gorn]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Where are the Russians going… with this:

They did the same to Russia a couple of weeks ago, so presumably it's a retaliatory measure.

[Knight Of Winter]

The question Russians should be asking themselves is why each and every European country who was either formerly part of USSR or under USSR's influence (read: obey us or be crushed by our tanks) dislike them and moves away from them at first opportunity. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, now Ukraine etc. (well, I guess Belarus is the only exception) all have moved away from Russian influence and towards EU and/or NATO (explicitly founded as anti-Soviet military alliance). Really, what is it about Russia's foreign politics that makes their neighbors turn away from them whenever they dare?

My guess would be: because Russia's only policy towards its European less-powerful neighbors has been exclusively one of bullying, and it's been this way for....well I don't know how long, but certainly long time. And I don't want to be deterministic or use history as an excuse - after all, Russia is hardly only militaristic imperialistic power in world's history - but the difference is, Russia still continues this policy to this very day.

Just take a look at Ukraine. Superficially speaking, there are a lot of reasons why Ukrainians should be on good terms with Russians. They share some history and culture. Many Ukrainians are ethnically Russians. Many speak Russian language. Many have families in Russia. Pro-Russian candidates have been known to win Ukrainian elections. Etc. This could - and should - have easily been the case, yet it obviously isn't. Why? Because Putin (and let's be frank, a lot of other Russian leaders through history and present day) can't conceptualize the relationship between two countries as partners and allies. In fact, he can't conceptualize any relationship other than we dictate and you either obey or be crushed.

And he's persisting. He's continuing with this way despite whatever gains he had are offset multiple times by costs - in terms of his soldiers, his economy and his reputation. I can only hope that world has advanced to the point that such blatant bullying and warmongering is universally condemned.

As for Chomsky...well, he's a accomplished scholar and intellectual, rightfully famous both as social commentator and linguist - but man, does he have glaring blind spots. Former Yugoslavia is one of them (video by Gorn) and it's hardly surprising Ukraine is another. As well as many other anti-US leftists, he seems to face great troubles even imagining that imperialism can come from non-western source and will go to any lengths of mental gymnastics to justify his case. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@Knight Of Winter

Serbia is also very fond of Russia… most of the time.  

[Padraig]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Where are the Russians going… with this:

Russia does seem to go with the "beatings will continue until moral improves" form of diplomacy.  The Baltic States have been very loud about the threat that Russia poses, so this is the response.

I read both Chomsky interviews.  I found the first one poor, the second more interesting, as it delved deeper into history.  But he doesn't have much to offer about Ukraine, as people here have pointed out.

I do worry about this point though...

3 hours ago, Ran said:

The victory Ukraine must achieve is one where Russia never dares encroach on their sovereign territory again, otherwise in a decade there’ll be another war just like this one, where Russia bites off more and more Ukrainian territory because it refuses to accept Ukraine’s right to self-determination. 

I really struggle at the idea that this can be achieved.  I would like it to be (obviously) but best case scenario (to me) says Russia will retain all that they occupied pre-invasion.  And that leaves a lot of rooom for things to get worst than that.

Edited to add: I suspect both sides want to see how this latest phase in the Donbas goes before serious negotiations resume.

[broken one]

Embassy running out of money

 

[Maithanet]

Two big points from the latest Pentagon briefing.  The first is above, US now believes that Ukraine has more tanks than Russia on the battlefield!  That is just astonishing given the disparity in numbers at the beginning of the campaign and the fact that much of NATO (including US) has given no tanks at all becuase they do no possess any Soviet tanks.  Have to assume that a big part of that Ukrainian tank count was provided by Russia in the past two months.  I know that Ukraine has a bunch of weapons shops open around the country to quickly retool and repair captured Russian tanks and get them back on the battlefield.

The second point is that the US is providing a huge shipment of 155mm howitzers, along with ammo and towing vehicles.  That is enough for 5 artillery battalions!  While I expect Russia still has the advantage in artillery in the East, that advantage is clearly diminishing. 

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Chomsky is a stout anti-imperialist... when it comes to the US and its allies. For Russia and other nations, he is an ultra-realist, telling little countries like Ukraine that "that's how the world works, get over it." He wrings his hands together, worrying about the cost of human lives, but the onus is always on the victims to give up ... unless, of course, their enemy is the US, or Israel, or what have you; then it's absolutely necessary to resist imperialism no matter the cost.

He has some wise things to say about the US. But his foreign policy views have huge blindspots, blindspots that seem shared by many leftists.

@Gorn

In a similar vein, his communication with George Monbiot is a sobering read. Whataboutism to the nth degree.

I don’t think Chomsky has anything useful to say outside his field, linguistics.

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So Noam Chomsky recently gave an interview about the Russian interview of Ukraine (which, for the record, was promptly used against him in Israel).
https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-our-priority-on-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia/

I'm relieved to find the points I tried to make in his interview, though needless to say, he articulated them much better than I ever could.

On the priorities:

 

On the outcome of the conflict and on the paradox (cognitive bias?) regarding Putin being a "madman":

 

On US responsibility:

The bolded being essential here, because if it is true, then:

The sad truth may be that it is the US (and everyone parroting the American line) that has kept acting as if they knew "better what is best for Ukrainians than the Ukrainians themselves."

Chomsky could be wrong of course. It wasn't clear to me what Zelenskyy's position was exactly, but Chomsky addressed this in another interview:

Honestly, after W. Bush and Iraq (which so many here are so critical of), it really shouldn't be that hard to be suspicious of the "crazy dictator" narrative.

And so, back to the first point:

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

The question isn't whether it's a "win for Putin" but whether it's a win for Ukrainians. Period.

That’s a decision for Ukrainians to make, not for Chomsky to make.

[Werthead]

Russian propaganda is highly effective in West Africa, undermining traditional ties there with Europe.

There's been a bizarre apparent murder-suicide in Spain, the former deputy chairman of Russian gas giant Novatek has taken his own life after apparently stabbing his wife and daughter. This is only days after the former vice-president of was found dead in Moscow, having apparently taken his own life after killing his wife and daughter. Obviously the two identical events days apart have raised eyebrows that either was a genuine murder-suicide.

Wagner mercenaries spotted on the ground in Popasna, one of the main centres of fighting in the Donbas at the moment.

Girkin has praised the decision not to storm Mariupol's last holdouts as the first bit of common sense from the Russian government since the war started. Photos and video from Mariupol (from both sides) shows newly-arrived reinforcement Russian units from the Kyiv front being hammered, with several tanks lost, and what appears to be sniper duels.

Russia has brought its combat aircraft back to the frontline for the assault on Donbas, resulting in the shoot-down of the first Su-34 (probably the second-best aircraft in operation in the theatre) in a few weeks.

Ukrainian rocket artillery has been bombarding Russian forces outside Kharkiv.

Russia is currently resting and reconstituting 22 BTGs in Belarus. This is insufficient for any kind of large-scale offensive into northern Ukraine, but enough to prevent Ukraine moving reinforcements from NW Ukraine to the Donbas. This may also constitute a tactical reserve to be sent into the Donbas to reinforce any breakthrough, although they'd take a few days to transfer across.

As noted above, the Dmitrievsky chemical plant in Kineshma (950km from the Ukrainian border) and a Russian military research facility in Tver (NW of Moscow) both caught fire today. The chemical planet is used for civil development of solvents and industrial chemicals, but the Tver facility is used to develop (but not build) Iskander ballistic missiles. The chemical plant might just be a normal fire of the kind you normally wouldn't hear much about in the outside world but the Tver military office catching fire on the same day is weird. Bit head-scratching if a false flag, as the Tver office may constitute a legitimate military target, but a pointless one.