11–20 of 34 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People deserve to have self-determination now Sentences in passive voice always obscure the true meaning. For example when people say “everyone deserves healthcare” that means “taxpayers should pay for other people to have healthcare.” So what do you mean in this context, expressed as an active voice sentence?
The sentence you quote is in the active voice.
The “people” here are purely passive; the sentence is an assertion about what an implicit actor should or should not do with respect to people.
Lots about the US, not much about Ukraine. Ukraine isn't a pawn on a board for two nations to play with, it's a country. NC makes good points if that's how you see the world but his opinions are outdated. People deserve to have self-determination now that it's a modern, globalized world (I mean they always did, but nation states matter even less now).
What do you mean by "people" and "self-determination". If 51% of the southerners decided to secede from the US, should they be allowed? What about the rights of the 49% southerners who want to remain with the US? Are they not people? What about the rest of americans? Do we not get a say? Besides, in the modern world, the supreme court has already ruled "self-determination" is illegal.
It's nice to say people deserve self-determination, just like it's nice to say universal human rights, but it meaningless in the real world.
Crimean people want to be part of russia. Eastern ukrainian people wants to be part of russia. Western ukrainian people don't want that. Which people deserve self-determination?
Native hawaiians want their islands back. Non-native hawaiians want to remain part of the US. Which people deserve self-determination?
10 million taiwanese want independence. 1.4 billion chinese want taiwan returned to china. Which people deserve self-determination?
At the end of the day, might makes right. And in a modern globalized world, it has never been more true. The modern globalization is the reflection of might makes right. Might created the modern globalized world.
> The other way is some negotiated settlement. If there’s a third way, no one’s ever figured it out.
The third way is for the war to be too costly to continue for the agressor. I believe the USA is aiming for that by giving massive aid to Ukraine. I am a bit surprised Chomsky forgot about that one since it’s how the USA usually loses the wars it loses.
Well this isn't true. Russia could just give up without negotiating a settlement. Or it could declare victory and leave. Or Ukraine really could destroy, not Russia as a state, but the ability of the Russia to keep an offensive army in the field. Russia isn't supposed to be sending conscripts to the front and so far it mostly isn't. It can't maintain some of the fictions it's been preaching about the war so far if it did so. That severely limits the amount of troops it has available for the war. Yes, Ukraine is not going to be able to march on Moscow and end the Russian state, but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to keep fighting and force Russia to end the war on more favorable terms.
Chomsky is trying to frame this in such a way that the best possible outcome is for Ukraine is they capitulate in some way in order to appease Putin. That's a false framing and ignores most of the subtleties of the conflict.
> We can, however, look at the United States and we can see that our explicit policy — explicit — is rejection of any form of negotiations.
It is not the United States' place to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine. It would be both unjust and impossible for the United States to force Ukraine to quite this conflict for its convenience. Ukraine has been negotiating with Russia since nearly the beginning of the war and so far both have been unwilling to budge. Any agreement that the Unites States would come to with Russia would just result in the US ceasing aid and leaving Ukraine on its own. The US could not guarantee that Russia would not violate its side of the agreement and in fact would leave Ukraine much more vulnerable if Russia did decide to violate its agreement. That would be a repeat of the Munich Agreement.
> Well, something has to be done about Donbas, the proper reaction, which maybe the Russians would accept, would be a referendum, an internationally supervised referendum to see what the people of the region want. One possibility, which was available before the invasion, was implementation of the Minsk II agreements, which provided for some form of autonomy in the region within a broader Ukrainian Federation, something like maybe Switzerland or Belgium or other places where there are federal structures — conflict, but confined within federal structures.
The problem with this approach is that it would give Russia veto power on Ukraine's foreign policy, in other words, a total capitulation. Russia administers the the breakaway region in the Donbas and unless that treaty would force Russia to leave, which it wouldn't do, Russia would be able to directly control Ukraine's foreign policy. Add that it would force Ukraine to forswear any military assistance from other countries, it would make Ukraine vulnerable to Russian invasion, all the while providing no guarantees that Russia would have to respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Chomsky wants to frame this a reasonable compromise, but in fact it's not a compromise, it's a trap disguised as a compromise drafted by Russia, and Ukraine recognizes this. Minsk II was rejected by Ukraine, not the US.
Russians should take inspiration from Sri Lanka. They are on the streets everyday until the government is toppled.
> There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that means one way is for Ukraine to be destroyed. > The other way is some negotiated settlement. If there’s a third way, no one’s ever figured it out. The third way is for the war to be too costly to continue for the agressor. I believe the USA is aiming for that b…
There of course is a third way. Russian people toppling their own government, bringing an end to the command structure and thus the war. Russians should take inspiration from Sri Lanka. They are on the streets everyday until the government is toppled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask Martin Luther King. Ask Mahatma Gandhi. They seemed to do all right.
Yes, they used the might of the people to get the concessions they wanted.