Noam Chomsky 'no longer able to talk' after 'medical event'

Russians are winning now because they've figured out logistics within 50 miles of their borders compared to earlier in the war. Still doesn't mean they can project globally, and everyone knows.

???

But that's exactly the opposite of what happened. Ukraine and Georgia desired to join the NATO like everyone else. The US, Germany and a handful of others dashed those hopes in 2008 due to Russian pressure. This lowered the risk for Russia and they immediately invaded Georgia, and a few years later Ukraine, and expanded the invasion in 2022 after they saw the shameful retreat from Afghanistan as a further sign of US' weakness and unwillingness to support their allies.

Not American expansionist urge, but the utterly short-sighted belief in "we must not provoke Russia" is how we got here. Russians are not provoked by strength, but by weakness. Belief in enemy's weakness enables dangerous illusions like "3 days to Kyiv".

This has come only after years of war against Ukraine and refusal by Russia to take any offered exit ramp.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, Obama refused to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. After Russia launched the full-scale invasion in 2022, the US infamously offered Zelensky a ride and not ammo. Countries like Germany were openly mocked for providing only 5000 helmets. It took approximately half a year before any considerable aid began to appear in Ukraine. They got their first American tanks (only 31 provided so far) full year and a half into the war.

NATO countries and other allies have consistently dragged their feet and done too little too late. This allowed Russia to recover from the initial shock, and their armed forces are larger than at the start of the war. This year, they are forming two new armies that are larger than the ground forces of UK, France, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, and a number of other countries COMBINED.

Instead of a conspiratorial ruse, European governments have finally recognized that Russia is a rapidly growing threat to entire Europe, and that's why they started to pour a lot of resources into Ukraine starting around fall 2023, and into rebuilding their own militaries. Russians are wiping one Ukrainian town after another from the earth with no indication of stopping anytime soon. At worst, we can expect a second front launched from Belarus against Poland and Lithuania.

> unless you believe that the NATO military planners are so incompetent they didn't have contingency plans for Russia invading Ukraine

It is very obvious that there were no serious plans for such turn of events. Many NATO countries, including mine, were caught by surprise and have had to provided military aid to Ukraine at the expense of own security from readiness stocks that cannot be replenished for many years to come, but might be needed to fulfill NATO obligations, should Russia broaden the war.

Not only were NATO countries unprepared, but several key countries didn't even believe such development could be possible at all. The chief of French military intelligence was infamously fired over inadequate assessments related to Russian invasion of Ukraine.

> The hopes of Ukraine were never dashed.

Yes they were. Even today, nobody is willing to give any firm commitments. At the last NATO summit, Biden refused to support NATO invitation for Ukraine and instead lobbied for a vague "Ukraine will become a member of NATO" statement without any specified date, to great frustration of Ukrainians.

The story you are trying to spin is the polar opposite of observable reality.

You seem to be implying equivalence between a thousand soldier operation and a full scale war comprising of half a million soldiers on both sides.

Afghanistan under the Taliban were hosting Al-Qaeda, protecting it, supporting it, and refusing to dismantle it when it attacked the US. It was in all the ways that matter basically part of the government. Under international law this means that they were responsible for its actions and therefore that the attack on the US was effectively an attack from Afghanistan. This is ‘due process’ at the international level.

Given this, international law is extremely clear on the rights of self defence in response to an attack. There’s no requirement to merely put the leader on trial in a third country, because everybody involved in drafting these conventions and treaties knew that would be nuts, would not achieve security, and would be unenforceable.

So, no. These are not ‘imperialist’ views, they’re ones any scholar of international law would describe in the same way. The US was fully justified in attacking Afghanistan and dismantling the threat from Al-Qaeda under international law.