Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 500 posts

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

#491

Post by _djo_ »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #484
_djo_ wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US-centric doesn’t mean that you like the US, it means you speak and act like the US is the sole or primary cause of everything that happens in the world, is the only country with grand plans, and that other countries have no agency and can merely react to it. It’s a refusal to believe that much of the time the US is reacting to plans set in motion by other countries. Ukraine is a key example: The US (and the rest of…

Thanks for the high brow dismissal (hey, it's better than low brow). I do quite a lot of reading; I also know that Americans like telling everyone how they are the only ones with the truth and their world view is gospel. I think you guys believe in your own version of history so deeply yourselves that not only do you never question it, you are very effective preachers. And there, there. You are smarter than anyone fo…

I’ll save you from taking that attempted profiling any further: I’m not American.

I’m from a rather boring part of the world, from where it’s clear to see the meddling and machinations of all the world’s powers, big and small, if you want to pay attention to it.

Funny enough, it’s your view that promotes American exceptionalism and the idea of Americans as smarter and more knowing than anyone else. My view treats them as just another power, often as incompetent and reactive as any other.

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

#492

Post by Teever »

woooooo wrote: post #472
Teever wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the Taliban ever take out one of those taco bells with an American supplied ATACMS?

Irrelevant compared to logistics. 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.

Maybe a big part of why the Russians are having issues with logistics is due to those ATACMs and such.

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

#494

Post by preisschild »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #447
preisschild wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, hes a useful idiot of the Kremlin. It would be good for the world if there would be less russian propaganda.

I wonder what sort of unfathomable idiocy it takes for someone to call Chomsky an idiot. Disagree with him or not about US foreign policy, the man was a genius. But oh wait you're probably just a propaganda bot yourself.

[flagged]

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

#495

Post by taylodl »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #315
hollerith wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They can never be invaded or conquered again, by anyone, ever. Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this? Maybe Russia was counting on getting a 15-minute warning of ICBMs approaching, but if a hostile military can station missile right on their southwestern border (523 miles from the center of Moscow) their plan goes out the window.

Why does thinking about nuclear weapons cause most people to think in absolutist terms like this? I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate? How would you go about invading Russia, as a senior NATO commander? Russia's stated policy is to deploy nuclear arms against any invading force. As for a hypothetical sneak attack on Moscow, are you familiar with the concept of the strategic defense triad?

> How would you go about invading Russia, as a senior NATO commander? Russia's stated policy is to deploy nuclear arms against any invading force

I'd take advantage of Russia's folly of invading a neighboring country and use that opportunity to destroy Russia's military forces, all while hampering their ability to rebuild that materiel.

Meanwhile, I'd have anti-ICBM technology in place so if Russia did try to launch, it would be largely ineffective. Besides, if Russia did try to launch, they'd lose the few allies they have, save for North Korea. It would probably also ensure Siberia leaves - and at that point Russia would be powerless to stop it.

What I don't need to do is invade Russia.

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

#496

Post by 4gotunameagain »

preisschild wrote: post #494
4gotunameagain wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what sort of unfathomable idiocy it takes for someone to call Chomsky an idiot. Disagree with him or not about US foreign policy, the man was a genius. But oh wait you're probably just a propaganda bot yourself.

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#497

Post by riku_iki »

crazygringo wrote: post #274
slantedview wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.

The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and…

> There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

you don't know for sure. The only evidence is some notes from brit diplomats I think which refer on such promise..

Also, Ukraine is much more considered as Russian inner territory than Finland and Sweden, and Putin likely got freaked out that pro-western movements will move to actual Russia and kill his regime.

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

#498

Post by emn13 »

riku_iki wrote: post #497
crazygringo wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that's a false narrative. There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Because Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine was never Putin's actual reason, which is basically an emotional desire for historical greatness by reclaiming Russia's lost empire, combined with war always being an excellent mechanism for staying in power and…

> There were never any promises, and Putin barely even cared that it resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO. you don't know for sure. The only evidence is some notes from brit diplomats I think which refer on such promise.. Also, Ukraine is much more considered as Russian inner territory than Finland and Sweden, and Putin likely got freaked out that pro-western movements will move to actual Russia and kill his r…

Exactly. I think it's worth considering that people are using "threatened" in two slightly but meaningfully different ways in these discussions. It seems superficially reasonable to defend yourself militarily when "threatened"; but that's only true if that threat is military. However, it seems pretty implausible that either Putin's regime was threatened, or that they thought they were militarily threatened. However, as you point out, it's a lot more plausible they feared cultural contamination.

Putin's regime wanted heavy-handed control over its neighbors; and the Maidan revolution demonstrated not only that this control wasn't as strong as it appeared, but also that it might be possible to break free from that oppression for others too, including perhaps Russian's. That example was the threat from which Putin was "defending" himself.

As much as Chomsky's well-reasoned talks are worth respect, he never really addressed that well. Putin's defense vs. the NATO threat was about as reasonable as a colonial power's "defense" vs. their subject's freedom; and it's also being executed about as reasonably, too. But to hear Chomsky describe it this is basically irrelevant; anything opposed to American overreach is reasonable - even when it's clearly not, and it's not even clear there's any overreach in the matter at hand.

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

#499

Post by emn13 »

slantedview wrote: post #263
credit_guy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love Noam Chomsky so much. I don't. There are some things out there that are up for debate. But not Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. Edit: To be sure, I wish him full recovery and many more happy years. https://www.e-flux.com/notes/470005/open-letter-to-noam-chom...

> Chomsky, for some weird reason, chose to take Russia's side. This is a mischaracterization. He explained Russia's stated motivation for invading Ukraine, that it felt threatened by NATO's continual eastward encroachment and breaking of promises not to do so. That's different than endorsing the invasion, which he did not.

Chomsky, even in recent years, speaks in very clearly and well-thought out, structured arguments.

The way he phrases it, NATO was essentially at fault and the Russian response followed from that. I don't buy that he misspoke or we misheard; the line of reasoning was very clearly stated. We can quibble about what "taking sides" means, but the message he meant to convey was that the current outcome was the US's responsibility.

Chomsky's line of reasoning was clear, but it's always been very weak on this matter (he's said this quite often). It largely ignores the Kremlin's agency; it hardly matters what the US did here since the Kremlin had choices too and those mattered much more. Even more problematically, it ignored both Ukrainian and the wider post-Soviet region's agency as well. NATO expansion was never forced on anyone; to the contrary, it was eagerly sought after, and why? Because the Kremlin wasn't to be trusted, which turned out to be an accurate prediction.

It didn't have to be so; the Kremlin's institutional mistreatment of its neighborhood _caused_ that mistrust and sustain it to this day. The Kremlin could have acted in good faith, and would have continued to receive the warm welcome from western governments that the initial post-Soviet governments did. It could have mended the Soviet-derived mistrust in eastern Europe, and likely easily so given it's richness in natural resources, and the logistical centrality that attracted trade between former USSR nations via Russia, and it's initially warm reception by western powers.

The hint of far-future NATO membership was a "threat" to Putin the way mere talk of bolt-cutters are a threat to a kidnapper. That threat might well have been real, to be clear, but framing it the way Chomsky did isn't helpful; it obscures Putin's (or the Kremlin's inner circle's) choice to be an oppressive, almost colonial power ruling over it's neighbors.

The problem never was talk of bolt-cutters, the problem is that people _wanted_ those for a reason.

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

#500

Post by salawat »

hollerith wrote: post #337
pineaux wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this doesnt really add up. Cause as soon as the US would invaded Russia, not only would Russia nuke the invading armies. They would very probably also start nuking command infrastructure. Which might or might not trigger the MADs doctrine.

Let me try again. The US has about 1400 nuclear weapons or more precisely it has "intercontinental delivery systems" to deliver that many warheads to targets in Russia. (If it is cheating on its obligations under the New START treaty, it could have more.) The US would use most or all of those 1400 warheads on Russia before it starts its invasion. It makes no sense to start an invasion of Russia (e.g., with tanks and…

All of which, mind, would be readily visible to any Russian spy satellite, essentially telegraphing intent to Moscow months to years in advance. (Those are large construction projects, of an abnormal nature, which would likely take quite a bit of industrial scale coordination to pull off).

Think about it. There would be acts of Congress involved with drumming up and establishing funding and fiscal programs devoted to the task of constructing, or making available to everyone the material to construct these types of shelters. Once it was prioritized as s National Security priority posture, you can bet your sweet rear Moscow would be on the line to Washington/the State Department, and similarly mobilizing their own interests in response to what would be a transparent act of escalation in the abscence of any reasonable explanation. It would also be a clear signal to someone who actually had some intent to initiate or chance a strike that somehow, news of that had leaked to their adversaries as well, even if they vehemently denied any such intent up to zero-day.

You don't just mobilize on that kind of scale, militarily, or civically without sending very clear and obvious signals to other nation states with even a modicum of interest in self-preservation in the face of external threats. Especially in today's highly interconnected world.

Post reply on HN